This was no Black Swan!

"After SARS in 2003, we heard a great deal of fine rhetoric about preparedness. The refrain ‘we will be ready next time’ echoed everywhere."

Do we have enough body bags ready? Where do we keep the bodies, have we enough refrigeration? What is our capacity for cremation or burial? Can we mandate cremation instead if burial? That’s a small sample of the robust, somewhat unpalatable questions emergency planners should be asking. 

I’m not suggesting that the current crisis is heading to mass deaths, but we’ve had a glimpse of what happens when preparedness is inadequate. How many masks and sets of ‘personal protective equipment’ did Hong Kong hold in reserve? Any idea? Well, the latest estimates suggest the hospitals run out within a week. 

With a population of about seven million and assuming each person uses two a day, that’s 14 million masks a day or 98 million masks a week. Is it realistic to hold such stocks?

​These are issues that need addressing. Because it’s embarrassing, to say the least when the government has to ask citizens for details of suppliers.

After SARS in 2003, we heard a great deal of fine rhetoric about preparedness. The refrain ‘we will be ready next time’ echoed everywhere. And, in truth, we learnt some lessons as SARS triggered policy and operational changes. Significantly, the government created the Center for Health Protection.

Yet, as recent events prove, there is abundant evidence of gaps in our response. But, while politicians grab headlines with claims that Hong Kong’s emergency planning has failed, the reality is more sanguine.

On the other hand, when the history of Hong Kong and the Wuhan Virus is written, no one can claim a ‘black swan’ event. Although, the charge of a collective failure of imagination is possible despite the warning of SARS 2003.

Hong Kong’s geographical position puts us at risk from typhoons, flooding and infectious diseases. Add to that our dense urban area, the sheer numbers of people here, and all those risks multiple. In recent decades high profile emergencies included the SARS outbreak, landslides, the Lamma Island Ferry sinking, and the Lan Kwai Fong stampede.

During my 35 years of service, I experienced many emergencies first-hand. That includes SARS, four plane crashes and riots. Believe me when I say ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy’. Besides, no single drill nor exercise fully prepares you for the real thing.

Although, if done well, these get pretty close at times. And yet, without contingency plans and drills, the response could be much worse because flying by the ‘seat of your pants’ is a recipe for disaster. 

The Security Bureau anchors Hong Kong’s emergency preparedness, encompassing all the major government agencies. Also, it takes in a range of volunteer and private organisations that provide expertise, equipment or manpower. This network aims to protect people from physical, psychosocial, and financial harm.

According to the Security Bureau, a disaster is ‘a serious disruption of life, probably arising with little or no warning, that causes or threatens death or injury on a scale exceeding the normal response required of the public emergency services’. 

I know all these agencies maintain comprehensive plans that cover responses, training and drills. Moreover, the skills of the frontline staff are commensurate with expected duties. In short, Hong Kong has robust plans, excellent people and thus a strong capacity to respond. But it’s not enough.

That Hong Kong didn’t stock-pile enough masks and ‘personal protection equipment’ is an indication of a weakness in the system. While these deficiencies are visible to the public, prompting panic buying, less obvious are the cracks elsewhere. Short drills, unrealistic exercises, weak planning and poor leadership, are also factors. 

Contingency plans need teaching and then simulation at regular intervals. Further, these simulations — drills and exercises — need to be realistic.

​Only then can people and processes face exact scrutiny. That includes all aspects of leadership, organisational capacity and decision-making.

A 2016 study and survey on ‘Disaster Preparedness in Hong Kong’, funded by the Jockey Club, threw up concerns. The study cited a pressing need for field-based training and practice in inter-agency coordination. It also noted a lack of multi-hazard drills, planning for prolonged disasters and low-probability, high-stakes events. 
​
What’s more, in recent times, I saw a creeping reluctance to conduct drills and exercises. At times managers adopted a ‘going through the motions’ attitude. Distracted by the ‘day-to-day’ fire-fighting of their roles, some lapsed into seeing such exercises as an unwelcome distraction.  

Likewise, I agree a dearth in inter-agency training covering multi-hazard drills is an issue. Most exercises are single-issue based scenarios with a limited time-frame. I never saw an activity run beyond three days. Without a drawn-out plot, we fail to stress-test systems and decision-making when people are tired. 

Essential to success is effective public communication during emergencies. This daunting task is made much tougher these days by the spread of fake news and social media chatter shaping people’s perceptions. On this front, as with the recent protests, the government is sub-par.  

In a crowded field of misinformation from social media, a slick, agile PR machine is a must. Yet, the Hong Kong government is still running analogue while the world has gone digital. Dull press conferences and written press releases count for nothing in the cyber age.

Yet active community engagement is essential to raise awareness. People need to understand risks, improve preparedness, and receive guidance. Such a pro-active approach can counter misleading social-media chatter that prompts people to take rash actions. 

Crucially, drills and exercises must simulate real events as near as possible. A suite of options is available that may train, test and prepare people. These include:
​

• Walkthrough drills and briefings. These are an ideal introduction, but far from enough. 
• Computer-based simulations. Again, a useful training tool with limitations.
• Table-top exercises. These are excellent for testing senior decision-makers. 
• Partial Exercise. These test one element of a contingency plan. If these are run real-time, on the ground, the opportunities to improve are excellent. 
• Full exercise. These stimulate all aspects of a contingency plan across many agencies. Such practices are the best option to stress-test systems and people.  ​

In support of this are many excellent tried and tested tools. Red-teaming is superb at finding weaknesses in plans, then helping to shape drills to achieve near-realistic conditions. Likewise, scenario planning will take preparations to a new level of sophistication. 

Both red-teaming and scenario planning overcome the ‘group-think’ that can dog the process of risk assessment. Most importantly, these processes can throw in an element of surprise that brings out learning points.

Regular audits of equipment, including stocks of back-up supplies, are also essential. In a crisis, suppliers, especially from overseas, have their priorities and aren’t reliable. We’ve seen that.

Last but not least, thorough ‘after-action reviews’ are crucial — an honest assessment with specific recommendations that drive the changes that bring improvements. 

Unfortunately, drills and contingency planning cannot overcome the shortfall in leadership we’ve seen from Carrie Lam. Contrast her dismal lacklustre performance to that of the Singapore government leaders. Her inability to project confidence, seeds doubt in the public’s mind. 

​All I’d say is that competent leadership below her, adequately trained and tested, will offset manifest failings at the top. At the very least, she needs to recognise that and ask the tough questions of her subordinates. 

Amid the current crisis, with minds distracted and energy focused elsewhere, it’s not appropriate to kick off a review. Doubtless in time matters will settle. Then the opportunity will arise for careful reflection because the threats aren’t going away.
​