特區政府最近收緊抗疫措施，符合民心民意，符合香港實際情況。但有關措施引起了一些反彈，有人認為在西方國家紛紛「與疫共存」的情況下，香港繼續「清零」代價太大。其實，人們從各自利益出發，對抗疫路徑有不同看法很正常。但對特區政府來說，最重要的是以香港整體利益為依歸，認準抗疫方向就要堅決落實，絕不能搖擺不定。

　　與內地通關是香港主流民意，要達到這個目標，香港就必須對接內地的抗疫思路與機制。兩地專家早前舉行第一次會晤後，香港在對接方面加速，包括收緊病人出院條件、增加高風險群組檢測密度、不斷擴大強制使用安心出行的範圍、削減豁免群組、準備推出港版通關碼等。最近因多個輸入個案來自機師群組，特區政府相應提高了機師家居隔離的要求。這些措施的落實，鞏固了香港的抗疫防線，得到各方充分肯定。最近香港社會對早日通關的氛圍變得樂觀起來，也反映了抗疫措施的成效。

　　毋庸諱言，並非所有人都認同及支持特區政府的抗疫路向。曾有商界人士認為，香港作為國際大都會，不能長期「閉關鎖港」，建議香港先與國際通關，實質是放棄「清零」，效法西方的「與疫共存」；近日更有外國商會負責人因為不接受回港後21日酒店隔離的安排而宣布辭職，亦在社會上引起一些漣漪。

　　世上沒有完美的抗疫政策，任何抗疫模式都會有代價，關鍵看成本與效益比。全球經過近兩年的抗疫，基本上分為兩條道路，西方國家屈服於各種壓力，無法做到「清零」。美其名曰「與疫共存」，實則「躺平」，懶理人民死活，結果是疫情反彈、死亡數字上升，美國迄今已有四千多萬人確診，76萬人死亡，而英國的死亡率更高過美國。部分亞洲國家如新加坡早前也加入「與疫共存」的行列，但引起不小的混亂，未見其利反見其害，陷入進退兩難境地。這些問題，值得香港社會深思。

　　與此形成鮮明對比的是，我國內地繼續將保護人民的生命健康放在第一位，堅決動態清零，凸顯了十四億國人的團結及制度優勢，雖然付出一定的代價，但得益更大，內地經濟在全球復甦得最早，且一直保持良好勢頭，就是最佳證明。

　　一邊是「與疫共存」，一邊是「動態清零」，兩種路徑優劣分明，高下立判，香港在抗疫方面必須向內地看齊，這才是最負責任的做法。更何況，香港有中央大力支持，完全有條件繼續清零。香港走在正確的道路上，一旦滿足通關條件，就可以更好地加入經濟內循環，不僅可滿足市民回鄉的情感訴求，也可以加快經濟復甦，這才是香港根本利益所在。

　　認準方向，就須堅定走下去，猶豫不定，瞻前顧後，那樣的話只會前功盡棄，什麼事都辦不了。為了更長遠的目標、最根本的利益，香港眼下作出一些犧牲是完全值得的。

　　2021-11-18

　　Firmly sticking to the "zero-infection" goal and refraining from blowing hot and cold

　　The SAR government has recently tightened anti-epidemic measures. The move wins people's hearts and accords with Hong Kong's reality. Yet the measures also arouse some backlashes. Some critics maintain that the price is too heavy for Hong Kong to stick to the "zero infection-case" goal since Western countries now resort to "coexistence with the virus" one after another. In fact, it is normal for people to have different views about anti-epidemic strategies out of their own interests. But for the SAR government, what is the most important is to act in Hong Kong's overall interests, remain focused to resolutely carry out its established anti-epidemic strategy, and refrain from blowing hot and cold.

　　Reopening the border with the Mainland is the main-stream public opinion. To attain this goal, Hong Kong must match up with the Mainland in anti-epidemic thinking and mechanisms. After the first meeting of specialists from the two places, Hong Kong has moved faster to matching up, taking moves such as tightening the criteria for infected patients to be discharged from hospital, increasing the frequency of testing for high-rick groups, keeping expanding the scope of compulsory use of the LeaveHomeSafe mobile application, reducing the number of groups qualifying for quarantine exemption, and preparing to launch a Hong Kong-version health code, etc. Recently because of several imported cases were found among quarantine-exempt pilots, the SAR government has accordingly tightened home quarantine requirement for pilots. Implementation of such measures strengthens Hong Kong's defence line against the virus, which is fully appreciated by various sectors. Nowadays Hong Kong society becomes somewhat optimistic about possibly soon border reopening, which also reflects the effectiveness of the anti-epidemic measures.

　　There is no denying that not everyone agrees and supports the SAR government's anti-epidemic strategy. Some personage from the business sector once suggested Hong Kong to open its doors to foreign countries first because Hong Kong as an international metropolis could not "close its doors and seal off its ports" for a long period of time. This in essence is to give up the "zero-case" policy and following the example of Western countries to resort to "coexistence with the virus". Recently a responsible figure of a certain foreign chamber of commerce even announced her resignation as she could not accept the 21-day compulsory quarantine in a hotel upon arrival in Hong Kong, which also produced some repercussions in society.

　　There is no perfect anti-epidemic policy in this world. Any anti-epidemic strategy has a price to pay. The crux of the matter lies in the benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR). After two years of fighting the virus globally, there now basically appear two separate approaches. Having yielded to various kinds of pressures, Western countries are unable to take the "zero infection" approach. They now call their strategy by the glorified name of "coexistence with the virus", which in fact is just meant to goof off without caring about human lives. As a result, the epidemic rebounds in these countries with death tolls increasing. In the United States, there are more than 40 million confirmed cases by now with 760,000 deaths. The death rate in the United Kingdom is even higher than that in the U.S. Some Asian countries such as Singapore have also joined the ranks of "coexistence with the virus". But this has just caused chaos and brought even more damages before any benefit could be seen, putting these countries in a dilemma. Their lesson is worth pondering by Hong Kong society.

　　In sharp contrast to this, the Mainland of our country continues to put protection of people's lives and health above everything else and unswervingly carry out its "dynamic zero-infection" policy. This highlights the solidarity of its 1.4 billion people and the advantages of its system. It has paid a certain price, but gained much more benefits. A best proof is the Mainland's economy, which was the first in the world to recover and has since maintained a good momentum.

　　On one side there is "coexistence with the virus" while on the other "dynamic zero infection". It is easy to tell which is more advantageous and better. Hong Kong must keep up with the Mainland in fighting the virus, which is the most responsible approach. Not to mention that, with the Central Government's powerful backing, Hong Kong is well qualified to carry on the "zero infection" policy. As long as Hong Kong takes the correct approach, when conditions are ripe for reopening the border with the Mainland, it could well be integrated into its internal circulation of economic growth. This will not only satisfy Hong Kong citizens' emotional aspiration for travelling to visit their hometowns and relatives but also speed up the SAR's economic recovery. This is in the fundamental interests of Hong Kong.

　　When a correct path is identified, one must march forward unswervingly. Any hesitation, over-cautiousness or indecisiveness will only waste all the efforts already made with nothing accomplished. For Hong Kong to achieve its long-term goals and serve its fundamental interests, it is worthwhile to make certain sacrifice for the time being.

　　18 November 2021