Opinion | Hong Kong needs softer sciences to solidify pandemic response leadership

The city’s experts in virology and infectious disease are well-versed in their fields, but they alone can’t offer perspectives on mental health and human psychology or weigh potential consequences of public health policies

Reading Time:3 minutes

People drinking in Soho during the fourth wave of the pandemic on February 19, 2021. Decreased motivation to comply with social measures during the fourth wave was attributed to months of relentless pandemic vigilance, something greater use of the social sciences could have helped prevent. Photo: Felix Wong

Published: 8:15am, 13 Dec 2022

If the West is any guide, then as pandemic measures continue to unwind, there will soon be a time when the draconian restrictions of Covid-19 seem like a strange, distant memory. Families separated by borders will breathe a sigh of relief, and there will be a desire to forget a period of history that left many feeling exhausted.

Research last month from University of Hong Kong scholars concluded that pandemic fatigue was a factor in the severity of Hong Kong’s fourth wave and that it might otherwise have been 14 per cent smaller. Decreased motivation to comply with social measures was attributed to months of relentless pandemic vigilance.

The authors of the study recommended the use of “incentives instead of penalties” to reduce fatigue and “concise and respectful communication with the general public”. They also cited a 2020 report from the World Health Organization into the worldwide problem of pandemic fatigue that advised investing in a better understanding of social concerns.

To observers of the city’s media, it likely would not be a surprise to hear Hong Kong underutilised the behavioural and social sciences in pandemic policy. When comment on evolving lockdown policies and vaccine passes was needed, the city’s experts in virology and infectious disease were called upon for comment, not social scientists and psychologists.

The primary concern for virologists is minimising outbreaks, and while they might be public health experts, their focus is communicable disease and micro-organisms. They are less likely to be in a position to offer a well-versed perspective on mental health, social welfare and human psychology or weigh potential unintended consequences of particular public health policies.

Elsewhere, while the UK might have been behind with some aspects of its pandemic efforts, it gave considerable weight to the behavioural sciences. This was seen in the presence of a behavioural insights group on the government’s SAGE advisory panel, co-chaired by a social psychologist.