Novel coronavirus mass screening test

Disclaimers: Hong Kong resident visitors are advised to read this Declaration prior to further reading of this post. Continuous browsing means the visitor's confirmation of his/her compliance to the Declaration.

=======================================================================

There is a heated debate recently in this little island and it even has the HKSAR chief executive, Carrie Lam, involved into it. She accused the ones whom object the mass screening test on the novel coronavirus have hidden agenda and trying to damage the relationship between the China central government and Hong Kong. Naturally only the persons who do that know whether the accusation is valid but it is not of my concern about it. What I care is whether such mass screening test can do its intended job thus whether the Hong Kong citizens should take part into it and bear the risks associated. A typical benefit vs cost analysis apart from political consideration.

The details of the screening test exercise is yet released by the government but according to the heads up, about 100 sampling spots will be set up in all 18 districts throughout Hong Kong. These sampling spots are mostly community facilities and manned with 3000+ personnel for the samples taking. The participation on the test is voluntary based with online booking for testing. Sampling is swabbing both in nose and at throat.

The controversy lies mostly this is a voluntary exercise meaning it is just all up to each citizen's decision whether to be tested or not. This is just contrary to the intended purpose of the exercise which is expected to break the community infection by detecting and screening out those asymptomatic carriers whom spread the virus unknowingly putting the infection never ends.

First of all, when this is not a compulsory testing then it literally fails to achieve its goal especially when the participation is low. Medical experts said it must has at least 5 millions people take part the exercise then it is meaningful. I am not sure how this figure is arrived at but personally I think when the purpose is to find out those asymptomatic carriers to stop their spreading to the community then even if a handful of them are missed out if they are not tested then the whole exercise just goes in vain.

Secondly when the exercise is voluntary then people can roughly estimate how likely of  those asymptomatic carriers are motivated to be tested when most of them think they are in good condition. Common sense tells us that the most motivated participants are those work or live in high risk premises or those whom already have mild symptoms yet not verified. Naturally it is good to screen this segment of people but this is just not enough especially it is those asymptomatic carriers whom pose the major threat of the unidentified source of infection. In reality even if there is only one such carrier living in the community then the infection will just never end and most of all, most likely it will be untraceable due to unidentified source.

Furthermore the exercise can at large be seen as a snapshot of the status when the individual is being tested when people remains mobile after the testing. They could be healthy at the moment of testing but be infected in the following day. As long as people can move around after the testing then they are under the risk of being infected at any time. That renders the exercise can act only as a snapshot rather than an effective screening.


A meaningful screening works only when it is 100% compulsory and combined with strict stay home order during the entire period of testing campaign. Apparently this exercise will only become a PR show that promotes how the China central government cares Hong Kong people and how generous it is to financially sponsor the campaign.

While as a whole the exercise is bound to be a failure to its intended purpose yet it is not totally useless for individuals at least a snapshot at the moment of testing is achievable. Having said, it does not come without drawbacks. Naturally the biggest concern is the gathering at the sampling venue where risk is quite high because as explained previously that those show up at the venue are most likely whom having high risk. In fact ironically the more successful of the campaign is then high numbers of more high risk participants will be drawn to the sampling venues. This is also in contrary to the government's appeal on the social distancing. The exercise could do more bad than good indeed.

On the other hand, the qualification and experience of these 3000 personnel are at question. The government once said even the medical students will also be recruited. The process of the sampling in the nose poses certain risk which can bring injury if conducted by inexperienced personnel. The exercise will be rolled out starting from September 1 when is a few days later. It is a reasonable worry that whether those medical students are adequately trained by then.

Anyway without the prejudice on political stance, it is all up to each individual's evaluation on their own benefit and risk on the decision. Good luck!