Learning_from_Bird_Flu

Running Head: Bird Flu Lessons from Hong Kong Bird Flu out Break Grand Canyon University History of Emergency Management: November 7th 2010: Abstract This paper discuses how the authorities in Hong Kong addressed the problem of successive bird flu out breaks and how these lessons can be applied in other epidemics and future outbreaks. The paper explains why the measures taken were effective or ineffective and gives recommendations on what the proper action should be in case of a repeat of such scenarios. Introduction Hong Kong was first hit by a crisis in the form of a bird flu outbreak in 1997.That first outbreak led to the infection of a total of 18 people. Out of these, six people died with the first one being diagnosed with a new influenza virus not before identified in human beings (Ring Surf, 2009). 1.2 million Chickens were also killed in a bid to avert the spread of the disease in Hong Kong though in an uncoordinated manner that attracted a lot of criticism from people. Even after the first person died, the ministry of health did not concern itself overly with controlling the spread of the flu. The public did not have the right information and knowledge of identifying, preventing, and dealing with the disease (Currie, Peterson and Mok, 2006, P 56). This situation went on relatively unabated until late December of that year when the H5N1 virus started to spread rapidly. There was widespread panic and many people rushed to emergency wards of hospitals fearing that they had been infected with the virus. At about the same time senior government officials publicly announced that it was safe to eat chicken. This did nothing to stop the public fears from increasing. It was only after sustained pressure from the media that the government took proper action. It first ordered the killing of all chicken present in Hong Kong (Currie, Peterson and Mok, 2006, P 56). The first culling of birds was poorly coordinated and very inefficient which led to the damaging of the Hong Kong governments reputation. The public was very angry with the governments handling of the outbreak of bird flu. It is noteworthy that the leadership of the day was already very unpopular and seen as ineffective. The issue was in the government denying that there was actually a crisis and downplaying the extent of the problem (Koh, Plant and Lee, 2003, P 112). Pressure continued to be exerted on the government to find a solution to the bird flu. In May 2001 and in February 2002, other bird flu outbreaks occurred and the Hong Kong government together with the environment and food bureau faced a challenge in containing the problem. Lessons from Hong Kong Bird Flu out Break This forced the government to take sterner measures at controlling recurring outbreaks. The problem became endemic with repeated cases occurring every now and then. The outbreaks lasted for a few months and affected few people. The main interventions adopted included the immediate slaughtering of chicken in the territory at the moment and the banning of new importations, which mainly came from mainland china. For instance, a total of 860,000 chickens were killed in Hong Kong in 2002. Again, information was given to members of the public warning people to avoid contact with live chicken, maintain high standards of hygiene and ways of identifying the flu. Other measures included the closing down of chicken farms and vaccinations to chicken in the city. The government also discouraged the selling of live birds. It is apparent that the government min Hong Kong was at first slow in reacting to the crisis. It did not take any concrete measures to try to avert the crisis hoping it will go away by itself. Health organizations made recommendations for all the chicken in the territory to be slaughtered but the government was hesitant fearing the huge economic loss (Ring Surf, 2009). Even after being forced into action, the interventions were uncoordinated and not well planned. However, lessons were learnt after successive incidences that were applied in later outbreaks. For instance, after the first outbreak, the government realized that the best way to address a crisis is to thoroughly deal with a problem in its early stages and not waiting for it to blow out of proportions. Another lesson learnt was that coordinated interventions to a problem serves to give effective results and win confidence with the public while not handling the problem well leads to panic which exacerbates the problem. After applying these results in later outbreaks, a higher rate of success was achieved in dealing with the crisis. Notably, the effect of the second and third outbreaks were much less than the first one with fewer infections and death. The longevity of the outbreaks also decreased. All these were as a result of faster interventions and a much better planned and coordinated response. Whenever a case of bird flu was reported, the government and other interest bodies swung into action and immediately dealt with the problem without giving it time to worsen. After being reluctant to order the culling of chicken following the advice of medical specialists, the government did organize a nation wide cull of all domestic poultry and overnight new infections stopped being reported. Later reports of the discovery of the virus including as recently as June 2008 were dealt with decisively and fast enough to prevent a major outbreak (Martig, 2008). The case of Hong Kong provides vital lessons for other nations and authorities in dealing with epidemics or other possible disasters. The first important lesson is moving fast to contain a problem before it blows out of proportion. The government was reluctant at first to deal with an evidently new and threatening problem even with sound advice from specialists. Taking whatever measures to contain a new problem might prove worthwhile than waiting for further developments. Another lesson is that, clear and concise information should be given out as soon as possible so as to push all stakeholders into action. In the light of possible economic repercussions, the Hong Kong case involved the authorities not coming out clearly and saying what the problem was. Again, in the case of a disease outbreak such as the Hong Kong case, the first measures should be directed at identifying the routes or agents of its spread and blocking these as fast and effectively as possible. Lastly, coordinated actions are most effective in dealing with a crisis. By disregarding the advice of medical organizations, the Hong Kong authorities found out later that they stood to loose out more. Conclusion The outbreak of bird flu in Hong Kong first reported in 1997 was met with a reluctant bid to address the problem with the authorities leaning too much on the economic consequences of recommended interventions. Afterwards, they came to realize that there was much more to loose in not addressing an apparent problem in the proper manner. The case of Hong Kong provides important lessons that can be used to address future outbreaks of disease or crisis. References Currie, J., Peterson, C & Mok, K. (2006). Academic freedom in Hong Kong. Lunham. Lexington Books. Koh, T., Plant A. & Lee, E. (2003). The new global threat: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and its impacts. Singapore. World Scientific. Martig, N. (2008). Hong Kong to Slaughter All Live Poultry in Markets Following Bird Flu Outbreak. Retrieved on 2nd October 2010 from http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2008-06-12-voa9-66753192.html Ring Surf. (2009). Hong Kong Avian Flu Outbreak in 1997. Retrieved on 2nd October 2010 from http://www.ringsurf.com/online/2214hong_kong_avian_flu_outbreak_in_1997.html