Osaka is proof yet again that major sport has no clue when it comes to mental health

Naomi Osaka is the highest paid female athlete in the history of sport, earning a staggering US$37 million last year. So, it would be easy to characterise her decision to bypass media conferences at Roland Garros – and subsequently withdraw from the French Open – as that of a privileged sports star behaving as if she were bigger than the game, ungrateful to the media and fans who helped elevate her to such a profitable pedestal. But, of course, it’s not that simple. Mental health issues never are.

Osaka, as we are quickly learning, is unlike many of her peers. She is polite, humble and disarmingly candid. It’s why, ironically, she is such good value in media conferences. Instead of trotting out prepared lines, she pauses and reflects on questions and does her best to give an honest answer.  Her willingness to self-analyse is also why she finds the post-match media sessions so stressful.

To my mind, Osaka’s candour is a breath of fresh air, and a welcome change from some of her self-entitled contemporaries. If she is battling depression, and brave enough to say so, then surely we should be doing all we can to help? Clearly that’s not a view shared by the French Tennis Federation. 

Instead of allowing Osaka to accept the fines for skipping the conferences, or at the very least explore alternate ways for her to fulfil her media engagements, it doubled down and threatened expulsion.

When Osaka assumed the higher ground and withdrew, tone-deaf Federation President Gilles Moretton wished Osaka “the quickest possible recovery” as if she were battling a niggling thigh strain. Notably other players, and athletes from other codes, have been quick to come out in support of Osaka, although I found Serena Williams’ reported desire to “give her a hug” a bit much to stomach.     

While the French Open has handled this badly, it is not alone. Many traditional sports continue to ringfence mental health as an individual player issue rather than one demanding the attention and action of the code.

Journalists cannot shirk accountability either.  They need the pressers as much if not more than the players. Not showing due sensitivity or respect to beaten players minutes after they have given their all and come up short is inexcusable. So too are offensive questions like this doozie that was apparently tossed up to 17-year-old Coco Gauff by a credentialled French Open reporter:  “You are often compared to the Williams sisters. Maybe it’s because you’re Black. But I guess it’s because you’re talented and maybe American too?”

Curiously, media conferences don’t appear to have changed much in several decades despite cataclysmic changes in the world of media distribution and consumption. While some were critical of Osaka for communicating her health issues and decision to withdraw via her social media channels, that is the new media reality. The biggest names in tennis now attract more than 25 million followers each across Instagram, Twitter and Facebook.

For tennis and other global sport, it’s time to get with the program. This issue, unlike Naomi Osaka in Paris this week, will not go away quietly.

When we stop hoping for a return to normal, we can start beating the pandemic

Embracing the new normal has become something of a mantra for government and business leaders when discussing the pandemic. But like many slogans, it quickly becomes meaningless unless there is a genuine commitment to it. For a handful of economies in the Asia Pacific region, Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia prominent amongst them, the overriding objective seems to be exactly the opposite – a return to the “old normal” no matter what the cost.

Embracing the new normal can only begin with the acceptance that COVID-19 and its myriad variants could be with us for a long time, especially given the uncontrolled spread of the virus in massive populaces such as India and Brazil.  The new normal is about learning to live with COVID and using technology and best practice to keep its impact at manageable levels, not unlike other viral scourges. It is about suppressing community transmission so that our hospitals are not overwhelmed. Crucially, and this is the hard part for many of our political leaders, it is also about accepting that people will continue to die from COVID-related illnesses, especially those with certain preconditions.

So, what might a new normal look like?  Here are some of the characteristics:  

  • Ongoing low levels of COVID in the community, with occasional spikes in transmission,
  • A global humanitarian approach to vaccine production, distribution and administration 
  • Mandatory vaccinations and booster shots, exempting those with medical issues,
  • Enhanced digital tracking to enable fast and efficient contact tracing, 
  • A universal system of digital health records to enable seamless and safe travel, and 
  • Rapid response plans – including mask wearing and social distancing – to counter spikes.

Achieving this type of new normal is well within our means. It would enable countries around the world to safely breathe life back into industries, livelihoods and lives ravaged by the pandemic. It would stop the haemorrhaging of public funds into job protection programs and the dangerous accumulation of public debt. Flattening the curve, not the economy, is just as relevant today.  

It also involves some tough but necessary action on issues such as mandatory vaccinations. Curiously, most adults don’t quibble when it comes to vaccinating their children against polio, hepatitis, measles and mumps, so why the hesitation now when it offers our best route to saving lives? We also need to assuage legitimate concerns about the data privacy risks associated with contact tracing and digital health records, and we can. As with most issues, the possible responses are not binary. If our leaders apply the science and smart technology with a healthy dose of common sense and respect for community values and concerns, the new normal is well within our grasp.

Which is why it’s so hard to fathom the logic of countries seemingly hell-bent on a zero-case prescription that is unenforceable and out-of-step with the rest of the world.  Of the more than 3 million deaths attributed to COVID-19, less than 1,000 have been recorded in Australia, just over 200 in Hong Kong and only 31 in Singapore. And yet Australia has suggested it might not reopen its borders until mid-2022 and a long-anticipated travel bubble between Hong Kong and Singapore has just stalled for a second time.  Remarkably, the trigger point for the collapse of the Hong Kong-Singapore bubble is just five unlinked local cases per day, over a 7-day period, in either destination. Yes, only five cases! 

Meanwhile, the US and the UK, countries that have recorded massively higher death tolls even on a per capita basis, are progressively allowing their citizens to travel abroad to selected destinations, with sensible caveats, for business and leisure. The UK has published a list of Green Zone countries that Brits can travel to and return home without quarantine, provided they can produce a negative test result. Australia is on the list, but its border is firmly shut. 

So why is this happening?  Why are these otherwise rational governments adopting such a counter-productive fortress mentality and focusing so myopically on elimination strategies?  I believe there are at least five reasons.

An obvious one is the low rate of vaccinations compared to the likes of the UK and US. Ironically, in Hong Kong at least, the successful suppression of the virus has left a sizable proportion of the population in no hurry to be vaccinated.

Another factor, as usual, is political hubris. No national leader wants to be seen to back down after having vowed so strenuously to beat the pandemic and protect their citizens above all else. Unrelenting media coverage of daily COVID case totals means they are now seen alongside public opinion polls as a key barometer of government performance. 

A third reason is that we may have become desensitised to the costs. Two carriers alone – Cathay Pacific and Qantas – have recently flagged a combined annual loss of more than USD 4 billion but unless you are one of the thousands of airline staff to have lost your job, they are just another set of numbers. Free-wheeling public spending on job keeper programs has helped soften the blow for some but the full extent of the damage to vulnerable industries and economies has not been yet been fully understood.

Then there is something that Hong Kong academic Donald Low recently called the “status quo bias”.  It refers to the risk for officials to propose anything but a maintenance of, or quick reversion to, stringent measures even if there is only a relatively minor spike in cases. “If they fail to do this and a subsequent surge in cases reveals they had erred, they would be punished by an unforgiving public.” Low notes than sticking to the status quo is virtually risk-free. “No one is punished for excessive conservatism.”

And finally, there are those within the medical profession whom Australia’s former Chief Medical Officer has admonished for implicitly endorsing elimination policies. Speaking to the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons’ annual scientific meeting, Dr Nick Coatsworth reportedly challenged doctors to smash the “false idol” of COVID-19 eradication and prepare the public for the next critical phase of the pandemic: open international borders and the return of the virus in the community.

“We once again have a responsibility as a profession to calmly reassure the community that vaccines must be taken up when they are offered, that waiting is not a valid option either individually or for the public health, and that ultimately when we allow COVID-19 back on our shores and it circulates in our community, that we are prepared and comfortable for that to happen.”

So, let’s replace flat earth thinking and political grandstanding with a robust debate about what a new normal could look like. The sooner we do, the sooner we can get up off the canvas and start winning the global battle against COVID-19.

It’s not just how many you win… but also how you win

Novak Djokovic and Serena Williams have much in common. Both are phenomenally gifted athletes and both are inching closer to the statistical pinnacle of tennis, the all-time record of Grand Slam victories. But there’s also something less admirable they share: an unedifying sense of entitlement, a likely by-product of being told constantly by their fathers from a very young age that they were destined for greatness. It was on show again at this year’s US Open at Flushing Meadows. 

Let’s start with Novak. Although unintentional, his behind-the-back swatting of a ball into the throat of a lineswoman was clearly dangerous and against the rules, drawing  an automatic disqualification. However, instead of gracefully accepting his mistake as a true champion might, Djokovic argued his case at length with officials before leaving the crowd-less stadium without speaking to the media. It was only later on social media that he publicly apologised, saying he felt sad and empty. A week later in Rome, he was already engaging in a bit of revisionism. “I accepted it, I moved on.”

If this was a one-off, there might have been some room for exculpation. But only a game earlier, Djokovic slammed a ball much harder into a court-side wall. He did the same thing at the Western and Southern Open a fortnight earlier, fortunately without hitting anybody. While disqualification was a severe penalty as it robbed the Serb of a golden opportunity to claim an 18th slam in the absence of Federer and Nadal, serial offender Nick Kyrgios was probably entitled to pose the question he did in a cheeky Twitter poll. “Swap me for jokers incident… how many years would I be banned for – five, 10 or 20?”  

There was even more at stake for Serena: a world-record equalling 24th slam and, at 38, a recognition there might not be too many more opportunities to come. So there was almost a feeling of inevitability when at deuce and 0-1 in the third set of the semi-final, having lost three consecutive points and facing a match-threatening break, Williams paused, clutched at her ankle and took a medical time out. This is not to suggest there wasn’t a problem – Serena subsequently pulled out of the Italian Open citing an achilles strain – but more an issue of severity and timing.  Williams, like Djokovic and others, have repeatedly called for MTOs at critical points in matches when the momentum was going the way of their opponent. 

Novak has mused, some would say obsessed, about why he is not loved by the fans as much Roger or Rafa. Serena seems less concerned with such matters, especially in New York, where she is mostly adored, despite her appalling behaviour in her 2018 US Open final loss to Naomi Osaka, who triumphed again this year.  But even if they eventually win the most Majors, neither will be able to truly claim the mantle of the best player ever until they understand that greatness is measured not just in the number of wins but in how they are achieved. And that despite the influence of their fathers, there is no place for unseemly displays of self-entitlement.      

Could Trump walk away from the contest?

With early polls suggesting Donald Trump may become the fourth incumbent President since the second world war to fail to win a second term, several questions loom. How far is the Trump camp willing to go to turn the campaign around? If Joe Biden continues to grow his double-digit lead over Trump, is there a point at which the GOP might consider a change of leadership strategy? And if a heavy loss seemed inevitable, would Trump, bizarre as it may sound, consider walking away from the contest?

Let’s deal with the givens first.  There’s no doubt Team Trump will try every trick in the book, from disinformation campaigns about the Bidens to voter suppression and even foreign interference, if John Bolton is to be believed, to win re-election. Trump’s repeated unsubstantiated allegations about Obamagate and divisive language about the Black Lives Matter movement are just a taste of what’s to come.

While several conservative senators have openly criticised Trump in recent weeks, most are sitting firmly on their hands, knowing just how vindictive Trump can be with anyone who doesn’t display total loyalty to the cause. A few more voices of dissent may emerge if the coronavirus continues to spiral out of control. The Republican National Convention, rescheduled to August 24, shapes as a pivotal meeting if Trump’s poll numbers and the economy continue to tank.

We also know that if Trump does see it through, a loss wouldn’t be his fault. The blame would be sheeted home to everyone and everything from the litigious Democrats and the corrupt media to Chinese aggression and Chinese flu, WHO incompetence, social media censorship and, of course, the shadowy Deep State.

And we know he would refuse to accept the outcome. Trump has already begun constructing his case for a rigged election with baseless allegations of mail vote fraud and other imagined irregularities. But the question remains: will he have the stomach for the battle if he feels he cannot win?    

Trump was drawn to the presidential race in 2016 by the lure of landing the most powerful gig on the planet. His boundless hubris could again persuade him that only a man of his extraordinary talents could overcome the odds and win again. But in 2020, those odds are imposing: an economy roiled by social upheaval and the relentless coronavirus, an experienced opponent well ahead in the polls and the prospect of more defectors, emboldened by Bolton’s tell-all book.

When thrown an alley-oop this week by Fox News’ Sean Hannity about his vision versus that of Biden, Trump fluffed his part, waffling about talent versus experience. Disturbingly for his GOP colleagues, less than five months out from the November poll, Trump appeared bereft of any sort of vision or policy agenda beyond his usual slogans and taunts.

Perplexed that he is not loved, Trump, like a petulant child, appears to be losing interest and resigned to defeat. It might simply be a blip, or even a ruse to instil over-confidence in the opposition camp. But we know that Trump has an abhorrence for losing and would do anything to avoid the ignominy of a crushing first-term defeat. Could that bring him to walk away from the re-election campaign as he might a failed property development?  

Either way, if Trump is out of the White House by year-end, history will not be kind to those Republicans who suppressed their instincts and values to ride the Trump train to one-term oblivion. For many of us, it wouldn’t be so much a moral victory, more a sense of relief.

From Minneapolis to Mongkok… it’s all about the November poll

In America, people tired of systemic racial discrimination and enraged by the death of George Floyd are rampaging on the streets. They light fires and hurl rocks at the police. Within 48 hours, President Trump calls them thugs, tweets about looting and shooting, and warns “soft” Democrat governors that he’ll call in the army if they can’t keep control.

In Hong Kong, people worried about fewer freedoms under Chinese rule rampage on the streets. They light fires and hurl rocks at the police. And they do this for months, crippling the city and terrifying its residents. President Xi says the central government will introduce a national security law, as it is legally entitled to do under the Basic Law. And President Trump? He says Xi is trampling on Hong Kong’s rights and imposes sanctions!

If it weren’t so serious, it would be laughable. Sadly, the ironies don’t end there.

Much of the western world has embraced Hong Kong political activist Joshua Wong, one of the leaders of the Umbrella protest movement in 2014, as a brave young man fighting for democracy and reportedly a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. So who should Wong, a vocal critic of police brutality and authoritarianism throughout the protests, turn to for support?  Why, Donald Trump of course.

Wong actively solicited American intervention in Hong Kong and Trump, always keen to have another poke at China, happily obliged, revoking Hong Kong’s special trading status. Having sponsored economic sanctions against his home territory, Wong now has the gall to blame Xi for them!

While some big questions remain about the scope of the new law, and the role of Hong Kong judiciary in implementing it, it’s ludicrous for Trump or others to suggest this marks the end of “One Country, Two Systems”. A national security law was always part of the deal signed by the UK and China. The sad reality is that, after 23 years of dithering by successive Chief Executives, and a hopelessly divided pro-democracy camp, this was the only course of action left on the table. As former justice secretary Elsie Leung put it, Hong Kong must choose the lesser of two evils – American retaliation or a foreign investment exodus from an unstable society lacking a security law.  

And let’s not forget how unstable Hong Kong was for much of last year – and still is.  In recent days, we have seen disturbing incidents of individuals being assaulted for removing barriers or questioning protestors, as well as police reports of more serious weapons being stockpiled. Just when the city was picking itself up from the debilitating effects of the Covid-19 lockdown, it was gut-wrenching to see the street violence return.

Some suggest Trump’s sanctions may hurt the US more than Hong Kong. A small fraction of Hong Kong exports goes to the US, while the American trade surplus with the city is around USD 30 billion every year, not to mention the 1300 American companies operating in Hong Kong, 278 of which serve as regional headquarters.  But for once Trump finds himself in a coalition of countries, along with the UK, Australia and Canada, critical of the new law.

Another sad reality for the likes of Joshua Wong, though, is that Trump doesn’t give a damn about the young people of Hong Kong. Re-election in November is the only concern and he’ll do whatever it takes, blaming others and distracting voters from his own shortcomings in order to succeed. Indeed, one by-product of Trump’s intensified rhetoric against China and the WHO over the “Wuhan virus” has been a resurgence in attacks and hate-speech directed against Asians around the world.    

Foreign intervention in Hong Kong can only be counterproductive and will end badly for its citizens.  What Hong Kong needs now, as it has for some time, is home-grown leadership to find a way through this mess.

Carrie Lam has proved hopelessly inadequate to date. The pro-democracy camp is crying out for a charismatic leader to harness the energy of young protestors and channel the community’s desire for electoral reform. But who? 

Surely there must be someone, within or outside the political domain, willing to do the hard yards to constructively engage the pro-Beijing camp and progressively bring about meaningful reform. Now that would be worthy of a Nobel nomination!   

Marriott hit by second data breach, as security experts warn of more attacks

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse for the hotel industry, the world’s largest hotelier, Marriott International, has reported another major customer data breach, its second within two years.

This time, the stolen data covers 5.2 million guests and includes postal addresses, emails, phone numbers, loyalty account information and birth dates. Marriott says that while its investigation is ongoing, it does not believe that payment card or passport details were accessed.

Already reeling from the impact of the global pandemic, Marriott stock traded as low as U$67.65 on the NASDAQ on April 1, down 55% from US$152.60 on January 2. Other major chains such as Hilton Worldwide have also been hit hard, dropping 44% over the same period.   

Marriott was fined £99 million by the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office after it admitted in November 2018 that hackers had stolen the records of 339 million guests, including credit card and passport details. However, it is not clear whether the chain has actually paid the fine as the ICO extended the deadline until March 31 this year – just days ago.  It did the same for British Airways which was fined £183 million for a personal data hack involving half a million customers.  

In early March, the ICO fined Cathay Pacific £500,000 for a breach of 9.4 million passengers’ data, including passport and identity details, between October 2014 and May 2018. The fine was lower because the hack took place when less punitive data security regulations were in place.

According to Marriott, the most recent attack was made using the login credentials of two employees to access an app used by hotels operated and franchised under Marriott’s brands. Some security companies are warning that this type of “account takeover” attack is on the rise among travel companies.    

Cyber security provider PerimeterX says it has seen a significant increase in the percentage of account takeover traffic (ATO) to travel and hospitality sites in recent months. “While travellers are staying home, the hackers are still out and about,” says the company’s Ameet Naik. Other providers suggest that more repeat attacks are likely. “It is true that if you’ve been hacked once, it’s likely to happen again – especially if you have lots and lots of valuable data, as big hotel groups do,” says John Norden of Infocyte.  

The ongoing spectre of data breaches – and massive fines – could not come at a worse time for the travel industry, which has been decimated by the outbreak. Airline and hotel revenues have plunged around the world as more countries close their borders to international travel to contain the spread of the virus. Globally, the sector is likely to contract by at least 20 to 30% in 2020, according to the World Tourism Organisation, translating into a loss of between US$300 to 450 million in tourism receipts, as well as a huge reduction in jobs.

Kudos to Emirates

Kudos to Emirates for looking after its people.

Having announced the painful decision to suspend most flights from March 25, Emirates Chairman and CE Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum personally advised the troops that senior management would take the biggest hit in order to ensure jobs were not lost.

In a communication to staff, he wrote: “For us, rather than ask employees to leave the business, the executive team has taken the difficult decision to temporarily reduce basic salary for the majority of Emirates group employees.”  And here comes the good bit.

  • Presidents: 100% basic salary reduction
  • Grade 9 and above: 50% reduction
  • Grades 4 to 6 and cabin crew: 25% reduction
  • Grades 1 to 3, including cabin service attendants: no reduction

The Chairman explained the cuts would apply for three months and all fixed allowances would remain in place. Employees who had previously opted for voluntary leave could opt to cancel the leave in lieu of the above.

“We have never done such a thing before and we hope we won’t have to do it again. However we chose to implement a temporary salary reduction as we want to protect our workforce and keep our talented and skilled people as much as possible,” he said.  

Let’s hope others follow suit.

Why win the battle, only to lose the war?

The single biggest challenge facing the world today is not how to counter or slow the spread of Covid-19.  Rather, it is the overriding question of how to respond effectively to the pandemic in a way that doesn’t cause more damage, in terms of lives lost or destroyed, than the disease itself.

This doesn’t mean that we should put economic growth and profits ahead of saving lives. But as we edge closer to a global shutdown of country borders, we need to consider what a balanced and proportionate response should look like. This is not a matter of being cavalier or not taking the health threat seriously. Concerted efforts to contain and combat the virus will save many thousands of lives. But avoiding a global economic meltdown will also save lives, possibly many more. Somehow, we need to achieve both.

Learning from experience is always a good start. Hammered by the MERS outbreak in 2015, South Korea has proven that early and decisive action can make a huge difference. A combination of widespread testing, including drive-through centres, and case tracking using AI technology, has helped keep the fatality rate under 1%. It has 633 testing sites nationwide and the ability to test 20,000 people per day.

By comparison, the US had conducted only 14,000 tests by mid-March, according to an investigation by The Atlantic.  As the WHO chief says, we need to test, test and test.   

It’s also about making smart calls. Several countries, including the Australia and the UK, have decided, at least for now, to buck the trend to close schools.  They figure that given the impact on the majority of youngsters seems to be negligible, the bigger risk is that many working parents, including doctors, nurses and other vital medical personnel, would have to stay at home to look after the kids.

Travel restrictions are a critical weapon in containing the spread – at the right time and for fixed periods – but not blanket bans, applied indiscriminately and without consultation. They offer limited value once the virus has established a foothold.  Airlines are already on their knees and, according to the Centre for Aviation, most will be bankrupt by the end of May.  Rather than banning flights, why not ramp up pre and post flight testing or selectively offer passengers the option of a 14-day isolation period so that essential travel can still go ahead and airlines can continue to operate, albeit at reduced levels. 

While a recession seems inevitable, we need to do everything we can to stem the haemorrhaging, including targeted support for the hardest hit sectors. The tourism and hospitality industry, for instance, contributes 10.4% of global GDP and employs 319 million people.  The impact on it alone could send the world economy into a tailspin. Even the world’s digital giants are facing challenges.  Although it has enjoyed a huge surge in demand, Amazon has been forced to ban hundreds of thousands of products offering false promises of a Covid-19 cure as well as trying to prevent price-gouging on face masks and hand sanitisers.  

To date, governments and central banks have reached into their old bag of tricks, cutting interest rates and pumping liquidity into the system. But it will take a wider and more innovative mix of stimulus and compensation measures this time round to get the world economy off life-support. One forward looking option would be to help companies leverage new technologies and advance their digital platforms where possible to help cope with future outbreaks.

The good news is that most politicians, including the world’s biggest laggard Donald Trump, finally seem to be heeding the message of the WHO to learn from countries like South Korea, to act quickly and decisively to avoid a devastating spike in cases.  But in doing so, we also need to keep an eye on the bigger picture. Let’s flatten the curve, not the country.   

Some leaders have invoked war-time scenarios in the fight against Covid-19, calling on citizens to make sacrifices for the better of the country. To them I say: why win the battle only to lose the war?  

Why are we panicking?

Why is the world reacting so irrationally to the Covid-19 outbreak?  While we still have a lot to learn about the virus, we do know this much:  

  • It will continue to spread across the globe despite travel bans because it is highly contagious and many, if not most, suffer only mild common flu-like symptoms and recover.
  • For now, the WHO advises the mortality rate is about 3%, based on reported cases. This is many times higher than the rate for common flu but significantly less than SARS in 2003 (9.6%).  
  • That said, the number of cases globally is likely to be massively under-reported because people are either unaware they have it or don’t want to spend 14 days in quarantine.

So why are we panic buying toilet rolls in supermarkets? Why are we shunning Chinese restaurants? Why are we derailing business, trade, education, leisure and so many aspects of life? Why are we inflicting billions of dollars of unnecessary collateral damage on ourselves, rather than getting on with life and applying sensible measures to minimise the risk of infection?   

I think the answer becomes clearer when you examine the actions and motives of the key players.

WHO. The World Health Organisation knows better than most that there are far more deadly threats to humanity. Malnutrition, for example, kills a person every four seconds. Mosquito-borne diseases like dengue have been growing alarmingly, with 390 million cases each year.  While WHO works assiduously to combat these challenges, they don’t garner much attention. At the same time, WHO needs to prove its worth to continue to be funded, primarily by governments and foundations. Epidemics and pandemics are big news and provide an unrivalled platform for WHO to demonstrate its invaluable role as the planet’s doctor. So why not leverage them? 

Governments. SARStaught us that the most effective way to fight epidemics is through global and regional cooperation. However the recent drift towards nationalism flies in the face of such a collaborative approach. Governments are also hard-wired not to offend electorates, even when a firmer hand is required. Some political leaders have had the courage to explain that face masks are required only by the infected and medical workers. Most in Asia however are reluctant to challenge the deep-seated but flawed view that masks are an essential weapon against transmission. 

China. Although there was some justifiable criticism of China’s initial reluctance to announce the outbreak, the central government should be commended for its incredibly resolute efforts to contain the disease. Locking down an entire city or province, and building a hospital in a matter of days, wouldn’t and couldn’t happen in many other parts of the world. In time, we might find that quarantining millions in a city (or on a cruise ship) without sufficient facilities or resources only exacerbates the level of transmission. But China’s actions bought the world more time to analyse the genetic make-up of the virus and prepare for its spread.    

Mainstream media.  Traditional media, sadly, is fighting a battle for relevance and credibility, triggered by social media, self-serving proprietors and antagonistic politicians. In many ways, for global networks like CNN, Al Jazeera and the BBC, a pandemic is a godsend. Although it may soften advertising demand, it also draws millions of new viewers and reinforces the networks’ capacity to provide continuous, quick, accurate (and occasionally overblown) updates about the spread of the disease. So why not leverage it?   

Social media. Social media is an unregulated and unprincipled juggernaut. Since the start of the Covid-19 outbreak in January, it has spawned all manner of misinformation and conspiracy theories, fuelling fear and disturbing levels of Sinophobia, as well as a raging black market in masks and other protective gear. Rumours about disrupted supply chains have triggered panic buying of everything from toilet paper to rice. 

So how do we stop the panic?

Share the message that the sky isn’t falling. Go about life with common sense and compassion, not fear.  Covid-19 is a global health threat and we need to treat it with due concern. But travel bans are not the answer, as WHO has said, albeit quietly. Instead, conduct exit screening at airports and transport terminals, as well as on arrival.  Wash our hands regularly, eat sensibly and exercise our bodies and, importantly, our minds. Only wear a mask when we have flu-like symptoms so there are sufficient supplies for medical workers. Let’s not make this worse than it needs to be!  

Another killer at work

While the world frets over Covid-19, there is another global killer at work. It claims the lives of 7.6 million people every year or 21,000 people per day. That’s one death every four seconds. And most of the victims are children. It’s called malnutrition. Appallingly, this is happening while world food production is 17% more than that required to feed everyone on the planet. Of course, you can’t catch malnutrition. There is no effective human to human transmission. So I guess we’ve got nothing to worry about.