Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Mu变种毒株,值得我们担忧?(群議論點-9月15日) (愛FM《名師早點》9月17日)

 



8月30日,世界卫生组织将这个Mu变种毒株列为值得注意的病毒变体(Variant of Interest,简称VOI),成为目前名单裡的第五个VOI变种毒株,包括早前大家也曾关注过的Lambda。

为何Mu变种毒株值得我们关注?根据基因排序资料显示,这个变种毒株有8处突变点在最关键的刺突蛋白上,那也是mRNA和病毒载体疫苗种类如辉瑞疫苗和阿斯利康疫苗专注防疫的地方。其中Mu有Beta的E484K和N501Y的突变点,这可以让病毒逃逸疫苗产生的抗体中和反应。同时Mu也有Alpha的P681H突变点,据说能加强传染的效应。目前的实验室研究发现都警示卫生组织要严防这变种毒株。但这不代表Mu在现实世界的病毒传播真的有如警告般的威胁。

Mu变种毒株是在今年一月在哥伦比亚发现,如今已传播至全球的49个国家。虽说如此,Mu变种毒株在全球病例佔有率少过0.5%,影响范围主要还在哥伦比亚,其他南美洲国家进行的变种毒株基因排序检测,也只是偶尔发现有病例,Mu不是最主流的变种毒株种类。全球的病毒检测数据也显示,Mu的传播率自从7月中突破1%的新增病例关卡之后,就一直往下坡走。这也意味著Mu的威胁并不如目前的“老大哥”Delta变种毒株。Delta从5月11日被世卫组织列为需密切关注的病毒变体(Variant of Concern),差不多只用了两个月就从7%的全球新增病例飙升至7月20日的90%。目前仍是一统江山的变种毒株,估计佔全球新增病例的98%。

在我国至今还未发现Mu变种毒株。最新数据显示从8月29日到9月10日两周内,国内抽样检测了103个病例样本,发现全部都是Delta。这确实也相当符合当下国际新冠疫情的毒株传播走势。

科普一下,很多人会很好奇,为何我国仅能检测那麽少的样本?要了解,检测病例中的病毒样本基因排序是个複杂耗时耗力耗成本的工作,并不像一般的PCR病毒检测。在我国现今只有四个研究中心有那昂贵器材和技术来检测,大部分样本由国家医学研究所(IMR)承担检测研究工作。在如此的情况下,要能侦查到其他极少数的变种毒株的机会很低,虽然不能排除这些毒株已入侵的可能性。目前在我国主要的变种毒株来源都是境外输入,所以国家需要更严谨筛检所有境外输入病例。

总结一句,目前我国还无需太担心Mu变种毒株,因为我们都还没解决和打败Delta呢!疫苗接种虽然不能阻止Delta的传染,但数据显示它有很大的机率还是相当有效地防止接种者染重病和死亡。有请大家分析疫苗接种效应时要好好分辨这保护作用

(此分享同時出現在愛FM《名師早點》9月17日)

Prelude/Introduction to the Recall Election TMI article

 No one should hard sell (or oversold) the idea of recall election being the antitode or solution to the party-hopping issue. It is largely untested. In principle it may work, and I agree with the proponent to perform the 'political clinical trial' to find that out, but I should also forewarn the possible treatment failure to the targeted 'disease' -- most probably recall election is not enough, and itself is not the 'right medicine' to stop the political defections leading to the change or collapse of government. In this article, I elaborated and put forward the reasons why this is the case.

The fact is, recall election and the so-called anti-hopping law can co-exist, and they should serve different functions -- the former is more of a 'generalist' (for performance, integrity or even moral issue as the ground for recall), while the latter is a 'specialist' for preventing power-grab via party-switching. So, I am a social democrat myself, not against the recall election mechanism.
In this article, I also proposed how the current prevalently perceived anti-hopping law can be tweaked and improved to circumvent the judgment precedence set in 1992. I call it Reaffirming Mandate Law.
I maintain, any party defector/quitter should subject to automatically triggered by-election, as a democratic test, to find out if one still commands the mandate to represent the particular constituency. Recall election is just adding too many extra-rounds of qualifiers to the real test. Recall election should also be made more difficult instead of easier, to avoid being abused -- so the chances of using the recall election mechanism to beat the group of 'badasses' to 'restore' one's favourite governing coalition to power, are not high. The odds are stacking against you. I just don't want you to be disappointed in the end.


*** Tindak Malaysia's remark and review of the article: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=4504879936237267&id=205226019536035

We shall take a minor diversion from our Redelineation History Week today
Today, we examine an article written by Dr Lim Chee Han where he provided a nuanced critique about recall elections and an option in between anti party hopping law and recall elections (reaffirming elections). While we disagree with the concept of reaffirming elections, we would like to give particular focus on the current discourse on recall elections
We support Recall Elections. However, we cannot deny the few downsides of relying on this option as the pinnacle of deterrence against hopping. Firstly, a recall election process takes months and if it is used specifically for hopping, the impact of recall elections is very delayed. In the process of delay, the political scene would have changed significantly and finally the recall elections will end up preserving the mandate of the hopping politician.
Secondly, we wholeheartedly agree that recall elections being used specifically to tackle party hopping is unusual. The essence of recall elections is to allow voters to sack a politician or a leader who is underperforming or commit acts that could be deplorable by society (ill remarks, being involved in scandal). A recall elections which is unrestricted unleashes the full options for voters to sack or keep hopping politicians, underperforming leaders and scandalous representatives. A restricted version of Recall Elections as espoused by YB Azalina skews the flexibility of recall elections, the very strength of the process
Thirdly, we need to ask ourselves on how to curb the abuses of recall elections. One of the most common abuse can happen be political parties to mobilize voters to initiate petition to reverse a particular political outcome. Moreover, additional measures would be required to verify signatures (especially for the first few stages of recall process). We don't want to have a situation where paid signature industry is born in Malaysia and recall elections is to be guided by these paid signatures
A hybrid of recall elections and anti-party hopping law will serve the effective forms of deterrence to party hopping culture in Malaysia. A full appreciation of strengths of both options must be taken account. It is plain wrong to say Recall Elections is better than Anti-Party Hopping Law or vice versa
To stop party hopping, holistic measures from bottom up and top down views would be required. Single reliance on recall elections to curb party hopping as the pinnacle form of deterrence is simply misguided view

Recall election may not deter party hopping

 

Don't get me wrong, I am supportive of having the recall election mechanism in place for many good reasons – to allow the voters who are highly dissatisfied with a certain elected representative’s performance or public behaviour to be able to act to recall the mandate.

Actually, it could be on any ground that can garner popular support that the voters deem the person is no longer fit or legitimate to represent them, be it integrity issue (that is, told a significant and damning lie in public or misappropriated public fund for private use), or moral issue (that is, acted or uttered racist or sexist words, showed indecent or unacceptable behaviour in public).

Although betrayal of voters’ mandate due to party switching could also be one big issue for recall election, the mechanism itself does not serve as a deterrence stern enough to prevent the phenomenon of party hopping affecting the ultimate outcome: change of government and reward for the defectors. Let me elaborate further.

One big factor why some political parties and politicians are more ready to accept the recall election proposal as an alternative to the generally dubbed anti-party hopping law is that the affected politicians can keep their seats until being challenged officially.

Several big hurdles for the electorates to overcome in order to recall a particular elected representative. The burden is on the challengers in terms of running the petition signature collection campaign passing a certain threshold of electorate size and then the signature verification processes.

It is by no means easy; the discontentment has to be high and popular enough to ignite people’s passion and sustain the campaign against the politician in question.

Just look at Bersih 2.0’s halted mock recall election campaign against Tebrau MP Steven Choong in August, this spells the difficulties of the public petition campaign to move against less high-profile party hoppers like Steven Choong.

If 10 elected representatives have “jumped ship”, let’s say recall elections have to successfully bring down at least five, opposition parties have to wrest back all the recalled seats in the subsequent by-elections to “restore” the balance and gain back the dominance in parliamentary seats.

For this series of events to go through, what is the probability of success? What if the defectors just gamble the chance for power and favours, and play a “catch-me-if-you-can” game?

Another consideration would be, who can fund and sustain the possible long campaign in all 10 constituencies (and what if the number is even bigger than 10)?

How long is a successful recall process going to take? This does matter a lot, as the idiom often goes “a week is a long time in politics”.

In my previous article, I found that the high-profile recall election case in Taiwan, Kaohsiung former mayor Han Kuo-yu took 234 days.

If the defectors were allowed to form a new government and be sworn in as ministers or deputies alike with elevated and consolidated power stature, could the balance of power not tip largely in favour of the incumbent seat holders with government resources and machinery at their disposal?

If it were an anti-party hopping law, defectors would have been stopped immediately, and no power grab is possible in this way, let alone letting the defectors build electoral advantages over a relatively long period (about eight months in Han’s case) spoiling the attempt or preparing for the possible recall.

With so many perks on offer, what is so deterrent about the recall election for the defectors not to gamble on?

India, Pakistan, Kenya and Uganda have the similar first-past-the-post electoral system like Malaysia, and also often face party hopping issues.

If recall elections would have been superior in deterring political defections, why these party hoppers-prone countries do not already adopt this measure?

Among the four aforementioned countries, only India has a recall mechanism at the state level but not at the most powerful lower house (Lok Sabha).

In fact, it is uncommon for the recall election to be used mainly to deter political defections in the world. It is mostly used to act against the municipal leaders (that is, mayors, governors) for performance or integrity-related issues.

One can look at the most active users of such recall elections in the United States. Although there are some good examples of successful recalls, that is also accompanied with a long list of unsuccessful recalls or failed attempts to qualify for recall elections. The latest case is California Governor Gavin Newsom who survived the recall.

One has to be cautious about the recall mechanism as a double-edged sword in that it could also be used by some civil groups to force out lawmakers that they do not like. Think Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia mobilising its grassroots to recall Segambut MP Hannah Yeoh.

Peru is another country where the citizens actively use their recall mechanism. Between 1997 and 2013, 45.5% of all 747 municipalities had experienced more than 5,000 activated recall referendums against locally elected officers. Welp (2014) explains the weakness of the institutional design of the mechanism that leads to a series of successful activation of recall referendums in Peru.

More importantly, it points out how political parties have the incentives to exploit the weakness to “gain power between regular elections”. Thus, the design of the recall election mechanism has to be made with careful and considerable deliberation to avoid being abused.

It is also fair to say that the current prevalently perceived anti-party hopping law is not without problems.

One often mentioned issue is that the elected representatives would be held even in tighter grip if the law becomes the new order, as the politician fears the consequence of being sacked and, hence, disqualified as the sitting member of Parliament or assemblyman if they do not toe the party (leader) line.

This statement appears as if the current party politics is not already showing this party toeing phenomenon, which may not be solved by an anti-party hopping law, nor a recall election can remedy.

At the same time, what I find most problematic is that the argument tars all politicians with the same brush that they are interest (read: seat)-bound and dare not take principle, conscience and public interest first.

However, I also acknowledge in some legitimate circumstances, anti-party hopping laws could be too rigid and punitive. For example, a splinter and realignment of ideology or principles for the Amanah lawmakers prior to the 14th general election.

In fact, the penalty of disqualification of the legislative membership is the core contention that was said to contravene the Federal Constitution on the freedom of association, as this was the judgment precedence set in the case of Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan v Nordin Salleh (1992) 1 MLJ 697.

What if there could be a third way, not requiring the party quitter to relinquish the seat immediately? He or she could continue to hold office until the automatically triggered by-election, reaffirming the mandate for the particular seat.

What is required to deter is the single-member party hopping resulting in the change of government, hence it is fair to temporarily suspend the right of the defectors to pledge new allegiance or support for the other coalition until the by-election results confirm the mandate for their seats.

To live up to the true spirit of representative democracy, automatically triggered by-election is important to find out who actually still commands the mandate to represent a particular constituency. This is a necessary, legitimate and straightforward democratic test, not a penalty.

Unlike the recall election, it is like playing many extra rounds of qualifiers with added difficulties in order to sit for the true test.

Why spend so much money and effort in arduous procedure and yet may not be an effective recall election, while one can have an automatically triggered by-election mechanism to find out who the seat should really belong to?

Let’s have the “specialist” reaffirming mandate law to deal with the party hopping and changing government issue while keeping the “generalist” recall election measure for other legitimate usage purposes. 


71st article for Agora@TMI column, published on The Malaysian Insight, 20 Sep 2021 

Tuesday, September 14, 2021

(中國報採訪 9月12日)持续爆发还是瘟疫 压下 新病例 才晋流行病

 (吉隆坡12日讯/独家报导)感染生物学博士林志翰强调,唯有尽快把新病例

和社区传染压下,才能让新冠疫情晋级成地方流行病阶段。

他接受《中国报》访问时解释,地方流行病其中一个定义和标准,就是无法根

除的地方疾病;而瘟疫或大流行则是指某疾病普遍跨区、跨境传染,多处爆发

感染群,及处在高度传染状态。

林志翰也是公民团体群议社政策研究员。他认为,对于新冠转变至地方流行病

的说法,目前也只是个假设,它建立在未来的变种毒株,不会更进一步突破疫

苗免疫的保护防线。

我所谓的假设是,若这个疾病继续变种和避开免疫,然后持续性或间断性地

爆发感染群,那么这就不只停在无法根除的地方流行病定义。它还是个瘟疫

或大流行。

他说,如果能维持在地方性流行病,即使偶尔爆发地区性病例,那还是在可控

制范围,很快就可以压下来。

所以,政府目前要专注尽快把新病例和社区传染压下来,这才能晋级到地方

流行病。

询及医学界是否有一个衡量标准,用以定义该疾病是否为地方流行病时,林志

翰直言,这没有一概而论的基准水平。

他提及,在我国,属于地方流行病的还包括骨痛热症、水痘、流行感冒、手足

口症、狂犬病等,在沙巴还有疟疾;以骨痛热症为例,该疾病有时在某些地区

会飙高,但基本上维持在一定的范围。

所以,这样的疾病是地方流行病,几乎不可能根除它们,但即便爆发,也相

对稳定。

对于新冠肺炎疫情而言,目前多州的单日确诊数字仍高,有些还在攀升着,

所以还处于瘟疫或大流行阶段。

阻止新变种病毒入侵

在面对Delta毒株肆虐当儿,我国还要努力阻止新型变种病毒入侵,包括Mu

Lambda等变种毒株。

林志翰指出,变种毒株可以从境外输入或国内崛起,但目前流行的毒株,主要

还是从境外输入。

他认同,政府确实应多加留意境外输入的病例,并对这些病例进行病毒基因排

序检测。

不过,他也提到,病毒株检测需要耗一些时间和成本,而且国内的检测能力或

承载量(capacity)也是一个很大问题。

卫生部目前的做法是,抽样式地调查某些样本。这也导致我们或许会很迟才

发现新的变种毒株入侵,因为这些毒株还没在国内流行起来,要如何从每天

2万宗病例内找到它们呢?

林志翰也解释,病毒基因排序检测是比较复杂的程序,而且国内也没有多少台

这类的器材,这些器材都是非常昂贵的。

他认为,如果国内的设施是个局限,政府可以考虑外包给邻国新加坡,或其他

第三国,以增加病毒基因排序检测的数量。

需要医药抑制病毒

林志翰直言,不管人民是否已接种疫苗,新冠疫情将继续传播,这是一个必须

接受的事实。

他早前在群议社的《群议论点》撰文时指出,近来从世界各地得到的疫苗免疫

结果回馈,接种者的免疫反应确实会在半年内开始减弱;同时,病毒继续变种

逃逸免疫反应,这证明疫苗无法完全阻止病毒传播。

他强调,要根除新冠肺炎已几乎不可能了,它以后可能会走向较为严重的地方

性流行感冒。

对于疫情走向,我预料,我们在未来几年还是得继续戴口罩外出,入店时要

继续使用MySejahtera系统来登记,以及继续维持人身距离和室内通风状

况。

林志翰指出,如今,缺的不是疫苗加强剂,而是有效抑制新冠病毒感染的医

药。

最后,我想说的是,如果我们继续允许大自然与人类活动空间持续起冲突,

带有动物病毒的野生动物被迫增加与人类的接触,那么我们或许还得提防下一

个瘟疫的到来。_


鏈接:https://www.chinapress.com.my/?p=2669365


Thursday, September 09, 2021

On the publication news of the book "Systems Thinking Analyses for Health Policy and Systems Development A Malaysian Case Study" (2021, Sep)

 

After completed the final draft by 2019, finally the book about Malaysian health policy and systems development is published by Cambridge University Press.
I contributed as a co-author for the Chapter 11 "Medical Products", and 2 case studies (11.1 & 12.1).
The good thing about this publication is, this is an open-access book, you may download and read the whole book or selected chapters at your own convenience.
Thanks to the strong dedication and commitments from the UNU-IIGH team who was doing the editorial works. Plenty of meetings at the UNU-IIGH meetings, quite a number of draft versions and revisions (as well as numerous sketches of the systems diagrams to go with David). Special thanks go to the Editors Dr Indra Pathmanathan, Dr David Tan and Lim Shiang Cheng. They had given great opportunity and a lot of patience to me and co-authors.
I'm grateful to have collaborated with my most knowledgeable co-author Prof. Thomas Paraidathathu, he did most of the heavy lifting on the pharmaceutical development history in Malaysia. Also, I'm glad to team up with Dr Faizul Nizam Abu Salim to write about the great achievement of affordable treatment of Hepatitis C in Malaysia. This is truly a success story linking the Ministry of Health with many leading health advocacy groups and NGOs.

The Book link: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/systems-thinking-analyses-for-health-policy-and-systems-development/0DAB5C2C7DC74E515AA1ADC18EE61A68

Monday, September 06, 2021

群議論點:新冠疫情走向地方流行病的影响 (《名師早點》9月7日)

 


新冠疫情走向地方流行病的影响

9月1日,卫生部长凯里在他首次主持的卫生部记者会上表示,我国疫情将在十月进入地方流行病阶段。他说明现在的纳闽以及在某个程度上砂拉越已进入了该阶段,而其他州属随后两个月内也会达到80%人口疫苗接种率,疫情将受到控制也走入该阶段。同时政府将放弃封锁政策,人民需要调整自己尝试与病毒共同生活。
相信很多人头上有很多问号--什么是“地方流行病”?从流行病学的角度来说,一个疾病会一直在某个地区保持一定基准程度的传染,即使排除境外输入因素。这也意味着,卫生当局承认无法根除该疾病。在我国,属于地方流行病的还包括骨痛热症、水痘、流行感冒、手足口症、狂犬病等,在沙巴还有疟疾。而瘟疫Pandemic则是指某疾病普遍跨区跨境传染,多处爆发感染群以及处在高度传染状态。目前多州的每日确诊数字仍高,有些还在攀升着,所以还处于瘟疫阶段。
一个新的传染病扎根成为地方流行病,要符合以下几个重要因素:(一)康复者或疫苗接种者的免疫反应会随着时间而减弱,(二)病毒会变种然后逃逸免疫反应,(三)即使有加强剂疫苗加持和更新保护,疫苗不能有效阻止病毒传播,(四)若疫苗真的可以有效,疫苗接种覆盖率必须足以达至群体免疫,没有太多的缺口。
可惜,近来从世界各地得到的实地疫苗免疫结果回馈发现,疫苗接种者的免疫反应确实会在半年内开始减弱、病毒继续变种逃逸免疫反应,疫苗无法阻止病毒传播,而且这世界上包括我国还有不少人还没得到疫苗接种。我国已差不多全面被Delta变种病毒攻克了,每天看到确诊人士包括数目不小的两剂疫苗接种者,说明了病毒不管国人是否已接种将继续传播的事实。表面证据已不得不让政府承认这疾病会走向地方流行病,要根除已不可能了。另一个说法就是,新冠肺炎以后走向较为严重的地方性流行感冒。
目前肯定的是政府还需处理大瘟疫到处爆发的确诊病例,要把疫情压制到一个较低病例水平如纳闽现在的情况。地方流行病的管理方式一定有所不同,但肯定的是卫生局不会坐视不理或松懈。就如骨痛热症偶尔爆发感染热点,卫生局必须立刻采取行动去追踪和抑制疫情;对于新冠肺炎,也相对于应付流行感冒,也会针对性隔离感染人士及关闭一些场所如学校。但政府几乎不曾因地方流行病而封城...如果疫情大爆发升温至地区性流行病epidemic,那么政府就会采取另一些步骤阻止它的扩散,同时确保医疗系统可以应付治病需求。
对于疫情走向,我预料政府会逐步放宽行管令的限制,但不会立刻全面大开放。未来几年预料我们还得继续出外带口罩,入门登入MySejahtera系统,以及注重肢体距离和室内通风状况。
目前的地方流行病说法,对我来说也是个假设,因为它建立在未来变种病毒不会更进一步突破疫苗免疫的保护防线。如今正缺的不是疫苗加强剂,而是有效抑制新冠病毒感染的医药。
最后,我想说的是,如果我们继续允许大自然与人类活动空间持续起冲突,带有动物病毒的野生动物被迫增加与人类的接触,那么我们或许还得提防下一个瘟疫的到来。

FB link: https://www.facebook.com/agora.msia/posts/997575941019778


Friday, September 03, 2021

8度空間華語新聞專訪:地方流行病的防疫措施差別 (9月2日)

 題目:【局部防控医疗能量正常化   “地方流行病”个人防疫无差别】

簡介:政府放眼10月底,国内疫情会从“大瘟疫”变成“地方流行病”。反疫苗情绪和乡区接种率,将决定是否能够顺利达阵。

公卫专家与医生点出,到时候的防疫对策,将从一刀切改成局部控管,医疗资源分配也会逐渐回归,让非新冠患者有更大的空间,可是最大的考验,就是大规模开放后,“报复式”聚会,可能是新一波疫情的不定时炸弹。

臉書鏈接:https://www.facebook.com/8TV.NEWS/videos/1441995266159150/





行管令下的环保契机

 近来众人皆评论新内阁阵容如何再循环。伊斯兰党如今掌握了两个与环境相关的部门,俨然成为了所谓的绿党,虽然该党所执政的吉兰丹州环境问题丛丛。本文笔者想谈疫情下行管令提供的环保契机,以及个人应尽的环保责任。

今年1月,环境与水务部秘书长再尼乌江(Zaini Ujang)就撰文陈述疫情对环境的冲击。数据显示去年的行管令1.0期间,空气污染指数改善至良好的天数增加了大约四分之一,而主要空气污染指标PM2.5细颗粒物浓度也降了靠近六成。而国内29条长期监督的河流当中就有8条的水质获得改善。早前媒体亦有图文报导一些穿过市区的河流难得显得清澈。巴生河的下游闸门捡出的垃圾量也减少了一半。这一再地说明环境状况与人类行为及经济活动息息相关。这些所谓的环境素质改善也随著后来的行管令松绑解封而逐渐打回原形。

行管令如何影响个人行为进而影响大环境呢?

1)居家工作,减少每日开车上班的需要:疫情前,来自交通工具的排碳量占我国总数的大约2成。汽车排碳的时候不止是汽车行走当儿,也包括困在车龙里。疫情前,笔者在雪隆区这里一般上每周需为汽车添油一次,如今仍处于行管令3.0和国家复苏计划第一阶段,居家办公的我甚至3周都无需添油一次。可见,居家工作不止对环境友善,也帮忙节省了不少开支。

2)公共假期和年假,没远门可去:随著跨州和跨县禁令尚未解除,人民不能像以往有假期就去旅行。可以想像以前全家出动乘搭飞机出国旅行的情景会消耗多少燃料、留下多少碳足迹。当然还有一些人希望能趁假期返乡与年迈父母和亲友团聚。相信很多人对行管令限制感到非常无奈,但可以先省下一笔钱作为日后的旅游经费。

3)呆在家里时间更长,耗电更多、电费更贵? :这个说法不必然,主要看家家户户如何用电。其中最关键的是冷气机的使用量。如果办公室没开门,那里就注定先节省了能源。那么在家里呢?笔者会尽可能不开冷气机,若真的需要也会控制在摄氏25度或以上,只要有些凉意就好。不同于办公室,在家里可以穿得更清凉,照理来说更能调适室温。

4)下厨或点叫外卖? :疫情严重时行管令禁止堂食,不会下厨者或太忙碌的人,就会点外卖。分别是,到底那人是通过电召应用程序平台如GrabFood Panda订购,还是亲自前往餐厅打包?后者的话,还可提供自己食物盒,减少了很多不必要的塑料物。不得已电召的话,有些餐厅会提供比较环境友善的餐饮容器和包装,但依然有不少餐厅提供各种大小的塑料盒只因为更合适及稳固携带。即使说这些塑料盒最后都可再循环,但试问多少人会像笔者先把它们洗干净方便回收处理?所以,如果能够最好还是多一点亲自下厨或烘焙,这样就能直接减少包装垃圾。

重复使用

5)出外购物,自备袋子:疫情爆发前,这个做法早该被鼓励。很多人误会再循环是最好的环保表现,事实正好相反,拒绝接受不必要的一次性用品才是上策。 Reduce(减少使用),Reuse(重复使用),和Recycle(再循环),所谓处理废物的3R环保口号排在最前面的是减少使用,最佳策略就是拒绝接受。要环保就必须要先做好准备。笔者会选择去光顾那些超市允许顾客自行包装,虽然仍常遇到工作人员费解为何使用自家的旧塑料袋包装新鲜食材。有时他们还好心要免费提供全新的塑料袋取代我的,看来他们误会了。事实上,塑料袋不是环保的公敌,而是一次性塑料用品,若能重复使用就最好不过了。

6)网购便利的代价:行管令3.0和全面封锁期间,商店没开门,人民仍可从各网络电子购物平台购得物品。但这个方便导致包装垃圾如气泡膜和纸箱材料夸张地累积制造垃圾,而这问题难于避免,因为商家得确保产品完好不会在运输过程遭受损坏。所以,网购的时候请慎重考虑这点,能免则免。

7)医疗产品的丢弃:疫情依然严重,随著如今经济活动逐渐松绑以及人民外出活动的频率增加,预料口罩、面罩和手套等防疫用品的使用量和需求将持续上升。单单在去年四月实施行管令两个月内我国就增加了27%的医疗废物。如今我们常见这些废物随手乱丢在邻里社区,这种不负责任且不卫生的行为实在令人诟病。因此,个人应尽社会责任,时时刻刻小心处理防疫用品,丢弃在合适的地方。

8)培养自己的绿色手指,贴近大自然:居家时间长了,有些人开始研究如何在自家的庭园或露台耕种一些蔬菜食材。这无疑是在家打发时间的好活动,同时也增加了收成的成就感。当户外运动被允许时,不少城市人会更珍惜贴近大自然的机会而走入登山行列或公园跑步,呼吸清新的空气,松解长期困在家产生的紧绷状态,有益身心。

笔者希望,目前在行管令宽松限制的情况下,人们依然可保持敏感度,在自己的能力范围内为环境保护和气候转变尽一份力,这就算是疫情下行管令提供的环保契机了。


刊登于《東方日報》東方文薈版《群議良策》專欄2021年9月1日


東方臉書貼文鏈接在此