今早為Asian Medical Students Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK)的新一屆執行委員會就職典禮作致詞分享嘉賓,題目為「疫情中的健康不公平」。
感謝他們的熱情款待以及為整段致詞拍了影片。以下我附上致詞的英文原稿:
It's been my honor to be invited to give the closing remarks for the Inauguration Ceremony for the incoming executive committee of the Asian Medical Students' Association Hong Kong (AMSAHK) this morning. A video has been taken for the remarks I made regarding health inequalities during the COVID-19 pandemic (big thanks to the student who withstood the soreness of her arm for holding the camera up for 15 minutes straight), and here's the transcript of the main body of the speech that goes with this video:
//The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, continues to be rampant around the world since early 2020, resulting in more than 55 million cases and 1.3 million deaths worldwide as of today. (So no! It’s not a hoax for those conspiracy theorists out there!) A higher rate of incidence and deaths, as well as worse health-related quality of life have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, including people of lower socioeconomic position, older persons, migrants, ethnic minority and communities of color, etc. While epidemiologists and scientists around the world are dedicated in gathering scientific evidence on the specific causes and determinants of the health inequalities observed in different countries and regions, we can apply the Social Determinants of Health Conceptual Framework developed by the World Health Organization team led by the eminent Prof Sir Michael Marmot, world’s leading social epidemiologist, to understand and delineate these social determinants of health inequalities related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to this framework, social determinants of health can be largely categorized into two types – 1) the lower stream, intermediary determinants, and 2) the upper stream, structural and macro-environmental determinants. For the COVID-19 pandemic, we realized that the lower stream factors may include material circumstances, such as people’s living and working conditions. For instance, the nature of the occupations of these people of lower socioeconomic position tends to require them to travel outside to work, i.e., they cannot work from home, which is a luxury for people who can afford to do it. This lack of choice in the location of occupation may expose them to greater risk of infection through more transportation and interactions with strangers. We have also seen infection clusters among crowded places like elderly homes, public housing estates, and boarding houses for foreign domestic helpers. Moreover, these socially disadvantaged people tend to have lower financial and social capital – it can be observed that they were more likely to be deprived of personal protective equipment like face masks and hand sanitizers, especially during the earlier days of the pandemic. On the other hand, the upper stream, structural determinants of health may include policies related to public health, education, macroeconomics, social protection and welfare, as well as our governance… and last, but not least, our culture and values. If the socioeconomic and political contexts are not favorable to the socially disadvantaged, their health and well-being will be disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Therefore, if we, as a society, espouse to address and reduce the problem of health inequalities, social determinants of health cannot be overlooked in devising and designing any public health-related strategies, measures and policies.
Although a higher rate of incidence and deaths have been widely observed in the socially disadvantaged groups, especially in countries with severe COVID-19 outbreaks, this phenomenon seems to be less discussed and less covered by media in Hong Kong, where the disease incidence is relatively low when compared with other countries around the world. Before the resurgence of local cases in early July, local spread of COVID-19 was sporadic and most cases were imported. In the earlier days of the pandemic, most cases were primarily imported by travelers and return-students studying overseas, leading to a minor surge between mid-March and mid-April of 874 new cases. Most of these cases during Spring were people who could afford to travel and study abroad, and thus tended to be more well-off. Therefore, some would say the expected social gradient in health impact did not seem to exist in Hong Kong, but may I remind you that, it is only the case when we focus on COVID-19-specific incidence and mortality alone. But can we really deduce from this that COVID-19-related health inequality does not exist in Hong Kong? According to the Social Determinants of Health Framework mentioned earlier, the obvious answer is “No, of course not.” And here’s why…
In addition to the direct disease burden, the COVID-19 outbreak and its associated containment measures (such as economic lockdown, mandatory social distancing, and change of work arrangements) could have unequal wider socioeconomic impacts on the general population, especially in regions with pervasive existing social inequalities. Given the limited resources and capacity of the socioeconomically disadvantaged to respond to emergency and adverse events, their general health and well-being are likely to be unduly and inordinately affected by the abrupt changes in their daily economic and social conditions, like job loss and insecurity, brought about by the COVID-19 outbreak and the corresponding containment and mitigation measures of which the main purpose was supposedly disease prevention and health protection at the first place. As such, focusing only on COVID-19 incidence or mortality as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities may leave out important aspects of life that contributes significantly to people’s health. Recently, my research team and I collaborated with Sir Michael Marmot in a Hong Kong study, and found that the poor people in Hong Kong fared worse in every aspects of life than their richer counterparts in terms of economic activity, personal protective equipment, personal hygiene practice, as well as well-being and health after the COVID-19 outbreak. We also found that part of the observed health inequality can be attributed to the pandemic and its related containment measures via people’s concerns over their own and their families’ livelihood and economic activity. In other words, health inequalities were contributed by the pandemic even in a city where incidence is relatively low through other social determinants of health that directly concerned the livelihood and economic activity of the people. So in this study, we confirmed that focusing only on the incident and death cases as the outcomes of concern to address health inequalities is like a story half-told, and would severely truncate and distort the reality.
Truth be told, health inequality does not only appear after the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19, it is a pre-existing condition in countries and regions around the world, including Hong Kong. My research over the years have consistently shown that people in lower socioeconomic position tend to have worse physical and mental health status. Nevertheless, precisely because health inequality is nothing new, there are always voices in our society trying to dismiss the problem, arguing that it is only natural to have wealth inequality in any capitalistic society. However, in reckoning with health inequalities, we need to go beyond just figuring out the disparities or differences in health status between the poor and the rich, and we need to raise an ethically relevant question: are these inequalities, disparities and differences remediable? Can they be fixed? Can we do something about them? If they are remediable, and we can do something about them but we haven’t, then we’d say these inequalities are ultimately unjust and unfair. In other words, a society that prides itself in pursuing justice must, and I say must, strive to address and reduce these unfair health inequalities. Borrowing the words from famed sociologist Judith Butler, “the virus alone does not discriminate,” but “social and economic inequality will make sure that it does.” With COVID-19, we learn that it is not only the individuals who are sick, but our society. And it’s time we do something about it.
Thank you very much!//
Please join me in congratulating the incoming executive committee of AMSAHK and giving them the best wishes for their future endeavor!
Roger Chung, PhD
Assistant Professor, CUHK JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, @CUHK Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong 香港中文大學 - CUHK
Associate Director, CUHK Institute of Health Equity
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過22萬的網紅rickolam1,也在其Youtube影片中提到,去外國留學, 應該有唔少人都諗過啦? 甚至已經親身去左~ 但係「留學」係咪真係好似大家想像中咁呢? ========下面仲有野睇======== 去左英國已經三年啦,諗番起發覺好多野真係同當初諗既唔同~ 希望呢條片可以令到大家輕鬆笑一笑之餘, 又可以解答到大家對留學既疑問, 甚至係解釋大家對留...
boarding school中文 在 林建甫 Facebook 的最佳解答
中時專欄:林建甫》不怕人才走出去,只怕人才不進來
2018年05月28日 20:40 林建甫
大陸今年放寬「台灣高中生免試入學門檻」,將原本學測成績需達前標(前1/4)降到只要均標就能申請。等於台灣有一半的高中生都能申請大陸的重點名校,搶人大戰提前到高中生。這個現象引發社會熱烈討論。
其實在全球化的浪潮之下,近幾年優秀的高中生申請國外名校的趨勢明顯增加。台灣大學不再是高中生唯一的選項,如果相同的成績可以申請到國際一流大學就讀,大部分的家長及學生都希望能到更好的環境學習。不只大陸重點大學歡迎台生來申請,英、美、港、星、澳等國的大學都主動出擊來台招生。
根據我國教育部的統計,去年上半年約有1595名高中應屆畢業生出國讀書,其中約半數是赴大陸讀書,比前一年增約200人,而今年門檻再放寬,恐怕人數會增加更多。據大陸教育部的統計,2011年大約有6000多位台灣人到大陸讀大學,2017年已成長至12000人,大陸的確吸引越來越多的台灣學生。
平實而論,我們不應該聚焦於高中畢業生是否到大陸,而是應該思考人才的養成過程。我們也應該思考如何提升台灣教育的競爭力,不僅因為優秀高中生出走的課題,包括大學教授外流、少子化、大學過多倒閉、產學落差等的許多現象,都指出台灣整體教育制度存在的許多問題。
首先,高中畢業生離鄉背井,到外念書,萬事都得靠自己。在台灣日常的起居飲食有父母照顧,留學生活逼使其必須學會獨立。在北京、上海,語文相通,文化相同,但課堂的競爭壓力頗大,因為大陸頂大的學生學習態度及努力程度在世界上算是排名前面的。到歐美去,一個非中文的環境,外文的溝通及生活環境都與華人社會有重大的不同,挑戰也很大。矽谷是美國最國際化的地區之一,有近1/3的科技公司是由外來移民創辦,不同文化的衝撞產生的創新動力非常強大。人才的養成也是如此,更多元化的交流與碰撞能產生化學效應,能創造意想不到的成果。
在外的學習,不只是課本的知識,而是學習如何解決問題。因為置身一個陌生的地方,任何狀況都可能產生問題。如何克服困難,需要獨自摸索的過程,而且一旦學會解決問題,以後可以不畏懼挑戰,終身受用無窮。從另一個角度看,不經一番徹骨寒,哪得梅花撲鼻香?困頓的環境、挫折的內省才可能把自己的潛力給逼發出來,成就更大的事業。
我們擔心人才流失,但人才往高處爬,一定尋找最高的報酬,站在政府的角度,更應該思考如何讓優秀的人才走進來。當然提供更好的教育設備,打造優良的教育環境,讓台灣教育的軟硬體都改善,一定有助於吸引人才,但是在國家財政拮据之際,巧婦難為無米之炊。
從經濟學的角度來看,放寬管制,教育「產業化」是可行的解套方案,「產業化」不只是指學校與產業合作,而是經營策略必須要有產業思維。例如:用符合國際的薪資水準聘請一流的教育工作者,不僅能提升教學或研究品質,還有助於學校的正面形象提升,幫助招收更多好學生。另外,也應讓學校參與更多產業發展的實務,使其教學與研究更符合市場所需,也讓學生學習實務經驗,有助於之後的就業。
只要放寬管制,我認為長遠來看,有朝一日台灣一定有大學能發展出東方的哈佛、劍橋等綜合型大學。比較簡單,時間可以縮短的是小而美的菁英文理學院(liberal arts college)。這樣的學校在台灣可能沒有太多人聽過,但在美國很多父母擠破頭也要讓子女進入這些著名的學府。例如曾出了3位美國總統的威廉與瑪麗學院(College of William & Mary)或蔣宋美齡畢業的衛斯理學院(Wellesley College)。高中可以發展出優秀的世界級寄宿高中(boarding high school)。但這些學校辦學的經費一定要配合學費的管制鬆綁。
最後,在全球化的時代,人才用腳投票,一味地限制只會適得其反,讓頂尖人才走出去也不願再回來。但如果我們能用開放的心態,支持優秀的學生參與全球競爭,同時改善自身環境,讓台灣學校更加多元化、國際化,吸引全球的青年來台灣就讀,這才是比較聰明的做法。
(作者為台灣經濟研究院院長、國立台灣大學經濟系教授)
boarding school中文 在 rickolam1 Youtube 的最讚貼文
去外國留學, 應該有唔少人都諗過啦? 甚至已經親身去左~
但係「留學」係咪真係好似大家想像中咁呢?
========下面仲有野睇========
去左英國已經三年啦,諗番起發覺好多野真係同當初諗既唔同~
希望呢條片可以令到大家輕鬆笑一笑之餘,
又可以解答到大家對留學既疑問,
甚至係解釋大家對留學既誤會~
打算去留學既同學仔,記住做足資料收集先決定啦!
同我一樣係英國既你,唔知又有無共鳴呢?
鍾意呢條片既就記住比個like同comment啦!!
仲有其他對留學既也想知道? 留言講低啦!
我地下條片再見~ Byeee!
===================================
Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/rickolam1
Instagram: http://instagram.com/lwc_ricko_rlrl
提供字幕 (好感激你): https://www.youtube.com/timedtext_video?v=4Kvjx9mfcc4
boarding school中文 在 #803【谷阿莫】5分鐘看完2018逼他穿女裝跳舞的電影《寄宿 ... 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>