日批在线视频_内射毛片内射国产夫妻_亚洲三级小视频_在线观看亚洲大片短视频_女性向h片资源在线观看_亚洲最大网

Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
World
Home / World / World Watch

Same criteria needed in evaluating responses to pandemic

By Naubahar Sharif | China Daily Global | Updated: 2020-06-19 08:51
Share
Share - WeChat
People cross a street during morning peak hour commute amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Singapore June 3, 2020. [Photo/Agencies]

Analytical, or evaluative, symmetry is the simple idea that the criteria that one uses to analyze a situation ought to remain the same when applied to a similar situation. In other words, outcomes alone should not be used to justify the adoption or nonadoption of one's analytical criteria.

Furthermore, outcomes should not be the only measures used to justify the success or failure of those criteria.

Take, for example, Singapore's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with that of Hong Kong.

In February, comparisons between Hong Kong and Singapore abounded, not only on international television outlets, but also on the internet and in print media.

This fixation to compare Singapore and Hong Kong was driven partly by the fact that observers find it convenient to compare the two economies and also because the initial brunt of COVID-19's impact-beyond the Chinese mainland-was largely experienced in countries or regions of East Asia (South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore).

The overriding consensus was that Singapore had done well in confronting the threat of COVID-19, whereas Hong Kong's response was weak, slow or muddled.

Particularly noteworthy was a speech that Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made on Feb 8, which received widespread regional acclaim and was viewed as a symbol of Singapore's strong leadership in the face of the threat from COVID-19. The nine-minute speech addressing Singapore's citizens was contrasted by some with Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor's response.

At that time, Hong Kong and Singapore had similar numbers of COVID-19 cases. For the entire month of February, Singapore experienced zero deaths from COVID-19 (the first COVID-19 death in Singapore was reported on March 21) compared with Hong Kong, which experienced its first death from COVID-19 as early as Feb 4.

Since then, COVID-19 has affected the two economies in significantly different ways. In part, this has been a result of different policies and approaches taken by the two economies to face the threat.

Not only have the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths spiked in Singapore, but the largely hidden issue of living conditions in remotely located dormitories used to house Singapore's large number of migrant workers has come under a spotlight.

The issue is not simply why Singapore is no longer compared with Hong Kong in reference to COVID-19 cases or deaths. Furthermore, the issue is also not whether one place has done right while the other has done wrong. Such analyses are complicated and dependent on context.

Rather, the present issue is why the same criteria that were used to hold up Singapore as an exemplar country in February are no longer touted. Symmetrically, why are the same benchmarks or measures that were used to disparage Hong Kong's response in February no longer mentioned (now that the virus is-even if temporarily-under control)?

To be sure, this asymmetry might reflect the fact that the measures that both places implemented to tackle COVID-19 have been fluid rather than static. However, a deeper issue is that far too many observers and analysts engage in praise or criticism a priori before fully understanding both sides of the issue.

Similarly, too many fall into the trap of adopting moving goal posts when undertaking so-called analyses or evaluations. Namely, the criteria used to evaluate the success or failure of one place's response is not symmetrical. That is to say, the same criteria are not used to measure another place's response.

In the same vein, the criteria used to judge one place's response as successful are not applied when evaluating another place's response. Why does this happen? There are a whole host of possible reasons, including bias, local preferences or simply idiosyncrasies.

It is only with analytical symmetry that we can hope to take away meaningful policy lessons and directions, whether it be for one place's response to COVID-19 or for anything else.

The author is an associate professor of public policy and social science at The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

Most Viewed in 24 Hours
Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1994 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
主站蜘蛛池模板: 精品视频在线播放 | 一级黄色大片免费观看 | 亚洲精品三区 | 欧美午夜网站 | 成人一级免费视频 | 激情黄页 | 国产精选一区 | 日韩黄色在线视频 | 99久久精品国产成人一区二区 | 成人一级黄色 | 97精品一区二区视频在线观看 | 天天操夜操 | 四虎在线免费视频 | 人人插人人草 | 亚欧洲精品在线视频免费观看 | 国产精品久久久久久妇女6080 | 天天舔天天操天天干 | 欧美成人一二三区 | 国产福利在线视频 | 亚洲美女福利视频 | 日本一区二区三区视频在线观看 | 国产精品美女久久久久久 | 永久黄色网址 | 色综合av| 波多野结衣在线观看一区二区 | 午夜影皖| 狠狠干五月天 | 97黄色片 | 亚洲精品视频一区二区三区 | 黄色三级视频在线观看 | 天天操婷婷 | 在线欧美日韩 | 久久在线看 | 色多多av| aa黄色大片 | 欧美色图自拍 | 四虎av在线播放 | 欧美日韩二区三区 | 欧美日韩一区三区 | 日韩网站免费 | www.久久久久久 |