ISSIA Magazine (Edition II)

OUR TEAM Directors Reese Wong - Editor-in-Chief Alpha Ngai - Managing Editor Angela Chan - Coordinating Editor Katie Tam - Creative Director

Editorial Abhay Venkitaraman Bernard Shiu Christine Chiou Durva Kamdar Jerry Luo Kayla Chan

Contributors (in order of appearance) Tisya Gupta Bernard Shiu Ethan Choi Josephine Wong Betty Chan Kayla Chan Yannes Chen Dia Bharwani Abhay Venkitaraman Jerry Luo Christine Chiou

Cover Art Sophia Lin

Design and typesetting Katie Tam Airi Tachino Sophia Lin Shawn Chan James Alexander Rumi Nanwani Luca Picazo

About the ISSIA ISSIA is a youth-led non-profit based in the Asia Pacific. We cultivate global citizenship and empower young changemakers through peer-to-peer and project-based learning as the go-to hub for all things global issues.

Currently, ISSIA has over 300+ members across 70+ schools.

Since 2019, with a focus on SDG 4 (Quality Education) and 17 (Partnership for the Goals), we've established more than 30+ projects as the largest youth-led organisation in Hong Kong.

For example, 180+ articles on our website (issiahk.org), ISSIAMUN, a debate program, a docuseries, podcasts and Youth NGOs Conferences, where we connected 20+ youthled NGOs through up-skilling workshops, panels etc.

At ISSIA, we aim to provide a different kind of education — we cultivate global citizenship and empower young changemakers through peer-to-peer and project-based learning. With this model — everything is youth led and youth operated, meaning peers share best practices in a collaborative space where we work towards the SDGs. We actively involve a large number of local school students in our team to provide co-curricular global citizenship education through a peer-to-peer model and project-based model. ​ e believe in the notion where the 'whole is more than the W sum of its parts'. As the largest youth-led NGO Hong Kong, we have been working on co-creating a wider coalition and ecosystem of aspiring and leading changemakers in Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia Pacific.

TABLE OF

CONTENTS Feature Articles How have recent Covid measures in Hong Kong impacted students and their wellbeing?

・・・1

Lack of healthcare in LDCs

・・・1

Vaccine distribution in the Omicron Era

・・・1

Cognitive Bias in Vaccine Hesitancy

・・・1

Socioeconomic implications of COVID-19

・・・1

on developing countries Obesity Rates Soar Amid COVID-19 Pandemic

・・・1

How COVID-19 has exacerbated inequalities

・・・1

Has Covid-19 intensified racism in “Asia’s

・・・1

World City”?

The Reckoning That Wasn’t to Be: COVID-19 and Hong Kong’s Welfare State How Work Culture has been Affected by the Pandemic The Positive Effects of COVID-19

・・・1 ・・・1 ・・・1

HOW HAVE RECENT COVID MEASURES IN HONG KONG IMPACTED STUDENTS AND THEIR WELLBEING? Written by By Tisya Gupta

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

Photo by drown_ in_city on Unsplash

We are back in February of 2020, and instead of waking up early to leave for school, students are logging onto Zoom for their morning lesson. Some are upset about not being able to hang out with their friends in person, whilst others are ecstatic about waking up later than they normally would.

Many are just glad their upcoming assessment has been cancelled and that they can now watch Netflix during class without getting caught. But all of them continue thinking that in a few months things will go back to ‘normal’. Yet two years later, in 2022, here we are facing the 5th - and the worst wave of COVID-19 that Hong Kong has ever faced . But this time, the ecstasy has worn off, and the appeal of waking up later pales in comparison to the daily monotony students face.

Although students have not been bludgeoned by online learning for the entirety of the past two plus years, there have been numerous cycles of students forced to shift back and forth between the two learning atmospheres - most being overnight changes leaving both teachers and students frustrated as they try to manage a smooth transition. This frustration has been particularly evident during the recent 5th wave, largely due to the sheer amount of confusion amongst the public caused by drastic measures being announced within just a few days or even hours.

This was evident throughout January, when government officials stated they would not be suspending onsite lessons easily due to the impact on students, and denied any rumours of suspending classes before January 12th - only to suspend all onsite lessons for pre-schools, kindergartens, and primary schools on January 11th. A little over a week later, face-to-face secondary lessons were suspended as well, officially marking the return to online learning for all students in Hong Kong.

Such inconsistency and short notice has particularly affected exam board students. These students were originally scheduled to sit their exams properly for the first time in two years, until the announcement was made in late February to advance the summer holidays four months earlier than scheduled. This included schools starting their summer holidays from early March onwards to April 17th and would be allowed to have a shorter break between August 12th and the beginning of September to start the new school year.

Introducing such a drastic measure raised heavy criticism against authorities due to the confusion and lack of clarity these measures carried.

Many international students who sat international board exams ie. IGCSEs and the IB were sent into a state of panic. While the rest of the world would go forward with these exams as scheduled, it looked increasingly likely that students in Hong Kong would be left behind. A large majority expressed their frustrations by criticising the government and the new measure for being inconsiderate towards students (especially secondary school students) who would be facing additional pressure to keep up academically; as this decision would create further disruptions that were already created by online learning to properly get through the curriculum before exams. Fortunately, a few days later international schools and kindergartens were granted exemptions from the early ‘summer break’, and would continue online learning until April 19th.

That being said, the frustration did not die down amongst senior years in international schools - specifically Year 11s / Grade 10 (S4) and Year 13s / Grade 12s (S6) - who were scheduled to sit the IGCSEs and IB exams.

Students have now been put into a conflicting situation of choosing between an ‘exam or non-exam route’ that the IB has offered. This itself has been a controversial topic amongst the students concerned, with many anxious over the lack of safety upon choosing not to sit the exams.

Others stress over final grades, as grade boundaries will not be lowered simply due to the current situation in Hong Kong.

There has also been frustration expressed on efforts going to waste from possibly not sitting the exams. Furthermore, due to the lack of consistency these past few months, many students sitting the IGCSEs mid-May onwards are now forced to sit extra exams at home under “exam conditions” (applied to the best degree possible), which would be sent to the exam boards if the final exams do not continue as scheduled. This decision has caused a significant rise in the stress and mental pressure students are facing, as they have to cope with daily online lessons, revision, and now extra tests - that a seeming majority was not prepared for as final exams were meant to take place around 3 months later. With all the additional pressure, Hong Kong students are at a significant disadvantage and lack a fair opportunity. Being an international student in Year 11 myself, I can safely say a lack of motivation is clearly evident amongst students; mainly from having to deal with the added stress of the whole exam process for a longer period of time, and facing disruptions to the revision plans we had already set in place.

Needless to say, such measures have also taken a negative toll on the wellbeing of many local school students who have to sit their DSE exams from April 22nd onwards. Local schools were forced to follow the updated school calendar - and much like international school students - found the announcement to be made hastily with not enough consideration. I spoke to a local school student currently in S4 who initially thought the “administration was making a joke”, and called the announcement “absolutely absurd.”

Having to deal with the disruptions and hindrances made to university entrances with revised exam dates; several S6 students were forced to reschedule their summer plans. In an academically competitive environment like Hong Kong, many students aim to excel in public examinations and build a CV for themselves that will stand out by signing up for programmes, courses, and other activities mainly held during the months of July and August when summer holidays should be. But by having to follow these drastic measures, many have been forced to make changes to their calendar or unenroll from courses that run on a more global scale contributing to the declining motivation more and more students in the city face.

On the other hand, not all students have disliked the sudden shift to online learning or the early summer announcement. Some claimed it was a good opportunity to be able to gain more control over their revision, and others were glad to get a break from the atmosphere and exhaustion of online learning. That being said, others argued that having exams right after the summer break would only be a source of more pressure since many would have to spend their break revising and preparing for the exams based on a curriculum some had to rush to complete.

Being forced into a cycle of off-site, on-site learning; students in the city are getting frustrated with the lack of normalcy they have had to face in regards to their education and social interactions. With social gathering regulations tightening further, restricting students from seeing their friends, motivation has declined further. One student has claimed the whole situation this time around to be “boring and mentally draining”. Another expressed her frustrations by stating how “students aren’t motivated to do anything because there are no real consequences for them if they don’t”, and later adding how “every day feels like a chore”. With motivation falling just as fast as stress and pressure levels rising; will the early summer break turn out to be a wise decision? And finally, the growing frustration amongst Hong Kong students whilst the rest of the world paves the way towards normalcy; raises the long-overdue question of how much longer will students have to deal with the constant shift between face-to-face lessons and online learning?

THE CASE FOR SAVING The COVID-19 pandemic has hit hard around the world. Social activities have ceased, consumption and production have diminished, and the psychological burden on individuals locked at home is getting heavier by the second. Yet none of these impacts is more devastating than the public health crisis, which has manifested in more than 450 million infections and six million deaths worldwide.

DEVELOPING

The innate disadvantages of developing countries have exacerbated the effects that the pandemic has had on them. This development harms all international actors, particularly when considering the interconnected nature of the global economy. It is imperative that, for both moral and technical reasons, capable global stakeholders provide developing nations with the necessary medical and economic support.

COUNTRIES The Current Situation

illustration by Shawn Chan

Consequently, the developing world faces immense economic pressure under the pandemic. A report published by the United Nations in 2020 stated that labour-intensive African and Asian firms were operating at levels far below their capacities, owing to a drop in working hours due to infections, quarantining and supply chain disruption. These firms tended to produce manufactured goods, including garments and textiles. This directly impacted the exports of such goods, which contributed to 37% of the developing world’s exports before the pandemic. Similarly, tourism has suffered owing to a global decline in international travel. Hence, not only did people become unemployed because of the pandemic, but those in work also earned less income. As a result, extreme poverty in these countries rose by 35%.. The pandemic has also harmed the prospects of economic recovery and growth. It has been predicted that reduced economic activity will lead to the collapse of enterprises and, hence, the permanent loss of employment opportunities. This will likely hinder poverty reduction efforts. A drop in income has also reduced total savings, making financial institutions less capable of giving out loans and hindering economic development.

The most pressing issue in developing countries is the lack of medical resources. Only 14% of people in developing countries have received the first dose of COVID vaccines. This fact is even more mind-blowing when contrasted with the global first-dose vaccination rate: 63.8%. Secondly, the medical staff-to-population ratio of developed countries is 20 times higher than that of the third worlds. This suggests that lots of COVID patients in developing countries receive inadequate treatment.

Moreover, developing countries are also less capable of securing critical supplies, including PPE and COVID tests, than developed ones; surging demand for these items has driven up prices, meaning that they are often unaffordable in the eyes of underdeveloped nations. These hamper efforts to prevent the spread of the virus in the community.As a result, the pandemic has been a pressing concern in developing countries. The mortality rate of upper-middle-income countries rose by 2.5 times, lower-middle-income countries 12 times, and low-income countries 35 times in May 2021 compared to pre-pandemic. In contrast, the mortality rate of high-income countries dropped by 3%. The developing world also contributed 86% of the world’s excess deaths. Coupled with the estimation that, when only considering demographics, it should only have contributed 69% of excess deaths, owing to younger populations, the severity of the pandemic amongst developing countries is glaring.

Why should the Developed World Help?

At first glance, it may be the case that, whilst the suffering of the developing world is tragic, it is inconsequential to the economic recovery in progress in developed countries. Yet the ongoing trend of economic globalisation rejects national and regional boundaries and links the fates of seemingly unrelated polities and societies. A visualisation of this gives rise to a spider web, in which nodes are intertwined in sophisticated manners. Any damage developing economies take will negatively affect wealthier nations.

First, developing markets are crucial to global trade. Developing countries contributed 44% of GDP generated from global merchandise exports in 2017. Among these include foodstuffs and light manufacturing goods. These are generally products of lower production cost since businesses in developing countries are less capable of participating in industries that rely on capital investment than their counterparts in developed countries. It also helps that wages in developing countries are generally lower, incentivising producers to shift their production centres to these regions. This means that the products exported by developing countries are cheaper . A drop in the supply of these products implies that their prices will rise. Moreover, the growth of developing countries makes them increasingly significant importers of capital-intensive manufacturing goods, which developed countries are highly involved in producing. Significantly less economic activity in developing countries leads to a drop in demand for these products.

Hence, relevant producers in developed countries have reduced revenue, and the employment of related workers becomes insecure.

Second, developing countries are significant outlets of investment from developed countries. Developing countries generally have young populations who are valuable labour resources and willing consumers, and they add up to form large markets. Moreover, developing economies have more room for growth, as they have more under-utilised factors of production. As such, investment in developing countries has the potential to bring substantial returns. For one, such investment could increase the maturation level of related industries. Second, the large consumer market in such countries suggests that said growth will result in significant revenue.

The relatively lower production costs in these economies also imply sizable profits. For example, Africa has attracted quite some investment projects in recent years. These mainly include infrastructure development, energy production and agriculture. The pandemic and its adverse effects imply that developing countries can provide less labour to support these current and incoming investment projects, making such projects less profitable. As such, international corporations involved in related investment activities gain less revenue, limiting the flow of money and related resources in the global economy.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

How can the Developed World Help?

If the world wishes to restore the economic advantages of developing countries, it should take steps to ensure that labour is utilised efficiently and people actively consume . This requires that people in developing countries should be able to work and go about their lives without serious interference from the pandemic. A natural development of this idea would involve a global system of sharing vaccines with countries that cannot produce them; in fact, such a system already exists in the form of COVAX. Yet, the program has not achieved its desired effects. The program aimed to distribute 600 million vaccines by August 2021; in reality, only around a third were delivered. The direct result is dismally low vaccination rates in the developing world and a surge of excess deaths. Yet when we look at the vaccination rates in developed countries, we must ask why their leaders are pushing for more than two doses when so many people have not even received one.

Arguably, developing countries need vaccines more desperately than developed ones. When we remove vaccines from the equation, developed nations are far more well-equipped to combat the effects of the virus on public health. They have far more medical workers to care for patients, greater access to masks and protective gear, better living standards which imply a lesser risk of infection, and access to COVIDspecialised drugs. Most developing countries lack most of the above features. Hence, COVID vaccines arise as the most viable option for defending these states’ public health systems and the wellbeing of their citizens.

So, in the end, the order of business is simple: distribute vaccines more equitably.d. Quoting the WHO, “nobody wins the race until everyone wins.”

Photo by Theodor Lundqvist on Unsplash

I’ve heard many children ask questions like “What’s the Spanish flu?”, or “What’s polio?”. I hope that in a few decades, children will be asking “What’s Covid-19?”, though that day seemed to be in the distant future..

VACCINE DISTRIBUTION IN THE OMICRON ERA The distribution and rollout of vaccines shine a beacon that underpins the end to over 2 years of economic downturn. But are these processes necessarily ethical? I shall explore the disparities of vaccine distribution. In this context, vaccine distribution is defined as the distribution of Coronavirus vaccines, primarily of that from More Economically Developed Nations (MEDCs) to Less Economically Developed Nations (LEDCs).

The Pfizer-Biontech vaccine was the first thoroughly tested immunisation method for Covid-19. Having been developed a year after patient zero, the vaccine was hailed as a major health advancement, and it brought forth a race against time to immunise the global population.

As of late January 2022, over 4.73 billion people have received at least 1 Coronavirus vaccine dose. However, the New York Times World Vaccinations Tracker shows that less than 10% of the population in African countries are vaccinated. However, approximately over 60% of the “First World” is vaccinated. This raises two questions: what accounts for this disparity and how can we alleviate it?

Illustration by James Alexander

Whats going wrong?

One word - Supply. Apart from capital, supply stands as the progenitor of numerous problems regarding economic imbalances. Inevitably, the need for wealthy countries to swiftly vaccinate their citizens causes less developed countries to experience dire shortages of vaccines. World Health Organisation Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus pointed out that vaccine nationalism will inevitably lead to “the brink of “catastrophic moral failure.”

Vaccine nationalism, defined as countries selfishly pushing to get access to vaccines, undoubtedly hampers worldwide economic growth. This “me-first” approach indubitably assures that wealthy nations acquire enough vaccines to achieve herd immunity. However, as evidenced empirically, we are currently experiencing a slew of variants worldwide, from the Delta, ,Omicron, and the hybrid “Deltacron” variant - and the world needs speedy means of vaccine rollouts to eradicate this virus efficiently.

The main concern surrounding vaccine nationalism is that it severely hinders prospects of ending a global pandemic. Many developed countries employed bulk-buying, outpricing lesser-developed countries.These countries simply wouldn’t possess the vaccines to achieve herd immunity, even if herd immunity is achieved, there is still evidently a risk of transmission. It is also a well-known biological fact that the more exposure a virus has to a certain population, the more invasive it is; the risk of it developing mutations increase. This inevitably leads to severe economic downturns and more Covid restrictions.

Even among developed countries, the issue of vaccine inequity still remains a prevalent issue. As of March 2021, in the United States, only 26% of Blacks have been vaccinated (this disparity has been resolved). This issue chiefly ties in with systemic injustice and oppression of Black, Indigenous, and people of colour (BIPOC), for that disproportionate access to resources, coupled with weakening digital infrastructure (given that we’re experiencing over 3 million cases per day as of January 2022) only worsens our shared predicament.

Photo by Isaac Quesada on Unsplash

The solution?

There are two parts to this puzzle. The first key is transparency, which lays down the framework for ethical processes in vaccine rollouts. The second key is a cohesive and planned framework, accurately and precisely set to combat the virus in local communities.

Nurses and health officials are working tirelessly to cope with the deluge of Covid patients entering hospitals. Many first-world governments have been prioritising private sector services over the public sector. An ongoing vaccine monitor (Hamel et al. 2021) found that the majority of vaccinated individuals in the US identify as Democrats. Vaccine hesitancy stemming from long-term side effects of the vaccine. Citing fear of the unknown as the chief reason for vaccine hesitancy, it becomes obvious that a transparent vaccine framework is crucial moving forward.

“My body, my choice!” the streets, replete with unmasked protestors, cry. Their chief argument is that nobody wants to be subjected to any medical procedures against their will. They promulgate the rhetoric that individuals are the only driving force of one’s, despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary. In a society which values personal liberties, we tend to value and produce our own decisions with autonomy, with anything which remotely subvert these frameworks labelled an act of authoritarianism.

Schools and educational institutions are filled with educated personnel who will provide support for marginalised and vulnerable persons. When governments fail to take substantial action, these personnel will restore faith in our societies. This is where the importance of transparency comes into play - if we aren’t accountable, how can we make sure others count on us?

A cohesive framework is just as important as maintaining transparency. The reality is that we can’t coerce people for inoculation. The term is body autonomy - meaning we control our bodies, highlights the main source of the issue. Vaccine scepticism, or vaccine hesitancy, stems from our own fears. The socio-psychological theory of Moral Foundations delineates why vaccine sceptics have such an unrelenting desire for liberty. One of the tenets of Moral Foundations, being that of deference, shows that anti-vax individuals produce their own conclusions from their own moral intuitions. Unfounded conspiracy theories are also a main cause of vaccine hesitancy, especially in nations with wide access to electronic media. Do note that there are two types of vaccine-resistant people - “anti-vaxxers” l and people averse to covid vaccine; those who belong to the latter but not the former often derive their opinions from the internet.

“Things are looking good,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top pandemic advisor for the Biden administration, claimed. “We don’t want to get overconfident. But they look like they’re going in the right direction right now.” Have things gone full circle? Some theorists have called Covid a hoax, claiming that it is akin to the flu; though at this juncture, the Coronavirus is likely to become endemic.

Sure, a vaccine mandate may suppress the virus to some extent - but achieving full immunisation is foolish and unattainable. In fact, vaccine mandates are the most ideal course of action for a first-world nation, only limited by the readiness and eagerness of its people.

The world is hoping that this virus will end, despite us all thinking so in early 2020. The world has shocked us with Omicron, with more variants of varying severity to come in the future. Given that the flu has lived among us for hundreds of years, will we be able to tackle Covid like we’ve done with the flu?

COGNITIVE BIAS IN VACCINE HESITANCY Written by By Josephine Wong The pandemic has caused an unprecedented drastic change over the past two years in our lives, and while Hong Kong is coping with the fifth surge of COVID-19 since January 2022, there has been a low uptake of vaccines among many people here, and also on a global scale despite the vaccine proven to be safe of causing low risks for any side events that may occur. Currently, there are over 700 million vaccination doses given worldwide, which is equivalent to 65.1% –– just over half of the world population, leaving more than a third of the population unvaccinated.

According to the World Health Organisation, vaccine hesitancy is defined as “the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability in vaccine services''. There are rare circumstances where people with underlying health conditions should consult with physicians to help them make an informed decision of the potential risks associated with getting vaccinated, especially people who are immunocompromised that will raise the risk of adverse events. However, that leaves the rest of the people –– the majority who have a healthy immune system to get vaccinated safely, and cognitive biases are the one thing stopping them from doing so. Cognitive bias comes in many forms such as confirmation bias, omission bias and cognitive dissonance, which ultimately influences one’s decision making regarding taking the vaccine.

Confirmation bias is when people see what they want to see instead of believing the evidence that lies contrary to vaccine safety, as this “confirms” and provides reassurance that not getting vaccinated is the right decision, and this affects other side factors that influence the decision making (eg. children, other family members and loved ones).

A majority of people choose to “turn a blind eye to the copious research and evidence that shows the necessity of vaccines, and instead focus on any evidence that supports what they believe in order to feel better about their decision” says Dr. Rachelle M. Smith. There are other side factors that perpetuate the problem of denying getting vaccinated including the spread of misinformation on social media, where one might not be able to accurately evaluate the factuality of the information and presumably arrives at the conclusion that what is displayed is true, as well as medical mistrust among communities and the politicisation of COVID-19 where comments made by country leaders may heavily influence one’s decision on uptaking vaccines.

For instance, there is a vocal minority of doctors that spreads misinformation by making false claims about vaccines and even signing mask exemptions to gain profit in order to take advantage of the public trust, and yet there have been no consequences to such medical malpractice.

These “disinformation doctors” reinforce the confirmation bias of the general public into believing false claims about vaccines, and spreading lies off social media, websites, virtual conferences and more platforms for their own profit.

As mentioned earlier, cognitive biases triggered in vaccination decision-making is called omission bias, which is defined to be “the tendency to consider the outcomes of not doing an action as less severe than doing the commission even if the result of not doing it is more severe than or equal to doing the action”. This applies to the case of vaccination reluctance when disease risks appear comparable or favour receiving vaccination. Another common type of cognitive bias is cognitive dissonance, which occurs when “an individual has conflicting thoughts or behaviour.” “To ease the discomfort, the individual either needs to change the behaviour or change the belief,” claimed Smith. Some parents may trust the effectiveness of vaccines, especially amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, but are afraid that it may have adverse effects on their children, and decide not to give the vaccines to them in order to eliminate the dissonance. Here poses the challenge of the need for people who have vaccine hesitancy to be aware and counteract our innate cognitive biases that construct misconceptions regarding vaccine’s reliability and safety when evidence proves otherwise.

On the other hand, we frequently use the discussion ploy of black and white thinking by reducing the possible perspectives in this situation to only two options. First, deniers may present their ideas so they only appear to only want what is best and safe for their children, whereas the health authorities may only represent financial interests.

This polarisation is the driving force of the spread of misinformation because it prevents further discussion between the two opposing parties. Hence this suggests that this issue needs to be depolarized, and the spokesperson needs to respond to this technique by reframing from using the black and white pattern by embracing the deniers, acknowledging that they are coming from good intentions and creating a sense of consensus.

To combat our innate cognitive bias towards decision making of receiving the vaccination, one simple step we can take is to make data more accessible, as open access publication becomes the norm of the publishing landscape, and to correct the tools that the scientific community can use to reduce the chances of misperception regarding vaccine safety and misconceptions. Overall, it’s worth thinking about ways to help the general public contextualise and interpret accurate data that can be freely accessed to educate others.

Socioeconomic implications of COVID-19 on developing countries Written by Betty Chan

T

he escalating spread of COVID-19 has posed the gravest threat, not only to the world economy, but also to lives and livelihoods. In a heavily globalised and interconnected world, this has translated into a state of unparalleled economic catastrophe, particularly in developing countries.

In this article, the unique challenges posed by COVID-19 to the South Asian and African economies will be examined.

First, a picture of the pre-COVID South Asian region has to be painted to facilitate understanding of its socioeconomic situation.

In many South Asian countries, people lack access to basic services such as clean water, sanitation and hygiene facilities. For example, close to 42% of households in Afghanistan are compelled to use unsafe drinking water as more than 50% do not have access to water and soap to wash hands. These challenges are reinforced by the fact that 70% of Afghanistan's population lives in rural areas, primarily dependent on agriculture and without any health or social protection.

Furthermore, many South Asian countries have poor health care systems. Afghanistan, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal and India average about 5 physicians per 10,000 people, proving to be disastrous for the healthcare system.

These are just some of the deplorable conditions in South Asian regions that explain why the region has suffered more dire socioeconomic consequences from the pandemic.

South Asian countries have taken very stringent measures to contain the spread of the corona virus and save people’s lives.

Except for a few essential services, economic activities have primarily shut down, travel is banned, movement of goods and services is restricted and cross-border movement is closed.

Regional and global supply chains have been disrupted, mostly in the South Asian region. While the current policy measures of physical distancing are critical for saving people’s lives and combating the spread of the coronavirus, they have disrupted the most important source of foreign currency for the South Asian population.

South Asian countries rely on foreign remittances as one of the main sources of household income. Remittances from migrant workers serve as a lifeline for families, which contribute significantly to the national economy. For instance, in Nepal, remittances contributed about 27% of the national GDP in 2019.

India is the largest receiver of international remittance, not only in the region but globally. In other South Asian countries the remittance-GDP ratio was 8.2% in Sri Lanka, 7.9% in Pakistan, 5.8% in Bangladesh and 4.6% in Afghanistan in 2019. With closure of the remittance transfer businesses, loss of employment abroad, and absence of travel back home, remittance inflow in South Asia has declined significantly.

Internal migration also contributes significantly in supporting families and ensuring food security for the poorer rural areas.

Villagers migrate to urban centers to support their families residing in rural areas. Many internal migrant workers currently reside in poor conditions, with many losing their jobs and unable to return home due to disruptions in public transport services and movement restrictions. This is the reality for most migrant workers, especially those working in sectors of informal employment and living in overcrowded slums.

Lockdowns, travel bans, and social distancing measures in response to the COVID-19 crisis have disproportionately affected poor and vulnerable internal migrant workers, who have found themselves stranded, unable to return either to their places of work or their communities of origin.

Next, the situation in sub-Saharan African countries, namely Ethiopia, Malawi, Nigeria, and Uganda, will be addressed.

As countries declare states of emergency and issue stay-athome orders, hundreds of millions of individuals in lowincome countries begin to find themselves out of work, both in the formal and informal labour markets. 256 million individuals— 77% of the population across the aforementioned four countries— live in households that have lost income due to the pandemic.

Income losses are paramount to the worsening circumstances in developing countries as they may have reverberating impacts on other elements of the socioeconomic status of the household.

Households struggle to access medicine, staple foods, and education. Since the closure of schools and the issuance of emergency stay-athome orders, people across the 4 countries have suffered a variety of economic shocks, including job loss, and the insufficient farm produce.

From an educational standpoint, before the pandemic, an estimated 96% of teenagers were attending school. Following the outbreak and school closures, teenagers engaging in any learning activity fell to around 46% . These estimates amount to 68 million teenagers across the four countries without any education engagement. The lack of education is likely to have long-term impacts.

Educational attainment plays a large part in determining the future socioeconomic status of the sub-Saharan African population.

To conclude, much needed light has to be shed on socioeconomic obstacles encountered by developing countries during the pandemic, as its far-reaching implications are hindering millions of lives and livelihoods.

OBESITY RATES SOAR AMID COVID-19 PANDEMIC Written by Kayla Chan

Research data has shown that obesity rates for young people have been on the rise since the start of the pandemic, and experts suspect lower activity levels and higher stress due to the need to quarantine during the pandemic may be the culprit.

According to preliminary data, millions have been affected by this “obesity boom”, with teens across the world from the United States to China being hit hard. The health department of Hong Kong expressed concern over the increasing rates of obesity among students.

The situation seems to be more prevalent among teens and young adults (Gen Z), as a 2021 report showed over half of the members of the population observed “undesired weight gain” due to the pandemic.

Obesity highlighting systematic inequalities According to research conducted by the American Psychological Association last year, the higher obesity rates also have an intersectional aspect: marginalised groups in America, such as Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous populations, as well as lowerincome groups, are more vulnerable to obesity during the pandemic. Experts suggest this may be linked to the fact that those groups are less insulated against the disease and its adverse financial consequences, so the increased stress may have played a role. “Those disparities have been amplified by the pandemic,” said psychologist Amy Walters.

Risk factors heightened by quarantine Some factors experts are considering are that the lockdowns have reduced opportunities for exercise, and stress levels may also affect dietary and hormonal issues. Many of the changes brought by the pandemic are also ones that are linked to obesity, such as increased screen time, a lack of sleep, and higher levels of stress. In particular, online school has hindered healthy lifestyles as well.

In Hong Kong, the issue is especially prevalent among younger students, particularly junior primary and lower secondary students. According to the health department’s findings from last year, about one in five (20.2%) of young students visiting student health centres were overweight, a sharp increase from last year’s 13.9%. For students in their first year of secondary school, the figure was even bleaker - a startling 24.1%, almost a quarter of all Form 1 students.

Dr Thomas Chung from the health department suggested lifestyle changes due to the pandemic as the major contributing factor. “People went out less.

Children were not able to attend school in person.

Their lifestyle and dietary habits changed,” he said.

Obesity increases risk of dangerous diseases, experts warn: These increased obesity rates are a worrying sign, heralding possible obesity-related illnesses.

High blood pressure and cholesterol levels make individuals more likely to develop heart disease, while diabetes and cancer are some other serious consequences of obesity. Obesity particularly spells trouble in the age of COVID-19 as body weight is linked to a higher risk of severe consequences from the disease.

The most serious cases of COVID-19 so far have been in patients with obesity, reports have shown. An analysis of data published in Obesity Reviews has shown those with obesity are 113% more likely to be hospitalised due to COVID-19. They are also 74% more likely to need to enter the ICU, and have a 48% higher death rate. The analysis’s findings have sobering implications for those who have put on unhealthy amounts of weight during the pandemic.

Naveed Sattar of the University of Glasgow stated that the connection is strong. “It seems to be a linear line, straight up,” he said in reference to the graph of BMI (body mass index) against the risk of severe COVID-19.

There are several reasons as to why COVID-19 is exaggerated by obesity, according to experts. One such factor is abdominal fat. A high volume of such results in the diagram being forced upwards, which restricts lung volume and thus airflow. This could potentially cause airways to collapse, which would amplify the effects of COVID-19’s symptoms.

Furthermore, blood clotting in the lungs due to obesity is also a risk. Normally, blood vessels in the lungs are signaled by surrounding endothelial cells to prevent clotting, but as such cells are damaged by COVID-19, the risk of clotting is increased.

Finally, immune systems are weakened in people with obesity, which makes them more susceptible to infection by COVID. Studies have shown that fewer, weaker immune cells are produced in people with obesity. Thus, COVID-19 not only makes people more at risk of obesity, a population with increasing rates of obesity is also at higher risk of COVID-19, creating a catch-22.

HOW COVID-19 HAS EXACERBATED INEQUALITIES Unprecedented levels of inequality have existed even before the pandemic, and Covid19 has only exacerbated the situation. The costs of recessions have hit some harder than others, and the benefits of economic growth continue to lift some and leave others behind. In this essay, I will examine Covid-19’s impact on different aspects of inequality.

Two often-cited kinds of economic inequality are those of wealth and income. 'The stock market is not the economy" is a phrase often heard during the pandemic.

It implies that while the economy is performing poorly and many are suffering, the stock market remains unaffected.

This simple saying illustrates the economic inequality faced within developed countries with advanced economies, which I will elaborate on in the following paragraphs.

Since the start of the pandemic, the bottom 50% of people have gained only US $700 billion in wealth, whereas the richest 1% have gained $10 trillion in the US. As the ownership of stocks is concentrated among the wealthy, when the stock market booms, their wealth increases significantly. But the bottom class do not benefit from it at all. The bottom 60% of earners hold only 7% of stocks by value and don't hold much of their wealth in financial assets. The central banks’ policies, which include ultra low interest rates, QE and bonds buying, have provided great liquidity to the financial market. Along with the futurefocused mechanism of the stock market, the fact that shares are concentrated at the top, with the pandemic leaving markets unaffected, and the rise in corporate profits, the market just booms. The price of the financial assets and real estate have surged due to easy credit.

Individuals with assets at hand will not be affected by quantitative easing, but will rather see their wealth grow.

The upper class, with an abundance of liquidity, can benefit from the above monetary policies, but people who don't invest in the stock market see the loss of value in their wealth due to inflation. Moreover, as lower-income borrowers already saddled with debt can’t ypically access the ultralow rates, they tend to have trouble accessing funding from banks entirely, exacerbating inequality.

Written by Yannes Chan

As the pandemic accelerates digitalization, owners of big tech companies have seen their wealth skyrocket. On the other hand, those on lower incomes don’t tend to own capital, thus, failing to reap the benefits. White-collar employees remain mostly unscathed from the sharp downturn in 2020. On the contrary, service workers who were historically low paid already, have been devastated by the closure amid lockdowns and other restrictions.

Several low-wage jobs may be permanently destroyed by the pandemic. In addition, many women have been forced to quit as they have to take care of their children. Policies implemented by the Fed last year benefit big companies the most, due to low borrowing costs. Along with technological development during the pandemic, tech corporations have profited greatly. This enhances monopolization and dominance of major companies, resulting in monopsony, a situation where there are a lot of sellers (eg. workers) but only a few buyers (companies that are hiring). This results in workers’ loss of wage bargaining power. This market dominance and financialization leads to sharp increases in the market capitalisation, with rise in executive pay, employees pay closely follows. Wages for employees in major companies will differ greatly from those in others, enhancing income inequality.

As the French economist Thomas Piketty has pointed out, "the return of capital is much higher than the growth rate of output during the pandemic, especially in the UK." Moreover, despite the unstable economic recovery leading to losses and massive layoffs in some companies, many

CEOs are still being rewarded with generous compensation packages which increase the gap between the pay of CEOs and workers. Hilton, where nearly a quarter of the corporate staff were laid off and $720 million were lost, saw its chief executive receive compensation worth $55.9 million. And C.E.O. pay jumped 14.1 percent last year compared with 2019, while median workers got only a 1.9 percent raise. Those at the top not only secure their job positions, they see their wealth booming under the policies, while others need to quit their jobs. This results in inequality.

Most schools have shifted to online learning, but digital access is spread inequitably across various groups. In schools with a large number of low-income students, many teachers say their pupils faced technology limitations.

Moreover, in Outliers, Gladwell observed that after the holidays, kids from lower income groups who previously outperformed those from higher ones suddenly fall behind them. He concluded that the parents of the kids from higher-income families are more likely to make sure their kids use the extra time smartly. However those from lower income groups have neither the guidance nor resources.

And with the schools being locked down for months, kids from higher income groups are given an edge in learning.

Covid-19 disproportionately affected people from low socio-economic backgrounds and there is a higher rate of infection and death resulting from covid among these people. These include low income people and people of color. They are more easily infected due to the poor living and working environments (eg. factories, service sectors).

There is a lack of space, airflow and safety measures, the crowded environment exposes people to the highly transmissible virus. Since a lot of interactions with people are needed in the service industry, these workers are at a much higher risk. Many blue collar workers face the choice of either keeping their jobs and income or being exposed to the virus. In contrast, the white collar employees work at home, reducing the exposure to the virus. When infected, it is more difficult for poor people who live in rural areas to gain access to healthcare. There is also severe inequality in vaccination between different races.

Economic inequality, educational inequality, health inequality are all interrelated. Economic inequality leads to educational inequality due to the difference in investment on kids’ education between households with a great income difference. Educational inequality also exacerbates economic inequality as the difference in educational level results in a greater difference in income from work. Health inequality is caused by economic inequality. If the poor’s health is bad, they are unable to work more, resulting in an even lower income. While the rich with a healthy body are able to put all the time into work. Regarding the relation between education and health inequalities, education level determines a person’s

knowledge on health related issues. People with a high educational level know how to keep healthy, while less educated people usually do not, leading to health inequality. As personal and family health issues distract the poor from learning, health inequality causes educational inequality. Hence, different kinds of inequality are interrelated and the increase in severity of one kind inevitably gives rise to other kinds of inequalities.

There is a great gap in economic situation between developed and developing countries (apart from China).

To ensure a smooth economic recovery, countries must first prevent the spread of virus through vaccinating citizens. However, vaccines aren’t distributed equally: Rich countries have about twice the population of lowincome countries, yet they have received about 50 times as many Covid-19 vaccine doses. The Covid-19 pandemic has also disrupted the supply chains. Vaccines, with their delicate handling requirements, as well as vital components like syringes and vials, have been vulnerable to these disruptions. The vaccine gap between rich and poor countries is now at its most severe. Economically, many developing economies are especially dependent on revenue and jobs from hard-hit service sectors such as tourism. Overnight lending rates are zero or negative in advanced economies, but they average more than 4% in developing economies. Even worse, the burden of debt might force governments to change to austerity mode, making it more challenging for a recovery. Concerning educational inequality, across the developing world, online schooling isn’t possible as Wi-Fi aren’t routinely available and the poor can’t afford to gain access to the internet. More than 800 million students still have no access to a computer, according to an U.N report. There are much higher dropout rates in these countries. The gap between the situation and recovery of developed and developing countries widens.

The Biden administration rolled out plans, including a trillion dollar infrastructure bill, spending and tax credits to support the labor force by investing in child care, paid leave and free community college. The measures are meant to help workers who are left behind and people of color. They would be funded partly by taxes on the rich.

The pandemic rebound is more equitable than it would be without a proactive government response.

The policies taken so far have brought us out of the worst scenarios, but the large disparity of the benefits received by different social groups (in US and the UK, but predominantly the US) has had important negative impacts on the economy. On the bright side, policies have determined the level of inequality to a great extent and Covid-19 has undoubtedly raised awareness of the issue among the public, invoking urgency of enacting different policies for alleviation of inequality.

HAS COVID-19 INTENSIFIED RACISM IN “ASIA’S WORLD CITY”?

“

“

Written by Dia Bharwani

The darker you are, the worse you're treated, said Zaran Vachha.

Whilst going about his regular day, Vachha was distracted by an intoxicated woman - unconscious. He rushed to her aid, before dashing into a convenience store to buy her a bottle of water. As he returned, police - who thought he’d drugged her - pinned him against a wall before handcuffing him. Unfortunately, Vachha was used to behaviour involving repetitive spitting, cussing, and rejection.

Although Hong Kong is referred to as “Asia’s World City,” does it really live up to its reputation? With the recent outbreak of Covid-19, society has proved that the pandemic and racism make an ugly mix.

The pandemic has caused major disruption in people’s lives. For most ethnic minorities, it has significantly impacted their livelihood. Hong Kong government authorities, legislators, and news sources have spread unreasonable depictions of darker-skinned minorities as a source of blame for the spreading of the virus.

Raymond Ho Lei-ming, head of the Health Promotion Branch at the Centre for Health Protection, was reported to have said in January 2021: “[South Asians] have many family gatherings and like to gather with fellow countrymen. They like to share food, smoke, drink alcohol and chat together. If it is without masks, the risk is high.

They also need to share sanitary facilities with neighbours if the living environment is crowded.”

With a quarter of the population of ethnic minorities living in poverty, it is difficult to escape crowded living circumstances. However, group activities are common among Hong Kong’s dense population and aren’t specific to any particular ethnicities. Thus, minorities should not be held accountable for the spread of the pandemic.

Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, tried to diffuse the situation by saying that nothing implied ethnicity contributed to the spread of the virus. Instead “social behaviours, living conditions and workplace hygiene” were at fault. However, this clarification did little to reduce prejudice as ethnic minorities have continued to be targeted and oftentimes shunned at work.

As approximately 92% of Hong Kong’s population is ethnic Chinese, it is easy for minorities to be dismissed and discriminated against. Many ethnic minorities have been in Hong Kong for decades. Despite their work to integrate into society, they are often undervalued due to language barriers and cultural biases. This limits employment opportunities, leading to lives of hardship.

Most of these challenges stem from the lack of access to the local education stream and challenges in securing stable jobs.

Discriminatory prejudices are passed down through generations. “Gwai Lou” (ghost person) is used by ethnic Chinese people to refer to white people. The term “Ah Cha” (the lowly) that is used to denote North Indian heritage has been banned by the Broadcasting Authority in Hong Kong, but is still commonly used in conversation.

The Equal Opportunities Commission additionally confirmed that some property owners refused to lease their apartments to minorities. Minorities have also been rejected when opening bank accounts. This was already prevalent pre-Covid, but the pandemic has exacerbated the problem.

In May 2021, the New York Times reported that a local Hong Kong Resident refused to sit next to a migrant domestic worker in a noodle shop, due to a fear of the virus. This was soon after the Hong Kong government executed compulsory testing orders to the city’s 370,000 migrant workers in fear of a public outbreak.

Migrant workers were the only group to be targeted for compulsory mass testing within a specific time. The actions of the government promoted discriminatory behaviour.

Sarah Pun, vice chair of the Union of Nepalese Domestic Workers, said that many employers requested their helpers to forgo their weekly day off, while employers themselves continued to go out. Migrant domestic workers being charged HK$5,000 in fines for breaking social distancing rules is also an unaffordable and unreasonable penalty considering their total average monthly salary of HK$4,630.

Initially, in efforts to curb the spread of the virus, lockdowns were targeting mostly poor areas with high proportions of minorities, rather than directly infected areas. In Yau Tsim Mong, a district populated by ethnic minorities, residents were not informed properly due to communication barriers. The food provided during the lockdown was not consistent with their religious beliefs and thus could not be consumed. This was especially problematic for minorities because most could not afford to miss a day’s work. With no other options and a lack of sympathy, many did not know what to do. The government's Covid-19 control efforts could have been rooted in indirect racism and prejudices.

Views being shared on social media show a concerning trend of increased racism corresponding to local infections. With racial slurs and xenophobia being so vivid in society, it seems the virus is not only dragging us apart physically, but also mentally. The media’s promotion of such stereotypes is also causing a greater divide between ethnic minorities and the ethnic Chinese. Furthermore, the encouragement of such unjustifiable treatment conceals the fact that “ethnic minorities are also Hong Kongers and are working just as hard to prevent getting COVID-19,” as said by Jianne Soriano, a journalist of Filipino descent.

Although the Race Discrimination Ordinance has issued policies against racial discrimination, these policies have only been enforced a handful of times and discrimination is still starkly apparent in society today. The effect of Covid-19 has intensified racism in Hong Kong, and most immigrants have their own experiences to share.

In spite of Hong Kong’s first world reputation, prejudices are still rampant. Many of the local Chinese are in denial of the underlying reality, failing to move forward in making a change. Systemic Racism needs to end.

Legislation can only go so far. Certain actions should done to alleviate this problem, such as movements like Black Lives Matter which have been promoted by Americans who notice their wrongs and aspire to correct them; celebrating Racial Harmony Day as done in Singapore; providing improved educational attainment opportunities for ethnic minorities, as promoted in the UK; or simply taking the first step through preventing discriminatory media.

Through education and affirmative action, Hong Kong can have the thread of racial harmony knitted inextricably into its society.

THE RECKONING THAT WASN’T TO BE: COVID-19 AND HONG KONG’S WELFARE STATE Written by Abhay Venkitaraman

With the onset of the fifth wave, it’s clear that the spectre of Covid-19 continues to haunt Hong Kong. Our economy continues to flail in the face of continued social distancing guidelines, mandatory business closures, and inbound travel restrictions. The end result is that many a business has been forced to shutter, the ranks of the unemployed have swollen, and many still on their employer’s payroll have had to take wage cuts.

Our city’s most vulnerable have been hit particularly hard by this disruption, with 1.65 million Hongkongers being forced into poverty in 2020: the most since reporting began 12 years ago. Whilst this figure fell after accounting for government transfers, the pandemic has nonetheless exposed the myriad of yawning cracks that exist within Hong Kong’s welfare state, laying bare the flaws within a system that fails to protect those that need it most.

The past three years have presented the government with a prime opportunity to reform welfare so that it genuinely allays the desperation and deprivation of lower-income residents in the city. The fact that this has not occurred is testament to the callous disregard that Hong Kong’s leading officials hold for our most vulnerable.

Hong Kong’s welfare state is relatively stingy judging by international standards. During the 2018-19 fiscal year, public social spending in the city stood at roughly 6% of GDP, as opposed to an average of 20% of GDP in the OECD: a community of economically-developed nations.

Outside of healthcare and education, benefits such as the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme (CSSA) are set at meagre levels, and are rigorously means-tested, meaning that they are only available to those on lower

incomes. There is a distinct lack of social insurance policies that are commonplace across much of the developed world, such as a universal pension scheme, or an unemployment benefits programme.

Much of this can be attributed to the government’s driving economic principle of “big market, small government”, where the role of the state is largely seen as facilitating the smooth operation of market forces.

Furthermore, some argue that Confucian principles oriented around self-reliance and the ethic of familial duty - have moulded an arrangement where most welfare provision is left to the individual and family unit.

Means-tested benefits are infamous for being fraught with stigma. Claimants are often unfairly criticised for supposed indolence and moral failure. Moreover, invasive and demeaning application processes frequently deter lower-income residents from applying for benefits that they desperately need to make ends meet.

This was no different from Hong Kong’s Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA): a government programme that aims to provide a supplementary income to lower-income residents. A 2007 report by the antipoverty NGO Oxfam and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University described the CSSA application procedure as being “humiliating and intimidating”, with applicants recounting instances of rude, callous behaviour on the part of social security officers.

The consequences of this were immediately apparent during the early stages of the pandemic. A survey of the unemployed in 2020 showed that roughly 70% of respondents were unwilling to apply for the CSSA, with

most citing social stigma and the application process as factors. More recently, anecdotal accounts describe how poor residents, stricken by illness and unemployment, preferred to scavenge for restaurant leftovers in the dead of night, rather than seeking government aid.

To be fair, the government has - albeit temporarily - embraced universalism with its provision of consumption vouchers to Hong Kong permanent residents. However, two of Hong Kong’s most indigent groups - refugees and domestic helpers - were excluded from receiving these handouts.

Even in normal circumstances, this mistreatment is par for the course. Refugees, who are deprived of many essential rights such as employment, have historically only received a monthly subsidy worth roughly HK$3,000. Unable to afford masks and other sanitary products, many with chronic health conditions have been left unable to attend medical appointments. Furthermore, a recent study by the Refugee Concern Network - a local NGO - noted that 73% of refugees and asylum seekers were unable to purchase food from late February to early March when panic-buying forced up prices.

The dearth of sufficient protection for domestic helpers has also been laid bare. Typically paid vastly less than the minimum wage, there have been numerous instances of helpers being left homeless and without medical insurance, after being fired simply for contracting COVID-19.

Money aside, the exclusion of disadvantaged groups from social welfare provision is problematic because of the message that it sends. In many ways, the welfare state is a manifestation of solidarity: a belief that as members of a society it is imperative for us to work together to protect those facing hardship.

By preventing domestic helpers and refugees from receiving state assistance, the government is implicitly denoting these groups as being separate from - rather than a part of - our society. This perpetuates prevailing sentiments o

of marginalisation and social exclusion.

The lack of support for the unemployed is yet another failure.

In the face of an unemployment rate that has reached as high as 7% during the pandemic - more than double what it typically stood at pre-pandemic - the government has consistently rebuffed calls for a permanent unemployment benefit scheme.

Calls for such a policy are hardly unreasonable.

Unemployment insurance was already commonplace in much of the developed world pre-pandemic, with a centrepiece of the CARES Act - a fiscal stimulus package in the US aiming to address the economic impact of the pandemic - being the allocation of an addition US$600 per week to the unemployed.

Moreover, some economists suggest that the policy could bolster labour productivity, as providing people with a lifeline whilst they are out of work allows them to take the time to find a job that fits them. By choosing to ignore society-wide clarion calls for a permanent unemployment benefit from NGOs such as the HKCSS, not only is the government failing to address the concerns of those who have lost their livelihoods, but is it also ignoring basic economic sense.

Whether it’s massively-deficient meanstesting, a paucity of support for marginalised groups, or inadequate provisions for the unemployed, it is undeniable that Hong Kong’s safety net is replete with gaping chasms that trap hundreds of thousands of people in poverty. There is ample room for reform, given the city’s advanced economy and bountiful fiscal reserves. As such, the government’s failure to pursue meaningful changes of the welfare system, even as the pandemic has highlighted just how necessary this is, is nothing short of shameful neglect. By unabatingly clinging to antiquated laissez-faire dogma, our city’s leaders have left us unprepared for future crises, perpetuating mass poverty and painting a grim picture for the years ahead.

How Work Culture has been Affected by the Pandemic Co-written by Jerry Luo and Christine Chiou As COVID-19 cases rise, many employees and companies have been forced to switch to work-from-home arrangements, with communication through applications such as Zoom becoming the norm. But what have the consequences, if any, of such a dramatic shift been, and will online work become the new normal?

As COVID-19 cases rise, many employees and companies have been forced to switch to work-from-home arrangements, with communication through applications such as Zoom becoming the norm. But what have the consequences, if any, of such a dramatic shift been, and will online work become the new normal?

The COVID-19 pandemic brought on a new method of work that was unimaginable not long ago, alongside sweeping restrictions and strategies. While it was meant to be a temporary measure, people are beginning to ask if it would be better if work and learning were to stay online. While many readers will offer their protests, the answer is more

complicated than one might expect due to the advent of new technologies such as the Metaverse.

The first question that needs to be asked is whether the duties that most jobs entail can be conducted online in the first place.

The answer is most likely yes for whitecollar jobs, with 97% of legal work and 88% of business and finance-related jobs able to be done from home. The same could not be said for blue-collar jobs, with transportation and primary industry jobs at 3% and 1% respectively. Hence, this part of the article will focus more on white-collar jobs.

Technology has now rejected the dogma of the face-to-face workplace. With more efficient video conferencing software, the document-sharing, co-authored Google Docs, and the recent advent of the Metaverse, which allows for “face-to-face” work using virtual reality (VR) software, companies eliminate a significant cost – office rent and maintenance – if they adopt a work-from-home model. Seven in ten businesses in the United States permanently closed office spaces during the pandemic, with some moving their entire workplace online. With significant cost savings and utilitarian digital tools, continuing the mantra of “working online” is highly enticing. However, it also forebodes a myriad of adverse effects on work culture and productivity.

Teamwork and relationships play an integral role in work efficiency. However, an online platform simply does not provide these. Employees need to be physically present for trust to be effectively built, and the act of showing up at the workplace indicates that the employee is committed to the job, by virtue of the fact that they are making an effort to travel. Although online employment does, in theory, cut down commuting time, it also means that employees are more likely to wake up, say, 30 minutes before work starts. I am certain that many students wake up just minutes before registration with barely enough time to have breakfast. Employees are therefore more susceptible to torpor, thus significantly hindering productivity.

As many have probably experienced, distractions are highly prevalent while working online. This means that employers have to employ more stringent checkins and excessive micromanagement, which will considerably emasculate employees’ autonomy, demotivating them and even hindering innovation.

However, this is not to say that online work is bad as it often depends on the business. For example, a telemarketing firm may very well benefit from employing at-home employees rather than assembling huge call centers. Technological advancements may also change this, as the newly introduced Metaverse provides VR conferences that simulate real-life interactions. However, one thing is certain – the online environment can never truly replace face-to-face interactions.

The dramatic shift to online work for many office workers has undoubtedly made a major impact on the overall work culture. For starters, working from home has made it harder for employees to form relationships with others in the workplace. And for many, in the absence of such relationships, it fosters social isolation. This newfound sense of detachment has lowered morale and called into question what we define as good company culture. The lack of a physical means of separation of work and leisure time has meant overworking for some and slacking off for others. The abundance of distractions at home can make it harder to concentrate, and the freedom to take breaks whenever one wants to can make it challenging for one to stay motivated.

In what has been termed the ‘Great Resignation’, a record 44.7 million Americans (CNN, 2022) voluntarily quit their jobs in 2021. But, as an unexpected consequence, companies have begun offering higher wages, more benefits and flexible schedules to retain their workforce. While resignations have increased, so have new hires.

Not only that, but the shift online has allowed employees to work from the safety of their own homes, which has shortened commute times and allowed for more freedom with time management. These shortened commute times have freed up many hours which might have otherwise been spent stuck in traffic, saving time and money, as well as having a positive impact on the environment. Punctuality is suddenly a lot more simple without the hour-long bus ride you need to take, decreasing the chance of being late for a meeting. Without being tied down by the mandated nine-to-five routine, employees can manage their own schedules and select times when they feel they work best.

For an astonishing number of people, all of this has meant increased productivity levels. A study done recently by Quartz found that in a group of 2,100 people, 52% felt more purposeful in their work since the start of the pandemic. Another study in 2014 led by Stanford professor Nicholas Bloom found that in comparing remote workers at a Chinese travel agency, working from home led to a 13% increase in performance.

Furthermore, the internet and online applications have erased geographical boundaries, allowing people from all over the globe to collaborate effectively. With the wonders of technology nowadays, someone from across the world is just one click of a button away, and since the pandemic, an increasing number of people are now more aware and comfortable with using this technology, normalizing this type of workplace communication. Additionally, people have access to a wider range of job opportunities that aren’t limited by their current geographical location. Remote work can also encourage companies to embrace diversity and inclusion by allowing for the hiring of people from different backgrounds, without their location getting in the way.

Like many things, the impact of online work is not black and white, and the shift online has had both benefits and downsides. From advancement and growth to struggles and setbacks, one person’s experience can wildly differ from another’s, and a consensus has yet to be formed. So, we’ll let you decide: do the benefits of online work outweigh the disadvantages or is the opposite the case?

Illustration by Sophia LIn

The Positive Effects of COVID-19

By Christine Chiou 439 million cases. 5.96 million deaths. COVID-19 has been undeniably detrimental to society, causing economic and social disruption, including a massive increase in the poverty rate and global deaths. So the words ‘positive’ and ‘COVID-19’ together seem like a mistake. However, all the problems the pandemic has raised may not have only negative consequences.

01.

An Awakening First, the pandemic has served as a not-so-gentle reminder to the world of the importance of preventing such pandemics. In this century, no virus ever managed to effectively wake up the modern-day world to the dangers of even a single viral outbreak. That is until COVID-19 came along.

Judging by history, the eventual emergence of a virus outbreak was predictable. Yet, the pandemic took us all by shock. Despite calls from the scientific community, the world was woefully unprepared for such a situation. Time had faded the warnings from the major pandemics of the past. While other more recent mini pandemics such as SARS and Ebola have happened, after they died out, they were deemed inconsequential for the future and swiftly forgotten by most of the public, especially those not directly affected by them.

So at the beginning of the pandemic, alarm bells were significantly muted. The government and people (save the medical community) did not regard the virus as a serious threat until it was too late. A week after the World Health Organisation (WHO) announced the virus, even in major newspapers - such as CNN, New York Times, and the Daily Mail - the virus did not even get a mention. In contrast, they were still churning out headlines about Trump’s impeachment, Russian trolls, and celebrity gossip. It took nearly a month for the virus to be declared a public health emergency in the United States and, a whole month after that, a national emergency.

However, if better preventative measures (e.g. immediate warnings, and swifter lockdowns) were already in place at the beginning of the pandemic and public awareness was raised, the catastrophic spread of the virus could have been limited. Therefore, this pandemic could serve to remind the government and modern-day society to be more careful and aware of the dangers of viral infections. And when the next virus emerges, be it another century or only another couple of years, adequate prevention measures, coupled with heightened public and governmental scrutiny, can stop it in its tracks.

02.

In addition, the rate of infection for other diseases, such as influenza, have all reduced. The majority are now more receptive to the government and the medical community’s advice on hygiene, health, and disease prevention measures which contribute to a decline in the infection rates of other diseases, and should continue to contribute to this decline even after the pandemic. Furthermore, the social distancing and lockdown measures have made it harder for other diseases to spread.

The Byproducts of Staying at Home As more people stay at home, this also brought about other positive impacts.

For starters, crime rates are dropping, especially in burglary and assault, the most common property and violent crimes respectively. As more people decide to stay in the safety of their own homes, burglars are less likely to rob their homes or attempt assault. Though some crimes, such as domestic violence, are rising, a rapid decrease in most crime categories has caused a substantial drop in the overall crime rate.

Traffic levels are reducing as well.

According to the International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, traffic volume has decreased by a whopping 4050%. This has two major benefits.

One, the more obvious, fewer cars means fewer greenhouse gases released. Two, cutting down traffic congestion. Fewer cars on the roads mean people can reach destinations faster. Being stuck in traffic is not only annoying and unnecessarily time-consuming, but it also takes a huge burden on the environment and energy resources. Idling engines increase vehicle emissions and air pollution significantly, and angry drivers raise noise levels. These are all unpleasant for everyone.

03.

The Environmental Impact Finally, since COVID-19, there has been a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and water & air pollution. For years, industrialization has only increased, placing a heavy burden on mother nature. But after the closure of several industries and companies and a decrease in tourism and travel, nature is taking a much-needed break.

In 2020, after boat traffic cleared in Venice, the waters became clear once more, and striped dolphins and fish were seen for the first time in years swimming in the canals.

Furthermore, satellite images from NASA have shown a dramatic decrease in nitrogen dioxide and carbon dioxide levels; in some cities, numbers have reduced by almost half. This kind of reduction would have taken years of arguing, resolving, and campaigning to resolve. According to the European Environment Agency, in 2019, 307,000 people in the EU died prematurely due to exposure to fine particulate matter pollution. But since the pandemic, new air quality guidelines have been achieved, which could have prevented a minimum of 58% or 178,000 premature deaths in 2019. By this estimate, far more than a hundred thousand premature deaths have been prevented each year in the EU alone.

However, experts predict that once the pandemic is over, the level of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution will skyrocket to heights even worse than before. So we must appreciate the clear air and blue skies and continue to make an effort after the pandemic to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

04.

Other changes What’s more, the wild animal trade has been exposed as a danger to humans. The black plague was spread by diseased rats, yellow fever by mosquitoes, influenza by birds and AIDS by chimpanzees, among others. Today, the genetic analysis of COVID-19 points to bats.

Though cross-species pathogens are rare and require close contact, they are often deadly.

Now, more action is being undertaken by governments (especially in China) for tighter regulation and policing of rules concerning the animal trade.

This will reduce the potential of future pandemics and monitor the mistreatment and abuse of animals.

The medical community has also greatly improved vaccine technology amidst the pandemic, pushed by increased funding and huge demand.

For example, mRNA vaccines, which were employed to combat the Ebola virus, were never fully developed or commercially produced outside of a few African countries. The pandemic effectively popularised this technology; hence, companies are beginning to look at them to combat the spread of other viruses.

Conclusion All this isn’t to say that COVID-19 has overall been a pleasant experience, and the damage it has caused should not be minimised in any way. Millions of lives have been lost, more families are in poverty, and economies have temporarily collapsed.

It has increased hazardous medical waste, the use of single-use plastics (think of your masks and takeout containers), and has lessened recycling activities.

But we must remind ourselves there is always a ray of light in the dark. And we should take the pandemic as a learning experience both environmentally and socially; to continue protecting our environment to maintain the blue skies we have today and to prevent the spread of future viral infections.

2nd Ed.

ISSI HK

2n

A

Ed.