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10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
return loss中文 在 君子馬蘭頭 - Ivan Li 李聲揚 Facebook 的最讚貼文
[Karma is a bitch(*)]你估唔到嘅風險,先真係風險嘛。
1. 3715呢單嘢,真係十分多嘢可以講。唔知上文下理嘅,睇返舊文,期油價大跌令到3175狂跌(https://bit.ly/3eEoVVo)。然後前晚(星期三)仲忽然改玩法,唔等到去五月,將六月期油roll去七月,索性而家即時轉去九月(https://bit.ly/3cFwrh4)
2. 用比較接近人話嘅講法:就係幫你平倉,幫你打靶,止咗蝕,但之後冇仇報咁咯。
3. 咁首先,你就見到,昨日(星期四)隻3175當然跌到趴街—但可能冇做嗰個動作跌得仲勁,唔識計,搵高人計下。至少你見到,原油價去到負數,「你隻3175都只係插一半唔夠,要還神」
4. 但正如三叔在個公告講,「缺點是假如 2020 年 6 月合約的市場價格在未來反彈,投資者可能無法享受持有 2020 年 6 月合約的任何好處」
5. 結果,昨晚(星期四)咪即彈咯!即時冇仇報!低位已被人打靶!
6. 但,我最初冇寫,但真係唔意外—其實你見好多時都係咁,啲人人買嘅嘢,災難性低位打靶後,個市就回升的了。市場滿係血,屠殺埋最痴線嘅好友,就係見底之日。
7. 而呢壇嘢,只能講句,不可抗力,甚至好似唔係好應該怪三叔(雖然我好想問:如果我沽空咗隻3715又點計?),佢話「保障你最大利益」嘛。
8. 事實上,我同啲比較信得過嘅朋友傾,普遍都覺得負油價呢樣嘢誇大咗,唔會係新常態,只係咁啱某個時刻,某啲要某度交付嘅期油,係做過下呢種價。唔代表以後要貼錢先有人要。
9. 但,就係呢幾下,已經搞到世界大亂。我懷疑啲行自己都冇諗過有呢啲情況,你問我我都冇諗呢啲情況。真係世界大亂。亦唔止三叔隻ETF係咁。美國嘅原油ETF都有類似嘅東西(https://bit.ly/2wZdWF0)。另一方面,中國銀行嘅咩原油寶 (https://bit.ly/2wYALZp)亦都上頭條。因為佢唔係ETF,ETF頂多total loss—但原來有嘢慘過total loss—就係銀行向你追差價。其實等於孖展炒爆咁啫,只不過買嗰個開頭可能都唔知,以為最多去到零,原來可以要倒嘔。
10. 歸根究底,真係市場耐唔耐有一鑊咁嘅嘢。風平浪靜時有時都有,而家呢啲又波動又經濟大衰退又忽然減息,往往就蝴蝶效應,唔知拍死咗邊個。
11. 唔係完全一樣,但個故事,同2018年2月”Volmageddon"幾相似,都係一大堆散戶,買ETF,當時就係咁買反向波幅,即係不停咁short VIX (又叫Vol,波幅指數)。但你背後嘅東西唔係股票指數或黃金。結果一逆轉,個Vol一抽上去,瘋狂人踩人。
12. (https://bit.ly/3buCPaP)(https://bit.ly/3byd60U)
13. 而當年成件事最正嘅係:Short 足幾年Vol嘅固然贏成千日,然後一晚輸清晒,但long Vol嘅,一樣係死(主要因為時間值)!即係買邊兩都死(https://econ.st/3eK6RJq)
14. 今次堆期油ETF,你見係好多好多散戶仆入去嘅。唔止香港,美國都係。而我完全唔知點解。兩星期前我未聽過2371,之後可以20億成交一日,差不多等於匯控同建行加埋。咩事?
15. 另外仲想分享嘅係:風險。好似好簡單嘅嘢,但其實好似冇人說得準。學院派CFA咪講vol,sigma,standard deviation,dispersion from expected return,天氣不似預期,log normal distribution(**)乜乜物物。
16. 但明顯係有問題,唔識log normal都好,都聽過下standard deviation。對不?掟粒骰仔,預期值係3.5。1固然係dispersion,但6一樣係!你放落股票度就搞笑啦。輸錢係風險,但贏錢都當風險?於是又有人發明咗只係要下半截嘅風險(當年我地戲稱為「無上裝」),但代入啲式都又係煩過梵高。
17. 講遠咗少少,想講嘅係:真正嘅風險,唔係vol,係在你估唔到嘅地方。唔想講「黑天鵝」(發明嗰個好執著的),但係類似嘅東西。3月呢啲咁嘅肚瀉式股市下跌,誇張,但唔係冇諗過。舊年你同我講3月股市會一兩星期跌三四成,我會唔信,但至少我知你講乜。但你話我知油價係負數,我就唔知你講乜,頂多話你知「只係理論上會發生」
18. 即係,你男朋友係陳冠希,咁佢偷食就唔係真風險!但你男朋友係正氣先生司徒華,佢都去偷食,就黑天鵝啦!
19. 買股票大跌唔係真黑天鵝,你買嗰時都知股票會跌。買債券然後佢清盤,都唔算。但你買咩原油ETF出現呢啲咁嘅嘢,甚至好似原油寶咁要倒嘔,就真係風險啦。
20. 好似唔關事但其實關事嘅故事:《一級雙雄》(Rush),入面Niki Lauda,有日耳曼人式嘅冷靜計算(特登造到同英國人James Hunt狂放做對比)。好似有場係落雨,佢就唔肯落場之類(大意)。聽落好矛盾,喂,賽車手都怕死?要知道,1970年代嘅賽車手,真係好易死。Niki Lauda戲入面有講,拿,我每次開車落場呢,都預咗有20%嘅機會死的(***),呢個係我嘅選擇,我由做賽車手第一日已經知 — 但額外嘅風險,我係唔會制嘅。
(*)真人真事,當年有某女同事問某男同事呢句嘢中文係乜,男同事答曰:羅凱珊正八婆。男同事唔係我啦
(**)呢度仲衍生咗個好大鑊嘅問題:啲公司嘅risk management tool,都係啲數佬整嘅—我有理由懷疑早兩晚係炒晒粉的—因為人地冇預你油價可以負數—因為log normal distribution係不能出負數的。10嘅幾多次方係負30呢?你咪撚話我知你部機計complex number。咁同樣地,你log 負數,有乜後果呢?另文講下。
(***)數學膠可以睇文(https://bbc.in/2XWptjv),其實混淆咗個概念。當然係唔會一場有20%機會死,其實係0.35%—但你玩足5季,就真係有兩成機會死的。
——————————————-
版務:收費專欄已推出,支持埃汾高質文章。幾舊水睇三個月,一星期三篇
請去呢度訂:bit.ly/2wVXndj
課程編號填: CC01
科咗水後後有Login及Password畀你
逢一三五入去 homebloggerhk.com (見到就睇到《事先張揚》),亦睇得返以前嘅文。一般我都係會黃昏出文嘅。
return loss中文 在 Moms Gone Strong 勁媽遊樂園 Facebook 的最佳解答
好文一篇~~~沒時間用中文劃重點,大家來練習英文閱讀吧!!
不過有一句很重要 --> Remember: It wasn't the kettlebell that hurt your back but how you USED the kettlebell that hurt your back.
切記,不是"壺鈴"傷了你的背,而是"你怎麼用壺鈴"傷了你的背。
所以當你使用壺鈴受傷了,請勿責怪這個偉大的工具,而是要思考自己是怎麼使用壺鈴,是否有找專業的指導教練喔~
Kettlebells: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
Here are a few notes, mostly scribbled up at random, on how I feel the kettlebell is best used, and some of its shortcomings.
The Good.
**For Strength: Here the BEST application of the kettlebell is for upper body pressing strength and maybe front squats. In all other ways the barbell (or even your own bodyweight) is better.
That said, how strong do you need to be? The kettlebell can develop more than enough "everyday" strength in all major lifts (pushing, pulling, hinging, squatting, etc).
**For Fat Loss: Where the kettlebell really shines is for metabolic conditioning. The compact nature of the cast iron, and how it lets you transition seamlessly between movements, makes it just absolutely marvelous for short, intense, sweaty workouts.
Surely you can use a barbell, or even dumbbells, for something like complexes, but they don't feel as good or as right as the kettlebell does.
**Return on Investment: The kettlebell is convenient, easy to learn (under the guidance of a good coach), and covers about 80% of all the fitness you could need (strength, flexibility, mobility, metabolic conditioning, fat loss, etc).
The Bad.
** For Strength: If you want to go beyond just "everyday" strength the kettlebell starts to show its shortcomings. In other words, don't expect to develop any overly impressive deadlift with kettlebells alone.
**The Dogma: Somehow, and I'm not going to say I'm not partly to blame, because I am, but there is a strong, almost zealotic attachment to kettlebells for a lot of people.
Just remember it's not the tool that matters, but the method. Don't lose out on the benefits of training with other implements because you feel some deep-rooted romantic notion to defend and use only the kettlebell.
The Ugly.
** Technique: This is not the kettlebell's fault, but the coach's, nor is it exclusive to the kettlebell, but I see more bad technique in swings, cleans, snatches and get ups than I care to count.
Remember: It wasn't the kettlebell that hurt your back but how you USED the kettlebell that hurt your back. The kettlebell has no vendetta against you personally, I swear.
So be judicious. Get a coach--a competent coach--to teach you. There are plenty out there. You just have to be willing to look.
Strong ON!
- Pat