As I understand it, the closure of Mai Po is not related to the risk of wild birds carrying H5N1 over long distances (as discussed in this paper). This has always been a controversial topic, and it is interesting to see the latest evidence. Closure of the reserve is related to the risk of people contracting H5N1 from wild birds. There is absolutely no evidence that this has ever occurred anywhere in the world. The closure of Mai Po is therefore based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. It is a knee-jerk reaction by government to give the impression that they are doing something to "protect" the HK population.
Personally, I think a far more appropriate response would be to post details of the case at the entrance to Mai Po and let visitors decide whether to take the risk of entering the reserve. If an individual is worried about catching H5N1, they need not visit Mai Po, there is no need to penalise those of us who have made an informed decision that Mai Po is safe. Closure of the reserve also gives the impression to the public that the true risk to people comes from wild birds (again, there is no evidence to back this up), which could have significant implications for conservation.
In this particular case, the closure of Mai Po seems really ridiculous given that the speices affected is commoner outside the reserve, and is certainly in closer contact with people while breeding in nearby villages!
