National responses to covid-19: drivers, complexities, and uncertainties in the first year of the pandemic (original) (raw)
Related papers
BMJ
Box 1: Methods We selected 28 countries on 6 November 2020, reflecting the reported death toll at the time (box 2). Countries selected include positive and negative outliers in relation to reported covid-19 deaths per capita among highly populous countries, as well as countries in the middle ground from different regions and with widely varying health systems and economic statuses. Given the evolving nature of the pandemic, we acknowledge that performance measured in reported deaths per capita has since changed. Ethical approval was obtained from the National University of Singapore. Three complementary methods were adopted and triangulated to analyse national responses to covid-19: • Literature review-Using standardised methods, we identified peer reviewed papers and public reports that examined national and subnational policy responses and extracted data for each country on five dimensions comprising 62 items. The dimensions and items were identified through a review of 14 existing frameworks. • Semi-structured interviews and national government submissions-A total of 43 interviews and written submissions were provided between November 2020 and April 2021. Semistructured interviews with covid-19 national experts in policy, operations, and academia were recorded and transcribed in full. Interviewees were based across Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia, with representatives spanning the four sectors. All interviews were coded through an inductive approach and thematic analysis, using QSR NVivo 12 Software, drawing on techniques of the constant comparison method. • Validation of country specific data-Semi-structured interviews, written consultations, and round table discussions were conducted with 45 country experts. When we identified conflicting information from different sources, we validated our data by contacting experts to help address and resolve inconsistencies. In March 2021, national and international experts in covid-19 policies participated in two round table discussions. Experts reflected on the findings and provided written or verbal feedback. Experts also provided short presentations of their own countries, which were then used by the research team to validate the data in the report.
Contextualizing the Outcomes of COVID-19 Global Response
This contribution sought to explicate the nature of and make sense of the global organizing response to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic. Through recourse to an analytical framework anchored on a critical realist synthesis, the contribution highlights how context (C) and generative mechanisms (M) comingle to define the logic of current outcomes (O) linked to the COVID-19 global response. By elevating contextual conditions linked to global governance shifts, interests and outcomes of global health security capability and technological accountability (or lack of); specific generative mechanisms were identified that explicate outcomes of current global COVID-19 organizing response. Three fundamental outcomes are proffered: the first elevates the outcome of disaster or shock capitalism as the pre-eminent neoliberal monetarist logic that is currently defining the global response to the pandemic. The second outcome brings forth the "herd" mentality characterizing the spate of national lockdowns, social distancing and contact tracing conceived under the banner of "collective vulnerability". Lastly, and recognizing that a common conversational tone is critical in combating pandemics, minimizing "collective equivocality" should form part of a repertoire of strategies for fostering positive behavioural change. The implications call for a consideration of a requisite variety of options that underpin each outcome to make COVID-19 organizing responses relevant to different contexts.
Health Responses During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An International Strategy and Experience Analysis
Sharing experiences and learning from health measures taken during the outbreak of epidemics is a critical issue that affects the right and timely decisions in health crises. In the present study, an attempt has been made to review the health policies adopted against COVID-19 and extract critical points for resolving the epidemic crisis. Materials and Methods: This article was a comparative study. The study population comprised Canada, Japan, Germany, Korea, Turkey, and Iran. Ten effective indicators in the management of epidemics were extracted by reviewing the literature and interviewing disaster management experts, and the degree of conformity of the research community with them was examined. The study data were collected from articles published in scientific databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus search engines) or information from COVID-19 disease management organizations from official sites. The obtained data were processed and analyzed by matrix content analysis. Results: The results showed the importance of 10 effective indicators in the management of epidemics during the outbreak of COVID-19 studied and noticed by the health system of most countries. And the government, local and private organizations have participated in the implementation of the studied indicators according to the conditions of each country's health system. Therefore, the success rate of countries in managing COVID-19 disease varies according to the time, type, and manner of implementation and monitoring of measures. Conclusion: Speed of action in adopting health policies and integration in its implementation, construction of convalescence, adequate training and access to personal protective equipment, prevention of nosocomial contamination, and voluntary assistance are essential issues in the fight against epidemics. These measures should be considered and used as teachings in managing health crises, especially emerging diseases and pandemics.
Journal of Global Health, 2021
Background Variation in the approaches taken to contain the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic at country level has been shaped by economic and political considerations, technical capacity, and assumptions about public behaviours. To address the limited application of learning from previous pandemics, this study aimed to analyse perceived facilitators and inhibitors during the pandemic and to inform the development of an assessment tool for pandemic response planning. Methods A cross-sectional electronic survey of health and non-health care professionals (5 May-5 June 2020) in six languages, with respondents recruited via email, social media and website posting. Participants were asked to score inhibitors (-10 to 0) or facilitators (0 to +10) impacting country response to COVID-19 from the following domains-Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Ecological, Legislative, and wider Industry (the PESTELI framework). Participants were then asked to explain their responses using free text. Descriptive and thematic analysis was followed by triangulation with the literature and expert validation to develop the assessment tool, which was then compared with four existing pandemic planning frameworks.
Editorial: Public Policy Responses in a Time of Pandemic
2020
Understanding Public Policy requires an analysis of the legislation, programmes, and policy guidelines, which are set up by governments to respond to the socioeconomic and political needs of society, and the impact of the policies themselves. Most public policies are aimed at guiding the delivery of public goods and services. However, some policies are designed to bring about change, whilst others seek to respond to change. Public policy is an expression of the commitment (political will), or lack thereof, on the part of a government to act on issues that affect society. The effectiveness of the public policy, can be best evaluated through an examination of the governance mechanisms adopted to achieve policy implementation, and the change brought about as a result of the policy. Here, governance refers to the strategies adopted to employ the laws, whilst balancing elements of monitoring, evaluation, accountability, inclusiveness and equity, among others. The effect of the changes, framed by the public policy, is generally the result of government formulating relevant guiding principles for public administration to carry out the policy agenda. The policy agenda outlines who gets what and how, and serves as the interface between the political will and administrative functions of government. Research into Public Policy, requires an understanding of the processes which guide the formation, implementation, monitoring & evaluation, and impact of policies, in response to issues that affect citizens, as the policies are indicative statements of what a government intends to do, and an absence of public policy would suggest the lack of political will to act in that area (Anderson 2011; Birkland 2011; Dye 2013; Dye 1972; Lasswell 2018). The declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic is one such issue which, unlike other steady issues presented a crises situation, and
2021
Background: The pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a timely reminder of the nature and impact of Public Health Emergencies of International Concern. As of 27 May 2021, there were over 169 million cases and over 3.5 million deaths notified since the start of the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic takes variable shapes and forms in different regions and countries of the world. The objective of this study is to analyse the COVID-19 pandemic so that lessons can be learned towards an effective public health emergency response. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study to understand the heterogeneity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Correlation analysis and scatter plot were employed for the quantitative data. We used Spearman’s correlation analysis. Thematic analysis was conducted on the qualitative data to explain the findings from the quantitative data.Results: We have found that regions and countries with high human development index are most affected by COVID-19 due to intern...
Are we there yet? The transition from response to recovery for the COVID-19 pandemic
Progress in Disaster Science, 2020
There is no corner of the planet that has not been impacted by the rapid spread of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. While the COVID-19 pandemic has already had far-reaching socioeconomic consequences commonly associated with natural hazards (such as disruption to society, economic damage, and loss of lives), the response of governments around the world has been unparalleled and unlike anything seen before. Governments are faced with a myriad of multi-dimensional effects of the pandemic, including direct impacts on public health systems and population health and indirect socioeconomic effects including disruption to every single sector of the economy and mass unemployment. There is, additionally, the growing realisation that the timescale associated with this crisis may permanently change the very foundations of societies‘normal’ day-to-day life. As the world transitions to recovering from COVID-19, those developing that recovery need support in adjusting and improving their policies and measures. The situation seems dire, the stakes are high. Literature about the transition between the response and recovery phase in relation to pandemics is scarce. A further complication is that the pandemic will not allow countries to simply transition to the full-scale recovery, instead, a rebound from recovery to response phase is expected for a certain period until the immunization is in place. Pandemics indeed force us to think beyond typical emergency management structures; the cycles of the disaster risk management in the case of biological and other natural hazards are not exactly the same and no one-size-fits-all approach may be used. Still, some parallels may be drawn with the efforts to combat natural hazards and some lessons may be used from previous and the current pandemic. Based on these experiences and reflections, this paper provides a set of policy directions to be considered during the transition towards, as well as throughout, this transition phase. It is suggested that meeting this global, multi-dimensional, and complex challenge will require considerable international collaboration (even convention) and macro-scale changes to global and national policies. The recovery issues are mainly going to be dominated by politics, economics and social science. Necessary for an effective recovery, the pandemic response needs to be a holistic response, combined with an improved data ecosystem between the public health system and the community. We should also view this outbreak and our response to it as an opportunity to learn lessons and reaffirm our universal commitment to sustainable development and enhancing wellbeing around the world.