Policy disparities in fighting COVID-19 among Japan, Italy, Singapore and China

Abstract

Objective In order to provide experiences for international epidemic control, this study systematically summarized the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention and control policies in Japan, Italy, China and Singapore, and also analyzed the possible inequalities that exist in these response approaches to improve global infectious disease control. Methods We summarized the epidemic prevention and control policies in Japan, Italy, China, and Singapore, and analyzed the policy effects of these four countries by using the data published by Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Results As of May 27, 2020, the growing trend of new cases in Japan, Italy, China and Singapore has stabilized. However, the cumulative number of confirmed cases (231139) and case-fatality rate (14.3%) in Italy far exceeded those in the other three countries, and the effect of epidemic control was inferior. Singapore began to experience a domestic resurgence after April 5, with a cumulative number of confirmed cases reaching 32,876, but the case-fatality rate remained extremely low (0.1%). The growth of cumulative confirmed cases in China (84547) was almost stagnant, and the case-fatality rate was low (5.5%). The growth of cumulative confirmed cases in Japan (16661) increased slowly, and the case-fatality rate (4.8%) was slightly lower than that in China. Conclusion This study divided the epidemic prevention and control policies of the four countries into two categories: the blocking measures adopted by China and Singapore, and the mitigation measures adopted by Japan and Italy. According to the Epidemic control results of these four countries, we can conclude that the blocking measures were generally effective. As the core strategy of blocking measures, admitting mild patients into hospital and cases tracing helped curb the spread of the outbreak in Singapore and China. Countries should choose appropriate response strategies on the premise of considering their own situation, increase investment in health resources to ensure global health equity, and eventually control the spread of infectious diseases in the world effectively.

Control measures during the COVID-19 outbreak reduced the transmission of hand, foot, and mouth disease

“…Countries across the globe have adopted a series of corresponding control measures to contain the spread of the epidemic. At the beginning of the outbreak, China launched a first-level response to public health emergencies as quickly as possible, and effectively controlled the transmission of COVID-19 through intervention measures such as suspension of classes and work, cancellation of gathering activities, and closed management of rural areas and communities 4 , 5 , 6 . Such control measures have not only suppressed the spread of COVID-19 but also limited the spread of other infectious diseases.…”

Investigation of Health Science Students' Knowledge Regarding Healthy Lifestyle Promotion During the Spread of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…Nonetheless, policy making, and governmental legislations are crucial elements to ensure prevention as well as control of the COVID-19 Pandemic in their own countries. Thus, investments in health resources and funding, taking desired precautionary measures and choosing appropriate response strategies are all essential solutions to control and minimize the spread and effect of this pandemic globally ( 26 , 27 ).…”

Coronavirus Disease Mortality: Understanding Regional Differences

“…During the pandemic, various measures were taken, such as strict public health measures aimed at reducing the spread of the contagion, including home isolation, travel restrictions, crowd avoidance via social distancing, universal masking, and lockdown (7)(8)(9). Countries that adopted strict measures (China and Singapore) were more successful than those that applied mitigating measures (Italy) (10). Italy later implemented a national lockdown and followed social containments, but these measures were too late (11).…”