International Role Models

South Korea has been a shining model in its successful response to COVID-19 through early detection and effective containment (Exemplars, 2020). The country created the Epidemic Support Investigation System (ESIS), an automated system implemented by the government which pulls data from credit card transactions, cell phone locations, and even CCTV footage to reconstruct infection pathways and identify individuals whose routes overlap (Yan et al., 2020). Additionally, South Korea’s universal healthcare system made testing accessible with free drive-through options (Yamey, 2020). South Korea formed these advanced systems out of government health reforms created by the country’s previous exposure to Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in 2015 (Exemplars, 2020). MERS caused a cultural shift among citizens who, after witnessing the fatalities of respiratory diseases, considered dispersal of health information and participation in preventative health measures a civic duty (Yan et al., 2020). So, in general, the South Korean people were supportive of ESIS’s launch and rapid testing early in March when only four cases of COVID-19 had been identified in the country (Yan et al., 2020).

It is important to note that the success of these preventative measures was not completely based on citizens’ “goodwill” alone. The South Korean government implemented a zero-tolerance policy for those who violate preventative guidelines, such as fines up to $8,000 and even jail time for breaking advised self-isolation rules (Shin, 2020). Ultimately it was a combination of civic participation, rapid accessible testing, and health measures enforced by threats of fines and jail time that allowed South Korea to be a front-runner in flattening the epidemic curve.

Although the U.S. could benefit from using a similar platform to ESIS, it would not be feasible considering the country already struggles to implement effective infection-tracking methods due to a lack of public cooperation in providing personal information (Yan et al., 2020). Therefore, it is likely that an invasive monitoring platform would cause an uproar. There are also inconsistent punishments for disobeying preventative measures in the U.S. as each state has the autonomy to implement its own rules. In addition, despite possessing the capabilities to replicate the South Korean rapid testing, the U.S. falls short due to its privatized healthcare system. Privatization allows companies to charge and mandate symptom requirements for COVID-19 tests, making them widely inaccessible to the general population.

Despite being the first country hit by the SARS-CoV-2, China was among the most successful countries to control the pandemic. China had previous experience with SARS in 2003 and their initial unpreparedness taught the government how to handle future pandemics (AlTakarli, 2020). The officials realized the danger of COVID-19 and immediately implemented a centralized epidemic response system, which was the “crucial factor” in China’s response (Burki, 2020). Much like South Korea, citizens had experienced disease outbreaks and understood the dangers of COVID-19, compelling them to follow guidelines strictly (Burki, 2020). Additionally, the city of Wuhan was placed under strict lockdown for 76 days, and there were drones rebuking citizens who failed to follow the rules (Burki, 2020). People received phone calls asking them to return home if they failed to follow self-quarantine measures (Gunia, 2020). Although these methods were effective in China, this invasion of privacy and freedom would be unacceptable in the U.S.

China also implemented other less invasive measures that were critical to their success. There were over 14,000 health checkpoints set up in Wuhan’s public transport hubs (Burki, 2020), over 1,800 teams of epidemiologists that focused on tracing thousands of people a day in Wuhan alone (AlTakarli, 2020), and two COVID-19 central hospitals that were built in less than two weeks (Liu, et al 2020). However, despite China’s quick national response, they were several weeks late in reporting cases to the WHO, hiding information that could have raised international awareness sooner.

The U.S. lacks the strong centralized government that allowed China to be successful in implementing necessary Covid-19 regulations. Instead, every state acts independently, which makes it very difficult to control the pandemic nationally. The U.S. could have emulated the same quick response, contact tracing, epidemiologists, and resources as China when the pandemic hit.

By the end of November 2020, New Zealand had recorded 25 COVID-19 deaths, according to John Hopkins data. At the same time, the U.S. averaged about 1,500 deaths daily (Togoh, 2020). One factor of New Zealand’s success in controlling the pandemic is an early government response, led by prime minister Jacinda Ardern. Ardern implemented speedy testing, contract tracing, isolation, and physical distancing measures three days after WHO declared coronavirus to be an international emergency on January 30, 2020. Updates and assessments from WHO continue to guide the country’s response (WHO 2020). In addition, Ardern’s administration provides clear and regular public communication in which they emphasize the priority to minimize harm to lives in order to minimize harm to livelihoods. This emphasis motivates New Zealanders’ willingness to endure short-term negative financial consequences to save more lives in the long-run. Citizens also understand they must endure longer shut-down measures now to recover more quickly as a country in the future (Wilson, 2020).

New Zealand also requires those coming into the country to stay in military-managed quarantine facilities for 14 days (WHO 2020). According to New Zealand’s COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, a person who intentionally fails to comply with a COVID-19 order faces 6-month imprisonment or a $4,000 fine. In addition to sensible responses, New Zealand benefits from being geographically isolated, having a low population density, and being affected by the pandemic later, which allowed them more time to learn from others (Wilson, 2020).

Upon comparing the U.S. to New Zealand, we find many differences in the American response that led to their failure in controlling the pandemic. Like Ardern, the Trump administration could have responded to the pandemic earlier, followed updates and guidance from the WHO, communicated the extent of the pandemic to its citizens, created quarantine facilities for people traveling into the country, and implemented national punishment guidelines for breaching precautionary measures. Although it is too late to change response time, implementing the other measures now could still significantly reduce the number of cases.