To provide experience for formulating prevention and control policies, this study analyzed the effectiveness of the Coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) prevention and control policies, and evaluated health equity and epidemic cooperation among BRICS countries.This study summarized the pandemic prevention and control policies in BRICS countries and evaluated the effectiveness of those policies by extracting COVID-19 related data from official websites.As of May 4, 2021, responding to COVID-19. China adopted containment strategies. China's total confirmed cases (102,560) were stable, without a second pandemic peak, and the total deaths per million (3.37) were much lower than others. India and South Africa who adopted intermediate strategies have similar pandemic curves, total confirmed cases in India (20,664,979) surpassed South Africa (1,586,148) as the highest in five countries, but total deaths per million (163.90) lower than South Africa (919.11). Brazil and Russia adopted mitigation strategies. Total confirmed cases in Brazil (14,856,888) and Russia (4,784,497) continued to increase, and Brazil's total deaths per million (1,936.34) is higher than Russia (751.50) and other countries.This study shows BRICS countries implemented different epidemic interventions. Containment strategy is more effective than intermediate strategy and mitigation strategy in limiting the spread of COVID-19. Especially when a strict containment strategy is implemented in an early stage, but premature relaxation of restrictions may lead to rebounding. It is a good choice to combat COVID-19 by improving the inclusiveness of intervention policies, deepening BRICS epidemic cooperation, and increasing health equities.
Background. This study is aimed at confirming the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical interventions during the COVID-19 outbreak in Hubei, China. Methods. The data are all from the epidemic information released by the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China and the Health Commission of Hubei Province. We used the multivariable linear regression by the SPSS 19.0 software: the cumulative number of confirmed cases, the cumulative number of cured cases, and the number of daily severe cases were taken as dependent variables, and the six policies, including the Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism of the State Council, lockdown Wuhan city, the first-level response to public health emergencies, the expansion of medical insurance coverage to suspected patients, mobile cabin hospitals, and counterpart assistance in Hubei province, were gradually entered into multiple linear regression models as independent variables. Results. The factors influencing the cumulative number of diagnosed cases ranged from large to small: mobile cabin hospitals and the expansion of medical insurance coverage to suspected patients. The factors influencing the cumulative number of cured cases ranged from large to small: counterpart support medical teams in Hubei province and mobile cabin hospitals. The factors influencing the number of daily severe cases ranged from large to small: mobile cabin hospitals and the expansion of medical insurance coverage to suspected patients. Conclusion. The mobile cabin hospital is a major reason for the successfully defeating COVID-19 in China. As COVID-19 pandemic spreads globally, the mobile cabin hospital is a successful experience in formulating policies to defeat COVID-19 for other countries in the outbreak phase.
Abstract Objective This study aims to compare the differences in COVID-19 prevention and control policies adopted by the United Kingdom (UK) during the first wave (31 January 2020 to 6 September 2020) and the second wave (7 September 2020 to 12 April 2021), and analyze the effectiveness of the policies, so as to provide empirical experience for the prevention and control of COVID-19. Methods We systematically summarized the pandemic prevention and control policies of the UK from official websites and government documents, collated the epidemiological data from 31 January 2020 to 12 April 2021, and analyzed the effectiveness of the two waves of pandemic prevention and control policies. Results The main pandemic prevention and control policies adopted by the UK include surveillance and testing measures, border control measures, community and social measures, blockade measures, health care measures, COVID-19 vaccination measure, and relaxed pandemic prevention measures. The new cases per day curve showed only one peak in the first wave and two peaks in the second wave. The number of new cases per million in the second wave was much higher than that in the first wave, and the curve fluctuated less. The difference between mortality per million was small, and the curve fluctuated widely. Conclusion During the first and second waves of COVID-19, the UK implemented three lockdowns and managed to slow the spread of the pandemic. The UK’s experience in mitigating the second wave proves that advancing COVID-19 vaccination needs to be accompanied by ongoing implementation of non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the transmission rate of infection. And a stricter lockdown ensures that the containment effect is maximized during the lockdown period. In addition, these three lockdowns featured distinct mitigation strategies and the UK’s response to COVID-19 is mitigation strategy that reduce new cases in the short term, but with the risk of the pandemic rebound.
This study aimed to make a comparative analysis of the public health containment measures between China and India, explore the causes of the serious COVID-19 epidemic in India, and eventually to improve global infectious disease control.We extracted publicly available data from official websites, summarized the containment measures implemented in China and India, and assessed their effectiveness.China has responded to the COVID-19 outbreak with strict public health containment measures, including lockdown of Wuhan city, active case tracing, and large-scale testing, ultimately preventing a large increase in daily new cases and maintaining a low mortality rate per million population (as of May 5, 2021, daily new cases were 11 and mortality rate per million population was 3.37). India, although imposing a national lockdown to control the pandemic, has not implemented strict testing, tracking, and quarantine measures due to the overburdened healthcare system. Combined with massive lockdown, it has accelerated human mobility and exacerbated the epidemic, resulting in a rapid increase in daily new cases and a high mortality rate per million population (as of May 5, 2021, daily new cases were 412,431 and mortality rate per million population was 166.79).China and India implemented public health containment measures to contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic based on their national situations. Meanwhile, daily new cases and mortality of COVID-19 also were affected by environmental and socioeconomic. Countries make a comprehensive strategy not only in terms of the biological, pharmaceutical, health, and sanitation sectors but also based on sustainability science and environmental science.
Abstract To provide valuable experience for other countries currently fighting the COVID-19 pandemic by systematically analyzing the effects of control policies on coping with COVID-19 in Guangdong Province of China. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods to systematically analyze the effects of control policies on fighting COVID-19 with official data in Guangdong Province. Between January 19, 2020 and February 26, 2020, Guangdong Province issued 6 critical control policies to cope with COVID-19 and achieved effects in the following 3-phase. Guangdong Province implemented 6 control policies in 3-phase and finally successfully defeated the COVID-19. In the first phase, the first 4 control policies showed initial effects on COVID-19 epidemic control. In the second phase, the last 2 control policies greatly contributed to containing the COVID-19 epidemic. In the third phase, the 6 control policies completely overcame the COVID-19 in Guangdong Province, China.
In order to describe the Chinese experience for the purposes of global epidemic control, the study analyzed the impact on the COVID-19 pandemic of policies adopted during the lockdown of Wuhan city. Descriptive analysis and stepwise regression analysis were performed using the official case data from January 10, 2020 to April 8, 2020. The results show that the prevention and control policies of Lockdown Wuhan City (LWC) has played a significant role in reducing new case numbers, improving COVID-19's cure rate and reducing mortality. Among the policies of LWC, stay at home, centralized isolation of convalescent patients, launching makeshift hospitals, and centralized isolation of "the four types of personnel" that play a decisive role. As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, this study provides valuable experience for other countries.
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.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.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.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.
Abstract Objective Our research summarized policy disparities in response to the first wave of COVID-19 between China and Germany. We look forward to providing policy experience for other countries still in severe epidemics. Methods We analyzed data provided by National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China and Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center for the period 10 January 2020 to 25 May 252,020. We used generalized linear model to evaluate the associations between the main control policies and the number of confirmed cases and the policy disparities in response to the first wave of COVID-19 between China and Germany. Results The generalized linear models show that the following factors influence the cumulative number of confirmed cases in China: the Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism; locking down the worst-hit areas; the highest level response to public health emergencies; the expansion of medical insurance coverage to suspected patients; makeshift hospitals; residential closed management; counterpart assistance. The following factors influence the cumulative number of confirmed cases in Germany: the Novel Coronavirus Crisis Command; large gathering cancelled; real-time COVID-19 risk assessment; the medical emergency plan; schools closure; restrictions on the import of overseas epidemics; the no-contact protocol. Conclusions There are two differences between China and Germany in non-pharmaceutical interventions: China adopted the blocking strategy, and Germany adopted the first mitigation and then blocking strategy; China’s goal is to eliminate the virus, and Germany’s goal is to protect high-risk groups to reduce losses. At the same time, the policies implemented by the two countries have similarities: strict blockade is a key measure to control the source of infection, and improving medical response capabilities is an important way to reduce mortality.
Abstract Background The study aimed to analyze the effectiveness of COVID-19 strategies adopted by China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. Methods We extracted publicly available data from various official websites, summarized the strategies implemented in these four countries, and assessed the effectiveness of the prevention and control measures adopted by these countries. Results As of October 28, 2020, the growth of daily new confirmed cases has stabilized in China, Singapore, and South Korea. In Japan, the daily new confirmed cases increased sharply since it lifted a state of emergency, but case-fatality maintains at a lower level. The growth of total cases is near stagnant in China and Singapore, with a case-fatality of 5.39 and 0.05% respectively. The case-fatality rate between Japan and South Korea is identical at 1.76%, however, Japan’s growth rate of cases has increased more rapidly than South Korea. Conclusion This study found that China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea accessed the situation within their own borders and implemented different intervention strategies to curb the spread of COVID-19 and maintain lower rates of case-fatality. China, Singapore, and South Korea adopted the containment strategy, while Japan adopted the mitigation strategy. Although Japan’s case-fatality maintained at a low level, daily new cases increased faster than the other three countries. This result indicated that a mitigation strategy could be inferior to a containment strategy.
Abstract This study aimed to systematically analyze the effect of Wuhan mobile cabin hospitals (WMCHs) on the novel coronavirus-caused pneumonia (COVID-19) prevention and control in China. Between February 5, 2020 and March 10, 2020, a total of 16 mobile cabin hospitals were constructed in 3 batches to offer over 13,000 beds and admitted more than 12,000 patients in Wuhan City. The strategy of implementing WMCHs in 3 batches played a key role in fighting against COVID-19 in China. (1) The first batch of WMCHs increased hospital admission capacity of COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, which showed initial effect on COVID-19 epidemic control. (2) The operation of the second batch of WMCHs greatly contributed to the rapid growth in discharged patients. (3) After launching the third batch of WMCHs, the COVID-19 epidemic situation in Wuhan improved considerably. The last batch of WMCHs made a substantial contribution to defeating the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan.
'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(23.036 .093 25.536)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(45.87 1.273 16.18)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(69.945 .996 12.078)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(20.66 -19.689 31.932)'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(144 450 300)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(216 450 300)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(288 450 300)'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)