Focus on Public Health or Economics in COVID-19 Pandemic
The unknown virus, later named “COVID-19” after a break in China at the end of 2019, has changed our lives. COVID-19 caused a health crisis in the whole world, putting pressure on the healthcare system by increasing the number of infections and deaths in many countries. Also, COVID-19 made a big impact on the economy, it made a serious impact on various sectors such as industry, employment, and international trade. Moreover, it also caused social changes, with the spread of remote work and the practice of social distancing. Every country has established policies against COVID-19. These policies have varied greatly from country to country. The countries were largely divided into public health-oriented countries and economically oriented countries.
- Basic information of COVID-19
COVID-19 includes fever, cough, and difficulty, breathing, with additional manifestations such as fatigue, body aches loss of taste or smell, sore throat, and shortness of breath. Severe cases may result in death. Also, even if it is cured, sequelae may remain. COVID-19 is highly infectious. Because of person-to-person transmission, it rapidly spread around the world. It overwhelmed medical facilities and professionals, leading to a shortage of resources for infection control measures and the treatment of severe cases.
New Zealand’s emphasis on public health, introduced a strong response early on. The government implemented a domestic blockade early on to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infection. By slowing the spread of the disease domestically, the strategy reduced the overload on the health care system and controlled the spread of the disease. At the same time, New Zealand adopted an “elimination” strategy to bring the number of infections close to zero (Zero-COVID policy). This strategy included aggressive testing, tracking of infected persons, and strict entry restrictions. In forcing its policies, the government also provided transparent and understandable information to the public, explaining the reasons for and importance of the measures. Although these policies have led to successes in combating COVID-19, they have also had advantages. The blockade has hurt the economy, causing losses to some businesses and industries, such as unemployment. The strict blockade measure made many businesses and industries temporarily closed or restricted. This caused job insecurity in some industries, and some employees were temporarily or permanently removed from employment. Also, strict border restrictions resulted in international isolation and limited foreign traffic. Restrictions on interactions with other countries as part of international collaboration had economic consequences.
On the other hand, Sweden’s emphasis on the economy and the way its citizens pursue collective immunity while going about their daily lives. Sweden did not impose strict blockades or curfews and allowed its citizens certain freedom. Schools and some businesses remained open. Also, some government officials pursued the concept of herd immunity, a policy of accepting the natural spread of the disease to a certain extent. In addition, the government relied on individual responsibility and judgment and advocated infection prevention through social distance recommendations and hand washing. Thus, Sweden has adopted a policy of minimizing economic impact and allowing businesses and general life to continue. Although the benefits included the continuation of business and general livelihoods and the relative relaxation of economic constraints compared to other countries, there are huge risks. Swedish measures that the blockade and loosening of restrictions resulted in high mortality rates and reportedly lacked protection, especially for the elderly and high-risk populations. Also, increased pressure on the healthcare system resulted in a shortage of hospital beds in some areas.
I agree with New Zealand’s policy and approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. The early implementation of strict lockdown measures has proven effective in preventing the virus and overwhelming strain on the healthcare system. Also, the government’s transparent communication leading to widespread adherence to preventive measures. However, it’s crucial to recognize the economic challenges and international isolation that accompanied these stringent measures. In response, the government implemented robust economic support measures to alleviate the burdens faced by businesses and individuals. Looking ahead, finding a delicate balance between economic considerations and public health will remain paramount. New Zealand’s proactive and adaptable approach sets a commendable example, emphasizing the importance of striking a thoughtful equilibrium between protecting lives and supporting economic well-being.
