Comparison of the efficacy of COVID-19 responses in South Korea and the United States.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Global Health Action Pub Date : 2024-12-31 Epub Date: 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1080/16549716.2024.2370611
Oliver Choi, Sunjoo Kim
{"title":"Comparison of the efficacy of COVID-19 responses in South Korea and the United States.","authors":"Oliver Choi, Sunjoo Kim","doi":"10.1080/16549716.2024.2370611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic devastated many countries worldwide by causing large numbers of fatalities. In our research, we wanted to answer the question: Why was there such a large difference in the mortality rate between South Korea and the United States? This is because many East Asian countries, such as Korea, had a lower mortality rate than many countries, including developed ones, across the world - the mortality rate of South Korea was about five times lower than the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study comprehensively compares strategies used to address the COVID-19 pandemic in two different countries: South Korea and the United States. The various aspects of these two countries' responses are examined, including initial response, information dissemination and public compliance, mitigation strategies, and vaccine rollout and their impacts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Early and widespread testing, rigorous contact tracing, the clear release of government information, and an organized vaccine rollout powered a proactive approach in South Korea. The United States had a contrasting response consisting of delayed and more decentralized measures, where testing lagged due to varying policies and the political controversies facing vaccine distribution.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We signify the gravity of rapid response and testing, clear communication, and efficient vaccine distribution, as we believe this could correlate with a lower mortality rate. In addition, we discuss future directions, including the need for a specific health infrastructure and protocol against highly infectious outbreaks.</p>","PeriodicalId":49197,"journal":{"name":"Global Health Action","volume":"17 1","pages":"2370611"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11328807/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Health Action","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2024.2370611","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic devastated many countries worldwide by causing large numbers of fatalities. In our research, we wanted to answer the question: Why was there such a large difference in the mortality rate between South Korea and the United States? This is because many East Asian countries, such as Korea, had a lower mortality rate than many countries, including developed ones, across the world - the mortality rate of South Korea was about five times lower than the United States.

Methods: This study comprehensively compares strategies used to address the COVID-19 pandemic in two different countries: South Korea and the United States. The various aspects of these two countries' responses are examined, including initial response, information dissemination and public compliance, mitigation strategies, and vaccine rollout and their impacts.

Results: Early and widespread testing, rigorous contact tracing, the clear release of government information, and an organized vaccine rollout powered a proactive approach in South Korea. The United States had a contrasting response consisting of delayed and more decentralized measures, where testing lagged due to varying policies and the political controversies facing vaccine distribution.

Conclusions: We signify the gravity of rapid response and testing, clear communication, and efficient vaccine distribution, as we believe this could correlate with a lower mortality rate. In addition, we discuss future directions, including the need for a specific health infrastructure and protocol against highly infectious outbreaks.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
韩国和美国 COVID-19 反应的疗效比较。
背景:COVID-19 大流行肆虐全球许多国家,造成大量人员死亡。在我们的研究中,我们想回答这样一个问题:为什么韩国和美国的死亡率相差如此之大?这是因为韩国等许多东亚国家的死亡率低于世界上许多国家,包括发达国家--韩国的死亡率比美国低约五倍:本研究全面比较了两个不同国家应对 COVID-19 大流行的策略:方法:本研究全面比较了韩国和美国两个不同国家应对 COVID-19 大流行的策略。方法:本研究全面比较了韩国和美国这两个不同国家应对 COVID-19 大流行所采取的策略。研究考察了这两个国家应对策略的各个方面,包括初期应对、信息传播和公众遵守、缓解策略、疫苗推广及其影响:结果:早期和广泛的测试、严格的接触者追踪、政府信息的明确发布以及有组织的疫苗推广为韩国的积极应对提供了动力。美国则采取了与之相反的应对措施,包括延迟和更加分散的措施,由于政策不同和疫苗分配面临的政治争议,测试工作滞后:我们指出了快速反应和检测、明确沟通和高效疫苗分发的重要性,因为我们相信这与降低死亡率息息相关。此外,我们还讨论了未来的发展方向,包括针对高传染性疾病爆发建立特定卫生基础设施和协议的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Health Action
Global Health Action PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
108
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Health Action is an international peer-reviewed Open Access journal affiliated with the Unit of Epidemiology and Global Health, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine at Umeå University, Sweden. The Unit hosts the Umeå International School of Public Health and the Umeå Centre for Global Health Research. Vision: Our vision is to be a leading journal in the global health field, narrowing health information gaps and contributing to the implementation of policies and actions that lead to improved global health. Aim: The widening gap between the winners and losers of globalisation presents major public health challenges. To meet these challenges, it is crucial to generate new knowledge and evidence in the field and in settings where the evidence is lacking, as well as to bridge the gaps between existing knowledge and implementation of relevant findings. Thus, the aim of Global Health Action is to contribute to fuelling a more concrete, hands-on approach to addressing global health challenges. Manuscripts suggesting strategies for practical interventions and research implementations where none already exist are specifically welcomed. Further, the journal encourages articles from low- and middle-income countries, while also welcoming articles originated from South-South and South-North collaborations. All articles are expected to address a global agenda and include a strong implementation or policy component.
期刊最新文献
Great strides, yet a long way to go: a comparative analysis of WASH conditions and associated sociodemographic factors from national hygiene surveys, 2014 and 2018. Health insurance and the distribution of healthcare use in Rwanda's Vision Umurenge Programme: evidence from the Seventh Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey. Community Health Participatory interventions in the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases including mental health in crisis-affected Low-and Middle-Income Countries - a scoping review. Public opinion survey on heritable human genome editing in South Africa: a study protocol. Associations between attitudes accepting of wife abuse and emotional abuse, forced heavy work, and food deprivation during pregnancy in Nepal: a cross-sectional study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1