COVID-19: A Global Political Crisis? - A Look at the Global Responses to the Pandemic  

Words Sarah Adama

Confirmed COVID-19 cases have topped 2 million globally. Even though we are in an era that has the benefit of modern medicine and past experiences, the virus outbreak has caused panic and confusion in the most unlikely of countries. The world has a highly interconnected global economy, yet there are fundamental weaknesses in the systems – particularly health security. Is the novel coronavirus a political problem?

Shutterstock

Unpreparedness 

Firstly, we need to address what the outbreak has exposed about the world's most established systems – they weren't prepared. Global preparedness for epidemics and pandemics comes to an average score in the GHS index at 40.2 out of 100. The pandemic has exposed weakness in global governance - even world ‘superpowers’ could not prove efficient in the area of health care. Most countries lack the basic health care capacities required to provide an informed pandemic response. 

Watching as the world copes with the virus, we are able to clearly see how underprepared a country like America was in comparison to other countries with universal health care systems. With 678,210 cases, 34,641 deaths and 57,844 recoveries, just what made the US uniquely vulnerable to the virus? The single most unique problem of the American healthcare system - its costs combined with low medical capacity. The virus has exposed inequalities and inefficiencies in the health care system, with lack of access to basic health care at the starting point. America has a population of 329M (2020) and over 27M of its citizens are uninsured, meaning they face high costs with medical bills. Many Americans are likely to avoid testing or initial check ups and virus diagnosis would require hospitalisation. It has been reported that some Americans have been billed nearly $4,000 from a government-imposed quarantine. No wonder why Americans put off seeking health care, even for serious conditions - to avoid the high medical debt.

Shutterstock

So how can the delayed response be explained? 

The U.S had a slow start to testing, which amplified the problems they would later face. There have been manufacturing problems with test kits rolled out and also a delay in the approval of commercial tests, resulting in a slower response and a greater risk of the virus spreading rapidly.

America’s health care infrastructure is built on a payer system and low capacity shortages come at a disadvantage in times when it’s most needed. America has fewer hospital beds and fewer doctors (2.6 per 1000 people) per capita than other developed countries. In the beginning stages of the virus, most ICU beds were already filled. These factors – structural problems combined with a slow start to testing, has put the U.S behind its peers and countries with universal health care systems, are still generally more prepared for a pandemic. A health insurance system financed by taxes that is managed and run by one entity, such as a government, providing essential health care to all citizens. It is referred to as single payer because it is the one entity (the government) that pays the costs (a "single payer”’)

The U.K strategy to pandemic threat 

Lessons learned from the outbreak have emphasised that there is a new style of politics, one which prioritises technical information over the usual political response. In the U.K, Boris Johnson’s government initially adopted a ‘herd immunity’ strategy, the policy of spreading the virus is an example of political strategy, based on taking risk. However, a scientific report from Imperial College resulted in a change of strategy focused on containing rather than spreading the virus. Amidst panic and confusion, the British Government failed to communicate its approach to fighting the virus at epidemic stage.

Whilst other countries were quick to impose lockdown measures, The U.K attempted to ‘manage’ the epidemic to prevent overwhelming the NHS and to allow the economy to function as normal. The ‘herd immunity’ strategy would have allowed the virus to spread throughout the population, even the healthiest parts and the country would have developed some immunity if the virus is ever to break out again – an approach intended to save lives and the economy. Does this mean that the government views the vulnerable population as easily disposable? Most of the U.K population remains untested after health secretary Matt Hancock, set a target of 100,000 tests a day by the end of April. In the same month the government announced that £13bn NHS debt would be wiped. In a recent address, Chancellor Rishi Sunak stated, “the U.K should not choose between the economy and public health”.

Boris Johnson imposed a police enforced lockdown with drastic measures in place, following the strategy of most countries. What’s interesting to note is the government’s ability to bypass the law and parliamentary procedure in giving police extra powers to enforce lockdown measures. Communication has been a huge problem in the U.K and perhaps fuelled the panic. In the absence of information, online rumours filled the vacuum where official communications should be, as people latched onto whatever information was available. We saw the stockpiling of hand sanitisers and tissue before COVID-19 was even understood; potential misinformation on social media sent the population into a frenzy and 5G conspiracies have become reality in some parts of the country. 

Shutterstock

A look at Asia – Lessons from History 

How have Asian countries such as Taiwan, South Korea and  Hong Kong managed to avoid the outbreak which paralysed their neighbours in China? Taiwan has 59 confirmed cases and one death, ranking 50th in confirmed coronavirus cases worldwide.  One thing can be said, these countries have learned lessons from history. The Asian region’s approach has been shaped by more recent epidemics such as the SARS outbreak. Exposure has shaped the government’s response and the citizens willingness to cooperate. Whilst western democracies such as the U.S and U.K have been slow to react to the imminent threat of outbreak, Asian governments were better prepared to react fast and vigorously and perhaps the west, overestimated their capabilities to handle a crisis of this scale.

So which policies helped contain the virus in Taiwan and Singapore and slowed infection rates in the cases of South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong? To start with, these countries have adopted a universal healthcare system with clear management structures, the exact thing western democracies such as the U.S lack. They imposed early travel restrictions, aggressive testing and strict quarantine rules. Hong Kong city suspended classes, closed many public facilities and stopped public gatherings. The coronavirus is nothing new to the government of South Korea, which suffered the biggest outbreak after China, yet has had greater success in combating the virus. Its strategy includes testing as many people as possible,  implementing ‘drive through” testing facilities where test results are returned on the same day.

Transparency in any government is key. Proactive, open communication has proved successful in limiting the spread of the virus. The South Korean government demonstrated effective communication and maintained an online system to track confirmed cases, sending phone alerts updating citizens daily. The success of the Asian region is also a matter of public adherence to protective measures, with the memories of SARS still fresh in their minds, citizens are complying to official guidance and exercising self-discipline, so there is little to no need for strict law enforcement. 

The World Health Organisation praised China for “the most ambitious, agile and suggestive disease containment effort in history”, though the Chinese political system is not one that can be replicated and Asian democracies have proved to be better models for epidemic management in the West. China operates an autocratic system, so when citizens were told to stay home they did just that, whilst we are seeing the complete opposites in countries such as the U.K. Despite suspension of gatherings, police are still having to disperse crowds from parks. The question is, can China still be praised despite absolving responsibility, having hidden the outbreak in November 2019?

Shutterstock

Moving forward

One thing can be said about this pandemic – the world isn’t going back to normal. We are seeing a radical change, social communication is shifting to virtual realms. Schools, corporations and governments are changing form by shifting to the digital space. This could mean that countries (most notably sub Saharan Africa) which have failed to prioritise technology could be left behind. The new style of politics displaces the old and private-technical information regimes that influences the social-economic decisions of a country, we are seeing this in the U.K with policies being determined by current conditions and further scientific advice. COVID-19 is a wake up call to governments and organisations around the world. Governments will have to reconsider public policy and evaluate results. Transparency is vital in any well functioning government and communication can make or break mitigation of crises. The race to end the pandemic requires global cooperation, lockdowns and contact tracing. 

Whilst countries are beginning to relax their restrictions, the U.K Government cannot begin to ease restrictions as the country now has the highest coronavirus cases in Europe. Today, Boris Johnson announced plans of a lockdown extension across all four countries, with plans to monitor and lower the reproduction rate of the virus. The aim is to ensure measures taken don’t force the reproduction rate over one, which would see an exponential growth in the virus transmission. This plan is subject to conditions as Boris urges Britons to ‘stay alert’ and abide by the social distancing rules, all whilst encouraging people to take ‘more and unlimited amounts’ of outdoor exercise, with members of their household. Those that can’t work from home have been urged to return back to work but advised to avoid public transport and observe the rules – there is no clear definition of “can’t go to work” and many people cannot afford to take any more time off work. The government has asked education and childcare settings to prepare to open for 1st June. With the alert level at 4, progression towards to level will depend on citizens staying alert and following the rules. As the transmission rate lowers – if at all – it will be time to impose quarantine on those coming into the country. At the earliest by July, the government hopes to re-open public places subject to safety  measures  such as further social distancing. The announcement lacked clarity and provides very little detail on important information, leaving many confused and conflicted.

Sarah Adama - Politician