Affiliation:
1. School of Public Policy and Administration, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China
Abstract
After three years of global rampage, the COVID-19 epidemic, the most serious infectious disease to occur worldwide since the 1918 influenza pandemic, is nearing its end. From the global experience, medical control and social control are the two main dimensions in the prevention and control of COVID-19. From the perspective of “two types of control”, namely medical control and social control, this paper finds that the political system, economic structure, and cultural values of the United States greatly limit the government’s ability to impose social control, forcing it to adopt medical control to fight the virus in a single dimension. In contrast, China’s political system, economic structure, and cultural values allow its government to adopt stringent, extensive, and frequent social control, as well as medical control to fight the virus. This approach departs from the traditional pathway of fighting the epidemic, i.e., “infection–treatment–immunization”, thereby outpacing the evolution of the virus and controlling its spread more rapidly. This finding helps explain why the Chinese government adopted a strict “zeroing” and “dynamic zeroing” policy during the first three years, at the cost of enormous economic, social, and even political legitimacy. It was not until late 2022, when the Omicron variant with the waning virulence became prevalent, that China chose to “coexist” with the virus, thus avoiding a massive epidemic-related death. While the United States adopted a pulsed-style strategy at the beginning of the epidemic, i.e., “relaxation–suppression–relaxation–suppression”, and began to “coexist” with the virus in just one year, resulting in a large number of excess deaths associated with the epidemic. The study contributes to explaining the difference in the interplay between public health priorities and COVID-19 response strategies in China and the United States, based on the specific public health context and the perspective of “medical control” and “social control”.
Funder
National Social Science Fund of China
Innovation Capacity Support Project of Shaanxi Province
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Subject
Health Information Management,Health Informatics,Health Policy,Leadership and Management
Reference87 articles.
1. World Health Organization (2023, May 11). Available online: https://covid19.who.int/data.
2. World Health Organization (2022, November 15). Available online: https://www.who.int/data/stories/global-excess-deaths-associated-with-covid-19-january-2020-december-2021/.
3. Mobilizing policy (in)capacity to fight COVID-19: Understanding variations in state responses;Capano;Policy Soc.,2020
4. Wasnik, R.N., Vincze, F., Foldvari, A., Palinkas, A., and Sandor, J. (2023). Effectiveness of and Inequalities in COVID-19 Epidemic Control Strategies in Hungary: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study. Healthcare, 11.
5. China’s public health policies in response to COVID-19: From an “authoritarian” perspective;Gao;Front. Public Health,2021
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献