Search

xiaohan Wang,1 Leiyu Shi,2 Yuyao Zhang,1 Haiqian Chen,1 Jun Jiao,1 manfei yang,1 Gang Sun1,2 1Department of Health Management, School of Health Management, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510515, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USACorrespondence: Gang SunDepartment of Health Management, School of Health Management, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510515, People’s Republic of ChinaTel +86 14103189758Email gsun15@jhu.edu; sunhoney163@163.comPurpose: This study compared the government policies and non-pharmaceutical interventions adopted by South Korea, Japan, India, and China in response to COVID-19 during 2020– 2021 and assessed their effectiveness. We hope that our research will help control the COVID-19 waves and a future crisis of this nature.Methods: COVID-19 case data were obtained from Our World in Data database. Combined with case data, we made a retrospective study by analyzing the government policies and non-pharmaceutical interventions taken during this pandemic in these four representative Asian countries (South Korea, Japan, India, and China).Results: From January 2020 to May 18, 2021, South Korea and Japan experienced three waves of COVID-19 outbreaks, but the number of daily new confirmed cases per million people was relatively small in both countries, and South Korea had fewer daily new confirmed cases per million than Japan. Following the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019, China successfully contained the first wave of the outbreak and was not currently experiencing a large-scale resurgence of the epidemic (Until May 18, 2021). India is experiencing a grim second wave of the epidemic, with far more daily new confirmed cases per million people than South Korea and Japan.Conclusion: Successful practices in China and South Korea show that case identification and management, coupled w

Haiqian Chen,1 Leiyu Shi,2 Yuyao Zhang,1 Xiaohan Wang,1 Gang Sun1 1Department of Health Management, School of Health Management, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510515, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USACorrespondence: Gang SunDepartment of Health Management, School of Health Management, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510515, People’s Republic of ChinaTel +86 14103189758Email sunhoney163@163.com; gsun15@jhu.eduObjective: This study aimed to analyze the distribution characteristics and influencing factors for the interval between entering mainland China and the diagnosis of imported COVID-19 cases in Guangdong province, in order to provide valuable experience for global pandemic in prevention and control.Methods: We collected publicly reported data between March 1 and June 2, 2020. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify the significant associated factors with the interval between entering mainland China and diagnosis of imported COVID-19 cases.Results: As of June 2, 2020, a total of 200 imported cases were reported in Guangdong province. The average interval time was 4.25 days with a median of 2 days, the interval time of 68% cases was between 1 and 3 days. The multivariate model results show that the three following factors were critical influencing factors: nationality was foreign nationality (P = 0.037), results of initial nucleic acid detection were negative (P = 0.000) and the interval between entering mainland China and the detection of positive results (T) exceeded two days (P = 0.008).Conclusion: The results suggested that all travelers and returning resident should be taken strict sampling and testing, and isolation measures, improved the accuracy of the initial nucleic acid test results, and the detection efficiency and shortening the interval between enter

Haiqian Chen,1 Leiyu Shi,2 Yuyao Zhang,1 Xiaohan Wang,1 Jun Jiao,1 Manfei Yang,1 Gang Sun1 1Department of Health Management, School of Health Management, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510515, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USACorrespondence: Gang SunDepartment of Health Management, School of Health Management, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510515, People’s Republic of ChinaTel +86 14103189758Email gsun15@jhu.edu; sunhoney163@163.comObjective: 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.Methods: We extracted publicly available data from official websites, summarized the containment measures implemented in China and India, and assessed their effectiveness.Results: 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).Conclusion: China and India implemented public health containment measures to contain the spread