• World
    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Central & South Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America & Caribbean
    • Middle East & North Africa
    • North America
  • Coronavirus
  • Politics
    • US Election
    • US politics
    • Donald Trump
    • Brexit
    • European Union
    • India
    • Arab world
  • Economics
    • Finance
    • Eurozone
    • International Trade
  • Business
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Startups
    • Technology
  • Culture
    • Entertainment
    • Music
    • Film
    • Books
    • Travel
  • Environment
    • Climate change
    • Smart cities
    • Green Economy
  • Global Change
    • Education
    • Refugee Crisis
    • International Aid
    • Human Rights
  • International Security
    • ISIS
    • War on Terror
    • North Korea
    • Nuclear Weapons
  • Science
    • Health
  • 360 °
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice
  • About
  • FO Store
Sections
  • World
  • Coronavirus
  • US Election
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Sign Up
  • Login
  • Publish

Make Sense of the world

Unique insight from 2,000+ contributors in 80+ Countries

Close

What the Coronavirus Says About Us

Responses by China, South Korea, Italy and the United States to the coronavirus pandemic showcase the best and the worst that these political systems have to offer.
By John Feffer • Mar 24, 2020
Coronavirus pandemic, how to stop a pandemic, how to contain a pandemic, how to stop the spread of coronavirus, China coronavirus news, China lockdown, China coronavirus timeline, Italy coronavirus timeline, South Korea coronavirus cases, US coronavirus cases

© ImageFlow / Shutterstock

A crisis, according to self-help and leadership books, reveals much about a person’s character. The same can be said of a nation’s character. Since the latest pandemic began to spread out of China in 2020, countries responded in very different ways to the challenge. There was ingenuity, inflexibility, incomprehension and sheer incompetence. Diversity can be a beautiful thing. But not when it comes to battling a pandemic.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. There was supposed to have been greater uniformity in response. After the 2003 SARS epidemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) came up with new guidelines for responding to such outbreaks. These regulations are legally binding, and 196 countries signed the framework agreement. Unfortunately, as Selam Gebrekidan reports in The New York Times: “dozens of countries are flouting the international regulations and snubbing their obligations. Some have failed to report outbreaks to the organization, as required. Others have instituted international travel restrictions, against the advice of the WHO, and without notifying global health officials.”

Let’s take a look at a few countries — China, South Korea, Italy and the United States — to see how the diversity of responses to the current coronavirus crisis showcases the best and the worst that these political systems have to offer.

The Pandemic Begins

China has treated the coronavirus as if it were an outbreak of political dissidence. It has deployed the power of the state to stamp out the infection. It has censored dissenting voices. And, as is often the case with blunt-force approaches, it has achieved some success. While the virus is multiplying rapidly around the world, it seems to have been contained in China.

But there have been some disturbing side effects. After some initial confusion, to put it charitably, the government moved quickly to shut down the epicenter of infection in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province. China reported the first few cases of “unusual pneumonia” to the WHO on December 31 of last year, the new disease was identified as a coronavirus on January 7, the first death occurred in China on January 9, and Wuhan was under quarantine by January 23.

logo

Make Sense of the World

Unique insight from 2,000+ contributors in 80+ Countries

Make Sense of the World
Unique insights from 2000+ contributors in 80+ countries

That two-week period between the first death and the announcement of the quarantine might seem like a long time. But on January 24, the government was still reporting only 830 infections. And, in some quarters, China was criticized for overreacting by shutting everything down, from schools to factories. One week later, however, the number of infections had climbed to nearly 10,000. The quarantine methods wouldn’t show much effect until mid-February, when new infections began to level off. On February 18, Beijing reported around 72,000 infections. A month later, it had only reached around 81,000.

The government had the centralized authority to enforce the quarantine. It shut down internal transportation, canceled Lunar New Year celebrations, and shuttered Shanghai Disneyland. It deployed drones to warn groups of people gathering in public to disperse and go home. It placed millions of uninfected people in what amounts to house arrest, allowing only one member of a family household to go out every two days.

The government also attempted to censor the first reports of the new disease. Li Wenliang, a doctor in Wuhan, posted on social media on December 30 the first warnings about the coronavirus. The police brought him in for questioning and forced him to sign a statement that he had made “false comments” that had “severely disturbed the social order.” He later died of the disease.

The quarantine methods produced their own casualties. As Human Rights Watch notes:

“A boy with cerebral palsy died because no one took care of him after his father was taken to be quarantined. A woman with leukemia died after being turned away by several hospitals because of concerns about cross-infection. A mother desperately pleaded to the police to let her leukemia-stricken daughter through a checkpoint at a bridge to get chemotherapy. A man with kidney disease jumped to his death from his apartment balcony after he couldn’t get access to health facilities for dialysis. And at least 10 people died after a hotel being used as a quarantine facility collapsed.” 

Citizens and journalists who have been trying to tell the full story of China’s war on the coronavirus still face censorship and harassment.

The Chinese government’s actions were not arbitrarily autocratic. “China’s leaders did fumble at the very start, yet in short order they acted far more decisively than many democratically elected leaders have to date,” Ian Johnson writes in The New York Times. “Authoritarian or not, they also want the public’s approval. Chinese leaders may not face voters, but they, too, care about legitimacy, and that hinges on performance for them as well.” And it’s not as if the democratic countries that eventually followed China’s example put their decisions to a vote.

Meanwhile, the success of China’s approach owes as much to the public’s sense of responsibility as it does to the government’s autocratic methods. Writes Tony Perman, who was quarantined in Shanghai: “Certainly the reality of authoritarian control, the subservience of the individual to the state or the collective, and the pressure to conform made widespread habit change both more feasible and acceptable, even if due to fear of retribution. But there was a palpable ‘all for one and one for all’ ethos.”

The South Korean Way

Even before South Korea experienced its first coronavirus case, the Korean firm Kogene Biotech was getting its test kits ready for production. Soon thereafter, the South Korean government gave regulatory approval for their use in the country.

The first cases in South Korea originated from China, which reawakened significant anti-Chinese sentiment that had been dormant since the resolution of the last trade dispute in November 2017. By the middle of February, however, a much more significant outbreak of the disease could be traced to one of the many cult-like religious sects in the country, and infections quickly rose into the thousands.

Embed from Getty Images

Soon enough, the South Korean government switched to testing overdrive. On February 26, the country began drive-through testing. By March 9, nearly 200,000 people had been tested for the disease. The government is also, more controversially, using a phone app that relies on GPS to track those in quarantine and make sure that they maintain their self-isolation. A rigorous triage has sent all but the most serious 10% of the infected to recover at home, lessening the strain on the medical system.

As with China, there were some initial missteps, such as when the Moon Jae-in administration prematurely declared the virus contained in mid-February. But the hyper-connected country has been able to practice social distancing with relative ease as people went online to work remotely, order groceries and maintain contact with friends.

The South Korean approach also seems to have worked. The rate of infection has leveled off, and the death rate remains very low, at less than 1%. Instead of the draconian quarantining that China implemented, South Korea has relied on technology, a rapid response aided by ppali-ppali (fast-fast) culture, lots of testing and follow-up, and a general spirit of compliance.

Italian Fiasco

European countries have responded in quite different ways to the virus. Several countries, including a number that had earlier been so hostile to immigrants, quickly moved to close their borders. Germany has been characteristically blunt about the situation, with Chancellor Angela Merkel warning that 60-70% of the population will likely be infected before the outbreak is over. The Finns started preparing for the worst back in January, even taking steps to allow people to get communicable disease insurance in the event of quarantine.

The hardest-hit country, however, has been Italy. As soon as two Chinese tourists in Rome tested positive at the end of January, Italy declared a state of emergency and stopped flights from China. When the virus appeared again, just outside the northern city of Milan, the patient was originally thought to have been infected by a colleague returning from China. But the colleague tested negative. The virus, in this case, more likely came from Germany.

The real problem was neither China nor Germany. It was the Italian hospital that grossly mishandled that initial case. The sufferer, according to The Washington Post, “sought medical attention multiple times, starting on February 14, but he wasn’t diagnosed until February 21 (after he infected his wife, hospital staff, several patients and others).”

Two other factors have aggravated the crisis in Italy. There’s the scofflaw tradition whereby many Italians flouted the initial lockdown declared in the northern region to crowd the rail stations and flee by any means. One woman even paid over $1,300 to take a taxi from Milan to Rome. Also, Italy has the second-highest proportion of seniors in the world: 23% of the population is over 65. Only Japan has an older population. That helps to explain the high mortality rate of the disease in the Mediterranean country. In China, the mortality rate is 3.8%. In Italy, it’s nearly double at 7.3%.

In a head-to-head comparison between South Korea’s widespread test-and-track approach versus Italy’s attempted lockdown approach, the former appears to be far more effective.

American Exceptionalism

Donald Trump has been an exceptional leader when it comes to addressing the coronavirus: exceptionally incompetent. He has exemplified the proud tradition of American exceptionalism, by which Americans believe that they are an exception to the rules that apply to the rest of humanity.

There have been five stages of American exceptionalism when it comes to the coronavirus.

Stage One: It won’t happen here.

Stage Two: It’s happening here, but it’s the fault of foreigners.

Stage Three: It’s happening here, but it won’t be as bad as elsewhere so we don’t need to take the necessary precautions.

Stage Four: It’s happening here, and it might turn out to be a problem, but it’s best to address the developing crisis haphazardly rather than at a coordinated federal level.

Stage Five: Uh-oh.

Trump has been the leader of the pack at all five stages. On January 22, just as the Chinese government was preparing to quarantine Wuhan, Trump said about the prospects of a coronavirus outbreak in the United States that “we have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”

After initially praising Xi Jinping’s hardline response to the crisis, Trump and his allies reversed course and started to blame China when the infections began to mount domestically. Instead of following the South Korean example and making sure that testing kits were available, the Trump administration squandered the window of opportunity. By the time test kits were sent out, it was late in the game and those first kits were, in any case, faulty.

Embed from Getty Images

Writes David Leonhardt in The New York Times: “The Trump administration could have begun to use a functioning test from the World Health Organization, but didn’t. It could have removed regulations that prevented private hospitals and labs from quickly developing their own tests, but didn’t. The inaction meant that the United States fell behind South Korea, Singapore and China in fighting the virus.”

Trump has finally awoken to the severity of the problem, no doubt as a result of having close brushes with infected people at the Conservative Political Action Conference and with a delegation from Brazil that visited him at Mar-a-Lago. But he has acted erratically and dangerously. His European travel ban was done without consultation with allies and put Americans hastily returning from Europe at the mercy of unprepared airport security.

But perhaps the most unsettling failure has been the lack of federal coordination, with different messages coming from different parts of government and states left to manage things as best they can. Governors have clashed with the president, mayors have clashed with governors. In his most recent punt, Trump told governors not to wait for federal assistance when it comes to acquiring necessary ventilators, but “try getting it yourselves.”

Get it yourselves. That kind of message is grimly appropriate in a country without national health care. With a message like that coming from the top, it’s no wonder that Americans are stocking up on rice and toilet paper, like people around the world — but more pointedly, guns and body armor as well. If it’s “all for one and one for all” in other countries, in Trump’s America, it’s “all against all.”

This is what happens when you run on a platform devoted to the “deconstruction of the administrative state,” as Steve Bannon put it so colorfully. First, you get deconstruction when Trump takes office. Then you get destruction when Trump’s minions go to work. Finally, when all the competent people have been escorted out of government, you get uh-oh. In this sense, the coronavirus is nothing new. Americans have been living in the uh-oh stage ever since November 8, 2016.

*[This article was originally published by Foreign Policy in Focus.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Share Story
Categories360° Analysis, American News, Asia Pacific, China News, Chinese politics news, Coronavirus, Donald Trump News, Europe, Europe News, European politics news, Health, Insight, North America, Politics, US news, US politics news, World Leaders News, World News TagsChina coronavirus news, China coronavirus timeline, China lockdown, coronavirus pandemic, how to contain a pandemic, how to stop a pandemic, how to stop the spread of coronavirus, Italy coronavirus timeline, South Korea coronavirus cases, US coronavirus cases
Join our network of more than 2,000 contributors to publish your perspective, share your story and shape the global conversation. Become a Fair Observer and help us make sense of the world.

READ MORE IN THIS 360° SERIES

In Sierra Leone, COVID-19 Could Make Maternal Mortality Worse
By Emma Minor • Jul 06, 2020
Herd Immunity May Be Our Best Hope
By Daniel Wagner & Mark Eckley • Jul 06, 2020
The EU Should Collect Health Data Centrally
By Susan Bergner & Isabell Kump • Jun 29, 2020
How Will COVID-19 Change Our World?
By Atul Singh • Jun 26, 2020
How Mismanaging a Pandemic Can Cost Countries Their Soft Power
By Valerio Alfonso Bruno • Jun 18, 2020
COVID-19 Contact Tracing: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?
By Claire Downing • Jun 10, 2020
If the Pandemic Is a “War,” Then India Needs to Spend More
By Bobby Ramakant, Sandeep Pandey & Shobha Shukla • Jun 08, 2020
What Is the Key to Tunisia Successfully Beating COVID-19?
By Bill Law • Jun 08, 2020
The Humanitarian Disaster Before Us: COVID-19 in Somalia
By Arden Bentley • Jun 06, 2020
East Africa Faces a Cascade of Crises
By Bettina Rudloff & Annette Weber • Jun 04, 2020
The Swiss People’s Party Versus COVID-19
By Hans-Georg Betz • Jun 03, 2020
The 2020 Pandemic Election
By Saurabh Jha • May 29, 2020
COVID-19 Casts a Shadow Over Swedish Exceptionalism
By Mette Wiggen • May 21, 2020
Has COVID-19 Launched a New Era of Deadly Pandemics?
By I.P. Singh & Atul Singh • May 19, 2020
COVID-19 Arrives in Refugee Camps
By Phil Cole • May 18, 2020
The Worst President at the Worst Time
By Larry Beck • May 14, 2020
South Korea Faces Challenges in a Post-Coronavirus World
By Thomas Kalinowski • May 13, 2020
Debunking Trump’s China Nonsense
By John Feffer • May 08, 2020
Global Health Policy Is World Politics
By Susan Bergner, Maike Voss & Nadine Godehardt • May 07, 2020
Will We Ever Know the True Origin of COVID-19?
By Daniel Wagner • May 06, 2020
COVID-19: What Indonesia Can Learn From South Korea and Taiwan
By Luthfi Dhofier • May 05, 2020
Brazil Struggles to Find a Unified Approach to the Coronavirus Pandemic
By Thiago Alves Ferreira & Stephanie Fillion • May 05, 2020
Narendra Modi Is Fighting COVID-19 With Little Logic
By Satish Jha • May 01, 2020
What You Need to Know About the COVID-19 Crisis in the US
By Sunil Asnani & Kshitij Bhatia • Apr 30, 2020
History Will Judge Britain’s COVID-19 Response
By Rupert Hodder • Apr 30, 2020
China’s Uncertain Recovery From COVID-19
By Maa Zhi Hong • Apr 29, 2020
Rohingya Refugee Camps Are the Next Frontline in COVID-19 Fight
By Daniel Sullivan • Apr 28, 2020
Brazil Is Heading Into a Perfect Storm
By Lenin Cavalcanti Guerra • Apr 28, 2020
India's Tactical Victory on HCQ Misses the Bigger Picture
By Mauktik Kulkarni • Apr 27, 2020
Will COVID-19 Alter the Global Order?
By Joel Blankenship • Apr 27, 2020
South Korea Shows the Way Forward for Post-Pandemic Recovery
By John Feffer • Apr 24, 2020
Why Maximum Pressure on Venezuela Is the Only Way Out
By Leonardo Vivas • Apr 22, 2020
Can the WHO Restore Credibility After Its Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic?
By Hans-Georg Betz • Apr 22, 2020
For Cybercriminals, a Global Pandemic Presents an Opportunity
By Beau Peters • Apr 17, 2020
Playing Catch-Up With the Next Pandemic
By John Feffer • Apr 17, 2020
The Politics Behind the Coronavirus in Brazil
By Helder Ferreira do Vale • Apr 15, 2020
Remembering the Easter Sunday Victims in the Shadow of COVID-19
By Amjad Saleem • Apr 14, 2020
China's Mask Diplomacy Won't Change the World Order
By Brennan Kau • Apr 09, 2020
How the US Government Failed to Prepare for a Pandemic
By Daniel Wagner • Apr 09, 2020
As President, Donald Trump Has a Duty
By Gary Grappo • Apr 08, 2020
Should We All Have Been Wearing Masks From the Start?
By Hans-Georg Betz • Apr 07, 2020
In Tajikistan, It’s Someone Else’s Virus
By Andrea Schmitz • Apr 06, 2020
Why Are Mexico and Brazil So Slow in Reacting to COVID-19?
By Lenin Cavalcanti Guerra • Apr 01, 2020
Are We Wrong About COVID-19 Death Rates?
By Daniel Wagner • Mar 31, 2020
One Antidote to Coronavirus: More Multilateralism
By Gary Grappo • Mar 30, 2020
Saudi Arabia’s Wars on Three Fronts
By Bill Law • Mar 30, 2020
The Politics of the Coronavirus
By John Feffer • Mar 27, 2020
Why It’s Taking Britain So Long to Tackle COVID-19
By Rupert Hodder • Mar 23, 2020
COVID-19: What Italy and the US Are Doing Wrong
By Valerio Alfonso Bruno • Mar 10, 2020
The British Government Is About to Fail on Coronavirus
By Rupert Hodder • Mar 09, 2020
Coronavirus Outbreak Puts the World’s Governments on Notice
By Daniel Wagner • Mar 03, 2020
Coronavirus Outbreak Exacerbates Italy’s Political Divisions
By Valerio Alfonso Bruno • Feb 27, 2020
China’s Influence Dampens International Response to Coronavirus Outbreak
By Daniel Wagner • Feb 24, 2020
How Effective Is China’s Response to the Coronavirus Outbreak?
By Maa Zhi Hong • Feb 04, 2020

Post navigation

Previous PostPrevious Joe Biden: An Oasis of Stasis in a Changing World
Next PostNext How Coronavirus Is Impacting Small Businesses
Subscribe
Register for $9.99 per month and become a member today.
Publish
Join our community of more than 2,500 contributors to publish your perspective, share your narrative and shape the global discourse.
Donate
We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Explore

  • About
  • Authors
  • FO Store
  • FAQs
  • Republish
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Contact

Regions

  • Africa
  • Asia Pacific
  • Central & South Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & Caribbean
  • Middle East & North Africa
  • North America

Topics

  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Environment
  • Global Change
  • International Security
  • Science

Sections

  • 360°
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice

Daily Dispatch


© Fair Observer All rights reserved
We Need Your Consent
We use cookies to give you the best possible experience. Learn more about how we use cookies or edit your cookie preferences. Privacy Policy. My Options I Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Edit Cookie Preferences

The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.

As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media.

 
Necessary
Always Enabled

These cookies essential for the website to function.

Analytics

These cookies track our website’s performance and also help us to continuously improve the experience we provide to you.

Performance
Uncategorized

This cookie consists of the word “yes” to enable us to remember your acceptance of the site cookie notification, and prevents it from displaying to you in future.

Preferences
Save & Accept