Indeed, Taiwan presents an anomaly in the mitigation and overall handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. In terms of stringency, Taiwan ranks among the lowest in the world, with fewer controls than Sweden and far lower than the U. In general, Taiwan rejected lockdown in favor of maintaining social and economic functioning. Taiwan has seen 573 cases, which is remarkably low for a country with a population of close to 24 million and a population density of 1,739 people per square mile. Of the deaths, the individuals were in their 40s to 80s, the majority with preexisting health conditions.
To put this in perspective, in a stringent terrority with similar demographics, LA County’s population is 10 million and population density is 2,500 per square mile — meaning slightly denser but less populated — but by contrast, it has had 309,000 cases and 7,000 deaths.
How did Taiwan maintain such low numbers?
In addition, Taiwan’s outbreak of SARS in 2003 allowed them to create plans for managing a similar disease later on. For example, a 2005 study of SARS in Taiwan already discussed preparation measures in the case of a new outbreak, explaining that focus must be directed towards the older and immunocompromised populations and hospitals should be managed vigilantly. Drawing on previous experience, Taiwan created a culture in which masks are worn widely and implemented advanced contact tracing technologies and early screening of international travelers. Usually when public health intellectuals speak of a good handling of a pandemic, they express the need for widespread testing.
Again, Taiwan did some of this at the border. Taiwan did have a wide availability of tests — unlike the US — and did have an open testing approach so that anyone could get tested, symptomatic or not. Even then, Taiwan had one of the lowest scores on tests per thousand of any country in the world. Only one person in 100,000 undertook a Covid-19 test.
Although one could argue that top-down approaches to information are flawed, there is something to be said for a country that values transparency because it allows for the public to have greater trust in the information provided to them.
As former Taiwanese Vice President Chen has stated
The fact that Taiwan has dealt with another coronavirus outbreak previously has allowed it to alleviate devastating effects in later years. Taiwanese health authorities shared information with other countries. Perhaps one of the reasons for this issue is that the WHO refuses to acknowledge Taiwan’s independence from China, thus excluding the country from participating in discussions surrounding the pandemic. This stubbornness prevents the dissemination of useful information that could protect people from illness and economic affliction, thus only serving to create harm.
Taiwan did not lock down. Even though about 680 people in Taiwan were infected with SARS in 2003, the study shows a possibility that enduring T cells could influence the effect SARS-CoV-2 has on people with certain preexisting immunities. Although the extent of Taiwan’s governmental overstep and tracking could be viewed as constituting an infringement on individual rights and privacy, its lighter hand to Covid-19 management has proven wise. The country has seen extremely low cases and — more importantly — low death rates.
Taiwan is expected to experience a 0% growth rate in 2020 GDP — neither losing nor gaining in wealth — while US GDP is expected to contract by 3.5% in 2020. The Lancet article draws on a significant conclusion regarding Taiwan, «While some aspects of the Taiwan approach might not be acceptable in other jurisdictions, the potential social and economic benefits of avoiding lockdown might alleviate some objections». There are undoubtedly other reasons accounting for Taiwan’s success, such as its low poverty levels. Still, Taiwan presents an important case study that warrants further investigation.
In 2003, Taiwan faced one of the highest SARS infection rates in the world. Now, the Covid-19 infection rate in Taiwan is one of the lowest despite the country not locking down. The Taiwanese case reveals something extraordinary about pandemic response. As much as public-health authorities imagine that the trajectory of a new virus can be influenced or even controlled by policies and responses, the current and past experiences of coronavirus illustrate a different point.
The severity of a new virus might have far more to do with endogenous factors within a population rather than the political response. According to the lockdown narrative, Taiwan did almost everything «wrong» but generated what might in fact be the best results in terms of public health of any country in the world.
Source: Amelia Janaskie | AIER
No comments:
Post a Comment