Asia’s Response to Emerging Infectious Diseases: Lessons Learned
In early 2020, the World Health Organization declared that the COVID-19 pandemic had reached a state of international public health emergency (Mphande-Nyasulu et al., 2024). Three years later on May 5th, 2023, the WHO announced that the virus no longer constituted a crisis (Wei et al., 2024). Despite the widely-celebrated end of the COVID-19 pandemic, the virus is still prevalent in its effects on global economies and new public health protocols. The severity of the COVID’s effects on each country exposed weaknesses in global governance and systems, indicating the necessity for nations to invest in disaster-preparedness measures, should another global crisis occur.
Originating in Wuhan, China, the coronavirus 2019 (or COVID-19) caused 6,280,521 deaths globally, from 2019 to 2023 (Lim & Sohn, 2023). Evidence shows that effects from the virus had disproportionate effects on low-income and emerging economies, as well as on vulnerable populations including women, low-income households, and minority groups (Mac-Seing et al., 2023). Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic caused the largest global economic crisis since the 1930s, and nations today still face challenges in economic recovery from COVID effects, such as disruptions in education, in global value chains (GVCs), and in tourism (ADB, 2023).
COVID-19 in Asia
The severity of COVID impacts have varied across Asia, largely determined by country wealth and healthcare system capability. For the most part, South Asian countries had limited pandemic preparedness, lacking national health plans and infrastructure to cope with such a large threat, as well as the resources necessary for expansive social security measures (Babu et al., 2020). Consequently, these suffered high mortality and infection rates, as well as devastating economic impacts. These differences are reflected in Figure 1 below. Yet overall, Asian economies have shown rapid economic recovery from COVID-19 effects compared to the rest of the world, particularly reflected in exemplary cases such as China, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan (ADB, 2023).
Figure 1
Edouard Mathieu, E. et al., (2020). “Coronavirus (COVID-19) Deaths” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths. Data source:World Health Organization (2024); Population based on various sources (2024)
Singapore
Though Singapore reported some of the highest infection rates in Asia, the country was incredibly effective in mitigating COVID-19 effects in the early stages of the pandemic (Mphande-Nyasulu et al., 2024). This can be partially attributed to the nation’s previous struggles with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreaks in 2003 (ibid). This virus exposed weaknesses in their pandemic preparedness, increasing the country’s capacity and political will to properly address COVID-19 threats early on. In light of SARS consequences, the Singaporean government established policies and created infrastructure to address disease spread (Kusumasari et al., 2023). Thus, Singapore was in a unique position to deploy its preexisting pandemic infrastructure to address COVID-19. Taiwan and Singapore both utilised policy to address COVID-19 threats, investing in health and community engagement nationally (Hong et al., 2024).
South Korea
South Korea has been heralded for its ability to reduce the spread of and deaths from COVID-19 through immediate and effective action. Despite being one of the first countries affected by the virus, South Korea was able to successfully combat COVID-19 effects without deploying hard lockdowns (Hong et al., 2024). Early on, South Korea’s government encouraged mask-wearing and imposed fines for noncompliance (Lim & Sohn, 2023). Similarly, the country utilised its strong technologies for contact tracing, conducted large-scale testing, and dedicated vast numbers of its healthcare resources towards COVID-19 (ADB, 2023). As a result, South Korea was in the top 30 countries globally with the highest COVID-19 cases, but had the lowest mortality out of these (Lim & Sohn, 2023).
China
As the origin and center of COVID-19 outbreak, Wuhan, China, was promptly shut down by the Chinese government to halt the spread of the virus (Ba et al., 2023). The government further enacted measures to contain COVID, through their “zero-COVID policy,” involving a complete lockdown of the country. Furthermore, those exposed to the virus were mandated to quarantine in government facilities. To boost capacity for handling the pandemic, the government collaborated with the private sector, providing subsidies to companies producing facemasks and other equipment (Kusumasari et al., 2023). Ultimately, such large-scale interventions proved successful – while the United States and the European Union experienced fluctuations in COVID-19 infection and mortality rates, these remained relatively stable in China (Ba et al., 2023).
However it is important to note that such a strong response to address COVID-19 was possible due to political will and a strong centralised government. Thus, such responses were not equally possible in other nations. The United States, for example, failed to implement strong measures to mitigate COVID-19 effects due to its decentralised governance, in which its 50 states possess high levels of autonomy (Khorram-Manesh, 2024). Additionally, strict policies imposed by the Chinese government have been criticised as too authoritarian and infringing upon freedoms. For example, when those exposed to COVID-19 were placed in lockdown, they were forced to rely on “group buying” for groceries and deliveries of other essential items. These services were often unreliable and orders were not delivered on time (Ba et al., 2023).
Examples to Follow and Debates Moving Forward
Commonalities stand out in countries that were able to successfully mitigate COVID-19 effects including: strong health infrastructure, integration of surveillance and technology to address health threats, and effective leadership. A large crisis such as COVID-19 highlighted a need for larger coordination efforts to successfully combat public health threats, drawing attention to gaps in national health capacity and leadership competency. Singapore’s well-trained and educated leadership, for example, allowed for effective policy deployment and compliance, as the country largely maintained public trust throughout the pandemic (Kusumasari et al., 2023).
The use of surveillance and technology for various COVID-related measures was also largely successful, and can provide a model for future health initiatives. China, South Korea, and Indonesia’s use of telemedicine and mobile contact tracing improved efficiency in pandemic responses (ADB, 2023). China also deployed artificial intelligence (AI) in testing technologies to better detect the COVID-19 virus (Wu et al., 2023). Globally, governments used surveillance for contact tracing, by tracking phone geolocations, digital thermometers, and others, with great success (Hong et al., 2024). Moving forward, such surveillance could be used to manage public health crises. These could be used to determine outbreak locations, provide updated and accurate health information to the public, and influence effective health policy (Clark et al., 2024). However, use of smartphone-tracking or other surveillance could be an ethical problem, as critics have highlighted these as a violation of privacy and rights (Hong et al., 2024). The World Health Organization has emphasized the need for active community engagement to ensure that opinions from the public are integrated into privacy policies (WHO, 2024). Similarly, governments and other agencies using health data must ensure that privacy is maintained, through removing names and other identifying information (ibid).
Conclusions
Though COVID-19 can be considered an unforeseen crisis, an anomaly, it remains essential for nations to take lessons learned from the pandemic, and utilise these to inform current health policy and investment. COVID devastated the global economy, through decreases in commodity prices (e.g. metals and oil), halts in tourism, and supply chain disruptions (WB 2020; Naseer et al., 2023). Households suffered globally, as 50% of these could not “sustain basic consumption for more than three months in the event of income losses” (World Development Report, 2022). The virus had long-term health impacts on individuals (mental and physical), exacerbated national debt crises, and caused the closure of many businesses. Additionally, East Asia and the Pacific region has been identified as a global hotspot for infectious disease, and could thus easily succumb to another pandemic should health systems not improve (Bosquet et al., 2022). Better coordination at local, regional, national, and international scales will be necessary to prevent another pandemic. Beyond coordination, handling a future pandemic or disease outbreak will require significant investment not only in public health, but also in social security to ensure household sustainability through such a shock. Furthermore, countries must invest in safeguarding measures for their economies, through the creation of sectoral contingency plans and funds in case of future health emergencies.
Annette Sorensen is a Fellow at the Sixteenth Council.
