[ad_1]
For eight months, the coronavirus pandemic has spread throughout the world and health authorities have made its control a top priority.
To limit the spread of the virus that has so far killed 988,993 people, many efforts have been made with different approaches.
Bloomberg observes, records and reports six factors that have been shown to be effective in better managing the pandemic.
The preparation
At the core of the different approaches there are always two parameters, on the one hand, registration through testing and monitoring of those infected, and on the other hand, minimizing the risk of spreading the virus in society, through quarantine and other restrictive measures. 
Countries that proved effective in managing the pandemic from a very young age were those that had learned hard lessons from previous experiences, such as the SARS virus in 2003.
Taiwan, for example, managed to curb local transmission of the coronavirus in April by implementing a traveler health monitoring system combined with in-depth testing and contact tracking. What also helped about the SARS experience in many Asian nations was familiarity with the widespread use of the mask.
Test: the sooner the better
Countries that implemented extensive coronavirus testing in early January, such as South Korea and Germany, succeeded in eradicating the first wave of the virus from their populations.
The tests allowed lawmakers to respond quickly to the growing threat and convince people of the risk. In fact, the benefits of this injunction appear to be long-term. 
Although both countries experienced new outbreaks of the pandemic in late summer, they have driven coronavirus cases to such levels that they are now managing the virus flexibly.
On the other side are the United States and the United Kingdom, countries that a year ago were considered by many experts as the most prepared countries on the planet for a pandemic. However, these two countries did not implement proper testing early on, allowing the virus to spread uncontrollably.
Geography
Island countries such as Iceland and New Zealand have been able to reduce cases to a low number by banning visitors from the country and completely isolating the national population.
Geography has helped in these cases, but it can also create new challenges. 
When China hesitantly reopened its economy in April and May, special precautions had to be taken to prevent a pandemic outbreak on its borders with North Korea and Russia.
In Europe, many trips from abroad “introduced” the virus in some countries, while summer holidays created an increase in cases in several tourist destinations that opened their borders.
Strict: intervention measures have an effect
In a March analysis, political scientist Sophia Fenner concluded that both authoritarian regimes and democracies could do well: the deciding factors in judging such an outcome were whether nations had infrastructure, a credible public, and leaders with instinct and quick reflexes.
China shocked the planet with its decision to impose a quarantine in January and severely restricted tens of millions of people to stop the spread of the virus. The strategy worked and was soon adopted by many other countries. 
When Chinese society reopened, it once again surprised with its choices, as it adopted measures that most countries described as too intrusive. For example, authorities used data from government agencies, telephone operators, and citizens’ travel history to categorize them according to risk level, bringing different degrees of freedom of movement in each category.
By the summer, these measures were so effective that the pandemic center, Uhan City, had registered few cases since May.
And “velvet” measures can be effective
Less interventionist policies have also proven themselves.
Japan has suppressed two waves of the virus without a lockdown. In a country where social cohesion is high, ongoing public awareness campaigns have advised citizens to avoid places where people are crowded and therefore possible sources of transmission. Enclosed spaces, crowded places, and close contacts were blacklisted. 
Germany, on the other hand, experienced a quiet period in the spring due to the timely and extensive implementation of the coronavirus test and effective follow-up of contacts. But because the country has a strict privacy law, the country’s local health authorities cannot rely on digital monitoring. So, for these purposes, they “recruited” groups of members from various professions, such as medical students or firefighters, who used e-mail, the telephone and even the fax.
South Korea used little of both methods: it relied on smartphone and camera surveillance, but never imposed a blockade
Trust in the government
At a time when citizens are being bombarded with information from the scientific and news community, with often contradictory messages, the credibility of policy makers is of particular importance.
Countries with lower levels of trust in authorities are particularly vulnerable to conspiracy theories.
Distrust of the Iranian government, following an attempt to cover up the army’s mistaken military plane crash on January 8, has led citizens to ignore state instructions not to travel during the Persian New Year, in order of year. Of March.
In the United States, by contrast, rallies were held in various states demanding the resumption of the economy.
In Latin America, the two most populous countries, Brazil and Mexico, recorded the highest rates after their leaders questioned the health risks of the pandemic.
[ad_2]
