[ad_1]
Call it a motion control order, curfew, or block. Across the world, governments have imposed increasingly stringent social distancing measures to stem the spread of the coronavirus as its global uproar continues.
Across Asia, these actions range from aggressive nationwide shutdowns to soft guidelines that encourage people to stay home.
In Singapore, the government has so far refrained from a total blockade, describing its orders to close almost all workplaces and schools as a “circuit breaker”. The term conveys the desired result: breaking the chain of transmission and stopping the spread of the deadly disease, rather than restrictions on its people.
The stricter measures, which took effect last Tuesday, came after a significant increase in locally transmitted infections, many of which could not be traced back to their sources. The increase came after swaths of Singaporeans working and studying in Europe and the United States returned home amid an increasingly severe outbreak in those regions. Before that, Singapore had already closed entertainment venues, scrapped extracurricular school activities, and a limited number in restaurants, shopping malls, and social gatherings, among other distancing rules.
The circuit breaker measures, which will last until at least May 4, include a ban on dining out and instructions to limit social contact with members of the same household. To insist on the point, the government passed a new law last week, temporarily banning all social gatherings, with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warning that it would be strictly enforced. Penalties for first-time offenders carry fines of up to $ 10,000 and six months in prison.
PROGRESSIVE MEASURES
The Singapore circuit breaker has similarities to graduated stops in other Asian nations.
Malaysia imposed a national movement control order in mid-March, banning public gatherings, closing schools and closing businesses, except for certain categories of essential services until March 31. That order was extended twice, until April 28, with the number of businesses allowed to stay open being further reduced before restrictions eased slightly on Friday.
Like the new Singapore law, which gives the Minister of Health the power to close premises and restrict the movement of people, Malaysia also introduced an “improved movement control order” that gives its authorities the right to seal off areas infection, close almost all businesses and keep residents home for two weeks.
In Indonesia, the partial closure of the country reflects competitive priorities between its central and local governments that have hampered a unified progressive approach. Indonesian President Joko Widodo has resisted a national blockade even as some regional leaders try to restrict movement within their provincial borders.
Central Java authorities closed the province to visitors until the end of July, while the province of Papua closed its ports and airports to commercial travelers.
Although Jakarta accounts for the majority of Indonesia’s coronavirus cases, the strictest measures, including school suspensions, the closure of workplaces and the shortest hours of public transport operation, entered the capital only on Friday. Its governor has accused the central government of hampering its efforts to impose a partial closure of the city.
Joko has insisted that cities across the country should not impose border blocks, arguing that the country’s poorest would be the biggest losers if the economy stalls, and the government would find it difficult to maintain them. However, local governments are more inclined to focus on preventing new infections and deaths within their places of authority.
Undoubtedly, the sheer size of Indonesia, with its 34 provinces and more than 270 million people, makes it a difficult country to govern and a potential bed for bureaucracy.
LOCKING SWEEPS
While ruling a huge country can complicate coronavirus policy coordination efforts, authoritarian China appears to have done well in this regard, with local officials taking action after President Xi Jinping ordered a “people’s war” against the illness.
Wuhan where the outbreak originated and other major cities in the central Hubei province closed on January 23, after the first hundreds of infections were disclosed. Other cities, including Wenzhou, in eastern Zhejiang, far from Wuhan, soon followed, putting hundreds of millions of Chinese under some form of movement restriction. More than two months later, local media continue to report new blockades across the country amid fears of a second wave of infections, including in Henan Jia County, Heilongjiang Suifenhe City and Jiaozhou City of Shandong.
Strict quarantine measures worked, and the cases slowed to March 19, the first day since the outbreak that no new infections were reported in Hubei. Wuhan began reopening last Wednesday.
A study published in the international journal Science last month attributed a delay in the spread of the virus to China’s decision to close the city. “Our analysis suggests that without Wuhan’s travel ban and national emergency response, there would have been more than 700,000 confirmed cases of Covid-19 outside of Wuhan by (February 19),” said Oxford fellow Christopher Dye, one of the authors of the article. Agence France-Presse. There were 30,000 cases in China on that date.
Another great Asian nation in strict confinement is India, which has ordered its 1.3 billion people to stay indoors until April 14, and an extension is being deliberated. The three-week blockade has suspended all schools, offices, and public transportation, with exceptions only for the most essential services, such as supermarkets and hospitals. Authorities watch the streets, scold and even beat offenders, who face fines and up to two years in prison.
Closer to home, the Philippines has put a third of its country, the entire island of Luzon with 55 million people, and the home of the capital Manila, under forced closure until April 30. Distance measures include curfews, checkpoints, suspension from work, and a halt to public transportation. President Rodrigo Duterte has threatened to kill those trapped who violate the rules.
Both India and the Philippines say they cannot yet determine whether their blocks have successfully crushed the curve. As of Saturday, they have reported more than 7,900 and more than 4,400 cases, relatively few against the numbers in the United States, Spain and Italy.
While governments, doctors, and researchers around the world have been comparing individual nations’ approaches to the coronavirus crisis, hoping to learn from each other’s successes and avoid any missteps, which has worked for some countries may not work for others. An approach tailored to the unique circumstances of each nation can yield better results.
But doctors say the low numbers are due in part to limited testing: India performed less than 140 tests per million people and the Philippines about 220, according to the data reference website Worldometer. This compares to the more than 12,400 tests in Singapore per million people and the South Korea tests at around 9,900.
A SOFT APPROACH
Singapore may not yet have gone as far as China, India, or the Philippines by imposing such severe closures, but its small population and close government oversight make breaking the virus transmission chain without using overly strict measures an easier goal. to achieve, as long as people follow the rules.
The nations and territories of East Asia have been successful in this regard. Taiwan, in particular, has been acclaimed for its low case count, less than 400 cases, without having to close schools, offices or restaurants, despite being only 180 km from mainland China. The autonomous island moved quickly to implement precautionary measures, such as a travel ban against mainland China, even when other countries debated whether to act, CNN reported. It has done about 1,900 tests per million people, according to Worldometer.
South Korea also managed to counter an initial outbreak without a total block or even the kind of draconian restrictions seen elsewhere, focusing containment efforts on rapid testing and contact tracing. Most of his distancing measures were mere guidelines rather than mandatory, although schools were ordered to close and social gatherings were prohibited, with severe penalties imposed on violators.
About six weeks after the first cases emerged in the most damaged city in South Daegu, where new daily cases peaked at 909 in February, authorities on April 3 recorded the first single-digit daily increase in city and there were no new cases for the first time. Friday.
Among the key factors that contributed to the effective containment of South Korea was the critical support of its citizens, the New York Times reported.
“Public trust has resulted in a very high level of civic awareness and voluntary cooperation that strengthens our collective effort,” said Lee Tae-ho, Deputy Foreign Minister. Regular reminders for people to keep safe distances and put on face masks also played an important role, authorities said.
Hong Kong also received praise for its handling of the outbreak, despite previous criticism of its government’s mixed messages. Its first movements for social distancing, including the closing of schools since the Chinese New Year holidays and promoting the wearing of masks for all, have been contrasted with Singapore’s more measured approach at a time when the number of infections still detected was low. Hongkongers, marked by their experience in the 2003 Sars crisis that killed 286 people in the city, have also been careful to observe the distancing patterns.
However, the first measures further hurt its economy, which was already recovering from the impact of months of anti-government protests and a recession. The IHS Markit Index of Purchasing Managers for March marked the second worst deterioration in conditions for the city’s private sector since the survey began in 1998. Retail sales in February fell 44 percent compared to the previous year, and Unemployment in the three months ending in February rose to 3.7 percent, the highest rate in nearly a decade.
While governments, doctors, and researchers around the world have been comparing individual nations’ approaches to the coronavirus crisis, hoping to learn from each other’s successes and avoid any missteps, which has worked for some countries may not work for others. An approach tailored to the unique circumstances of each nation can yield better results.
As Singapore Prime Minister Lee reminded his people last week: “Every country has different circumstances, social norms and resources, but we are all fighting the same enemy: Covid-19 … The battle is far from be won. But you can win, if we fight together. “
[ad_2]
