An exploration of the political, social, economic and cultural factors affecting how different global regions initially reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorTang, Julian W.en
dc.contributor.authorCaniza, Miguela A.en
dc.contributor.authorDinn, Mikeen
dc.contributor.authorDwyer, Dominic E.en
dc.contributor.authorHeraud, Jean-Michelen
dc.contributor.authorJennings, Lance C.en
dc.contributor.authorKok, Jenen
dc.contributor.authorKwok, Kin Onen
dc.contributor.authorLi, Yuguoen
dc.contributor.authorLoh, Tze Pingen
dc.contributor.authorMarr, Linsey C.en
dc.contributor.authorNara, Eva Megumien
dc.contributor.authorPerera, Nelunen
dc.contributor.authorSaito, Reikoen
dc.contributor.authorSantillan-Salas, Carlosen
dc.contributor.authorSullivan, Sheenaen
dc.contributor.authorWarner, Matten
dc.contributor.authorWatanabe, Aripuanaen
dc.contributor.authorZaidi, Sabeen Khurshiden
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-28T14:10:44Zen
dc.date.available2022-07-28T14:10:44Zen
dc.date.issued2022-02-11en
dc.description.abstractResponses to the early (February-July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also to delay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.en
dc.description.versionPublished versionen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2021.0079en
dc.identifier.eissn2042-8901en
dc.identifier.issn2042-8898en
dc.identifier.issue2en
dc.identifier.other20210079en
dc.identifier.pmid35261734en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/111395en
dc.identifier.volume12en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherRoyal Societyen
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.subjectCOVID-19en
dc.subjectSARS-CoV-2en
dc.subjectpandemic responseen
dc.subjectlockdownen
dc.subjectgovernmenten
dc.subjectguidanceen
dc.titleAn exploration of the political, social, economic and cultural factors affecting how different global regions initially reacted to the COVID-19 pandemicen
dc.title.serialInterface Focusen
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
rsfs.2021.0079.pdf
Size:
1.32 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Download

Collections

Scholarly Works, Civil and Environmental Engineering