International Centre for Reproductive Health (ICRH), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
School of Public Policy and Administration, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710049, China.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Oct 30;17(21):7985. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17217985.
This study aimed to descript the Belgian COVID-19 responses process according to the WHO's (World Health Organization) Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management Framework (Health EDRM Framework) and to present the measures taken and epidemic impact in the different phases of COVID-19 in Belgium. The WHO's EDRM Framework was used for reviewing the Belgian Public health emergency preparedness and responses in the context of COVID-19. Information on the measures taken was collected through the literature review including all government's communication, reports, and scientific papers. All epidemic data were extracted from a national open database managed and published by the Sciensano. Additionally, two authors closely followed the Belgian situation since the beginning of the pandemic and updated the data every day. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the anti-epidemic strategy was mainly to avoid medical resources exceeding the upper limit. Belgium issued a series of emergency decrees to limit the spread of the virus. An existing structure of "federal-region-municipal" as the framework of public health emergency preparedness and response was adapted. The emergency response process in Belgium was divided into four phases: information-evaluation-coordination-decision-making at the region level and the final decision-making at the federal level. Belgium also implemented a phased plan in the process of setting up and lifting the lockdown. However, it was vulnerable in early response, due to the shortage of medical equipment supplies in general, and more particularly for the long term care facilities (LTCFs). Belgium has achieved an intensive cooperation between stakeholders based on an existing multisectoral emergency organization framework. Legislation, medical insurance, and good communication also played a role in limiting the spread of viruses. However, the authorities underestimated the risk of an epidemic and did not take quarantine measures among people suspected affected by SARS-COV-2 in the early stages, resulting in insufficient medical equipment supply and a large number of deaths in the LTCF. The implementation of the lockdown measure in Belgium also encountered obstacles. The lockdown and its exit strategy were both closely related to the pandemic situation and social and economic life. The authorities should strengthen information management, improve the public awareness of the measures, and find out the balance points between the social and economic life and infection control measures.
本研究旨在根据世界卫生组织(世卫组织)的卫生应急和灾害风险管理框架(卫生应急管理框架)描述比利时 COVID-19 应对过程,并介绍在比利时 COVID-19 的不同阶段采取的措施和疫情影响。世卫组织的应急管理框架用于审查比利时在 COVID-19 背景下的公共卫生应急准备和应对情况。通过文献综述收集了有关措施的信息,包括政府的所有通信、报告和科学论文。所有疫情数据均从由 Sciensano 管理和发布的国家开放数据库中提取。此外,两名作者自疫情开始以来一直密切关注比利时的情况,并每天更新数据。在 COVID-19 大流行期间,抗疫策略主要是避免医疗资源超过上限。比利时发布了一系列紧急法令,以限制病毒的传播。一个现有的“联邦-地区-市政”结构被用作公共卫生应急准备和应对的框架。比利时的应急响应过程分为四个阶段:地区层面的信息评估-协调-决策,以及联邦层面的最终决策。比利时还在设立和解除封锁的过程中实施了分阶段计划。然而,由于医疗设备供应普遍短缺,特别是长期护理设施(LTCF),早期应对能力较弱。比利时在现有的多部门应急组织框架基础上,实现了利益相关者的密切合作。立法、医疗保险和良好的沟通也在限制病毒传播方面发挥了作用。然而,当局低估了疫情的风险,在 SARS-COV-2 疑似感染者中没有采取检疫措施,导致医疗设备供应不足,LTCF 死亡人数众多。比利时实施封锁措施也遇到了障碍。封锁及其退出策略都与疫情情况和社会经济生活密切相关。当局应加强信息管理,提高公众对措施的认识,并在社会经济生活和感染控制措施之间找到平衡点。