Alanezi Fahad, Althumairi Arwa, Aljaffary Afnan, Alfayez Asma, Alsalman Demah, Alhodaib Hala, AlShammari Maha M, Aldossary Reem, AlThani Bashair, Alghamedy Fatemah, Alanzi Turki M
Community College, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Damamm, Saudi Arabia.
Health Information Management and Technology Department, College of Public Health, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Saudi Arabia.
Inform Med Unlocked. 2021;23:100547. doi: 10.1016/j.imu.2021.100547. Epub 2021 Mar 18.
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted every aspect of human lives including health, businesses, and lifestyles. In spite of governments implementing various strategies across the globe, the pandemic is still expanding with increasing numbers of positive cases. In addition, countries are reopening and easing lockdown restrictions in order to get their economies back on track, and this has led to an increase in the transmission of novel coronavirus. Therefore, it is essential to regularly review the containment strategies employed in different regions in order to understand the characteristics of COVID-19 transmission and to formulate a future course of actions.
The objective of this study is to review the COVID-19 transmission statistics in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and European Union (EU) countries, and to compare these data with the various containment strategies implemented for containing the spread of the virus.
A review method was adopted along with different statistical methods for comparing and analyzing COVID-19 data and containment strategies. Transmission types and the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) in the countries in both regions are used to present the current state of the pandemic. In addition, changes in the number of COVID-19 cases are compared with the mitigation and suppression strategies implemented in both regions and their impact is analyzed.
Countries in the EU were slow in reacting to the pandemic, as delays are observed in the implementation of mitigation strategies. However, suppression strategies were implemented soon after mitigation strategies. GCC countries, on the other hand, were quick to react, and they implemented both mitigation and suppression strategies simultaneously, as soon as the pandemic emerged. The CFR was found to be low among GCC countries compared to EU countries. In addition, a second wave of transmission was observed in the EU, whereas in GCC countries there has been no second wave, although a gradual increase in the number of cases is observed. Community transmission was observed among the majority of countries in both GCC and EU countries.
With the reopening of markets, the focus of governments should be on developing integrated user-centric preventive strategies, with a blend of awareness creation, motivation, and support.
新冠疫情已经影响到人类生活的方方面面，包括健康、商业和生活方式。尽管全球各国政府都实施了各种策略，但疫情仍在蔓延，确诊病例数量不断增加。此外，各国正在重新开放并放松封锁限制，以使经济重回正轨，这导致了新型冠状病毒传播的增加。因此，定期审查不同地区采用的防控策略，对于了解新冠病毒传播的特征并制定未来行动方针至关重要。
本研究的目的是审查海湾合作委员会（GCC）和欧盟（EU）国家的新冠病毒传播统计数据，并将这些数据与为遏制病毒传播而实施的各种防控策略进行比较。
采用综述方法，并结合不同的统计方法来比较和分析新冠病毒数据及防控策略。使用两个地区国家的传播类型和病死率（CFR）来呈现疫情的当前状况。此外，将新冠病毒病例数量的变化与两个地区实施的缓解和抑制策略进行比较，并分析其影响。
欧盟国家对疫情的反应较为迟缓，在实施缓解策略方面出现了延迟。然而，在缓解策略之后很快就实施了抑制策略。另一方面，海湾合作委员会国家反应迅速，疫情一出现就同时实施了缓解和抑制策略。与欧盟国家相比，海湾合作委员会国家的病死率较低。此外，在欧盟观察到了第二波传播，而在海湾合作委员会国家，尽管病例数量逐渐增加，但尚未出现第二波传播。在海湾合作委员会和欧盟的大多数国家都观察到了社区传播。
随着市场重新开放，政府的重点应放在制定以用户为中心的综合预防策略上，同时兼顾提高认识、激发动力和提供支持。
