Allaham Shereen, Demel Isabel-Cathérine, Nur Intesar, Abu Salim Faizul Nizam, Manikam Logan
World Med Health Policy. 2021 Sep;13(3):571-580. doi: 10.1002/wmh3.412. Epub 2021 May 4.
In March 2020, the outbreak of COVID-19 was officially declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. Given the novelty of the virus, and hence, lack of official guidance on effective containment strategies, individual countries opted for different containment approaches ranging from herd immunity to strict lockdown. The opposing strategies followed by the United Kingdom and its former colony, Malaysia, stand exemplary for this. Real-time polymerase chain reaction was implemented for testing in both counties. Malaysia acted with strict quarantining rules and infection surveillance. The United Kingdom followed an initially lenient, herd-immunity approach with strict lockdown only enforced weeks later. Although based on the same health-care structure historically, Malaysia developed a more unified health system compared with the United Kingdom. We suggest that this more centralized structure could be one possible explanation for why Malaysia was able to react in a more timely and efficient manner, despite its closer geographic proximity to China. We further explore how the differences in testing and quarantining strategy, as well as political situation and societal compliance could account for the discrepancy in the United Kingdom's versus Malaysia's relative success of COVID-19 containment.
2020年3月,世界卫生组织正式宣布新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情为全球大流行。鉴于该病毒的新颖性,因此缺乏关于有效遏制策略的官方指导,各个国家选择了不同的遏制方法,从群体免疫到严格封锁。英国及其前殖民地马来西亚所采取的相反策略就是典型例子。两个国家都采用实时聚合酶链反应进行检测。马来西亚实施了严格的隔离规则和感染监测。英国最初采取宽松的群体免疫方法,几周后才实施严格封锁。尽管历史上基于相同的医疗保健结构,但与英国相比,马来西亚建立了更统一的卫生系统。我们认为,这种更集中的结构可能是马来西亚尽管地理位置比英国更靠近中国,但却能够更及时、高效地做出反应的一个可能原因。我们进一步探讨检测和隔离策略的差异,以及政治局势和社会依从性如何解释英国与马来西亚在遏制新型冠状病毒肺炎方面相对成效的差异。