코로나19 팬데믹에 대한 국가별 대응 및 보건정책 고찰 및 비교

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Due to the COVID-19 Pandemics, the world faces unprecedented
difficulties. Governments are pushing for various efforts and
mitigation policies to cope with the unprecedented surge in confirmed
cases and deaths of COVID-19. The spread and long-term
prevalence of COVID-19 is due to the influence on the global
economy in addition to public health issues. However, each country's
response to COVID-19 is significantly different in terms of method
and outcome.
The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze each
country's response and health policies to COVID-19 in Korea,
Taiwan, the U.S., Germany, the U.K., and Sweden, and further to
compare and analyze the differences between health and economic
performance in accordance with these approaches and policies.
First of all, we analyze the COVID-19 disaster management
approach. As a result, the types of non-centralized rigidity regulation
policies(Germany, United Kingdom, United States) based on liberalism
were classified as cooperative rigidity regulatory policies(Taiwan),
cooperative community defense and central authority rigidity
regulations(Korea), free and self-regulatory policies(Sweden).
Countries that approached liberal-based and laissez-faire
regulations(Germany, United Kingdom, the United States, Sweden)
maintained almost the same characteristics of existing peacetime
policy frameworks in response to COVID-19. In addition, various
perspectives were reflected in the policy approach and the
responsibilities and autonomy of individual members of society were
reflected in the policy design. In addition, policy governance ensures
the independence of a group of experts instead of a ruling order and
control, ensuring that policies are enforced with absolute weight on
their recommendations. The peacetime characteristics of the supply
and demand of the medical system also continued without significant
changes in COVID-19 response, with policy targets limited in terms
of the provision of medical services and at least limited medical
resources. In addition, the preventive networks established policy
putting priority on herd immunity theory and optimistic response
systems and to be operational, track, for inspection, tracking,
isolation, the passive. Traditional approach to keeping systematic
examination as to deal with insufficient for the prevention of
epidemics.
In contrast, countries that approached cooperative community
quarantine and central authoritative regulations (Korea, Taiwan)
reinforced existing peacetime policy systems to reflect them in
COVID-19 response policies, and designed policies that encompass
medical, scientific, and specific perspectives and maintain minimum
responsibility and autonomy of individual members of society. In
addition, policies were implemented with absolute emphasis on
governing orders and controls in policy governance.
Next, to look at the economic effects of the country's COVID-19
countermeasures, the industrial production and retail sales rates were
compared by country from January to October, when the country's
quarantine systems began to operate after the outbreak of
COVID-19.
First, the analysis of industrial production rates shows that the
more effective the prevention is, the less the decrease in industrial
production is. South Korea and Taiwan, which succeeded in
preventing the disease in the early stages, have decreased since
June, and there is a clear movement to improve industrial production.
However, industrial production declines in the U.S., Germany, the
U.K., and Swedish countries, which failed to prevent the initial
quarantine, are decreasing, but industrial production fluctuations are
very unstable. These results mean that Taiwan and Korea, which
have chosen community-cooperative rigidity regulations or
community-cooperative rigidity regulations, have a difference in
industrial production rates compared to countries that have chosen
optimistic rigidity regulations and free-for-restraint self-regulation.
Second, the retail sales rate was analyzed in the order of the
UK(1.07%), the United States(0.88%) and Germany(0.83%), while
the retail sales rate of Korea(-0.02%) and Taiwan(0.46%) were
relatively low. This can be expected as a result of social distancing
and cooperative containment policies in the COVID-19 response
system, and retail sales in the United Kingdom, Germany and the
United States, where social distance and containment policies were
relatively weak, were high. Looking at the impact of the COVID-19
response on economic effects, we found that the national response
method had a discriminatory effect on the economy as well.
Through further analysis, the global economy is unlikely to
re-enter the pre-COVID-19 growth trajectory by 2022. This means
that the relative ranking of the global economy could change
significantly in the mid-term to long-term depending on quarantine
performance. The difference between countries that succeed in
effective quarantine and quickly re-enter the existing economic
growth path and those that do not means that they are likely to
become permanent differences.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

코로나 19 전염병의 대유행으로 전세계가 역사 유래 가장 위험한 보건 의료 분야의 위기와 경제적 난국을 맞이한 가운데, 국가들의 재난 대응 전략이나 중장기적인 대응 정책들의 차이에 따라서, 보건적 성과와 경제적 성과가 현저히 다르다는 현상을 연구하고, 그 증명된 결과가 향후 국가들의 효과적인 정책 수립 및 실행에 참고 자료가 될 것이다. 국가별 코로나19 초기 대응의 방법과 그 후 국가별로 선택한 코로나19 대응 전략들은 국가마다 차이가 있으며, 이러한 대응방식은 코로나 확진율과 사망율에 지대한 영향을 미치게 되고, 또 지역봉쇄 및 이동제한 등의 정책들이 실물 경제에 막대한 영향을 미치기 때문에 코로나 19에 대한 향후 전망이 불투명하고, 재유행 및 장기화가 예상되는 시점에서 ,사회 및 경제적 손실을 최소화하면서 코로나19 대응을 효과를 향상 할 수 있는 대응 방식이 요구된다. 따라서 대응방식이 서로 상이한 국가들을 대상으로 대응방식과 국가 보건 성과와 경제 성과간의 상관성을 분석하고 파악하는 것이 이 연구의 목적이다.