The Different Formulas for Recovery from COVID-19

➢ European Formula

I. Germany
Germany did not prevent the COVID-19 outbreak, but the prevention protocols in
place facilitated the country’s response to the outbreak. These protocols included early
establishment of testing capacities, high levels of testing, an effective containment
strategy among older people, and efficient use of the country’s ample hospital capacity.
• Prevent: Local health authorities, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) –
Germany’s public health institute – and other scientific institutions have
produced data and analysis to inform Germany’s response. RKI and
scientists at other institutions mobilized in early January to launch national
crisis management to understand the epidemiology of the pandemic.
• Detect: One of the first diagnostic tests for COVID-19 was developed at
Berlin’s Charité hospital, and the government worked to mobilize the
country’s public and private laboratories to rapidly scale up testing capacity.
Later, Germany became a pioneer in polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
testing, which continues to feature prominently in the national strategy.
• Contain: Germany’s greatest success in this area has been relatively limited
transmission in long-term care facilities. Because older people are more
likely than younger people to die from the virus, the country is at higher risk
because of its older population. The comparable low rate of infection among
Germany’s population over age 70 is probably one driver of its relatively low
case fatality rate overall.
• Treat: With many hospital beds and careful planning, Germany’s intensive
care units (ICUs) have not been overly stressed, although health care
workers have had to contend with shortages of personal protective
equipment (PPE).
Germany’s strong health care system and early progress on detection
complemented its effective containment strategy. Ensuring the increase of human
resources among understaffed local public health facilities was another key component
to enable more efficient contact tracing, but these resources may not be sustainable.
Overall, Germany’s focus on collecting and analyzing data and communicating the results
to the public is leading to an informed set of policy choices that is generating unusual
levels of public support. Germany’s federal system has led to varied approaches and
guidance from each state in distancing measures and subsequent loosening measures
as well as greater capacity in the health system as a product of redundancies.
 As of May, Germany is moving forward with relaxing its physical distancing
guidelines but is doing so based on a data-driven rationale. Chancellor Angela Merkel
regularly cites RKI surveillance data and uses epidemiological concepts such as
reproduction rate as a driving factor behind decisions related to social distancing
measures. The German government is focusing on three indicators—infection rate,
disease severity, and health system capacity—to measure the quality of its response.
Setting clear expectations and providing transparency to the public on the criteria for
government decision making about reopening is a key factor in gaining public trust.
Immediately after relaxing measures, Germany saw a slight uptick in the virus
reproduction rate but has been able to identify outbreaks in nursing homes and
slaughterhouses to stop transmission. Germany has been successful in limiting the extent
of its outbreak early on, but the key question over the coming months is whether it can
prevent a second wave of infections while allowing greater freedom of movement.

II. France
The strategy taken by the French to stem the spread of the virus and relieve the
pressure on the health service may seem draconian to some, but many feel that it is either
not strong enough and/or too long in coming because it is only recently that the borders
have finally been closed.
For several weeks from the end of February, health officials had been advising
social distancing, via a multi-media public health campaign which included radio, social
media, and television. Events were cancelled, museums closed and precautions such as
frequent hand washing, not shaking hands etc. were introduced. After the closure of
schools from the 16th March was announced, and closing all bars, restaurants, cinemas,
ski stations from midnight on Saturday 14th, the French responded by partying in the
spring sunshine in large groups of friends and families. Hence, from Tuesday 17th a
blanket quarantine to stay at home is in place.
Leaving one’s residence is only permitted for purposes which include; essential
work that cannot be done at home, for which written proof from the employer must be
provided. Visits to a doctor or pharmacist, shopping for food, walking a dog or exercising
alone are all permitted, providing an “Attestation de Déplacement Dérogatoire”
downloaded from the internet, signed and dated is carried each time anyone wants to
venture outside. These outings are limited to one per person a day alone, although
children can accompany parents.
All non-essential operations have been postponed and specialist wards such as
cardiology turned into ICU wards for Covid-19 patients. Outpatient appointments have
been cancelled or postponed and patients are encouraged to use telemedicine apps and
other online programmes to communicate with their GP or specialist.
 Testing will be aided by a rapid test developed by the Institute Pasteur which has
been available since the 27th January and gives a response in a few hours. Although
drive-in testing is being piloted in Alsace, one of the most badly affected areas, as of this
weekend testing is limited. The current strategy is to priorities HCPs with symptoms,
elderly people with symptoms, people with breathing difficulties, people with
comorbidities, pregnant women, organ and tissue donors. To date, 60,000 tests have
been performed, an average of 4000 per day.

III. Spain
As many other countries, Spain has adopted a number of emergency measures to
cope with Covid-19 outbreak, with the main purpose of protecting public health, on the
one hand, and mitigate the damages on the Spanish economy, on the other hand. Some
of these new laws and regulations are of an extraordinary nature and will be applied only
temporarily, while others, such as the foreign investments screening mechanism which
Spain has put in place like many of its European peers, have been permanently
introduced in our legal system.
After the World Health Organization declared on March 11, 2020 that the Covid-
19 outbreak had reached the level of a global pandemic and as the rapid escalation of
the public health crisis caused by the virus became apparent across the globe, several
countries, including Spain, implemented a number of emergency measures with a twofold
objective: protect citizens' health and mitigate the economic consequences of the
lockdown measures.
On March 14, Spain declared a State of emergency for an initial period of 15 days,
though a number of extensions have followed, and at the time of writing it remains in
place. Under the State of emergency, which is a regulated constitutional action that the
Spanish government can take in extraordinary circumstances, it has implemented a
number of measures to try to contain the spread of Covid-19. Among others, (i) the free
movement of people has been limited; (ii) the activity of retail premises and
establishments as well as hotels and restaurants has been generally suspended; and (iii)
all schools and other in-person educational facilities have been closed.
During the days and weeks following the declaration, Spain has implemented other
measures to ease the social and economic damage caused by the lockdown. The
measures have three main objectives: (i) to protect families and vulnerable groups
(including measures to guarantee home assistance for dependents, ensure the supply of
electricity and water and provision of telecommunications services, as well as a
moratorium on the payment of mortgage installments and consumer financing fees for
vulnerable groups); (ii) to support workers, employment and production in general
(including measures to enhance flexibility and implement systems that allow temporary
job adjustment while protecting workers' rights and easing social security costs for
employers)
and (iii) to provide temporary support to companies with liquidity problems as a result of
the drop in or cessation of business (including a scheme of government-backed
guarantees and an increase in borrowing capacity of public financing entities, the
suspension or relaxation of time periods to pay taxes and a moratorium on the payment
of commercial lease rent).
On April 28, the Spanish government approved a plan to regulate the gradual
relaxation of lockdown measures in Spain, which is divided into four phases through
which the provinces will progress depending on a number of indicators such as contagion
and death rates.

IV. Italy
In Italy, the unexpected pandemic of COVID-19 has caused a never-seen-before
disaster in terms of hospitalizations and deaths. On January 9, 2020, the Chinese Center
for Disease Control and Prevention reported that a new coronavirus, severe acute
respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-Cov-2), had been identified as the causative
agent of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), and the genomic sequence was made
public.
Italy was the first European nation to be affected by COVID-19 with 143,626
confirmed total cases and 18,279 deaths to date (1). The pandemic has mainly been in
Northern Italy, partially sparing, for the moment, the southern part of the country. Italy
was not prepared for COVID-19, currently a planetary health emergency with 1,436,198
cases and 85,522 deaths worldwide (2). The Italian crisis provoked by COVID-19 is the
most serious event in Italian history after World War II; it is a national human, health, and
economic tragedy. COVID-19 mortality in Italy has been 9%, higher than that in China.
The reasons for this high mortality are unclear. However, the infected fatality rate may
actually be lower because the tests have not been widespread compared to other
countries such as South Korea. Furthermore, the oldest population in Italy may have
increased mortality. In fact, the median age in Italy of those who have died is 80 years.
No patient younger than 20 years of age has been hospitalized or has died. Only 1% of
the deaths have been detected in patients younger than 50 years of age.
On February 21, 2019, the first Italian patient with COVID-19 was diagnosed, a 38-
year-old man hospitalized at Codogno Hospital, Lodi, in northern Italy. Also, in northern
Italy, on February 21, 2020, another outbreak of viruses was discovered in Vò Euganeo
(Padua) and, in the Veneto region, the first death was reported, a 78-year-old man in a
hospital in Padua. He was the first of a long series of deaths. The mortality rate in the
Lombardy region alone, with a total of 10,022 deaths, is greater than the number of deaths
in China (3,342 total deaths).
 Social containment, early and rapid throughout a nation, is the most effective
measure for controlling the spread of COVID-19; this social containment perhaps was
delayed in Italy. Italy was the first nation in Europe affected by COVID-19 and was
therefore caught unprepared. The rapid spread of COVID-19 and the dangerousness of
the disease, very different from the normal seasonal influenza, were perhaps initially
underestimated. Today, the entire nation is on lockdown, and cities and towns have
become isolated, showing a deserted Rome today.
In Italy, the tests for COVID-19 have been performed mainly on symptomatic
subjects. Tests were not performed initially in health care professionals (who could,
therefore, have contributed to the spread of the disease) as well as in symptomatic
patients at home. Finally, Italy, like most nations, was not prepared for the rapid spread
of the pandemic, and many protection systems such as masks, produced almost
exclusively abroad, were not sufficient even for health personnel. In addition, there are
simply not enough ventilators for all patients who need them, raising important ethical
issues.
Bergamo, a city in Lombardy of 122,000 inhabitants, had a very high number of
infections (10,043), perhaps because the importance of social containment to favor
economic activities was underestimated. A particularly crowded Atlanta-Valencia football
match, with >50,000 Bergamo spectators, is another hypothesis to explain the high
number of infections. Noninvasive ventilation is the first form of therapy for many patients
hospitalized with severe interstitial cases of pneumonia, who, however, suddenly may
require intubation for rapid lung deterioration. Medical therapy in these patients is
empirical, although chloroquine, azithromycin, high-dose steroids, tocilizumab,
lopinavir/ritonavir, heparin, and other drugs have been empirically tested. It has been
recently suggested that other health care systems should prepare for a massive increase
in ICU demand during an uncontained outbreak of COVID-19.
 ➢ Asian Model

I. South Korea
The Korean government, although being vigilant since the coronavirus outbreak in
Wuhan in December, could not stop coronavirus from entering the country since
thousands of Chinese visitors on the eve of Lunar New Year already entered Korea. The
government has since then been rapidly investigating the contacts of suspected and
infected cases and sterilizing the environment near the places visited by such. Within a
month, the Korean outbreak was effectively contained. In the first two weeks of March,
new daily cases fell from 800 to fewer than 100. On April 15, the country successfully held
a national parliamentary election with the highest turnout in three decades, without
triggering another wave. South Korea is not unique in its ability to bend the curve of daily
cases; New Zealand, Australia, and Norway have done so, as well. But it is perhaps the
largest democracy to reduce new daily cases by more than 90 percent from peak, and its
density and proximity to China make the achievement particularly noteworthy.
South Korea’s response to COVID-19 stands out because it flattened the epidemic
curve quickly without closing businesses, issuing stay-at-home orders, or implementing
many of the stricter measures adopted by other high-income countries. The country has
shown early success across three phases of the epidemic preparedness and response
framework: detection, containment, and treatment. From the outset, decision making in
South Korea has been a collaboration between the government and the scientific
community.

• Detection: South Korea built hundreds of innovative, high-capacity screening

clinics and worked closely with the private sector to ensure an adequate supply of
tests. As the outbreak escalated, approximately 600 testing centers were
established to screen people efficiently and outside of the health system, with
testing capacity reaching 15,000 to 20,000 tests per day.

• Containment: South Korea isolated infected patients, supported those in

quarantine to increase compliance and, most importantly, traced contacts with
unusual thoroughness. A workforce of hundreds of epidemiological intelligence
officers was deployed for these tracing efforts and empowered to use a wide
variety of data sources, including credit card transactions and closed-captioned
television footage.
 • Treatment: The health system surged to meet demand, especially in Daegu, the
site of a large cluster of infections. An additional 2,400 health workers were
recruited in Daegu alone. Across the country, the government built temporary
hospitals to increase capacity and addressed shortages of personal protective
equipment (PPE) through centralized government purchasing.

South Korea’s strong enabling environment positioned the government to act quickly
and effectively. After its flawed response to an outbreak of Middle East respiratory
syndrome (MERS) in 2015, the government made several reforms to the health system
to boost preparedness. In addition, a well-functioning national health insurance system,
ample human resources and infrastructure, and constructive relationships with key
institutions such as the president’s office, the Ministry of Health, and the Korean Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, allowed for an extraordinarily decisive response to
the pandemic.
As South Korea transitions to reopening, its experiences may offer additional lessons
about how to keep case numbers low without limiting activity.

II. Vietnam
When the health care systems of most powerful countries in the world have failed to
curb the spread of COVID-19, the South East Asian country, Vietnam, performed an
outstanding work against the pandemic cutting swath through the globe. The country is
considered to have built a success story with its fight against novel coronavirus. A nation
of around 95 million population, Vietnam confirmed its first COVID-19 case on Jan. 23.
However, it has so far reported 328 cases with zero deaths and 307 recoveries. The
country has 1,450 kilometers (900 miles) of land border with China, the ground zero of
the virus, which has suffered 4,638 deaths and over 84,000 infections.
The country's quick measures to contain the spread of virus was another to-the-point
move behind its success. When the number of COVID-19 cases saw a rapid increase in
China in the last week of January, Vietnam banned entry to Chinese tourists on Jan. 28.
Despite having a long border with China, Vietnam has not been seriously affected by the
large number of cases in its neighbor as it was quick to take preventive measures against
coronavirus. On March 21, authorities began imposing a 14-day quarantine for all foreign
arrivals, as well as the places they visited.
The local administration meticulously traced every single person who may have been
infected with the virus and quarantined entire streets as well as villages out of a fear of
outbreak. The country's epidemic control program has been well-organized for it relied on
four relatively cost-effective solutions, including quick strategic testing, aggressive
contact tracing, effective public communication campaigns, and swift development of
testing kits.
 III. Thailand
At the height of the pandemic in March and April, Thailand was on a partial or “soft”
lockdown. Public and private establishments were closed throughout the country except
for hospitals, drug stores, supermarkets, takeout places, and other essential services.
Wet markets were open, and Bangkok’s ubiquitous street food vendors continued to do
brisk business. While inter-provincial bus trips and air travel were stopped, there were no
restrictions on local mobility, except a curfew from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. In Bangkok, buses,
the light rail, and the subway continued to function.
A measure of disorganization attended this process, especially in the beginning. The
sudden closure of businesses and factories in Bangkok, without attention to how people
would survive, led to many leaving the capital in a hurry, resulting in the spread of COVID-
19 cases beyond Bangkok. Also, there was a lack of national coordination, so travel
became difficult across provinces. Some imposed local lockdowns so travelers could not
enter without permission from local authorities.
In spite of these fumbles on the part of the political leadership, the public health
authorities soon stabilized the situation. As in most other countries, public health
authorities very early on discarded mass testing, saying they did not have the resources
to conduct this. In its place, they put into effect an aggressive strategy of contact tracing,
quarantining those testing positive, hospitalizing those with serious symptoms, and
requiring international travelers arriving from “dangerous communicable disease areas”
to self-isolate or, in some cases, be confined to government quarantine centers.
A critical role was played by village health volunteers (VHVs) in flattening the spread
of COVID-19 at the community level. They monitored people’s movement in and out of
their villages, conducted home visits to check temperature, shared health information
about COVID-19 and how to prevent it, recorded household health information, and
reported their data to the provincial health office and then the central government
afterward. There were over a million VHVs across the country, in addition to more than
15,000 public health volunteers in Bangkok.
A popular explanation going around about why Asian countries have done better
dealing with COVID-19 than the United States and Europe is that they have authoritarian
governments that could quickly muster a centralized, unified response from above. The
Thai case, with its military-dominated conservative government, appears to fit this
stereotype, which is drawn mainly from China’s response to the pandemic.
This view is superficial, indeed extremely so. For while the government did adopt an
Emergency Decree, the battle against the pandemic was led by public health authorities
deploying a strategy of persuading people to use face masks and hand sanitizers,
observe social distancing, and stay at home. As noted above, much of this work was
carried out at the grassroots level by hundreds of thousands of village health volunteers.
 Polite visual and audio reminders were ubiquitous in both public places and
supermarkets. On television, COVID-19-related advice was pervasive, and one of the
most watched spots was the daily 11 a.m. update of the Center for COVID-19 Situation
Administration (CCSA) led by a medical doctor who laid out the numbers, offered
assessments of the national and international situation, and used the opportunity to boost
popular morale.
The current regime is a polarizing one. Whatever its intentions, it proved a smart
decision for its military leaders to yield center stage to public health authorities with a
thoroughly professional image. This contrasted with the United States, where President
Donald Trump consistently contradicted his medical experts, or the Philippines, where
President Rodrigo Duterte has used police coercion and threats of shooting people
instead of persuasion to achieve citizens’ compliance.
Indeed, in the view of some observers, the public health authorities’ response did not
need the Emergency Decree, the main objective of which was, in their view, twofold: to
unify a fractious ruling coalition and to contain the public criticism of the disorganization
that marked the political leadership’s confused response to the crisis in the beginning.
From most indications, the strategy of persuasion has been successful. Personal
observation showed widespread compliance with the one-to-two-meter social distancing
rule, though, in the typical Thai fashion, people tried to make compliance as unobtrusive
as possible to avoid hurting people’s feelings. Buses and metro-rail and light rail coaches
traveled at only 15-20 percent capacity, which meant people were staying at home. In
light rail and subway coaches, I never saw anyone seating on the designated empty seat
separating passengers. Face mask use was universal.

IV. Japan
So, what is the Japan model? First, it is a cluster-based approach, derived from a
hypothesis obtained from an epidemiological study based on Chinese data and
conducted on the Diamond Princess cruise ship that entered the port of Yokohama on
February 3, 2020. This hypothesis accounts for the many passengers who were not
infected with the coronavirus despite having had close contact with infected persons. It
posits that the explosive increase in infected persons is a result of the high transmissibility
of certain infected individuals, which forms a cluster. Infected individuals with even higher
transmissibility appear from these clusters to form more clusters and infect many others.
Based on this hypothesis, under the cluster-based approach, each cluster is tracked to
the original infection source and persons with high transmissibility are isolated to prevent
the spread of infection. For this reason, pinpoint testing is carried out and broad testing
of the population is not required, in contrast to the approaches taken in other counties.
 This cluster-based approach is conditioned on an environment in which there are only
a few infected persons and clusters are detectable at an early stage. In February 2020,
when the spread of infection was observed in Hokkaido, a cluster-based approach was
adopted. As a result, Hokkaido was successfully able to contain its outbreak.
For the cluster-based approach to be effective, protective measures at airports and
ports are important. Hokkaido has the advantage of being an island, making it
comparatively easy to control the inflow of infected people. Behavioral changes are also
required. On February 28, 2020, acting without legal basis, Hokkaido Governor Naomichi
Suzuki declared a state of emergency and called on residents to refrain from going
outside. Residents took the call seriously and are responsible for the success of the
cluster-based approach. Following its success in Hokkaido, the cluster-based approach
was adopted nationally. On February 25, 2020, a Cluster Response Team was
established in the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.
Another key to the Japan model is the social distancing method known as “the three
Cs,” referring to closed spaces with poor ventilation, crowded places with many people
nearby and close-contact settings such as close-range conversations. In the city of
Wuhan, China, in its efforts to contain the coronavirus outbreak, the government imposed
a lockdown to forcibly limit human movement. This method was also adopted in Italy,
where the epidemic became unmanageable, and became standard practice in Western
countries. In addition, having a two-meter distance between people is becoming a social
norm, to prevent the spread of the disease by droplets. In Japan, however, this social
distancing is considered a secondary measure.
Underlying the Japan model are factors such as the habit of wearing masks. This habit
is widespread in Japan, where many people suffer from hay fever, making the possibility
of contraction by droplets comparatively small. Behaviors like shaking hands, hugging
and kissing, and other forms of physical contact are not part of traditional Japanese
greetings. Another factor may be that conversing on crowded commuter trains, where
there is close physical contact, is considered poor etiquette. This also helps limit the
possibility that people will contract the virus by droplets. In contrast, karaoke and
Japanese style pubs, where conversations are at high volume, are known sources of
infection and clusters. Accordingly, avoiding the three Cs is a key component of the
cluster-based approach.
This cluster-based approach and the three Cs measure may seem strange to the eyes
of people in countries where strict lockdowns have been adopted, and may seem to be a
dangerous gamble. Indeed, the number of infected Japanese has been rising, and the
government declared a state of emergency on April 7, 2020 for seven prefectures,
including Tokyo, before later expanding it to the entire nation. However, unlike the
lockdowns imposed in foreign countries, the operation of factories and certain other
economic activities are permitted under the declaration. Although this may also appear to
be lax from an overseas perspective, this strategy of closing down the sources of clusters
and blocking infection routes by combining the cluster-based approach and the three Cs
measure has worked quite well to contain the spread of the epidemic to date.
Recent days have seen reports that some Japanese hospitals in major cities are
running short of personal protective equipment. This is actually a failure of politics, rather
than a failure of the cluster-based approach. Because of the success the cluster-based
approach was having, the government became complacent and failed to build up
stockpiles.
What, then, about the declaration of a state of emergency in Japan? Does that mean
that the cluster-based approach itself has failed? In fact, quite the opposite. The cluster-
based approach always assumed that a rise in infections that could not be accounted for
should trigger stronger government measures. These measures should then aim at
reducing the number of new hospitalizations to the point where the cluster-based
approach can be reactivated. The number of new confirmed cases in Tokyo fell from 197
on April 11 to 132 on April 22. It is too early to link that to the state of emergency, but we
can say that the calls by Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike for people to stay home, which
she made prior to the national government’s declaration of a state of emergency, are
having an impact.
The Japan model is based on geographic and social conditions within the country and
would not have applicability to other countries. It is also an open question as to whether
the model will continue to be successful. Similar approaches are being taken by South
Korea and Singapore with more sophisticated personal tracking system, which raise
privacy issues. Japan is introducing its own system, albeit one that is less intrusive. For
now, though, the comparatively low mortality from COVID-19 in Japan should be
considered evidence that the Japan model has worked to date. The model allows for a
certain level of economic activity and maintains people’s freedom to move about, and as
such is more sustainable over the long term than more burdensome models such as
lockdowns. That makes it a viable strategy to fight the long-term battle against COVID-
19.
 • American Model

The coronavirus (COVID-19) disease continues to spread around the world, with around
13 million cases and 571,700 deaths as of July 13, 2020. In the United States, the number
of infections has risen dramatically since the first week of March, and the U.S. now has
more confirmed cases and deaths than any other country worldwide. All 50 states have
been affected, but New York has the highest number of deaths and has reported more
cases than any single country outside of the United States.

As of July 12, around 3.2 million cases of COVID-19 had been reported in the United
States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Testing for
the virus ran into some early problems when initial diagnostic kits from the CDC were
found to be defective. However, the United States has since performed around 42.5
million tests, which is the second most of any country. In response to the rising number
of COVID-19 cases, many states encouraged self-isolation and working from home – At
the end of March it was estimated that over 90 percent of the U.S. population was under
some kind of stay-at-home order. To further prevent the spread of the virus, most states
also closed bars and restaurants, canceled public events, and banned large gatherings.
At the end of May, many states began lifting lockdown restrictions and reopening in order
to revive their economies, despite warnings that it was still too early. As a result, by mid-
July, around 33 states were reporting higher rates of new cases compared to the previous
week with only three states reporting declining rates. The government’s response to the
pandemic has been criticized since cases first started appearing in the U.S., with many
pointing to contradictory statements from the White House regarding the severity of the
outbreak and a general lack of leadership and guidance. A Statista survey that ran from
March 23 to May 31 found that U.S. adults were consistently less satisfied with their
government’s response to COVID-19 than their counterparts in Germany and the United
Kingdom.
More than 137,700 people had died from COVID-19 in the United States as of July 13.
The disease is far worse than many first thought: a survey from March 11 found that
around 90 percent of U.S. adults believed that fewer than 10,000 Americans would die
from the disease over the next year. On March 31, the White House’s coronavirus task
force stated that between 100,000 and 200,000 Americans could die. The elderly and
those with pre-existing medical conditions are more vulnerable to the illness, and the older
U.S. adults get, the more they regard the coronavirus a major threat to their health.
The level of COVID-19 activity has differed from state to state, but New York has been hit
the hardest, with around 401,706 positive cases as of July 12. New York also has the
second highest death rate from COVID-19, behind New Jersey. New York City alone has
reported over 16,200 deaths from the disease.
 • Philippine Model
The novel coronavirus, COVID-19, which triggered a global pandemic at a
confounding pace has affected the whole world. Following the emergence of the novel
coronavirus and its spread outside China, countries like the Philippines are experiencing
the deadly virus’ life-threatening and chilling socio-economic impacts.
From the first three imported COVID-19 cases in January, the infection rate in the
Philippines has grown rapidly because of localised transmissions totalling 15,588 cases,
with 11,069 active cases as of 28 May, 2020. There have been 921 deaths and 3,598
recoveries so far. Among all ASEAN member states, the Philippines occupies third spot
in terms of the highest number of COVID-19 cases.
In response to the outbreak, the government of the Philippine launched a multi-
sectoral response to the COVID-19 pandemic through its Interagency Task Force (IATF)
on Emerging Infectious Diseases chaired by the Department of Health (DOH). For almost
three months now, the Philippine government has adopted a suppression strategy
through the use of non-pharmaceutical health (NPH) measures (i.e. social distancing,
wearing of face masks, quarantines, etc.) to control the spread of the virus in the country.
These measures are embodied in the Philippine government’s National Action Plan (NAP)
Against COVID-19 strategic framework, which includes strategies such as TASK FORCE
T3 (Test, Trace and Treat) and PDITRA or Prevention, Detection, Isolation, Reintegration,
and Adopting the New Normal Program.
The NAP is a nationally enabled, local government unit (LGU)-led, people-centred,
whole nation strategy to fight the COVID-19 virus. The ultimate aspiration of NAP is to
prevent the spread of the disease and to limit its negative impact on the community, the
economy, and the security of the country.
After almost three months under different types of lockdowns, Filipinos are asking if
indeed the Philippines is winning the war against the novel coronavirus. In an attempt to
provide some answers to this question, it is of the essence to take a glimpse at how the
Philippines is faring and coping with the following considerations, which are said to be the
most critical factors in winning the battle against COVID-19: (a) testing and testing
capacity; (b) the reduction of new cases; (c) contact tracing; (c) treatments; (d) securing
a vaccine for the people; and (e) securing, enhancing and augmenting of the healthcare
facilities and resources of the country. These factors are the game changers in the
nation’s crusade against the novel coronavirus. Success in these considerations will
assist in the smooth transition towards the new normal and will serve as a conduit to the
opening of the country’s economy.
Is the Philippines winning the war against COVID-19? It is too early to say. But one
thing is certain though, the country is on the right track and is well guided in its response
against the deadly virus. Are the country’s responses to COVID-19 perfect? Of course
not. Though far from perfect, nonetheless, the country has achieved relative successes
in its response to the COVID-19 outbreak within a short period, and these responses are
continuously gaining traction despite the many challenges along the way. The Philippine
response to the virus – though laden with its own set of shortcomings – has saved tens
of thousands of Filipino lives. As the whole country wrestles with COVID-19, the
government is presented with lots of opportunities and plenty of room to improve its efforts
in the war against the virus.
Are the country’s responses to the COVID-19 pandemic faced with major challenges?
Yes of course. One of the many challenges now is to ensure that all health-related and
quarantine protocols are maintained until there’s the availability of a vaccine, and to avoid
a relapse if these interventions are relaxed. In what ways can the Philippines further
improve its chances of winning the war against COVID-19? The boxing match against
COVID-19 is not just a battle for the government of the Philippines, but a collective fight
for every Filipino. Therefore, the cooperation, commitment and discipline of every single
Filipino in respecting and following the mandated precautionary measures prescribed by
the government such as staying at home, social/physical distancing, wearing face masks,
washing of hands, and the like, are at the end of the day, the most important determining
factors in the country’s battle against COVID-19.
 • Australia’s Strategy

On May 5, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison met with state and territory leaders
and agreed that the country would begin to lift lockdown restrictions in stages with the
goal of establishing "a sustainable COVID-19 safe economy in July 2020," though he
stressed that each state would be able to move at its own pace.
Each Australian state and territory are coordinating its reopening with the federal
government, but easing its restrictions based on the situation locally. For example, the
Northern Territory, which has only recorded 29 cases and zero deaths, began reopening
national parks and allowing outdoor activities on May 1. The state of Victoria, on the other
hand, has reported over 1,500 cases and 18 deaths and began gently easing its
restrictions on May 13.
While Australia and the US are both looking toward the future, one leading health
policy expert told Business Insider that Australia has taken a drastically different approach
to fighting the pandemic, which puts Australia at an advantage to fight off a potential
second wave of infection. According to Russell, in recent years Australia has boosted
finances and personnel for its agencies responsible for monitoring indicators of infectious
disease, including the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee — a
subcommittee of the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council (AHMAC), part of the
Council of Australian Governments (COAG) — which coordinates efforts between federal
and state governments. Russell said one of the major differences between the US and
Australian responses to the coronavirus outbreak was how both countries prepared in
advance. In Australia, Russell said, "we don't have Trump and America does, and that
makes an enormous amount of difference." According to Russell, Australian Prime
Minister Scott Morrison has allowed health experts to take the lead in delivering
messages to the nation.
Experts have repeatedly said that testing and contact tracing are two crucial capacities
that every government needs to have in place in order to safely lift coronavirus
restrictions. Robust testing systems and comprehensive contact tracing allow
governments to see where the coronavirus is going, who has it, and whether the
population is gaining immunity. Australia has recently expanded its testing policy to allow
anyone with respiratory symptoms to be screened for the virus. The government also
recently received a surplus of millions of testing kits, which the federal government says
will allow the country to significantly boost its COVID-19 testing.

The Australian government also released a contact tracing app that millions of
residents have already downloaded, which the prime minister has said is the country's
"ticket" to easing restrictions. Lastly, Russell pointed out that the US and Australian
healthcare systems are vastly different and are institutionally set up to handle public
health crises in distinct ways. Australia's healthcare system is divided into the public and
private sectors ⁠— its public-funded universal health care insurance scheme called
Medicare provides partial or full coverage of most primary health care services to all
Australians free of cost, while several companies also offer private health insurance
funded by a combination of government and private entities that allow for expanded
coverage and broader choice. According to Russell, these benefits grant Australians
greater freedom to ensure they can take time off from work if necessary and limit the
spread of disease without invoking financial hardship.
 • New Zealand’s Strategy

On February 2, a man in the Philippines became the first person outside China to die
of Covid-19. At this point, there were no reported cases in New Zealand, but the next day,
the country began banning entry to any foreigner coming from or via China. Any New
Zealander returning from China had to isolate for 14 days. As the virus spread globally, a
flight ban was also extended to Iran - the origin of New Zealand's first case - and
restrictions placed on anyone arriving from South Korea, northern Italy, or who was
showing symptoms. As of midnight, on 16 March, everybody - including New Zealanders
- had to go into self-isolation on arrival in the country, unless they were coming from the
largely unaffected Pacific island nations. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said these were
the strictest regulations in the world, for which she would "make no apologies".
Then, a few days later, Ms. Ardern took the unprecedented step of closing the borders
entirely to almost all non-citizens or residents. But by mid-March it was clear the virus
could not be controlled with the standard pandemic flu action plan, one of New Zealand's
top epidemiologists, Prof Michael Baker, told the BBC. A World Health Organization
(WHO) report on the success of Wuhan's lockdown in late January made it clear the New
Zealand approach should be to "throw everything at it at the start" and aim for total
elimination, said Prof Baker. In late March, to prepare the public for a rapidly changing
situation, New Zealand introduced a new four-stage alert system. Based on existing
wildfire alerts, it would clearly indicate the current risk and the necessary social distancing
measures. The system began at level two, but on 25 March it had risen to level four. That
triggered a total nationwide lockdown, with only essential services running and everyone
told to stay at home, in their "bubble".
At that point New Zealand had recorded only 102 cases and no deaths. The time
bought by the lockdown was used to finesse an extensive testing and contact tracing
operation. New Zealand can now carry out 10,000 tests a day and when a case is
confirmed, contact tracers get to work alerting anyone they had close interactions with
and telling them to isolate.
The WHO has praised New Zealand for acting quickly, holding it as an example to
other countries. On 8 June, Ms. Ardern announced that with no new community
transmissions in 17 days and all patients fully recovered, "we are confident we have
eliminated transmission of the virus in New Zealand for now".
The lockdown was lifted, and everyday life is now almost entirely back to normal,
with some social distancing. But the borders remain closed to foreigners for now, with no
indication of when they will reopen - and officials say complacency could be disastrous.
 The Fall Down of the World’s Economy due to the Covid-19
Pandemic

While there is no way to tell exactly what the economic damage

from the global COVID-19 novel coronavirus pandemic will be, there is widespread
agreement among economists that it will have severe negative impacts on the global
economy. Early estimates predicated that, should the virus become a global pandemic,
most major economies will lose at least 2.4 percent of the value their gross domestic
product (GDP) over 2020, leading economists to already reduce their 2020 forecasts of
global economic growth down from around 3.0 percent to 2.4 percent. To put this number
in perspective, global GDP was estimated at around 86.6 trillion U.S. dollars in 2019 –
meaning that just a 0.4 percent drop in economic growth amounts to almost 3.5 trillion
U.S. dollars in lost economic output. However, these predictions were made prior to
COVID-19 becoming a global pandemic, and before the implementation of widespread
restrictions on social contact to stop the spread of the virus. Since then, global stock
markets have suffered dramatic falls due to the outbreak, and the Dow Jones reported its
largest-ever single day fall of almost 3,000 points on March 16, 2020 – beating its previous
record of 2,300 points that was set only four days earlier.
The economic damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is
largely driven by a fall in demand, meaning that there are not consumers to purchase the
goods and services available in the global economy. This dynamic can be clearly seen in
heavily affected industries such as travel and tourism. To slow the spread of the virus,
countries placed restrictions on travel, meaning that many people cannot purchase flights
for holidays or business trips. This reduction in consumer demand causes airlines to lose
planned revenue, meaning they then need to cut their expenses by reducing the number
of flights they operate. Without government assistance, eventually airlines will also need
to reduce lay off staff to further cut costs. The same dynamic applies to other industries,
for example with falling demand for oil and new cars as daily commutes, social events
and holidays are no longer possible. As companies start cutting staff to make up for lost
revenue, the worry is that this will create a downward economic spiral when these newly
unemployed workers can no longer afford to purchase unaffected goods and services. To
use retail as an example, an increase in unemployment will compound the reduction in
sales that occurred from the closure of shopfronts, cascading the crisis over to the online
retail segment (which has increased throughout the crisis). It is this dynamic that has
economists contemplating whether the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to a global
recession on the scale of the Great Depression.
Despite the clear danger that the global economy is in, there are
also reasons to be hopeful that this worst-case scenario can be avoided. Governments
have learned from previous crises that the effects of a demand-driven recession can be
countered with government spending. Consequently, many governments are increasing
their provision of monetary welfare to citizens, and ensuring businesses have access to
the funds needed to keep their staff employed throughout the pandemic. In addition, the
specific nature of this crisis means that some sectors may benefit, such as e-commerce,
food retail, and the healthcare industry - providing at least some economic growth to offset
the damage. Finally, there is the fact that the crisis may have a clear end date when all
restrictions on movement can be lifted (for example, when a vaccine is developed). Taken
together, this means it is at least possible the global economy could experience a sharp
rebound once the pandemic is over. There are still many variables that could affect such
an economic recovery – for example, a reduced supply of goods and services to meet
lower demand could create mid-term shortages and price increases – but there are some
reasons to think that, with the right mix of appropriate government responses and luck,
some of the more apocalyptic predictions may not come to pass.

I. Europe

➢ Germany
Germany was able to contain the coronavirus however, as a consequence, businesses
and industries in all of Germany faced serious financial issues due to the absence of
customers and consumers using their services, as well as travel restrictions both on a
national and international level. Another worry is reduced performance due to the
possibility of more employees being on sick leave. During a recent survey conducted
among German companies, it was clear that the travel and hospitality industry in particular
were already noticing the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) on their business. When
surveyed on revenue expectations in the near future, companies varied between making
estimates regarding losses and stating that currently it was not possible to make a
prediction. German e-commerce is also expecting to be impacted by the coronavirus
(COVID-19) epidemic, with common concerns including delivery delays or cancellations
for restocking goods, as well as a revenue decline.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global economy will be worse than initially
expected, Germany's Council of Economic Experts said that the pandemic will result in
the worst slump in the German economy since the reunification, but a slight recovery is
expected in the summer, Chairman Lars Feld added.
The experts see the German gross domestic product (GDP) contracting 6.5% this year
and then growing 4.9% in 2021. However, the council warned that the recovery is slow
and could be prolonged further if the number of new coronavirus cases increases.
 ➢ France
Due to the outbreak of coronavirus (COVID-19), the gross domestic product of France
could decrease by 11.4 to 14.1 percent in 2020. The largest decrease might be registered
if a second wave of infections, with renewed lockdowns, hits the country before the end
of 2020.

➢ Spain
To better understand the impact of the pandemic, Oxford Economics and McKinsey
conducted analyses and developed different macroeconomic scenarios.6 We estimate
that Spain’s GDP could fall, in real terms, by 5.7 to 13.5 percent in 2020, by 5.2 to 11.1
percent in the eurozone, and by 2.7 to 6.5 percent in the world. These ranges reflect the
fact that the pandemic will have a pronounced impact across countries. For this article,
we have used 13.5 percent as the base scenario, which also assumes that Spain’s
economy will recover (defined as returning to its pre-crisis GDP) by the end of 2023. Most
sources agree on the severity of the 2020 GDP shock,7 but the recovery rate in 2021 and
onward is unclear.
The first segment (27 percent of gross value added, or GVA,8 and employment)
comprises sectors that could experience a drop of more than 20 percent of revenues in
real terms, as they rely on activities that are, for now, highly restricted or fueled by
discretionary consumer spending. These include accommodation and food services
(HORECA), entertainment, transport, auto, real estate, and wholesale and retail
(excluding groceries).
The second segment represents 34 percent of GVA and 36 percent of the labor market;
sectors in it could experience a 10 to 20 percent drop in revenue in 2020. These sectors
are construction, logistics, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, professional activities,
financial institutions, energy and utilities, and other industry.9
Last, the sectors that may be less affected by COVID-19 represent 26 percent of GVA
and 31 percent of the labor market. These sectors, with revenues potentially dropping 10
percent or less, are telecommunications, pharma and medical products, public services,
the consumer-goods industry, and retail groceries.
Impact is not homogeneous across different subsectors. A more granular view, which we
have built this analysis on, should be considered to fully understand sector-specific
dynamics. Some subsectors will do better than their sectors as a whole, and vice versa;
this may be the case, for example, in auto sales versus repair or fine-dining restaurants
versus their quick-service counterparts. Considering these impacts, we have estimated
the increase in the probability of default for different economic sectors. In aggregate, and
without considering any mitigating actions by the public sector, the COVID-19 pandemic
could cause more than a threefold increase in the rate of default for Spanish companies
in 2020. Particularly concerning are sectors such as accommodation or HORECA, for
which the default probability increase could be eightfold. Other sectors, such as
entertainment, transport, logistics, and auto, might see their default probability rise by four
to seven times. A heavy economic shock implies that a large number of companies may
not be able to continue their operations because of not only short-term liquidity problems
but also structural capital and debt positions. And every bar, restaurant, store, and other
company that closes will have a broader impact on the community as a whole.

➢ Italy

Due to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, the gross domestic product (GDP) in Italy
is estimated to decrease. Since the outbreak of coronavirus, different estimates on the
GDP growth based on different scenarios have been released. According to a forecast
from May, by 2020, the Italian GDP might decrease by 9.6 percent. Nevertheless, the
impact of coronavirus on the Italian economy might vary according to the sector. For
instance, the consumption value in the food, health, and media sectors is expected to
increase. Conversely, the sectors of textile, transport, hotels, restaurants, and
entertainment are estimated to record the highest drop.
In this sense, it is forecast that the tourism industry in Italy will be highly affected by the
spread of COVID-19. An outlook published in March 2020 shows that the country is
expected to register a decrease of approximately 4.7 million international tourist arrivals.
In this respect, the highest drop in arrivals relates to Chinese, German, and U.S. travelers.
Moreover, a forecast from March 2020 estimated that revenues of hotels, travel agencies
and other touristic facilities are expected to decrease significantly.
 II. Asia

➢ South Korea
In the first quarter of 2020, it was expected that South Korea
would see a loss of around 2.9 trillion South Korean won in tourism revenue if the novel
coronavirus spreads rapidly in the country. In addition, the number of foreign tourists
visiting South Korea was expected to decrease by two million. As of April 19, 2020, South
Korea confirmed 10,661 cases of infection.

➢ Vietnam
The opening up of the tourism sector and resuming of normal
industrial production affirms that Vietnam spectacularly overcame COVID-19 and is now
ready to become a regional economic hub that can replace China in the global supply
chain in select sectors. Despite the global trend of recession, the IMF report in April 2020
has predicted that Vietnam will grow at a rate of 2.7 per cent, which would be higher than
many other regional economies. However, it was predicted that the inflation would also
be more than 3 per cent which would still be in manageable levels. At comparative levels,
countries such as Philippines and Indonesia would be growing at 0.6 and 0.5 per cent in
the year 2020. The big economies-Thailand and Malaysia would be contracting. In the
midst of the COVID-19, the Vietnamese PM Nguyen Xuan Phuc said in May 2020 that
Vietnam’s economy would be growing by more than 2.7 per cent.
Following its report in April 2020, IMF revised its estimates in May
2020 and stated that that in the year 2021 the Vietnam’s economy would be growing at 7
per cent which clearly means that the economy would have recovered from the adverse
effects of COVID-19 in the year 2020 only. The reasons which have been provided by the
IMF included sound economic fundamentals, and growth in merchandise exports. This
has also been because of the fact that Chinese economy would suffer because of the
COVID-19. Forbes has predicted that Vietnam is one of the safest countries for COVID-
19 travel because of effective measures. The country recorded only 331 cases of infection
with no deaths reported because of the virus. This has been lauded at the international
level.
In order to promote growth and boost the tourism sector, the
government has initiated easy facilitation of investment and even proposed a cut in
corporate income tax up to 30 per cent to boost investment. The Vietnamese national
legislature has been discussing the proposal to promote investment in private companies,
small and medium enterprises (SMEs) as well as public enterprises. The purpose of this
proposal is to provide considerable tax benefits and even deferred tax payments. The
SMEs comprise nearly 97 per cent of total business in Vietnam. This kind of incentive
would promote capital consolidation, skilled labour, and induction of technology at lower
levels. The one essential criteria is that the businesses must show that they have suffered
losses in their current financial year. Further, China has been witnessing a recessionary
trend in textile and apparel exports because of low demand in Europe. This might augur
as an advantage for Vietnamese exports.
Vietnam has been targeting international manufacturers to shift
production after the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the European Union and
Vietnam. Following the formal ratification of the FTA by EU which is expected to be in
August, the trade benefits that Vietnam will reap will be huge. After Singapore, Vietnam
is the only country in Southeast Asia to have a trade treaty with the European Union. The
Vietnam EU trade agreement will facilitate entry of 71 percent of Vietnamese goods, tariff
free to Europe, while 65 per cent of goods from European Union would enter Vietnamese
market without any tariffs. Vietnam hopes that this trade agreement would wean away the
primacy of Chinese manufacturers particularly in footwear and apparel exports. Vietnam
has been exporting nearly USD 42 billion worth of goods to Europe last year, and it is
expected that this free trade agreement will boost Vietnamese economy by more than 2.4
per cent. Vietnam is also looking for a free trade agreement with the US so as to capitalize
on the anti-China sentiments in the US markets. It is expected that the quick turnaround
in manufacturing of Vietnam would eat into Chinese export markets.
As an assurance to international investors, Vietnam has opened
its tourism sector. Domestic visitors have been thronging the tourist spots to demonstrate
that the country has come out of the COVID trap. For Vietnam, tourism accounts for nearly
9 per cent of its USD 260 billion dollars’ economy. Domestic tourists account for nearly
80 per cent of all visitors, and it is expected that with the opening up of international flights
and better deals in tourism sector, particularly in hotels and group tours, Vietnam might
be reaping the windfall. With major tourist destinations such as Thailand and Singapore
not being able to open up tourism sector at an early date, Vietnam might get diverted
tourists from these destinations.
Even though the measures that have been taken by the
Vietnamese government have been supportive of manufacturing and the tourism sector,
several business sectors such as small shops, restaurants, cinema and other
entertainment destinations have been affected. Until and unless the domestic demand is
generated, a large number of Vietnamese workers could lose their jobs. It is expected
that nearly 10.3 million workers could lose jobs or would have to work at a lower salary.
The important aspect is that education, training and related infrastructure is also going to
be affected.
Vietnam has already approved measures, particularly with regard
to food availability with a US $ 2.66 billion stimulus and have given the option of deferred
payments for land use and tax submissions. One of the major areas that Vietnam has
been looking into is to promote local shops, businesses, online marketing activities and
promoting e-commerce. E-commerce and online marketing would promote packaging
and distribution networks which will be an advantage for the manufacturing sector.
 At an international level, online learning platforms and meeting
apps have been widely appreciated and it is expected that Vietnam will also adopt these
applications so as to promote vocational training and English learning among its students.
It is also expected that the healthcare sector would also imbibe the IT solutions in areas
such as telemedicine and video diagnostics. There is also a possibility of Virtual
Reality(VR) investigation in serious cases. Vietnam very well knows that in case COVID
-19 vaccine is discovered, then it can also start a production line for cheap manufacturing
of those drugs. Vietnam has already made a mark with regard to PPE kits as well as other
sanitation material. Vietnam can explore the possibility of producing low cost kits and
medical equipment under joint venture with other countries. The importance of long term
business visas and promoting easy trade facilitation along with single window clearance
for FDI would usher a boom time for the Vietnamese economy.
During this time the structure and support of the government
along with tax incentives, easy bureaucratic procedures, and capital acquisition through
FastTrack processes would mean that Vietnam would emerge as the fastest growing
economy in Southeast Asia. It needs to be seen whether Vietnam can capitalize in these
adverse circumstances and make corrective measures to pave the pathway for a double-
digit growth in the next decade.

➢ Thailand
economy is expected to be impacted severely by the COVID-19
pandemic, shrinking by at least 5 percent in 2020 and taking more than two years to return
to pre-COVID-19 GDP output levels, according to the World Bank’s latest Thailand
Economic Monitor, released today. The COVID-19 pandemic shocked the economy
especially in the second quarter of 2020 and has led already to widespread job losses,
affecting middle-class households and the poor alike.
While Thailand has been successful in stemming the tide of
COVID-19 infections over the last three months, the economic impact has been severe.
The tourism sector, which makes up close to 15 percent of Thailand’s GDP, has been hit
hard, with a near cessation of international tourist arrivals since March 2020.
Exports are expected to decline by 6.3 percent in 2020, the
sharpest quarterly contraction in five years, as demand for Thai goods abroad remains
weakened by the global slowdown. Household consumption is projected to decline by 3.2
percent as movement restrictions and dwindling incomes limit consumer spending,
especially in the second quarter of 2020.

As Thailand starts to ease mobility restrictions, domestic

consumption, Thailand’s traditionally strongest driver of growth, may pick up in the second
half of 2020 and in 2021, but economic recovery will be gradual and uncertain. In the
baseline, the Thai economy is projected to grow by 4.1 percent in 2021 and by 3.6 percent
in 2022, which represents a slow recovery to pre-COVID GDP output levels by mid-2022.
The shape of the recovery is subject to considerable downside risks, including weaker
global growth, feeble tourism, and continuing trade and supply chain disruptions.
An estimated 8.3 million workers will lose employment or income
by the COVID-19 crisis, which has put many jobs, in particularly those related to tourism
and services, at risk. The report finds that the number of economically insecure, or those
living below USD 5.5 per day (in purchasing power terms), is projected to double from 4.7
million people in the first quarter to 9.7 million people in the second quarter of 2020. In
particular, the share of economically insecure middle-class households with workers in
the manufacturing and services sector will rise by three-fold, from 6 percent to 20 percent.

➢ Japan
Japan’s economy has officially entered a recession — defined as
two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth — according to new economic
data released Monday. According to the Japanese Cabinet Office, seasonally adjusted
real gross domestic product contracted by 3.4 percent for the period between January
and March 2020. The figure was short of median expectations of a 4.6 percent
contraction. The data captured the early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic slowdown —
particularly the effects of China’s early lockdowns in January and February.
Digging deeper, the new Japanese data showed that all major
indicators of overall economic health had taken a hit, with production, exports, and
consumer spending all down for the first quarter of the year. Given that Tokyo’s own
response to the pandemic intensified largely after the period for which data is available,
we should expect a worsening picture through the second quarter.
The world’s third largest economy may see a contraction of more
than 20 percent, according to some analysts, a figure that would set a record for the
country going back to 1955, the first year for which official economic data is available.
Given Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s announcement of a state of emergency in
April, too, demand in Japan is expected to be significantly depressed through the second
quarter. The new recession is the first for Japan in four-and-a-half years and is expected
to exact a heavy cost on Japanese businesses and consumers. Japan was last in a
recession in late 2015.

The Japanese government has taken steps to stem the economic

damage of the ongoing pandemic-induced economic crisis. Recently, Japanese
lawmakers passed an additional budget. Abe has called for a second emergency
spending bill to be pushed through to protect Japanese small businesses; the second
budget may cover business rents and payroll costs. Already, Japan has spent more than
20 percent of GDP on pandemic-response measures.
Parts of Japan have exited the state of emergency imposed last
month, but the country’s major urban hubs continue to be under lockdown (though
Japan’s version of a lockdown is less stringent than those seen in some other countries).
The higher population density and reliance on public transportation may increase the
probability of a rapid surge in cases. Despite domestic and international criticism of the
Japanese government’s pandemic response, the country has not seen a major surge in
cases, with a fatality rate of around five people per million attributable to COVID-19.

III. America
As countries fight to flatten the coronavirus curve, some focus
has shifted to the pandemic’s impact on the global economy. In the United States, around
88 percent of adults think COVID-19 is a major threat to the domestic economy, while 49
percent feel it is a threat to their personal financial situation. In response to the impact on
the U.S. economy, the United States government has passed a two trillion U.S. dollar
relief bill, which is the largest economic stimulus package in U.S. history. The pandemic
has already affected many industries – from retail to sports – but its long-term impact on
the domestic and global economies is difficult to predict, with repercussions expected to
be felt around the world for many more months.

IV. Philippines

There were approximately 104.9 million inhabitants living in the

Philippines as of 2017. The likelihood of human-to-human transmission in a densely
populated country is high. As of March 17, 2020, the government has imposed an
enhanced community quarantine, restricting the movement of the population with
exceptions, in response to the growing pandemic of COVID-19 in the country. Given the
lockdown, closures in retail trade, malls, airports, canceled flights, and closures of non-
food and non-health related manufacturing services within the island would likely result in
at least 61 thousand people losing their jobs. Additionally, it is estimated that the lockdown
would bring a maximum cumulative loss of approximately 1.1 trillion Philippine pesos in
gross value added
 V. New Zealand

Amid fears of a global recession, New Zealand officials fear

almost every sector to be seriously hit, certainly tourism, hospitality and aviation/transport.
New Zealand's economy is likely to suffer a bigger coronavirus blow than most in the
OECD, new research says.The OECD has put out a new report evaluating the impact of
Covid-19 on economic activity. It does not take into account Government stimulus in those
countries.
It said the initial direct effect of shutdowns could be a decline of
between 1/5th and 1/4 in most economies as spending dropped by about a third.
"Changes of this magnitude would far outweigh anything experienced during the global
financial crisis in 2008-09. This broad estimate only covers the initial direct impact in the
sectors involved and does not take into account any additional indirect impacts that may
arise." New Zealand would see an initial drop of almost 30% in activity, the OECD said,
compared to about 15% in Ireland, 22% in Australia and 25% in the United States.
The implications for annual GDP growth would depend on the
magnitude and duration of national shutdowns, and the extent of reduced demand, the
OECD said. "The scale of the estimated decline in the level of output is such that it is
equivalent to a decline in annual GDP growth of up to two percentage points for each
month that strict containment measures continue. If the shutdown continued for three
months, with no offsetting factors, annual GDP growth could be between 4-6 percentage
points lower than it otherwise might have been."
The economic impact is to be significant but very possibly better
than OECD expectations as the report did not take into account the efforts being made to
mitigate it, such as the Government's wage subsidy. Performance could be below OECD
average as New Zealand has greater reliance on tourism (largest industry prior
Coronavirus).
References:
• Emerging COVID-19 Success Story: Germany’s Strong Enabling Environment. (June 30, 2020). Retrieved
from https://ourworldindata.org/covid-exemplar-germany
• How France Handles the Coronavirus Pandemic. Retrieved from https://healthcare-in-
europe.com/en/news/how-france-handles-the-coronavirus-pandemic.html
• Spain’s Response to Covid-19: Emergency Measures; Gradual Relaxation. (June 4, 2020). Retrieved from
https://www.iflr.com/article/b1lxmrrfr4gkfs/spains-response-to-covid19-emergency-measures-gradual-
relaxation
• The Outbreak of COVID-19 in Italy. (April 2020). Retrieved from
https://casereports.onlinejacc.org/content/early/2020/04/22/j.jaccas.2020.03.012
• Emerging COVID-19 Success Story: South Korea Learned the Lessons of MERS. (June 30, 2020). Retrieved
from https://ourworldindata.org/covid-exemplar-south-korea
• Vietnam: A success story in fight against COVID-19. (June 5, 2020). Retrieved from
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/vietnam-a-success-story-in-fight-against-covid-19/1866670
• How Thailand Contained COVID-19. (June 3, 2020). Retrieved from https://fpif.org/how-thailand-contained-
covid-19/
• How the World’s Most Powerful Country is Handling Covid-19. (May 28, 2020). Retrieved from
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/05/28/how-the-worlds-most-powerful-country-is-handling-covid-19
• Is The Philippines Winning Its COVID-19 Fight? (May 31, 2020). Retrieved from
https://theaseanpost.com/article/philippines-winning-its-covid-19-fight
• As Australian and US states lift lockdowns, one expert says 4 key differences helped Australia manage its
outbreak while the US is fumbling its response. (May 18, 2020). Retrieved from
https://www.businessinsider.com/expert-explains-4-key-differences-between-us-australia-coronavirus-
strategy-2020-5
• Coronavirus: How New Zealand went 'hard and early' to beat Covid-19. (July 10, 2020). Retrieved from
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53274085
• Covid-19 Economic Impact. (May 2020). Retrieved from https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/b612cced-
108c-42fb-9e8e-eb977bd7d19f/20200528-COVID-19-Response-Brief-
EAP.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=n9swElA
• The Political and Economic Impact of Covid-19 in Southeast Asia. (June 11, 2020). Retrieved from
https://www.nbr.org/publication/the-political-and-economic-impact-of-covid-19-in-southeast-asia/
• Covid-19 Economic Impact. (May 2020). Retrieved from https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/75a54f43-
7df0-453d-974d-007137a5bbcc/20200528-COVID-19-Response-Brief-
ECA.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=n9sawLk
• Germany: COVID-19 economic impact worse than expected. (June 23,2020). Retrieved from
https://www.teletrader.com/germany-covid-19-economic-impact-worse-than-
expected/news/details/52488410?internal=1&ts=1594701009823
• Spain after COVID-19: From resilience to reimagination. (June 4, 2020). Retrieved from
mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk/our-insights/spain-after-covid-19-from-resilience-to-reimagination#
• Coronavirus (COVID-19) in Italy - Statistics & Facts. (July 3, 2020). Retrieved from
https://www.statista.com/topics/6061/coronavirus-covid-19-in-italy/
• Economic impact of COVID-19 outbreak on tourism in South Korea Q1 2020
• Published by Won So, May 25, 2020
• Expected impact of coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak on South Korean tourism in the first quarter of 2020.
(May 25,2020). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1092579/south-korea-economic-
impact-of-wuhan-virus-outbreak-on-tourism/
• Opportunities for Vietnam’s economy in post COVID-19 phase. (June 23, 2020). Retrieved from
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2020/06/23/opportunities-for-vietnams-economy-in-post-covid-19-phase/