코로나19 팬데믹에 대한 국가별 대응 및 보건정책 고찰 및 비교

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.

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.