Abstract Background Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) led to pandemic that affected almost all countries in the world. Many countries have implemented border restriction as a public health measure to limit local outbreak. However, there is inadequate scientific data to support such a practice, especially in the presence of an established local transmission of the disease. Objective To apply a metapopulation Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered (SEIR) model with inspected migration to investigate the effect of border restriction as a public health measure to limit outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019. Methods We apply a modified metapopulation SEIR model with inspected migration with simulating population migration, and incorporating parameters such as efficiency of custom inspection in blocking infected travelers in the model. The population sizes were retrieved from government reports, while the number of COVID-19 patients were retrieved from Hong Kong Department of Health and China Centre for Disease Control (CDC) data. The R 0 was obtained from previous clinical studies. Results Complete border closure can help to reduce the cumulative COVID-19 case number and mortality in Hong Kong by 13.99% and 13.98% respectively. To prevent full occupancy of isolation facilities in Hong Kong; effective public health measures to reduce local R 0 to below 1.6 was necessary, apart from having complete border closure. Conclusions Early complete travel restriction is effective in reducing cumulative cases and mortality. However, additional anti-COVID-19 measures to reduce local R 0 to below 1.6 are necessary to prevent COVID-19 cases from overwhelming hospital isolation facilities. 
                        more » 
                        « less   
                    
                            
                            Pandemic Response as Border Politics
                        
                    
    
            Abstract Pandemics are imbued with the politics of bordering. For centuries, border closures and restrictions on foreign travelers have been the most persistent and pervasive means by which states have responded to global health crises. The ubiquity of these policies is not driven by any clear scientific consensus about their utility in the face of myriad pandemic threats. Instead, we show they are influenced by public opinion and preexisting commitments to invest in the symbols and structures of state efforts to control their borders, a concept we call border orientation . Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, border orientation was already generally on the rise worldwide. This trend has made it convenient for governments to “contain” the virus by externalizing it, rather than taking costly but ultimately more effective domestic mitigation measures. We argue that the pervasive use of external border controls in the face of the coronavirus reflects growing anxieties about border security in the modern international system. To a great extent, fears relating to border security have become a resource in domestic politics—a finding that does not bode well for designing and implementing effective public health policy. 
        more » 
        « less   
        
    
                            - Award ID(s):
- 1917573
- PAR ID:
- 10281872
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- International Organization
- Volume:
- 74
- Issue:
- S1
- ISSN:
- 0020-8183
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- E36 to E58
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
- 
            
- 
            Using data from 15 countries, this article investigates whether descriptive and prescriptive gender norms concerning housework and child care (domestic work) changed after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results of a total of 8,343 participants ( M = 19.95, SD = 1.68) from two comparable student samples suggest that descriptive norms about unpaid domestic work have been affected by the pandemic, with individuals seeing mothers’ relative to fathers’ share of housework and child care as even larger. Moderation analyses revealed that the effect of the pandemic on descriptive norms about child care decreased with countries’ increasing levels of gender equality; countries with stronger gender inequality showed a larger difference between pre- and post-pandemic. This study documents a shift in descriptive norms and discusses implications for gender equality—emphasizing the importance of addressing the additional challenges that mothers face during health-related crises.more » « less
- 
            Triberti, Stefano (Ed.)Differences in national responses to COVID-19 have been associated with the cultural value of collectivism. The present research builds on these findings by examining the relationship between collectivism at the individual level and adherence to public health recommendations to combat COVID-19 during the pre-vaccination stage of the pandemic, and examines different characteristics of collectivism (i.e., concern for community, trust in institutions, perceived social norms) as potential psychological mechanisms that could explain greater compliance. A study with a cross-section of American participants (N= 530) examined the relationship between collectivism and opting-in to digital contact tracing (DCT) and wearing face coverings in the general population. More collectivistic individuals were more likely to comply with public health interventions than less collectivistic individuals. While collectivism was positively associated with the three potential psychological mechanisms, only perceived social norms about the proportion of people performing the public health interventions explained the relationship between collectivism and compliance with both public health interventions. This research identifies specific pathways by which collectivism can lead to compliance with community-benefiting public health behaviors to combat contagious diseases and highlights the role of cultural orientation in shaping individuals’ decisions that involve a tension between individual cost and community benefit.more » « less
- 
            This U.S. study explores lessons learned about domestic violence service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic identified by state, territory, and tribal coalition leadership to advance preparedness and guide structural improvements for future disasters. Semi-structured interviews with 25 Coalition leaders identified public health control measures and victim-centered strategies used to mitigate the pandemic's impacts on services and advocacy. Three main themes emerged: workforce innovations, system empowerment, and the simultaneous pandemic of racial injustice. The COVID-19 pandemic inspired Coalitions to respond creatively and highlighted resources needed to support survivors and the domestic violence (DV) workforce going forward, including reassessing the current state of the DV movement.more » « less
- 
            null (Ed.)The global public health community is grappling with COVID-2019, a respiratory disease outbreak caused by a novel coronavirus originating from Wuhan, China in late December 2019. A number of countries implemented citizenship-based travel restrictions in late January and early February as an initial response to the outbreak, barring entry to foreign nationals who had previously been in China to prevent the importation of the virus. By early March, when the World Health Organization (WHO) formally declared the outbreak to be a global pandemic, these countries were still relying on travel restrictions as a means of infection control. These travel restrictions constituted restrictions or outright bans on the entry of foreign nationals with a particular citizenship-such policies tend to be popular with a general public with limited public health knowledge. However, travel restrictions are ineffective as an infection control measure and may do more harm than good, depriving the public of its right to health. Furthermore, travel restrictions implemented under the guise of public health policy have historically been used to target migrants and racial and ethnic minorities, violating their rights to nondiscrimination and equal treatment. As states rush to balance public health with politics in their response to this global pandemic, they are sidelining human rights rather than protecting themmore » « less
 An official website of the United States government
An official website of the United States government 
				
			 
					 
					
 
                                    