OUR PROPOSAL

Thank you for taking the time to investigate the intersection of Covid-19 and preparedness in South Korea and the United States. We hope to have equipped you with the necessary knowledge in order to make informed decisions about your personal health, public health and what to hold your government accountable for. Our research indicates the importance of having a coordinated effort between the public and private sector before, during and after a pandemic. What these response tactics would entail is detailed below. Pandemics are not a frequent occurrence, but they are lethal and devastating on many socioeconomic fronts when they do occur. Pandemic preparedness, as does public health as a field, rarely reaps immediate benefits; however, should a pandemic strike, a lack of prolonged preparedness results in significant repercussions. The personal, social and economic tolls of pandemics are too dire to justify a lack of prioritization in political conversations. Global health needs to be a continuous topic of concern not only during times of crisis, but also beforehand to prevent such major disasters. This pandemic illuminated the already present inequities in society, which will not disappear after the conclusion of this pandemic. It is critical to use this fact to push for the establishment of a long lasting and reliable public health infrastructure in the United States. To do so effectively, there must be a streamlined transition of power between administrations so that the following points are practiced to establish such infrastructure for the greater good. 

  

So that the United States is better prepared for a pandemic, we propose immediate reinstatements of federally funded and supported programs that allow for continual monitoring of emerging infectious disease threats. For example, the USAID PREDICT Program must be reestablished immediately because it allows for the continual monitoring and identification of emerging infectious disease threats around the world. About two months before the outbreak of Covid-19, the Trump administration ceased funding for the program. As we can see now, the existence of such a program was critical to global health security. In addition to these international programs, we need to create a proactive domestic public health infrastructure. We wholeheartedly agree with the Lancet’s plea for a strengthened CDC supported and funded by the Federal government. The Lancet did not address access to healthcare, and we recognize that this is a key element for pandemic preparedness. There must be a gradual implementation towards some form of universal healthcare or expanding current federal health insurance programs so that there is prolonged health security and equity. The United States is the only developed nation without some form of universal health coverage. South Korea, for example, was able to achieve universal health care within only 12 years. Finally, the Federal government must establish a good relationship with the private sector in order to quickly mobilize during global emergency situations.     

 

We call for a strategy in which the Defense Production Act is launched in a timely manner, preventing massive shortages in Personal Protective Equipment in our health systems. Specifically facilitating strategy and solutions around addressing public health guidelines, like social distancing, contact tracing, and test kits. Such technological developments must not be dismantled after a pandemic, rather they should be kept available so that there can be rapid reimplementation of this technology during future needs. For example, social distancing technologies could be broadly disseminated in crucial infrastructures, like schools, stadiums,and  manufacturing sites across a nation, and can be “switched on” when local outbreaks occur. Such a collaboration would allow for the timely reallocation of resources in biotechnology for the development of advanced technologies that do not violate personal safety and privacy. Lastly, there must be a greater interdisciplinary approach in the legislative process as a whole, for we can see a clear divide between scientists and policy-makers. Science does not exist in a vacuum and politics cannot be separated from science. We, as a society, must hold the government accountable for properly responding to disruptive behavior such as dangerous protests for maintenance of public health measures. We call for unified communication and dissemination of accurate information, preventing misinformation. There must be some type of formal (legal) action taken against individuals or organizations actively spreading false information. We, as individuals, must pay attention to the current actions of our government, voting for individuals who practice effective leadership and evidence-based policy making. Furthermore, academia needs to be accessible and communicated in a way the average individual can understand. 

 

We are witness to millions of people currently being laid off, furloughed or unable to find employment. Our lack of preparedness for pandemics is largely to blame for such devastating economic and social loss. Regardless of party affiliation, this pandemic is impacting your personal health and quality of life in some form. The U.S. has primarily been reactionary, ineffectively placing “bandaids” on the massive issue at hand. For example, lockdowns and stay-at-home orders were implemented too late, and as suggestions instead of government mandates.  Popular perceptions can influence the effectiveness of public health measures such as the aforementioned. In terms of what you can immediately do as an individual, we urge you to initiate necessary dialogue within your communities so that a cultural paradigm shift can happen. We need to shift from a largely self-serving culture to one that is community oriented. Solidarity must be respected, as all individuals have a common interest and must provide mutual support. Systems falter when one element shows weakness or cannot uphold its respective part.

 

We understand that living through a grueling pandemic and having to quarantine for months on end is harder for some than others. When people feel an infringement upon their freedom and civil liberties, it is only natural to want to deny or ignore, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the issue at hand. It is the responsibility of those who have the privilege and means to adhere to public health protection measures to do so. Not everyone has a job where they can work from home, so the least you can do when leaving your home is adhere to social distancing guidelines and practice mask- wearing etiquette for the safety of both yourself and others around you. Civil liberties do not exist when you are 6 feet under, so might as well practice 6 feet apart while you are living. It would be foolish to let hubris become our ultimate demise. 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

We have stated what should be and what is ideal. Widespread testing and physical distancing must be effectively implemented. But, why might this not work for the U.S.? The cultural landscape for every country can point to the ways in which an attitude shapes the social acceptance and common practices. “Not my problem” is all around the atmosphere in the U.S., where other peoples’ issues are no concern of their own. The core libertarianism value in the U.S. may be at fault for the continued spread of Covid-19 and resulting devastating loss. The vast majority of Americans believe freedom is of utmost importance, after all, the tensions between freedom or the lack of freedom is what the country is founded on. This directly infringes upon the characteristics of a proper epidemic response, which require collective coordination. The concept of trust in the government is something that Americans struggle with; results at the polls show that many Americans don’t trust the state [1]. In South Korea, the government trusted the people to follow the face mask and social distancing guidelines. Consistent messaging from the South Korean government supports containment and contact tracing. Vice versa, citizens had more trust in how the government would respond to the crisis. South Korea never actually had a “true lockdown” like most states in the U.S. [2]. Whereas the cultural landscape in the U.S. is frankly the opposite, rooted in individualistic attitudes, libertarianism, distrust in the government, and inconsistent messaging from leaders.

 

Due to the vastly different political and cultural climates in the United States and in South Korea, one size may not fit all. To be more specific, South Korea is a smaller country with a more culturally unified populace, and thus it may have been easier for its government to implement wide-spread changes to contain Covid-19 and prevent it from spreading. The United States, however, comprises 50 unique states with widely differing values. Thus, policies that were effective and well received in one state, may not be in another state. As a result, the United States government cannot issue sweeping policies that are effective nationwide on every level of society. Instead, as emphasized in the government portion of the website, the United States government must focus more on nation-wide discussion with state powers to implement changes and policies that are unified in their overarching goals but are tailored to the needs of the individual states.

​

[1] Illing, S. (2020, May 22). Is America too libertarian to deal with the coronavirus? Retrieved June 05, 2020, from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/5/22/21256151/coronavirus-pandemic-american-culture-keith-humphreys

[2] Kim, S., Kung, T., Dr., & Abdelmalek, M., Dr. (2020, May 1). Trust, testing and tracing: How South Korea succeeded where the US stumbled in coronavirus response. Retrieved June 05, 2020, from https://abcnews.go.com/Health/trust-testing-tracing-south-korea-succeeded-us-stumbled/story?id=70433504