The global response to the pandemic: An empirical cluster analysis of policies targeting COVID-19.
It is well known that countries differed in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of the timing and intensity of specific measures such as lockdowns, face masks and vaccine rollout. However, previous studies have not investigated systematic differences in the overall pandemic strategies....
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322692 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | It is well known that countries differed in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of the timing and intensity of specific measures such as lockdowns, face masks and vaccine rollout. However, previous studies have not investigated systematic differences in the overall pandemic strategies. We use daily data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT), between January 2020 and December 2022 focusing on 16 key pandemic policies, including containment, economic, and health system measures, and apply a three-dimensional k-means clustering algorithm to identify distinct overarching strategies based on the type, intensity, and timing of the response adopted by different countries. We identify four distinct strategies; 1) the traditional infectious disease control approach, adopted by a wide range of high- and middle-income countries, which emphasises strict containment policies and movement restrictions, 2) the public health-oriented approach, adopted by developed welfare states with ageing populations and high health care expenditures, which is more flexible over time and focuses more on economic and health policies, such as income support and testing strategies, with less emphasis on stringent containment, 3) high stringency with gradual relaxation, and 4) reactive policies at a minimal level, both adopted by less democratic low- and middle income countries with substantial inequalities and with younger and less vulnerable populations. The findings contribute to understanding how different countries adapted to the pandemic and how these responses may relate to broader socio-political contexts, including welfare state arrangements and economic resilience. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1932-6203 |