COVID-19 Epidemic as a Current Security Event

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!

COVID-19 Epidemic as a Current Security Event

Table of Contents

Introduction
Failures in Response to the Epidemic
Successes in Response to the Epidemic
Conclusions and Considerations for Future Response
References

Introduction

The COVID-19 epidemic, which struck the world in December 2019, is considered to be the greatest pandemic of the 21^st century. It is a highly contagious disease that affects individuals in numerous negative ways, either provoking pneumonia or triggering underlying diseases, leading to complications and possibly death (Chiotti et al., 2020). Since the start of the epidemic, over 6.7 million people have died, with over 670 million people infected over the course of the first two years. In the US alone, 1.1 million individuals have perished from the disease. The country engaged in several measures to try and curb the spread of COVID-19, which, individually and collectively, had varied degrees of success (DHS, 2022). The purpose of this paper is to analyze various response strategies implemented by the government against COVID, highlight successes and failures, and provide suggestions for improvement.

Failures in Response to the Epidemic

US response to the epidemic was slow, decentralized, and haphazard, which resulted in the country being one of the most affected by the disease. The first failure that predetermined the efficiency of the overall response on a societal level was the failure to recognize the threat (Sachs et al., 2022). Trump administration prevented the CDC from going all the way to introduce preventive measures from the start, and various individuals in the state apparatus compared COVID-19 to influenza (Ioannidis, 2022). As it turned out, the threat was much greater than initially anticipated, and the measures necessary to curb the spread of the virus happened long after the virus had already spread across American soil.

The second failure in security response was in slow and flawed COVID-19 testing. Instead of using the German tests, which have proven to be efficient, the CDC developed their own, which turned out to be flawed and inadequate. In addition, testing times for individuals were exceedingly long, and the delays often meant that people kept spreading the virus to others while they were waiting to be diagnosed (Haleem et al., 2020). This resulted in the virus being undetected for weeks, especially at the first stage of the pandemic spreading. Had this been avoided, it would have been possible to stop COVID-19 before the situation became critical.

Third, failure is associated with tracing and isolation protocols. This issue is connected to testing, as without it is impossible to isolate individuals. Some countries, like South Korea or New Zealand, have proven that early preventative isolation works (Baloch et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the US failed to properly quarantine and enforce the policies of self-isolation during the crisis. People often had to break quarantine to purchase food and essentials in order to survive (Haleem et al., 2020). Others simply ignored the quarantine altogether. These actions sabotaged the effort and contributed to the infection rates.

Finally, much in terms of resources was dedicated to actions that have not significantly reduced the spread of the virus. For example, the campaign to wash surfaces after people consumed much in terms of hours, effort, and resources from the sanitation workers (Spinelli & Pellino, 2020). It was believed that the disease spread through relatively large droplets that landed on the surfaces rather than aerosol remaining in the air. The latter meant that washing hands frequently and wiping the surfaces had a negligible effect on the spread of the disease (Spinelli & Pellino, 2020). Thus, much time and effort that could have been directed elsewhere was wasted.

Successes in Response to the Epidemic

Despite the overall failure to prevent the mass spreading of the disease in the US, there were some successful outcomes that need to be mentioned. The greatest success is probably the speed of vaccine development. The vaccines developed by Pfizer and Moderna have an efficacy of 66% in preventing severe symptoms and 85% in countering moderate responses, meaning that vaccinated individuals have suffered from mild illness (Tsang et al., 2021). The campaigning against false information has, for the most part, been effective. Dubious claims about false treatments and vaccine misinformation have been, for the most part, confronted and proven to be false. Nevertheless, such efforts have been in part undermined by the fact that the individuals responsible for answering the public questions have either lied or given contradicting responses, which is the reason why controversies continue to this day (Tsang et al., 2021). Still, the majority of the population is now vaccinated, which constitutes a relative success, even if COVID-19 was not eradicated from the country.

Conclusions and Considerations for Future Response

The primary recommendation for similar events is that the response of the government, the political elites, and the CDC is aligned and centralized across the country. All states have to comply with the overarching federal decisions to combat diseases or facilitate initiatives. In addition, the US has to rely on proven methods of detection, diagnosis, isolation, and vaccination to avoid the quick and unseen spreading of ailments throughout the populace. In addition, the response has to be coupled with a broad information campaign to avoid a difference of opinion that may sabotage the efforts to mobilize the society. All of these efforts, together, ought to provide a better result against similar threats.

References

Baloch, S., Baloch, M. A., Zheng, T., & Pei, X. (2020). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, 250(4), 271-278.

Ciotti, M., Ciccozzi, M., Terrinoni, A., Jiang, W. C., Wang, C. B., & Bernardini, S. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic. Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences, 57(6), 365-388.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS). (2022). Coronavirus (COVID-19). Web.

Haleem, A., Javaid, M., & Vaishya, R. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 pandemic in daily life. Current Medicine Research and Practice, 10(2), 78.

Ioannidis, J. P. (2022). The end of the COVID19 pandemic. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 52(6), e13782.

Sachs, J. D., Karim, S. S. A., Aknin, L., Allen, J., Brosbøl, K., Colombo, F.,& & Michie, S. (2022). The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet, 400(10359), 1224-1280.

Spinelli, A., & Pellino, G. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives on an unfolding crisis. Journal of British Surgery, 107(7), 785-787.

Tsang, H. F., Chan, L. W. C., Cho, W. C. S., Yu, A. C. S., Yim, A. K. Y., Chan, A. K. C.,&& Wong, S. C. C. (2021). An update on COVID-19 pandemic: The epidemiology, pathogenesis, prevention and treatment strategies. Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy, 19(7), 877-888.

Click Here To Order Now!