Policy Disparities Between Singapore and Israel in Response to the First Omicron Wave

1Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate public health measures during the first Omicron wave in Singapore and Israel to inform other countries confronted by COVID-19 outbreaks. Methods: A comparative analysis was conducted using epidemiological data from Singapore and Israel between November 25th, 2021 and May 2nd, 2022 and policy information to examine the effects of public health measures in the two countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Public health measures implemented by Singapore and Israel in response to the first Omicron wave were primarily intended to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Singapore, the pandemic led to more than 910,000 confirmed cases, a mortality rate of approximately 0.047%, a hospitalization rate of approximately 10.95%, and a severe illness rate of approximately 0.48%, without a second peak. In Israel, the pandemic not only resulted in over 2.74 million confirmed cases, a mortality rate of 0.095%, a hospitalization rate of about 7.39%, and a severe illness rate of approximately 2.30% but also returned after the significant relaxation of prevention regulations from March 1st, 2022. Conclusion: Early and strict border control measures and surveillance measures are more effective in preventing and controlling the rapid spread of new strains of COVID-19 in the early stage. Furthermore, to prevent and control this highly infectious disease, COVID-19 vaccinations and booster shots must be promoted as soon as possible, medical service capacity must be enhanced, the hierarchical medical system must be improved, and non-pharmacological interventions must be implemented.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ma, R., Shi, L., & Sun, G. (2023). Policy Disparities Between Singapore and Israel in Response to the First Omicron Wave. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 16, 489–502. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S402813

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free