China's community-based crisis management model for COVID-19: A zero-tolerance approach.

At present, the zero-tolerance and co-existence approaches are the two basic concepts used to manage COVID-19. With the increase in vaccination rates and the continuing impact of the pandemic on people's lives, the co-existence approach has become the mainstream global practice. However, its high infection rate is still an inevitable fact. China was the first country to adopt the zero-tolerance approach to deal with COVID-19 and successfully control it. Due to its immediate effects and low infection rates, this approach has been used in China until now. Through the co-operation of the government and community, China has achieved precise regional lockdowns and patient identification. This article uses the CBCM model to interpret how China has achieved its zero-tolerance approach. Finally, the secondary hazards and applicability of China's CBCM model are discussed. This article draws the following conclusions: (1) China's CBCM basically replicates Singapore's crisis management model for SARS. With the co-operation of the community, it achieved universal coverage of prevention, detection and control; (2) Government leadership in dealing with major crises is very important; (3) In addition to relying on the extreme power of the government to realize China's CBCM model, the two major factors of a submissive society and collectivism have played an important role; (4) China's CBCM model is essentially an excessive anti-pandemic strategy.

What Caused the Outbreak of COVID-19 in China: From the Perspective of Crisis Management.

Since the first known case of a COVID-19 infected patient in Wuhan, China on 8 December 2019, COVID-19 has spread to more than 200 countries, causing a worldwide public health crisis. The existing literature fails to examine what caused this sudden outbreak from a crisis management perspective. This article attempts to fill this research gap through analysis of big data, officially released information and other social media sources to understand the root cause of the crisis as it relates to China's current management system and public health policy. The article draws the following conclusions: firstly, strict government control over information was the main reason for the early silencing of media announcements, which directly caused most people to be unprepared and unaware of COVID-19. Secondly, a choice between addressing a virus with an unknown magnitude and nature, and mitigating known public panic during a politically and culturally sensitive time, lead to falsehood and concealment. Thirdly, the weak autonomous management power of local public health management departments is not conducive for providing a timely response to the crisis. Finally, the privatization of many state-owned hospitals led to the unavailability of public health medical resources to serve affected patients in the Wuhan and Hubei Province. This article suggests that China should adopt a Singaporean-style public health crisis information management system to ensure information disclosure and information symmetry and should use it to monitor public health crises in real time. In addition, the central government should adopt the territorial administration model of a public health crisis and increase investment in public health in China.