1 - Protásio Paiva Bueno Neto Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo - FEA - Butantã
2 - Gilmar Masiero Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo - FEA - EAD
3 - Militsa Lerotic Becker Bueno Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo - FEA - FEA
4 - Mariana Silva Henriques Maimoni Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da Universidade de São Paulo - FEA - FEA - USP
Reumo
The social and economic impact of a pandemic respiratory crisis (COVID-19) is more potent than any previous one. Nevertheless, there is a lack of consensus on the measures to deal with and to overcome it. Backward-looking and forward-looking theories from different scientific areas are taken into account while managing crises. However, it is crucially essential the confidence, credibility, and if the heterogeneous agents and the general population trust them. This article presents contrasting approaches been used to manage the COVID-19.
Reviewing some of the local approaches employed, in East Asia (China and South Korea), Europe (Sweden and Spain) and in the Americas (US and Brazil), to manage the COVID-19 is the primary goal of this article. The other goal of the article is to show that "politics" is what matter while management crises. However, "politics" without following and respecting the scientific knowledge are prone to building up crisis of the crisis management.
Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response (Van Bavel et al., 2020) forty-two well-respected scholars systematized 253 scientific papers to consider a century of threats, social and cultural influences on behaviuor, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping “crises”, “disasters”, “calamities”, “catastrophes” and so on. They identified responses and “important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months”.
As the Pandemic has been affecting populations around the world and as each specific country has been combating the COVID-19 employing distinct approaches, it is hard to say which one is the most appropriate. Pandemic is global, but its response is local (Shaw, Kim & Hua, 2020). In this case, the theoretical analysis must help us to better contrast some cases. If we consider the evolution of the disease as being equal on March 15, 2020, in a group of East Asian countries and Brazil, we can see its progress. In a period of disaster (Zaneti Jr, 2020), some disasters are bigger than others.
Despite questions of culture and political regimes that influence the country's strategy to win the war against this Pandemic, different pillars must be explored simultaneously. Efficient access to testing and symptoms monitoring and rapid diagnostic capacity can be set as the main pillars. If countries would have introduced them at the beginning of the disease, together with clear and timely communications and health advice, many contaminants could be contained.
Anderson, M., Mckee, M., & Mossialos, E. (2020). Covid-19 exposes weaknesses in European response to outbreaks.
Assessment, R. R. (2020). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the EU/EEA and the UK–ninth update.
Brzezinski, A., Deiana, G., Kecht, V., & Van Dijcke, D. (2020). The covid-19 pandemic: government vs. community action across the united states. Covid Economics: Vetted and Real-Time Papers, 7, 115-156.
Burki, T. (2020). COVID-19 in Latin America. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 20(5), 547-548.