From the Guidelines
Australia's COVID-19 response was more effective in reducing morbidity, mortality, and improving quality of life compared to the USA's response, due to its strict early border closures, mandatory hotel quarantines, and coordinated nationwide lockdowns. The Australian approach, which emphasized national coordination and compliance with public health directives, resulted in significantly lower case numbers and deaths per capita compared to the United States 1. Some key differences between the two countries' responses include:
- Australia's implementation of strict early border closures and mandatory hotel quarantines for travelers, which helped to prevent the spread of the virus
- Australia's aggressive contact tracing and coordinated nationwide lockdowns when outbreaks occurred, which helped to quickly contain and manage the spread of the virus
- The US response, on the other hand, was more fragmented, with varying policies across states, inconsistent messaging, and political polarization regarding masks and restrictions
- The US focused more heavily on vaccine development through Operation Warp Speed, achieving earlier widespread vaccination, while Australia's vaccine rollout started more slowly
- Australia's geographic isolation as an island continent provided natural advantages for border control, whereas the US faced challenges with its extensive land borders and higher population density in major cities
- By late 2021, both countries shifted toward vaccination-based strategies, though Australia maintained stricter border controls for a longer period, which may have contributed to its better outcomes 1.
The different approaches reflect contrasting healthcare systems, political structures, and cultural attitudes toward government intervention in public health emergencies. Overall, Australia's response prioritized public health measures and national coordination, which led to better outcomes in terms of morbidity, mortality, and quality of life.
From the Research
Comparison of COVID-19 Response
- The COVID-19 pandemic has affected countries worldwide, including Australia and the USA, with varying responses to the crisis 2.
- A review of COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plans from 106 countries, including Australia and the USA, found that most plans focused on emergency response activities, but fewer considered essential health service continuity 2.
- In terms of treatment, various options have been explored, including the use of dexamethasone, remdesivir, and convalescent plasma, as seen in a case report from Operation Inherent Resolve 3.
- Countries have been advised to strengthen national pandemic preparedness and response systems, with actionable steps suggested at a national level to achieve independent panel recommendations 4.
National Responses
- Developing countries, including some in the region near Australia, face significant challenges in responding to COVID-19 due to limited health infrastructure and resources 5.
- A framework for identifying and prioritizing policy actions to address COVID-19 challenges has been proposed, outlining principles and criteria for developing shared policy goals and assessing policy compatibility 5.
- In the USA, various treatments have been approved or authorized for emergency use, including remdesivir, corticosteroids, and monoclonal antibody combinations, with pharmacists playing a crucial role in ensuring appropriate access and safe use 6.
Key Considerations
- An integrated approach to planning is essential for health systems to recover from COVID-19 disruptions and build back better 2.
- Countries must prioritize policies to achieve interconnected goals of managing the health crisis, recovering the economy, and achieving environmental sustainability 5.
- The use of corticosteroids, remdesivir, and tocilizumab depends on disease severity, and emerging data on monoclonal antibody combinations are promising, but further data are required 6.