Pandemic refuges: Lessons from 2 years of COVID‐19

Abstract

This paper relates evidence from the COVID‐19 pandemic to the concept of pandemic refuges, as developed in literature on global catastrophic risk. In this literature, a refuge is a place or facility designed to keep a portion of the population alive during extreme global catastrophes. COVID‐19 is not the most extreme pandemic scenario, but it is nonetheless a very severe global event, and it therefore provides an important source of evidence. Through the first 2 years of the COVID‐19 pandemic, several political jurisdictions have achieved low spread of COVID‐19 via isolation from the rest of the world and can therefore classify as pandemic refuges. Their suppression and elimination of COVID‐19 demonstrates the viability of pandemic refuges as a risk management measure. Whereas prior research emphasizes island nations as pandemic refuges, this paper uses case studies of China and Western Australia to show that other types of jurisdictions can also successfully function as pandemic refuges. The paper also refines the concept of pandemic refuges and discusses implications for future pandemics.

Increased anxiety from fear of Omicron in China as compared to North America and Western Europe: A cross-sectional Kendall’s tau-b analysis using the generalized anxiety disorder 7-item questionnaire

“…Hence, once the pandemic spread internationally, the potential risk caused by highly contagious Omicron to the whole country (i.e., China) could be very high ( 27 ). Unfortunately, Omicron suddenly broke out in Shanghai, China starting in March and continued to grow at a rate of about 10,000 confirmed patients per day until May ( 28 , 29 ). The dire situation was not brought under control until early June ( 30 , 31 ).…”

COVID-19 epidemiology and rural healthcare: a survey in a Spanish village

“…This is far lower than some extreme values reported among unvaccinated adults in Bangladesh (62%; [25]) street adolescents in Togo (62%; [26]) or after the lifting of contact restrictions in Macao (70%; [27]), all considerably higher than the officially recorded rate for Spain (29%; https://www.sanidad.gob.es/profesionales/saludPublica/ccayes/alertasActual/nCov/situacionActual.htm; accessed 17 May 2023). The minimum number of cases per 100 K in our setting was 42,136, which exceeded the official cases/100 K (29,128) in Spain but was lower than the estimated cases/100 K reported for several countries worldwide [28, 29]. Diet and nutritional status of individuals have been reported to affect COVID-19 prevalence and disease course [30], particularly in populations with limited access to medical resources [31].…”

“…Deaths directly attributed to COVID-19 were limited to three in our study, giving a mortality rate of 0.36% and a case fatality rate of 0.91 (3/329) considering the small population size (833 inhabitants in 2020). The corresponding mean mortality and case fatality rates recorded for Spain were 0.25% and 0.87, respectively [28, 29]. However, the small sample size did not allow reliable comparisons to be made with these data.…”

“…However, the small sample size did not allow reliable comparisons to be made with these data. The higher mean age and vulnerability of the rural village population might explain these results [28, 33]. Rapid diagnosis of the disease would reduce the number of fatal outcomes.…”