On Aug. 1, 2022, New Zealand officially reopened its border to visitors from all over the world for the first time since March 2020, when the country was placed on lockdown and non-residents were denied entry.

I landed at Auckland International Airport on Aug. 5, 2022, as one of the first non-Australian foreign visitors (New Zealand lifted border restrictions for travelers from non-visa countries, including Australia, in April). My parents’ friends J and A, who had worked in the tourism industry for the past ten years, picked me up from the airport and decided to give me their “final tour” of the country. Both of them became realtors in 2021, one year after COVID-19.

COVID-19 has undoubtedly impacted major industries in every country, and New Zealand is no exception. Tourism made up 5.8% of New Zealand’s GDP in 2019, with an added indirect contribution of 3.8%.  

The highlight of my stay in New Zealand would be our trip to Queenstown, the renowned tourist spot for adventurers. We visited “Cody’s,” a Chinese restaurant owned by a Chinese couple who migrated to New Zealand 20 years ago. They took over the restaurant in 2017 and made a great profit thanks to a large number of Chinese tourists. 

After COVID-19 hit, the restaurant struggled — revenue could not even cover monthly rent. In the past three years, they used up savings from the past years to keep the business afloat. At one point, the couple let all the staff go and did everything themselves. 

These measures have allowed the restaurant to survive the pandemic. Though after the border reopened, the restaurant is now facing a new challenge: they are understaffed and are having trouble hiring people. Similarly, many businesses struggled to stay open since the pandemic, and most of the owners’ friends left the hospitality industry, some even returning to China.

“All of our coworkers and friends had to change professions. Many of our previous employees now work as couriers for Amazon or cashiers at grocery stores. There is nothing you can do; it’s the biggest economic shock in my living memory,” said J. In fact, in the first year of the pandemic, 33.1% of tourism workers lost their jobs in the country.

Industries are changing fast and closely connected to one another. Once you leave an industry, it is extremely difficult to go back. In order to provide the best experiences, tourist agents need connections in the hospitality and transport industries. Once their old connections were lost due to Covid, they needed to build new ones to maintain business, which requires years of hard work. 

“I can’t go back even if I wanted to. After [COVID-19], we are all like the Wanaka tree”, said J. The Wanaka tree is a willow tree located on the edge of lake Wanaka on New Zealand’s south island. Ironically, as a major tourist attraction and symbol of “hope,” the tree was vandalized (several branches were taken off with a saw) in March 2020, after the first covid case was discovered in the country.

New Zealand has also witnessed a rising crime rate due to Covid-related inflation and unemployment. Violent activities have become commonplace, especially in downtown Auckland and central Wellington. 

Compared to pre-pandemic levels, New Zealand’s crime rate has risen by 30%. More than 1000 people were assaulted in Auckland’s Central Business District in the first five months of 2021, a 63% increase compared to crime rate levels in 2019. A has lived close to Auckland’s Central Business District for the past 30 years. 

“I’ve never felt this unsafe,” said A.

Despite current hardship, the border reopening policy presents much-needed hope and opportunities. The inflow of tourists has in turn generated economic productivity.

During my two weeks of stay, I ran into a perceivable number of travelers from Korea, Taiwan and South America. The number is expected to rise by the day as the skiing season beginning in August attracts enthusiasts. As tourism is a crucial factor for economic revitalization, New Zealand is witnessing a positive economic trend.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances and challenges still remain. International students have contributed immensely to New Zealand’s economy and development. Chinese students comprise 26.5 % of the total international student population. 

Chinese visitors also dominate New Zealand’s overseas travels. In 2019 alone, 407,100 visitors arrived from China. However, China has not shown signs of loosening restrictions on Chinese citizens’ traveling abroad. There is no prediction on when these restrictions will be lifted since the Chinese government remains ambiguous about its border policy.

For New Zealand’s future, there is still a long way to go. People lost not only their jobs but also their friends, connections, or even families. Border reopening may not mean “going back to normal.” The old normal disappeared, and it is the new normal we should be getting used to.

The highly infectious nature of COVID-19, and the lack of effective action from some of the world’s governments, mean that many countries are still struggling to cope with the pandemic and its economic, political and social devastation. And while the world now moves forward with vaccinations, many countries in the Global South are left behind. Additionally, the pandemic isn’t over yet; new strains and ever-changing public health guidance leaves an uncertain future for the global community. 

But as the world begins to learn more about different country’s public health responses, key lessons have emerged. In particular, several countries have proved to be successful in controlling the virus and mitigating its effects. 

To determine the effectiveness of different country’s pandemic control, it is necessary to take into account three elements: healthcare responses, political responses and economic responses. In the past year, the Lowy Institute launched the COVID-19 Performance Index to assess different pandemic responses in nearly 100 countries. Countries were ranked based on their lock-down implementation, testing regimes, confirmed cases and death rates. The Institute found that the best global responses to COVID-19 were countries that were successful in achieving these goals with early action and mass testing. Countries identified as victors have been able to take COVID-19 transmission under control while monitoring the status closely to prevent another potential relapse. 

In contrast, countries that failed to effectively manage the pandemic have seen devastating consequences, including mass infections and high death rates. For instance, India — with over 11 million infected cases — is ranked at 86th out of 100 countries, while England ranks 66th with the highest death number in Europe. For these countries, the lack of a quick and adequate response was likely caused by early disregard for the severity of the virus, opposition to scientific guidelines by country officials or inefficient enforcement of lock-downs. 

This article will provide a brief overview of countries that have been labeled relative “victors” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

China: Strict Policies

China, the first country where COVID-19 became prevalent in 2020, has implemented efficient policies and public health strategies since last March. To first tackle the pandemic, China initiated a uniform and centralized response and alerted Chinese citizens quickly when deadly cases first appeared in Wuhan Province. 

One of the most critical policies undertaken was an immediate lockdown of Wuhan Province in January 2020, following a surging number of COVID-19 related deaths in late 2019. The province’s quarantine lasted for 76 days with 14,000 health checkpoints established to conduct timely tests. More impressive was the fact that 9 million people were tested during the region’s lockdown under short notice and with limited medical personnel. 

As Wuhan underwent a severe lockdown, other cities throughout China quickly followed suit. Outdoor activities were severely restricted and person-to-person interaction was significantly reduced. Throughout China, the government implemented face mask mandates and daily temperature tests for individuals looking to leave their homes for essential goods. In China, the government also implemented swift policies related to education: school openings were delayed and online classes were instated countrywide.

The decisiveness of Chinese policy regarding virus containment and elimination has proven to be successful, even over a year after the first emergence of the virus. In China, life has generally returned to pre-COVID normality. Fast response along with strong enforcement were the determining factors for getting preliminary virus transmission under control. 

A significant factor that prompted China’s recovery from COVID-19 was its political system. As an authoritarian country, China handled the emergency more easily than democracies across the world. China was able to mobilize the country’s resources to impose strict lock-downs and attempt to control the spread. The deeply centralized and dictatorial style of governance allowed for a military-style mobilization, which was the defining characteristic of China’s pandemic response. 170,000 party officials, executives and military personnels were summoned by Chairman Xi Jinping in a conference, who laid out clear guidelines of governing responsibilities. China’s Communist Party (CCP) demonstrated its formidable and controlling capacity in declaring and administering emergency crises. 

While China has been fast in their early actions and eager to control COVID-19’s spread, China has nonetheless been blamed for its failures in the early stages of the catastrophe. Former U.S. President Donald Trump blames China for the pandemic. He also pointed out that China did not engage in full information sharing with foreign officials, which resulted in an uncontrollable spread. Admittedly, the Wuhan mayor acknowledged that China failed to reveal necessary information in a “timely manner,” and that doctors who treated the first patients in Wuhan were under a strict order to downplay the severity of the virus and to keep silent. Moreover, many believe that the virus emerged originally from China, however, after extensive background research and laboratory tests, its spread pattern remains elusive. 

Under the Trump administration, Washington saw this as an opportunity to downgrade China’s global reputation. Trump often called COVID-19 the “Chinese virus,” and throughout the United States, anti-Chinese sentiment spiked and there has been an increase in hate crimes and acts of violence against the Asian American community. 

But, other countries that implemented similar policies and enacted national lockdowns did not seem to generate promising results. This is because in addition to a strict nationwide quarantine, China’s track and trace programs were also effective and efficiently implemented.  China put procedures in place that required each individual not only to self-track, but also to report and document their health status using apps, QR codes and social media platforms. Individuals who wanted access to public places had to demonstrate their green QR code, proving their good health status. This enabled local authorities to closely monitor the rate of virus transmission and implement policies accordingly. 

In contrast, many western countries failed to establish an effective surveillance system on health status and, therefore, lacked crucial information about virus transmission and its severity. For example, the UK has been criticized for its poor tracking system, which rendered it difficult for the country’s authorities to record accurate numbers of infected individuals and trace case interactions While the number of deadly cases were on the rise, a significant data-entry error occurred due to logistical problems, further delaying the UK’s effective tracing program during the moment it mattered most. 

Essentially, China’s government was able to engage in early, sweeping and deeply restrictive action in the name of public health. Comparatively, the United States was late to the game with poor testing checkpoints, an overwhelmed healthcare system, crippling numbers and a lack of cohesive federal action under the Trump administration. According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it was reported that American labs were experiencing difficulties with processing CDC-approved testing kits. As a result, confirmed cases during early February 2020 only reached about 500, which was significantly lower than the actual number of active cases in the country. 

As China was taking strict measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 in February, the U.S. government implemented few policies targeting the virus and therefore lost the chance to control the pandemic before it spiralled out of control. It wasn’t until late February 2020, almost 2 months after the first case was reported, that the United States declared a state of emergency and began implementing travel bans, as well as considering vaccine development. 

New Zealand: Successful Leadership

New Zealand is a unique case when it comes to understanding how countries combatted COVID-19, not only due to its distinct geographical characteristics but also because of the government’s strong enforcement of health protocols. 

New Zealand’s government underwent swift actions at the early stages of pandemic to contain the virus’ spread. The international community has praised New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who executed quick and decisive measures, including a strict national lockdown and quarantine orders, with the hope of eliminating the virus. The country has identified one last-known COVID-19 case and therefore marked the end of the pandemic only in 103 days since the first case, making it fewer than 2000 COVID-19 cases altogether and 25 deaths in New Zealand. Ardern has led New Zealand with optimism and science at the forefront of her policy — reinforcing the idea that the battle against COVID-19 could be won. 

In the early stages of the pandemic, Ardern gave a speech directly to New Zealanders, which many observers noted had a soothing effect on preparing the island as a united front, ready to collectively work as a country in the name of public health. Her policies included strict quarantine for anyone entering New Zealand, suspension of select foreign travel, and a suspension of select domestic travel within the country’s borders. While COVID-19 cases were exponentially increasing in Europe and the United States in March 2020, New Zealand reported about only 1,500 cases by the end of May 2020. More importantly, New Zealand officials encouraged effective communication with health officials and supported the country’s scientists and health experts.

However, with a population of only 4.8 million people, New Zealand was able to easily move ahead the curb. The advantage of a relatively smaller population and New Zealand’s unique geographical features have played an indispensable role in its successful COVID-19 response. As an island country, New Zealand’s mountainous terrain limits residential capacity and population density remains low. It was also fairly easy to control the country’s borders. 

Comparing New Zealand’s successful efforts with those of the United States is like night and day. Former President Donald Trump decided to disband the White House’s pandemic response team in May 2018. Trump also repeatedly communicated false statements about the pandemic to the American public. His dubious attitude toward science and the pandemic have proven to be detrimental to controlling the pandemic. As of March 2021, the U.S death toll reached 568,000. After being infected with COVID-19, himself, and receiving medical care in Washington, Trump had a triumphant return to the White House, and told Americans: “Don’t be afraid of COVID.”  

Trump’s leadership, or lack thereof, posed a genuine threat to the American pandemic response — a stark contrast with the decisive and science-forward leadership of Ardern. 

Finland: Clear Communication

On the European continent, a successful model that has emerged from the pandemic is Finland, which has one of the lowest COVID-19 infection rates among the Nordic countries. With a population half of Sweden’s, Finland has only around one-tenth of Sweden’s confirmed cases and record 805 deaths in total. The low infection rates and death rates are largely attributed to its aggressive and early action. 

When the first identified case emerged, Finland implemented a two-month long lock-down swiftly following closings of public facilities including schools and restaurants. More importantly, the central feature that made such early action possible is because the constitution in Finland permitted its government to use the Emergency Act to enforce lock-down measures, which Sweden failed to use since it had a stricter constitution only for emergency situations such as war. 

Other than swift actions undertaken in early 2020, which happened two weeks earlier than other Scandinavian countries, through the increased usage of social media, Finland has excelled at public health communication, which has allowed its citizens to fully understand the severity of the virus. Clear communication was the key to Finland’s success, according to Finnish doctors, who professed direct guidelines to encourage social distancing and quarantine rules. The Finnish government also ran on transparent management with weekly public briefings with press conferences and open ground for questions commenced by Prime Minister Sanna Marin. Finland also utilized the power of technology to raise awareness of COVID-19. 

It has also effectively monitored the growth of COVID-19 through an app called “Corona Flush.” This app was widely adopted by almost every person in Finland and enabled the country to identify and keep track of virus cases. Additionally, the Finnish government partnered with social media influencers, who spread the correct information about the virus on various digital platforms. The role of social media influencers includes raising awareness and reaching as many audiences as possible, especially young people who are more active on digital media. One of the most prominent collaborations was between the Finnish government and social media influencer PING Helsinki, who was responsible for editing government messages into appropriate format and posting them on her personal account. The instances of such cooperation prevail since Finnish people have high faith in social media and have a tendency to reach fact-based information on digital networks. 

Finland has also been alert in keeping track of potential relapse of COVID-19 spread after its initial success. In fact, as there have been rising cases of COVID-19 cases in the past month, the Finnish government has immediately declared a state of emergency and responded with closing of restaurants and schools again in order to minimize human contact. It has also declared entry restrictions for any Schengen Area countries until April 2021 to prevent incoming virus. The border control has also been reinforced by a limited operation hour for the border crossing point. The Ministry highlighted that anybody who wishes to enter Finnish border must be tested negative in order to be qualified. 

Lessons Learned 

Though it is impossible to replicate the success of combatting COVID-19 in one country in another,  there are still many lessons we can glean from the success of COVID-19’s “victors.” 

Early action, a respect for science, decisive leadership and effective communication were critical factors in several countries’ successful pandemic response  But countries ought to continuously monitor the virus and public health in order to prevent another outbreak — whether it be different COVID-19 strains or different viruses all together. 

However, from the beginning, it has always been known that storing and distributing vaccines would be a tall task. Everything from road conditions to human error can squander life-saving doses. Recently, just a single unplugged cord, knocked loose by a cleaning contractor, rendered 2,000 vaccines in a Boston hospital useless. These are the frustrating — yet inevitable — realities of needing to develop vaccines quickly and effectively, but not having time to consider convenience. 

Those lost doses are often a result of factors outside of human control. However, hundreds of thousands more lives are being put at risk by the most pervasive and permanent virus of all: greed. 

But there are currently global coalitions working to ensure that vaccine rollout is equitable. COVAX is a cooperative set up by the World Health Organization, Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance), and the European Commission in order to ensure the equitable distribution of vaccines. The coalition’s broad goals are motivated by the vision that no matter a country’s prosperity or wealth, they will have the right to protect their people and have equal access to vaccinations as they are developed. 

The COVAX facility maintains a diverse portfolio of vaccines and essentially gives lower income countries collective bargaining power to ensure that manufacturers deliver appropriately and in a timely manner. It is made up of both ‘self-funding’ countries and countries in need, and is primarily funded by member states of the WHO and funding from external sources. A separate COVAX Advance Market Commitment (AMC) acts as a vaccine fund, made up of a mixture of foreign aid and philanthropy from the private sector. Under the Trump Administration, the United States announced its withdrawal from the WHO, citing corruption and political favoring toward China. However, the Biden administration, in its first days in office, announced the United States’ recommitment to the organization, and as a result, the COVAX alliance.

Former President of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, told The World radio that “this is an interdependent and interconnected world. [COVAX countries] have to see vaccines as a global good to be able to save humanity — and humanity is worldwide… they cannot treat it as apartheid [and]they cannot say because you’re poor, you will not be vaccinated, only the rich will be.” COVAX is supposed to be a multilateral effort demonstrating the public health impact of the world coming together, with wealthy nations extending a much-needed hand to the world’s poorer economies.

For example, Canada, a G7 nation with the tenth-largest economy in the world, invested $440 million in COVAX. While most wealthy countries are buying their vaccines directly, Canada instead intends to use half of their contributions to buy vaccines through COVAX for their own people. Trudeau is facing harsh criticism for Canada’s disjointed and ambiguous coronavirus protocols; after all, Canadian leadership initially called the virus a low risk to their nation, and delayed a comprehensive response for far too long. More recently, Canada has been widely criticized for their ineffective plan for how to distribute their doses to the masses. Perhaps Trudeau views COVAX as a way to bail him out of an unfavorable political dilemma — one that was entirely the fault of his administration — instead of as a way for Canada to contribute to global recovery. 

While it is the only G7 nation to benefit from COVAX thus far, other countries further along in their coronavirus response like New Zealand — who found success in combating COVID-19 as a result of proper planning from the government — are following suit. Canada already owns the highest number of doses per capita, even before COVAX doses start rolling out in February. In contrast, only one out of the 29 poorest nations have started vaccinations. But this first step forward is nowhere near where the world needs to be quite yet. For the west African nation of Guinea, the country had only a whopping 55 shots delivered to them. 

Outside of COVAX, it was clear from the outset that money could buy human security during the pandemic. Israel, for example, was extremely aggressive in prioritizing the safety of their people and securing vaccines early. According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the government paid double for earlier access to Pfizer’s jabs. The reverse side of that coin is a case like South Africa’s. South Africa has acted similarly to Canada in that its leadership failed to take quick and decisive action to invest in a recovery plan. The Serum Institute of India (SII), where the Astra-Zeneca vaccines are made, sells its doses in a tiered system based on wealth. South Africa qualifies as a middle-high income country, yet has nowhere near the economic capacity of Canada. Therefore, they have to pay $5.25 per dose. To put that in perspective, European countries pay around $2.17 to $3 for each of their doses. The SII justified this by stating that some countries were entitled to a discount due to their contributions to research and development.

Canada and South Africa are two countries with poor leadership and poor initial action against the virus; the former and far wealthier was able to exploit a system designed to redistribute resources regardless of wealth by having enough wealth to do so, while the latter and far poorer continues to lag behind and pay a premium they cannot afford. 

It’s clear that there is cognitive dissonance between the stated goals of COVAX, the pharmaceutical companies, and participating nations. In order for any form of equitable distribution to happen, countries who can afford it must reap more than they can sow, yet there is no willingness to do so on a country-by-country basis. The WHO warned of the dangers of “vaccine nationalism,” greed and price-gouging, and the effects of these concerns are already materializing. 

COVAX has played into the wealth-based inequality which it originally postured itself against. While thousands continue to die worldwide because their countries can’t afford for them to survive, Moderna charges upwards of $32 per dose, making a healthy margin on saving lives; the vaccination effort has created billionaires and will bring in tens of billions in profit for leading companies while our global economy at large is threatened and strained.

How do we let money take precedence over life itself? Does the DNA of a virus alter because of the presence of money? Do resources disappear when money disappears? Does scientific research become unlearned because of a lack of funds? These complex problems reflect a complex issue with complex answers. The fine line between economic interest and economic necessity is blurred.

The world has to develop antibodies for greed. Combatting COVID-19 is a global effort, because unless vaccinations are administered in every country and to all people, the virus will continue to adapt, mutate and infect. This public health crisis has demonstrated that current approaches with self-interested goals will not work. And while coalitions like COVAX are a good first step in eliminating that greed, individual leadership within each country must step up to act now.