ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
One Pandemic, Two Solutions: Comparing the U.S.-China Response and Health Priorities to COVID-19 from the Perspective of "Two Types of Control".
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Global geographic and socioeconomic disparities in COVID-associated acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of global health · 2025Pooled it
- No Place to Hide? Regional Resilience and Vulnerability to Global Catastrophic Risk.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2026Review
- Artificial-intelligence-driven governance: addressing emerging risks with a comprehensive risk-prevention-centred model for public health crisis management.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- The global response to the pandemic: An empirical cluster analysis of policies targeting COVID-19.PloS one · 2025Article
- Health system resilience and pandemic response: a comparative analysis of China, Singapore, the U.S., and the U.K.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Comparison of the efficacy of COVID-19 responses in South Korea and the United States.Global health action · 2024Article
- Article
- How to implement pairing assistance during fighting COVID-19 in China: collaborative governance between local governments under the authoritative regulation.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of state-level policy responses in global health governance: A scoping review using COVID-19 as a case.PloS one · 2024Article
- Dynamic Insights: Unraveling Public Demand Evolution in Health Emergencies Through Integrated Language Models and Spatial-Temporal Analysis.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Editorial: Language and culture in organization and consumer behaviors.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After three years of global rampage, the COVID-19 epidemic, the most serious infectious disease to occur worldwide since the 1918 influenza pandemic, is nearing its end. From the global experience, medical control and social control are the two main dimensions in the prevention and control of COVID-19. From the perspective of "two types of control", namely medical control and social control, this paper finds that the political system, economic structure, and cultural values of the United States greatly limit the government's ability to impose social control, forcing it to adopt medical control to fight the virus in a single dimension. In contrast, China's political system, economic structure, and cultural values allow its government to adopt stringent, extensive, and frequent social control, as well as medical control to fight the virus. This approach departs from the traditional pathway of fighting the epidemic, i.e., "infection-treatment-immunization", thereby outpacing the evolution of the virus and controlling its spread more rapidly. This finding helps explain why the Chinese government adopted a strict "zeroing" and "dynamic zeroing" policy during the first three years, at the cost of enormous economic, social, and even political legitimacy. It was not until late 2022, when the Omicron variant with the waning virulence became prevalent, that China chose to "coexist" with the virus, thus avoiding a massive epidemic-related death. While the United States adopted a pulsed-style strategy at the beginning of the epidemic, i.e., "relaxation-suppression-relaxation-suppression", and began to "coexist" with the virus in just one year, resulting in a large number of excess deaths associated with the epidemic. The study contributes to explaining the difference in the interplay between public health priorities and COVID-19 response strategies in China and the United States, based on the specific public health context and the perspective of "medical control" and "social control".
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.