Comparison, Analysis, and Discussion of the Impact of the COVID-19 on Developed and Developing Countries

Comparison, Analysis, and Discussion of the Impact of the Covid-19 on China and United Kingdom Student Name University Course Professor Name Date Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the pressing matter for everyone worldwide to work hand in hand and for all the concerned sectors to develop extensive ready-made measures to deal with crises effectively. This study utilized the comparison approach to examine how COVID-19 has affected two antagonistic countries, China and the United Kingdom, and these represent underdeveloped countries versus developed countries. It allows the study to draw from qualitative research techniques such as critical discourse analysis and case study analysis to analyze the socioeconomic, political, and health impacts of the pandemic in each country. The study shows a big scale of socioeconomic breakdowns in Britain and China: GDP decrease, breach of employment, and bankruptcy of companies. Both countries underwent an overload of their health systems, where the lack of hospital beds, intensive care units, and medical equipment could be observed. The similarities in responses to COVID-19 between countries are coupled with the differences in governments’ management methods, governance structures, and healthcare systems that brought forth inequalities in the success of the pandemic control plans. China utilized a more proactive containment strategy coupled with a centralized governance system, leading to effective virus control. However, in the UK’s decision-making framework, a problem resulted in a higher morbidity and mortality rate among people. The research closes with recommendations aiming at tripling the effectiveness of global health governance, increasing the range of healthcare infrastructure investments, tackling health inequalities between regions, expanding the capacity to prepare and respond, research and innovation, and public trust and communication and engineering policies to prevent economic downturns. This essay provides world health equity, socioeconomic development, and international unions’ recommendations for future pandemic preparedness and response efforts. Furthermore, further investigation will be conducted to uncover the extent of the COVID–19 pandemic’s consequences and to evaluate the response strategies’ results in different contexts. Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Abstract PAGEREF _Toc165657353 \h 2Acknowledgment PAGEREF _Toc165657354 \h 5List of Tables PAGEREF _Toc165657355 \h 6List of Abbreviations PAGEREF _Toc165657356 \h 71.Introduction PAGEREF _Toc165657357 \h 82.Literature Review PAGEREF _Toc165657358 \h 112.1. Theoretical Framework PAGEREF _Toc165657359 \h 112.1.1. Globalization Theory PAGEREF _Toc165657360 \h 112.1.2. Development Theory PAGEREF _Toc165657361 \h 122.1.3. Health Inequality Theory PAGEREF _Toc165657362 \h 132.2. Comprehensive Synthesis of Existing Research on the Socio-Economic, Political, and Health Impacts of COVID-19 PAGEREF _Toc165657363 \h 152.2.1. Socio-Economic Impacts PAGEREF _Toc165657364 \h 152.2.2. Political Impacts PAGEREF _Toc165657365 \h 152.2.3. Health Impacts PAGEREF _Toc165657366 \h 162.3 The Role of International Organizations and Global Governance Mechanisms in Addressing the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic PAGEREF _Toc165657367 \h 173. Methodology PAGEREF _Toc165657368 \h 194. Case Study: China and United Kingdom PAGEREF _Toc165657369 \h 214.1. China (Developing Country) PAGEREF _Toc165657370 \h 214.1.1. Government Response and Public Health Measures PAGEREF _Toc165657371 \h 224.1.2. Socio-Economic Impacts PAGEREF _Toc165657372 \h 224.1.3. Role of International Cooperation PAGEREF _Toc165657373 \h 224.2. United Kingdom (Developed Country) PAGEREF _Toc165657374 \h 234.2.1. Government Response and Public Health Measures PAGEREF _Toc165657375 \h 244.2.2. Socio-Economic Impacts PAGEREF _Toc165657376 \h 244.2.3. Role of International Cooperation PAGEREF _Toc165657377 \h 244.3.1. Similarities PAGEREF _Toc165657378 \h 254.3.2. Differences PAGEREF _Toc165657379 \h 264.3.3. Underlying Factors PAGEREF _Toc165657380 \h 265. Findings and Discussion PAGEREF _Toc165657381 \h 285.1. Socio-Economic Impacts PAGEREF _Toc165657382 \h 285.2. Political Impacts PAGEREF _Toc165657383 \h 305.3. Health Impacts PAGEREF _Toc165657384 \h 325.4. Patterns and Trends PAGEREF _Toc165657385 \h 356. Comparative Analysis of COVID-19 Impacts PAGEREF _Toc165657386 \h 386.1. Similarities PAGEREF _Toc165657387 \h 386.2. Differences PAGEREF _Toc165657388 \h 396.3. Trends PAGEREF _Toc165657389 \h 417. Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc165657390 \h 437.1. Summary of Findings PAGEREF _Toc165657391 \h 437.2. Implication of Findings PAGEREF _Toc165657392 \h 447.3. Recommendations and Further Research PAGEREF _Toc165657393 \h 458. References PAGEREF _Toc165657394 \h 47 Acknowledgment I want to thank my supervisor for the irreplaceable help and advice that guided me step by step while writing this research. I also want to mention my family and friends for all the support, understanding, and sacrifice they offered while I was experiencing this university life journey. List of Tables TOC \h \z \c "Table" Table 1: Comparative Socio-Economic Impacts PAGEREF _Toc165359064 \h 36 Table 2: Comparative Government Responses PAGEREF _Toc165359065 \h 37 List of Abbreviations COVID-19: Coronavirus Disease 2019 GDP: Gross Domestic Product NHS:National Health Service PPE: Personal Protective Equipment WHO: World Health Organization NGO: Non-Governmental Organization SARS-CoV-2: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 1 Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic brought by the deadly coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 - a new strain - has yielded a global health crisis that has made almost all nations and varied spheres of society suffer. It first emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019; the virus was transmitted quickly almost worldwide. As a result, the global health organization – the WHO, declared the pandemic in March 2020 (Alamo et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic is a string of infections that have affected more people worldwide and resulted in deaths; consequently, it is one of the deadliest pandemics in the modern period. Besides the inconceivable deaths count that it left, the health crisis of COVID-19 has endured issues that have covered every aspect of national and global life (Alsunaidi et al., 2021). Its unparalleled strength was exhibited by nationwide lockdowns and travel and business restrictions, which caused considerable trade, employment, and economic productivity interruption. The pandemic has triggered a downward trend of prevailing inequalities, which are more apparent among those aged 60 or older, people from ethnic groups, and people with low incomes. The virus was indiscriminate in targeting countries with developed economies and those with more challenging circumstances. However, the ability to reach effective responses and reduce the consequences of COVID-19 has been distinctly assorted (Amira et al., 2020). States with more affluent public health facilities, higher savings, and the potential for readily accessible social protection were designed to be economically superior and, therefore, better positioned to tackle the initial blows of the pandemic. In contrast to developed nations, developing countries faced a series of things that affected them, like high population density and not too-rich healthcare resources. The COVID-19 hemisphere will more likely become a risk to the life conditions of people in these countries even after the pandemic (Arencibia-Jorge et al., 2020). An appreciation of the variations with which COVID-19 has destroyed developed and developing countries should be one of the priorities for planning measures against future pandemics and target policies. The primary goal of this research is to conduct a complete comparative and analytical study of COVID-19's impact on a developed country, the UK, and a developing country, China. Using a qualitative method that combines critical discourse analysis and case studies, this research looks at the effects of global trade on the economies, societies, cultures, politics, and health of the two countries. The primary objective is to emphasize the factors that are the basis of the different paths and consequences experienced by countries across the world (Baloch et al., 2020), thereby highlighting the strengths, problems and disparities that directly exist between the developed countries and those that are still underdeveloped in the midst of global crisis.  The essay will significantly help the academic field by adding to the developing body of knowledge on COVID-19, highlighting the gradual process that the two-way relationship between a country’s development and its pandemic recovery and response takes. The second contribution of this research is to raise the issues that developing countries face during such critical health emergencies. Consequently, the research leads to instrumenting policies and resource allocation strategies for improving their resilience and preparedness. Also, the research findings focus on areas such as international cooperation, knowledge sharing, and unique assistance to reduce the burden that countries go through during the global pandemic. Developing such a comprehensive understanding of the complex nature of work contributes to building a basis for more inclusive and effective pandemic management in the future. The research structure is as follows. Chapter 2 performs a literature review whereby the theoretical backbone pulling the study along is explained, and researchers' experience with the consequences of COVID-19 in developed and developing countries is also discussed. Chapter 3 describes the methodology and the rationale for applying qualitative methods, in-depth critical discourse analysis, and case study analysis in collecting data, identifying evaluation criteria and determining the data collection and analysis methods. In chapters 4 and 5, these case studies will discuss how China and the United Kingdom operated during the pandemic. These chapters thus provide a detailed exploration of time frames, economic ramifications, societal significance, political dynamics, and public health issues faced by every country throughout the pandemic. Based on the theories outlined in the literature, the narratives presented are guided by the nature of the analysis. Chapter 6 proceeds with the comparative assessment, whereby the results of the two case studies are systematically matched against each other along the crucial dimensions, like economic effects, cultural and social transformation, politics, and public health. In this chapter, the researcher will describe a side-by-side comparison of the commonalities and differences implicated, bearing in mind the model being considered. Chapter 7 will combine the results that manifest the main findings, which are of greater significance and importance. Besides that, this chapter recognizes the areas where the study has shortcomings and proposes future work. At the end of this research, recommendations for policymakers, international organizations, and other stakeholders are made to improve global resilience and factor in equity in future pandemics or health crises facing the planet. This research contributes to the ongoing debate on the complicated interactions between a country’s level of development and its capacity to manage the situation. Through bringing to the foreground the specific dilemma of emerging economies, including their weaknesses, thus proposing how these can be exploited to enhance a community that is more tolerant of trauma to be more resilient, this research ultimately aims at superintending a better-structured world in which the impacts of future pandemics are less severe. 2 Literature Review 2.1. Theoretical Framework 2.1.1. Globalization Theory The globalization theory helps in understanding the increasing interdependence of countries from the commercial and informational point of view and the movement of goods, capital, and people across international boundaries. Globalization has brought advances in trade and social interactions and sped up the reach of the coronavirus around the globe. The transferability of the virus is at an alarming peak because of its transmission from its origin, Wuhan, China, to anywhere in the world and where healthcare authorities, governments, and civilians are working hard to curb the spread and avoid traffic (Dirani et al., 2020). It portrays the dual impact of interconnected economies where atonement and susceptible states are introduced. Intrinsically gaping the world, globalization has brought about unequaled economic growth and development and has generated a cohesive environment for quickly spreading infectious contagions across individuals.  The theory of globalization helps explain the extent to which COVID-19 has crippled global business and trade and disrupted the flow of people around the globe. Lockdown decisions, travel limits, and border closures carried out by governments all over the world in response to this crisis have affected the flow of goods and services very much so that many economies have fallen into recession, and the social systems have faced a significant disruption (Dumulescu & Muţiu, 2021). Businesses relying on international supply chains have undergone quite a difficult situation, while expansion protection of tourism and hospitality industries is unlikely. As a result, the pandemic has shown how vulnerable the global economy is to such biological threats and, therefore, the need to renovate it adaptively to face forthcoming crises.  The fundamental principles of globalization are focused on interstate cooperation and mutual aid in the fight against global public health devastation, as seen with COVID-19. The current challenge is a clear-cut example of various health systems cooperating to control the spread of the virus and alleviate the adverse impact of the epidemic. The reaction of different countries to the pandemic includes the general pooling of scientific information, medical supplies, and best practices, which significantly impacts the rate of success in fighting the pandemic. During the current pandemic, some multilateral institutions, such as the WHO, have been on the frontline in organizing and coordinating worldwide responses and mobilizing resources that support countries struggling to deal with this emergency (Eccleston‐Turner & Upton, 2021). As a result of this, the main thing will be to develop ever stronger international cooperation to overcome pandemics and other global challenges. 2.1.2. Development Theory Development studies are special-making sensors of how much economic, social, and political changes can be in societies, especially for development and poverty reduction cases. The COVID-19 pandemic intensified the existing development problems and inequalities, which inevitably made this framework an asset in studying the pandemic's impact. People and groups devastated by the economic effects belonging to the poor, the squatter, or the countryside, infection disparities have been the most affected (El Bcheraoui et al., 2020). The fact underlines the positive and negative relationships between development and health outcomes. Discussion around development theory looks into how the pandemic has displeasured existing socio-economic divides.  The load of the pandemic burden has been much higher on the vulnerable groups of society which did not have access to essential services such as health care, sanitation, and education, thereby being at an increased risk of being affected in terms of health and economy (Fenner & Cernev, 2021). So much so that schools will be shut and run, livelihoods will be disrupted, and conditions of the poor and food insecurity will be worsened, especially in countries with no social support. Furthermore, the pandemic has shown that all global development achievements are unstable and that progress in eradicating poverty and raising education rates indicates backsliding. Applying a development lens to COVID-19 pandemic disparities means looking at different factors affecting a country's well-being. Those factors include poverty, equality, accessible health care, and social protection systems, meaning different communities deal with the pandemic differently. Nations possessing robust social mechanisms and comprehensive systems of healthcare were able to cope more efficiently with the spread of the virus in their population (Forman et al., 2021). On the positive side, countries with solid governance structures and requisite healthcare infrastructure have successfully controlled the pandemics. However, many nations with poor and vulnerable health systems have found it difficult to contain the crisis effectively. Addressing these significant structural inequalities by allowing society to build resilience and a shared future would be inevitable after the crisis. 2.1.3. Health Inequality Theory Health inequality theory is concerned with identifying the social conditions that impact the community’s health and ultimately lead to differences in health status among the different population groups. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the lack of equity in the healthcare system, whereby marginalized communities encounter high cases of infections, severe cases, and death rates (Gabutti et al., 2020). Social elements like discrimination and health services inadequacy account for these variances, whether within or among the nations. There is the unequal spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), as minorities -racial and ethnic and economically disadvantaged are highly at risk, as those with medical conditions. The immigrant communities tend especially to face obstacles, such as nobody’s medical insurance, a way to get there, and culturally sensitive care. In addition, hidden social acceptors such as unstable housing, acute hunger, and risky working situations are factors that kept them in danger of infection, and the virus could be aggressive if they caught it. An analysis of how health inequalities arising during the COVID-19 pandemic are influenced by other oppressive dichotomies like race, gender, and social class goes a long way to unravel the root causes of the disparities. Racism, gender discrimination, and misleading economics all tie together in the creation of conditions of poverty and marginalization among those who cannot escape them (Gostin & Wiley, 2020). They make inequities in health worse; taking into account the underlying factors requires a holistic approach that considers social determinants of health to minimize the health disparity as a response is made to this contagion. By already determining and exclusively fixating the structural factors that underlie health inequalities, health policymakers develop more effective and equitable strategies to respond to the pandemic and promote community wellness (Gostin & Wiley, 2020). Such an initiative must be based on the multi-sectoral approach that deals with the root causes of health, which are income and social determinants of health and the challenges around the healthcare infrastructure and workforce development, and it must focus on the needs of the marginalized and vulnerable groups. This way, the reinforcement of health equity ensures the creation of a stronger society that values inclusivity and equality of opportunity for all citizens in the post-COVID-19 pandemic period. 2.2. Comprehensive Synthesis of Existing Research on the Socio-Economic, Political, and Health Impacts of COVID-19 2.2.1. Socio-Economic Impacts Empirical research conducted in different countries continues to correct and emphasize the pandemic’s significant impact on socio-economic dynamics. Developed and developing countries have had income decline, poverty increase, and livelihood disruptions (Bayati et al., 2022). The developed and developing countries alike have experienced livelihood disruptions, income decline, and poverty as an unfortunate result. For instance, the main groups suffering from poor spending and fewer business activities are the downfall of vulnerable populations such as low-paid workers, those in the informal sector, and the less fortunate. Socially and economically vulnerable groups experience more significant job losses and overall economic instability, so they are the ones who get the very worst amounts of this inequality if compared to others (Bollyky et al., 2020). The pandemic especially brought to light structural issues, including income inequality, weak social protection systems, and insecurity in workplaces, which determine people’s susceptibility to the economic consequences of the pandemic. The most affected individuals, such as people with limited or no financial or social support, have been only struck as they faced barriers in dealing with the pandemic (Burdorf et al., 2020). It is the evidence for the trends in the distribution of wealth, but not without the call for policy interventions that are targeted to act more effectively in the face of socio-economic disparities and equity recovery efforts. 2.2.2. Political Impacts The political impacts of COVID-19 have attracted broad studies across the globe, with the critical emphasis being the governmental responses and policy formulations for shaping the course of the pandemic. How government leaders show transparency and accountability and build trust have greatly impacted the controlling and tackling of the pandemic on society (Chen et al., 2020). Scientists say that nations where governments are involved in both strategy and policy formulation and teamwork were better equipped to handle the crisis. Political science and public administration theories bring light to cyclical relations, power distribution, and pandemic outcomes in terms of political institutions (Chong et al., 2020). They touch on the state’s capacity, regime type, good governance, and the organization’s ability to cope with the problems and involvement of the public in health issues. Capturing politics is fundamental to sawmilling and recommendation-based policies, building confidence in government institutions while facing a crisis. 2.2.3. Health Impacts Empirical research from around the world demonstrates that the current health risks from COVID-19 are different. The coronavirus has pushed the healthcare system to the top of the crisis, and now many are experiencing a high workload, which causes an overload of hospitals and medical facilities (Corley et al., 2020). People who are already unable to access proper healthcare or are at the very bottom of the social rank have always had more severe health issues that lead to higher morbidity and mortality rates. Disruption to healthcare services, especially the ordinary care and elective procedures, brought more problems to health inequality (Dashraath et al., 2020). From a theoretical perspective, such public health and epidemiological perspectives, along with medical sociology, show the reasons for social determinants of health and those factors responsible for vulnerability to COVID-19. Ideas of a universal healthcare system, the definition of social determinants of health, and the influence of structural inequalities through the pandemic mainly affect health outcomes. The underlying causes are of paramount importance to be eliminated to realize the ultimate goal of health equity by making possible access to timely and adequate healthcare services for the less fortunate (Delardas et al., 2022). The community that strives to mitigate the effects of the ongoing pandemic through a variety of means should always start from an understanding of the vulnerability of specific individuals living with health disparities while taking into consideration structural inequalities. 2.3 The Role of International Organizations and Global Governance Mechanisms in Addressing the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic The WHO is an example of an intergovernmental organization that has been the primary catalyst of collaborative efforts to circumvent COVID-19 globally. The WHO has been offering guidance, technical help, assistance in preparedness for the pandemic, and surveillance and response efforts to countries. Through its regular media briefings, information dissemination, and development of guidelines, the WHO has been the central figure in promoting the most favorable practices and getting the international endeavor coordinated to contain the virus spread to its practical minimum (Gupta et al., 2021). Moreover, the UN and G20 have proved fundamental global governance mechanisms through their efforts to catalyze management strategies and coordinate finances to avert a broader societal and economic impact. The UN holds a series of high-level meetings and summits to explore ways of tackling the global landscape in areas like health, finance, and social development that are affected the most. G20 shadowed the reactions by creating conditions for financing, reducing loan repayment burden, and measures towards economic recovery for the countries badly affected by the pandemic; this is mainly in the case of poverty-stricken countries. The leading international financial bodies, such as the IMF and the World Bank, continue giving monetary aid and policy recommendations to crisis-stricken countries suffering the economic blows of the pandemic. The IMF provides emergency financing, even to low-income countries, and locally, the World Bank can fund health systems, strengthening social protection programs and economic recovery efforts. Multilateral initiatives, such as the COVAX facility, intended to avail the COVID-19 vaccine to people worldwide, have started (Hussain et al., 2020). As part of its mandate, COVAX collaborates with the WHO, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and CEPI to expedite the development, manufacturing, and fair distribution of vaccines, irrespective of the economic status of the pandemic-affected countries. Through joint efforts and common prioritizing issued to countries that vaccines will be procured and distributed, COVAX intends to prove its ability on the equitable allocation of vaccines, thus contributing to the establishment of worldwide coronavirus pandemic-free status. 3. Methodology This study adopted a qualitative approach in terms of its evasiveness in permitting the researcher to analyze thoroughly the complicated effects of COVID-19. Qualitative research provides for a comprehensive assessment of the impact of a pandemic on the way of life, beliefs, and practices of the individuals and communities involved. It must be noted that the pandemic is a dynamic reality itself, and the rich, contextual, and nuanced understanding of the impact of the pandemic on the general public can be obtained only through qualitative methods (Taherdoost, 2016). As such, qualitative research complements the quantitative methods employed in the study, and together, qualitative and quantitative information leads to a more comprehensive picture of the impact. The qualitative research develops a well-rounded view of the socio-economic, political, and health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, irrespective of setting and group persons, by involving open-ended interviews, observations, and document analysis. In this research, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Case Study Analysis (CSA) were coupled as complementary research methods to explore the COVID-19 pandemic through multiple and varying levels of perspective. CDA is an effective model for an investigation that looks at the language usage and power dynamics in a discourse, which results in exposure to underlying ideologies, prejudices, and social systems that underline the form of public discourse about COVID-19. Research techniques like discourse analysis, narrative analysis, and thematic breaking were used to determine whether there were any commonalities, contradictions, or dominant discourses in the media presentation, policy documents, and public debates during the pandemic. By conducting a case study analysis, a detailed examination of the effects of COVID-19 in particular contexts, including societal, political, health, and economic dimensions, was provided, thus enabling an in-depth look at the factors in play. Cases under the best fit to research questions were identified as the ones that provide rich and contextual data. Through participatory observation, semi-structured interviews, and content analysis, data was gathered from prime figures such as policymakers, healthcare professionals, and grassroots members (Taherdoost, 2016). The Social-Ecological model and the Political Economy of Health were utilized to assist with data analysis and interpretation. Confined by the strengths of the qualitative study, several drawbacks and obstructions were experienced during data collection and analysis. Such challenges, as perceived, included data biases from the user side, researcher bias, and the complexity of data interpretation in a qualitative mode. Triangulation of sources, member checking to check what other members reported about the issues investigated, and peer debriefing were all used to increase the believability and trustworthiness of the results. Additionally, the reliability and credibility of the researcher’s findings were ensured through the reflexivity exercises and journaling to critically examine the researcher’s assumptions, biases, and positionality throughout the research process. The study had a reflective course to facilitate its rigorous methodology and enhance the validity and reliability of its findings while conceding that qualitative studies have an aspect of subjectivity. 4. Case Study: China and United Kingdom 4.1. China (Developing Country)  China has been in the headlines for good and bad reasons, as it was the epicenter of this global health emergency. The government of China implemented severe policies like lockdowns and travel restrictions to prevent the virus from going around through mass testing campaigns (Jewell et al., 2020). In the early days, China swiftly implemented draconian measures, including the lockdown of Wuhan. In this city, the virus was discovered, which led to the building of emergency hospitals that could help accommodate the increasing number of cases. In terms of prevention, China, along with nationwide testing, tracking, and isolation measures, did an excellent job of curbing the virus at an ideal level. Besides, China introduced strict public health policies, including masks requiring temperature checks and health scanning in public areas (Kuhfeld et al., 2020). The government launched intensive public awareness programs to educate society about the significance of preventive actions and encourage the public to obey the rules stipulated in preventive policies. Immediately, the Chinese government rallied its medical system to be able to give the required medical attention to COVID-19 patients, which was displayed through the deployment of medical teams and the establishment of treatment centers. While China’s answer to the problem of containing the spread of the virus during the pandemic must be taken as a positive step, the social and economic i...