COVID-19 Regional Safety Assessment

Today Deep Knowledge Group released a comprehensive 150 page COVID-19 Regional Safety Assessment. The Assessment is the result of an in-depth analysis of safety and vulnerability factors in order to identify and characterize the best-positioned regions in terms of safety, stability, and resilience during the pandemic. The Assessment includes a multi-parameter analysis of 20 regions and encompassing more than 130 variables. The Assessment includes five analytical case studies that classify and rank the economic, social, and health stability achieved by each of the 20 regions. The analysis reveals strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats triggered by COVID-19. 

Fighting COVID is global challenge. It's a medical and scientific challenge, a political and governmental challenge, an economic and trade challenge, and a national and international security challenge. It's also a data science and analytical challenge. Deep Knowledge Group is working to disentangle the many facets of the crisis in order to establish optimal risk reduction strategies to accelerate regional recoveries. In April, Deep Knowledge Group released the COVID-19 Countries Health Safety Ranking. The rankings received significant interest. An article that I published about the rankings in Forbes entitled Deep Analysis of Global Pandemic Data Reveals Important Insights received over half a million views.

COVID-19 Regional Safety Assessment

For this assessment, we collected pandemic data generated for 150 countries around the world and analyzed it using 130 parameters. The 20 regions selected for this assessment had the highest scores in that initial analysis. This pool of 20 regions includes Israel, Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, China, Japan, Austria, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Korea, United Arab Emirates, Norway, Hong Kong, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Netherlands, Taiwan and Vietnam. More than 130 qualitative and quantitative parametric variables have been developed, tuned, and grouped into 6 broad and top-level categories capable of comprehensively describing the health and economic status of each region in terms of their absolute and relative stability and risks. The top 5 regions were then selected for in depth case studies. This article is a summary and overview. To see detailed information including methodology and data sources please see the 150 page COVID-19 Regional Safety Assessment.

Israel, Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, Japan

In this assessment, the regions that achieved the highest total scores were Israel, Germany, Switzerland, Singapore, and Japan. This means that these regions have the highest overall levels of stability both in terms of optimizing current health and disease outcomes of their population amid the pandemic, as well as in terms of optimizing the ongoing management, monitoring and neutralization of the pandemic across longer time horizons.

COVID-19 Quarantine Efficiency

Rankings for the Quarantine Efficiency component of the index were quite low for the majority of regions included in this analysis, in comparison to the previous Global COVID-19 Rankings. Only a few regions implemented a full lockdown, and implementing partial lockdowns was much more common. The average length of quarantine was 14 days across most regions analyzed. The majority of regions also have at least one hotspot with a very high number of confirmed cases, which makes the need for effective lockdowns pressing. In some instances, regions faced a high degree of non-compliance with official lockdown mandates. On average we did not detect pressing shortages in medical equipment or protective health equipment, but regions do differ significantly in the size of their current stockpiles. We did not detect evidence of food shortages among the regions analyzed. In general the quarantine measures imposed among regions were insufficient in terms of both scope (partial vs. full lockdown), and duration, and that even those lockdown measures imposed were hampered by issues with public compliance.

20 regions according to the sum of their weighted Quarantine Efficiency scores. The distribution reflects the effectiveness of quarantine, social distancing measures, and government economic support activity.

COVID-19 Government Efficiency of Risk Management

In the Government Efficiency of Risk Management component of the index there is a wider discrepancy in performance among the 20 regions analyzed. Only 9 of the 20 regions effectively deployed a Government-led Action Plan for rapid emergency mobilization of resources. Very few regions have the legislative capacity to rapidly adopt new laws , but those that do generally proved more capable in efficient and rapid emergency mobilization efforts. An average of 68% of the population in regions analyzed have access to mobile phones, which helped monitoring and detection efforts. Nearly all regions analyzed developed specific mechanisms for engagement with the private sector generally, and the tech sector in particular. This served various purposes, but was predominantly used for emergency medical equipment production, GovTech solutions, and surveillance solutions. 14 of 20 governments enabled additional COVID-specific education and courses for nurses and doctors as well, which helped in the emergency mobilization of medical specialists and expertise. Another interesting finding was that a region’s readiness for a state of emergency and its outputs depends heavily on governments’ practical experience and willingness in facing unexpected challenges and the predisposition of the communities to attend to those governments. Regions with a history of geopolitical tensions also seemed to be better able to address the challenges of the health and economic crisis caused by the COVID-19. Highly efficient government risk assessment and containment programs for armed conflicts seem to lead to better outputs in the management of the pandemic especially when these regions turned their advanced surveillance technology into epidemiological surveillance technology.

20 regions according to the sum of their weighted Government Efficiency of Risk Management scores. Israel is a leader among other regions in terms of economic stability and sustainability, military security and defense capabilities and general level of pandemic preparedness.

COVID-19 Monitoring and Detection

There was a lower variance on scores for the Monitoring and Detection component. Overall, the majority of regions scored well in this category. Most regions have a National Action Plan in place for the surveillance, monitoring, and detection of infection spread, and all regions have validated laboratory testing methods available for use. Additionally, the majority of regions utilized advanced technologies, such as face recognition, mobile phone tracking, and other AI-based surveillance methods and technologies. Only a few of the regions analyzed have the capacity for local testing so most testing is being conducted at major laboratories. One specific area where regions differ the most is in the specific testing strategy. Some regions employed very widespread testing, while others employed more narrow testing. Testing is the most critical factor impacting the effectiveness of monitoring and detection efforts. All 20 regions are utilizing monitoring and detection technologies to track infection spread and coordinate emergency response efforts. However the regions differed in the extent to which they are able to collect data, which depends on legislative flexibility and privacy laws in each region. Israel, for example, was able to pass a law overnight allowing them to use mobile phone data for tracking population movement to monitor quarantine compliance and infection spread.

20 regions according to the sum of their weighted Monitoring and Detection scores. This parameter allows us to compare all regions with respect to the scope, technological sophistication, and diversity of their surveillance and monitoring technologies, as well as whether they utilize AI for diagnostic analysis.

COVID-19 Regional Resilience

Among the regions analyzed, no eminent risk of medical equipment shortages or power outages was identified. Many regions are assisting their neighbors as much as possible via humanitarian aid, and selling emergency equipment to regions who are suffering shortages if they are not facing a shortage themselves. Overall, most regions score high in terms of cultural resilience and societal discipline parameters for this category. This may be due in part to the high literacy rate of the general population (close to 100% in most regions analyzed), with a high level of education helping with quarantine compliance and other government-directed behavioural mandates in the case of national emergencies. Two important factors behind regional death rates are a high prevalence of chronic diseases and a high proportion of elderly population. Regions with higher numbers in these two specific categories generally had a higher number of COVID-19 related deaths. This decisive data should prompt decision-makers in the respective regions to address these issues. A serious study of the pandemic cannot focus solely on the epidemiology of the virus, when there are underlying factors that increase the severity of the virus. Overall, the majority of regions did not have severe issues relating to infection spread.

20 regions according to the sum of their weighted Regional Resiliency scores. The distribution shows that Germany and United Arab Emirates are the least vulnerable to infection and have the lowest overall risk of COVID-19 infection.

COVID-19 Emergency Preparedness

There was a greater degree of variability among regions in the Emergency Preparedness category. This category includes Emergency Resilience, Emergency Military Mobilization Experience, Surveillance Capabilities (scale, scope and technological sophistication), and Previous National Emergency Experience. Generally, the regions that score well in this category are those who have had experience with regional and national emergencies. Such experience creates a level of preparedness (and an existing set of policies and action plans) for dealing with emergency situations, and in particular with the rapid mobilization of resources and coordination of activities relating to real-time crisis management and mitigation. Additionally, such regions usually also have other enabling systems in place, such as the capacity to rapidly adopt new nation-wide mandates in short periods of time, the capacity for robust surveillance, monitoring and detection measures (legislative and technological), and a high degree of coordination between law enforcement and military personnel.

20 regions according to the sum of their weighted Emergency Preparedness scores. China is shown to be the region with the greatest capacity to respond to emergency situations, particularly health emergencies, and to address outbreaks.

Israel scores high in this category, largely as a result of the fact that it is a region with a very long practical history of dealing with emergency crises (such as geopolitical conflicts), and thus has developed a very extensive policy infrastructure for emergency coordination, tangible experience with rapid mobilization of resources and national efforts in response to crises. It is a region that maintains a continual state of readiness against threats to its national security and stability, and for this reason it was excelled beyond other regions in terms of very rapidly mobilizing and coordination efforts to reduce infection spread and to ensure economic and geopolitical stabilization in the post-pandemic era.

Regional Safety Index: Data Modeling and Calculations

Each parameter in all three layers of the framework (categories, indicators and parameters) is assigned a specific weight, or importance factor, designed to approximate the relative importance of each parameter or parameter-matrix on the effectiveness of a region's current situation, emergency response efforts or post-pandemic preventive measures as it relates to the specific analytical focus and endpoint of its parent group (indicator or category). While the index takes into account both positive and negative factors impacting a given region’s current or future (post-pandemic) stability, each binary question is constructed in such a way that a higher value is associated with more favorable conditions. Thus, for example, a higher score in an indicator or parameter within top-level categories focused on risk (such as region vulnerability) indicates less vulnerability, rather than higher vulnerability, than a lower score within the same category, indicator or parameter.

Deep Knowledge Group analysts first worked to formulate the specific list of parameters (categories, indicators and parameters), and to assign relevant parameter weights (importance factors) and then gathered data from government and academic publications; and websites of government authorities, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and local and international news and media reports in order to compute the score for each parameter. The research process proved challenging, both because of the difficulty in sourcing data and official information related each quantitative and qualitative parameter and, in some cases, because of a lack of publicly available information.

Special Case Studies

The Assessment includes detailed case studies for the following five countries. Please see the full 150 page report for compete case studies for each country.

Israel's overall scores stand out above those of the remaining geographic regions of the selected pool included in the analysis. Israel ranks just 2 points above Germany in our classification framework, practically sharing the first position, and 9 points above Switzerland, positioned in third place. Israel excels fundamentally in 3 of 6 index categories, obtaining very high scores in those categories and achieving comparatively good scores in the remaining three areas. One category in which it scores extremely well is in epidemiological monitoring and detection capabilities (95.38 out of 100), which exemplifies the strong quality of resources that the region has made available for health surveillance and screening.

Germany's performance in the COVID-19 Monitoring and Detection category is above average, presenting well-established vigilance and disaster management systems. In terms of optimized emergency management in individual cases and mass healthcare during disaster management, the German proactive medicine scheme (with healthcare workers approaching the patient directly and early) has been a quality standard of medical care and a determinant of the high survival of patients in the region. Germany has stood out from most regions for its efforts and investments in tracing early community transmission of COVID-19, and this methodical search for contagion chains has so far resulted in some of the lowest death rates in Europe. The German monitoring model is a global example of how epidemiological chains of infection must be carefully tracked in order to interrupt them.

The Swiss federal government shows fairly optimal relative performance according to our analysis. Since mid-March, it has enacted a series of measures to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 on the Swiss economy, one of the most important being financial assistance in the form of cash flow to SMEs to help them survive the short-term economic impact of the pandemic - a measure that includes loans with limited bureaucracy and without or very low interest rates. On the other hand, the assessment of the monitoring and detection systems efficiency, the advanced disaster management systems and its epidemiological surveillance scheme yields overall values for Switzerland that, despite being comparatively high, have at least some room for improvement.

Singapore achieves a high overall score for a number of reasons. From a very high level, its meritocratic, city-state government structure gives it heightened capacity to coordinate and deploy very broad and comprehensive social policy mandates and mobilization of emergency resources quite rapidly and efficiently, and to coordinate the activities of different government departments in a very integrated manner. This unique aspect of the region gives it strengths that apply to almost every individual category included in our Regional Safety Assessment Index. In terms of Monitoring and Detection, the region is utilizing a diverse array of sophisticated technologies for COVID-19 infection spread monitoring and detection, including location data, video camera footage and credit card information. The region also has a fairly robust level of Healthcare Readiness.

Japan achieved a high overall score due to its generally good performance across the majority of categories included in the Safety Assessment Index, and due to its specific excellence in a number of particular categories. The region has a comparatively low number of infections and deaths in comparison to its population size, despite its lower testing rates, and despite the fact that its quarantine and lockdown mandates are much more relaxed than other countries. Rather than focusing efforts and resources on very wide-scale testing, or wise-scope testing (e.g., testing asymptomatic individuals), the Japanese government concentrates on very aggressive contact tracing (i.e., tracing a large number of infections to a shared source), and quarantining that individual. However, the region’s large aging population is a clear risk that should be monitored. While the region has a large proportion of its elderly population voluntary isolation to avoid contracting COVID-19, preventive steps should be taken nonetheless to avoid burdening their healthcare system as a result of the possibility that the region might steep rises in infection rates due to outbreaks among the elderly.

Conclusions

All 20 selected regions show considerably high overall scores in terms of availability of medical, economic, and technological resources to monitor, detect and neutralize the virus as well as to establish programs to maintain economic and social stability. The challenge is to efficiently manage these resources. The majority of regions included in this analysis are well positioned to establish more comprehensive emergency preparation measures. Many governments appear to be prioritizing economic concerns over healthcare priorities, easing partial lockdowns and reviving economies without giving sufficient signs of caution and without corresponding increases in testing. This is the most critical risk identified by the analysis.

This article was written by Margaretta Colangelo. Margaretta is Co-founder and CEO of Jthereum, an enterprise Blockchain technology company, and President of U1Technologies and enterprise software company. Margaretta serves on the Advisory Boards of the AI Precision Health Institute at the University of Hawai‘i Cancer Center and Ageing Research AI at King's College London. Margaretta is based in San Francisco.