Lably
Skip to content

Zero-COVID

COVID-19 elimination strategy

  • 32 min read
  • 4 chapters

Related on Lably

Through COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant and Adaptive immune system

A zero-COVID strategy consisted of two phases: an initial suppression phase in which the virus is eliminated locally using aggressive public health measures, and a sustained containment phase, in which normal economic and social activities resume and public health measures are used to contain new outbreaks before they spread widely. This strategy was utilized to varying degrees by Australia, Bhutan, Atlantic and Northern Canada, mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Malaysia, Montserrat, New Zealand, North Korea, Northern Ireland, Singapore, Scotland, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, and Vietnam. By late 2021, due to challenges with the increased transmissibility of the Delta and Omicron variants, and also the arrival of COVID-19 vaccines, many countries had phased out zero-COVID, with mainland China being the last major country to do so in December 2022.

Experts have differentiated between zero-COVID, which was an elimination strategy, and mitigation strategies that attempted to lessen the effects of the virus on society, but which still tolerated some level of transmission within the community. These initial strategies could be pursued sequentially or simultaneously during the acquired immunity phase through natural and vaccine-induced immunity.

Advocates of zero-COVID pointed to the far lower death rates and higher economic growth in countries that pursued elimination during the first year of the pandemic (i.e., prior to widespread vaccination) compared with countries that pursued mitigation, and argued that swift, strict measures to eliminate the virus allowed a faster return to normal life. Opponents of zero-COVID argued that, similar to the challenges faced with the flu or the common cold, achieving the complete elimination of a respiratory virus like SARS-CoV-2 may not have been a realistic goal. To achieve zero-COVID in an area with high infection rates, one review estimated that it would take three months of strict lockdown.

Elimination vs. mitigation

Epidemiologists have differentiated between two broad strategies for responding to the COVID-19 pandemic: mitigation and elimination. Mitigation strategies (also commonly known as "flattening the curve") aimed to reduce the growth of an epidemic and to prevent the healthcare system from becoming overburdened, yet still accepted a level of ongoing viral transmission within the community. By contrast, elimination strategies (commonly known as "zero-COVID") aimed to completely stop the spread of the virus within the community, which was seen as the optimal way to allow the resumption of normal social and economic activity. In comparison with mitigation strategies, elimination involved stricter short-term measures to eliminate the virus, followed by milder long-term measures to prevent a return of the virus.

After elimination of COVID-19 from a region, zero-COVID strategies required stricter border controls in order to prevent reintroduction of the virus, more rapid identification of new outbreaks, and better contact tracing to end new outbreaks. Advocates of zero-COVID argued that the costs of these measures were lower than the economic and social costs of long-term social distancing measures and increased mortality incurred by mitigation strategies.

The long-term "exit path" for both elimination and mitigation strategies depended on the development of effective vaccines and treatments for COVID-19.

Sign in to keep reading

3 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Contemporary