AFTER STRUGGLING to secure vaccines, South Korea began its inoculation against COVID-19 only in February this year[1], whereas the United States launched its vaccine distribution program in December, 2020[2]. Now, the tables have turned; despite the slow start, Korea has outpaced the United States, with more than 70% of its population having received the first dose of the vaccine[3]. It is not the first time South Korea has shown better results in battling the virus than its Western ally. Throughout the entire pandemic, South Korea has kept its number of cases relatively low. The country had a national strategy already in the works five years prior to COVID-19. The United States, on the other hand, faced a major calamity due to its disorganized approach; cases in the country are approaching a jarring number of 45 million[4]. From the deviation in social outlooks to the discrepancy in pandemic preparedness, various factors have contributed to the stark differences in the response of the two countries to the global crisis.

The tragedy of the commons

   Are collectivist societies at greater risk of mass infections due to closer social interactions? A study published in February this year suggests the answer is negative[5]. Researchers found that more individualistic societies had higher infection and mortality rates. 

   In 1968, American ecologist Garret Hardin published his theory predicting that individuals driven by personal gain would act against the greater good and eventually exhaust all available resources, leading to less utility for everyone. Ironically enough, Hardin’s idea can now be used to explain how the conflict between individual and collective behavior affected the response of countries to COVID-19. 

   The United States is amongst countries with highly individualistic societies. A November, 2020, survey of more than 400,000 people in 15 countries revealed that U.S. citizens were among the least willing to sacrifice their civil liberties for the sake of improving public health conditions[6]. These results are a good reflection of American history—how the bygone days gave rise to the current conservative ideology of rugged individualism. This ideal concept where self- reliance is the key to success was likely passed down from the expansionist movement at the American frontier from 1790 to 1890 when non-natives expanded their settlements in North America[7]. The frontier was viewed as a symbol of growth but also a period when self-sufficiency and independence increased chances of survival. While migrating, frontiersmen suffered from a lack of food and drinking water, various diseases, attacks by predators, and Native Americans. “The folk history of pioneers and cowboys literally making their own luck as they made their way westward through the frontier fosters this kind of libertarian thinking,” said Hans Schattle (Prof., Dept. of Political Science & Int. Studies, Yonsei Univ.) in an interview with The Yonsei Annals. Now, however, the same mindset that guaranteed one’s survival over 130 years ago is jeopardizing the country’s chances of returning to pre- pandemic normalcy. 

   The same survey from November, 2020, found that the South Korean citizenry was more willing to sacrifice their civil liberties for the common good. It can be argued that giving up personal comfort for public safety is deeply embedded in Korean history and can be traced back to the influences of Confucian values. According to the ancient Chinese belief system, collective well-being is more important than individual rights. During colonial oppression, the Korean people “had to sacrifice their lives in order to save their country, communities, and families[8].” This chain of circumstances led to the formation of woo-ri, meaning “we” or “us,” a concept that underlined the importance of communal survival over individuals. This mentality reflected how South Korean citizens responded to the virus transmission prevention measures. Raphael Rashid, a freelance journalist stationed in Seoul, said, “there is a debate in Western countries as to whether wearing a face mask is actually useful, but in South Korea, wearing a mask [...] is done out of consideration and respect for others.” 

He who fails to plan is planning to fail

   Another factor to take into account is the two countries’ readiness to confront a new health disaster Before the COVID-19 pandemic, South Korea struggled to contain the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), another type of coronavirus, in 2015. When MERS first broke out in Saudi Arabia in 2012, South Korea was one of the most affected countries. Since business operations of Korean firms in Saudi Arabia were in full swing, people traveled back and forth between the two countries and were the primary source of the outbreak in Korea[9]. The first officially registered MERS case in South Korea was followed by another 185 confirmed cases, with 38 of them being fatal[10]. The healthcare system’s inability to handle the virus and the authorities’ lack of communication with the citizens sparked distrust among the public towards the government’s health emergency preparedness and crisis management abilities. With no intention to repeat the same mistakes, the South Korean government developed the necessary infrastructure and stockpiling plans for future outbreaks[11]. Thanks to aggressive testing, contact-tracing, improved crisis communication, modernized infectious disease treatment, and high institutional capacity with the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KCDA) in charge, South Korea was able to fight COVID-19 head-on. What is noteworthy is that the government never had to implement a full lockdown either. As a result, the country was praised around the world for its successful approach to virus containment. 

   Despite having considerably less experience in dealing with serious outbreaks in comparison to South Korea, the United States was still regarded as the country best prepared for a new infectious disease in the 2019 Global Health Security Index. In practice, however, the country turned out to be totally unprepared for COVID-19. In an interview with Vox, Wafaa El-Sadr (Prof., Dept. of Epidemiology, Columbia Univ.) said that “[the United States’] performance has been disappointing, if not shocking. Our lack of preparedness was catastrophic.” Even though the country has gone through rapid medical advancement, the hospitals have been swamped by large numbers of infected patients. The cause is mainly rooted in the severe underfunding of the public health system. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) federal budget has fallen by 10% over the course of the last decade[12]. This underinvestment resulted in shortages of testing kits, masks, protective gears, and ventilators, all of which could have been stockpiled beforehand[13]. Moreover, due to a lack of federal guidelines, the state authorities were mostly left to fend for themselves and decide on their own regulations. In the end, those circumstances led to an unfortunate outcome: deaths from COVID-19 in the United States exceeded 700,000 by October 2021[14]. As of publication, the number of deaths stood slightly over 2,600 in South Korea[15]. El-Sadr expressed her concern that without proper reforms, the United States might fall into a false sense of security once the pandemic is over and that “history will repeat itself.” 

The pandemic’s polarizing effect

   Political polarization in the United States had been on the rise even before the pandemic[16], but COVID-19 has increased the divisions in the political sector and society. Political affiliation largely determined how people reacted to COVID-19. Compared to liberals, conservatives were more likely to avoid wearing masks, increasing the risk of contracting COVID-19[17]. By the time the second wave hit the country, most politically liberal states had managed to gradually get the infection rate under control, with leaders recognizing the severeness of the disease. Depending on their objectives, politicians constructed different messages about the pandemic, and at times, even resorted to misinformation. Both Republicans and Democrats framed the information in different ways to make it more favorable for their party[18]. 

   When it comes to vaccination, we can observe a similar trend. Over 200 million Americans have received the first vaccine dose, but about 80 million people are still unvaccinated[19]. States under Democratic leaders show a higher vaccination rate, while states under Republican leaders show the opposite[20]. In September of this year, President Joe Biden mandated vaccination or weekly testing for establishments with more than 100 employees, a decision that only 56% of Americans approved of, according to the Public Broadcasting Service poll. Earlier, the president also signed an executive order for all federal workers to get vaccinated. The opposition has argued that Biden acted outside his constitutional authority as the head of state and denied people their freedom of choice. In an attempt to obstruct the orders, the Republican Party tried to pass an amendment, which was in turn blocked by the Senate[21]. 

   In contrast, South Korea is not as politically polarized as the United States, at least when it concerns virus prevention methods. Howard Kahm (Associate Prof., UIC, Chair of Asian Studies) told the Annals that the reason why South Korea experienced less divisiveness is because the country “did not have a president who was interested in downplaying the virus” at the time when COVID-19 first struck the world. President Donald Trump was notorious for rejecting medical expertise and presenting a false narrative about the pandemic. According to Kahm, the South Korean government simply prioritized public safety over politics. 

   However, the polarizing effect can be observed in areas outside of politics. Amongst groups that have spoken out against the government’s COVID-19 policies are religious organizations. Sarang Jeil Church, once an epicenter of a massive outbreak, continues to resist COVID-19 regulations and spread misinformation[22]. Kahm remarked that “instead of casting it as a public health measure, they cast it as a religious persecution measure.”

What do people want from their governments now?

   Freedom of choice and expression are fundamental values to modern democracies, including the United States. Yet, in the face of major crises, civil liberties tend to conflict with the notion of collective well-being. “I have a right to choose” is a frequently used motto of people opposing vaccination and health protocols administered in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. This movement has been particularly prevalent in the United States, with protesters arguing that the prevention measures are in violation of their civil liberties[23]. “This freedom needs to be properly understood and deployed in ways that protect the basic rights and well-being of those around us,” Schattle stated. The reason behind this non-compliant behavior with social distancing rules can be explained by basic human psychology. In 1966, Jack W. Brehm proposed a theory that when people’s behavioral freedoms are taken away, they are more motivated to have them returned[24]. The apprehension towards the vaccines, on the other hand, is primarily caused by their quick development, distrust towards the institutions, and potentially severe side effects. Despite medical expertise proving that vaccines are safe and efficient in preventing the spread of the virus, multiple anti-vaccine rallies took to the streets in several states[25]. 

   On the other hand, rather than fighting for basic freedoms, South Korean citizens want the government to fix the ongoing monetary problems caused by social distancing rules. According to Freedom House, the arrests of people who defied those rules were generally seen as justified and acceptable when considering how it lessened the public safety threat. The public complaints emerged when the long-lasting COVID-19 restrictions began to detrimentally affect small businesses. The Korea Herald reported that 3,000 self-employed people boycotted the social distancing rules in drive-through protests in several cities on Sept. 8, 2021, to demand compensation and ease of restrictions. It was not the first time such boycotts took place—two others were held in July and August. Amongst the protestors were owners of restaurants, cafes, karaoke rooms, and gyms, all of whom suffered from financial losses while operations of their businesses were limited due to health regulations. What is remarkable is that protestors try to have their voices heard while still practicing social distancing. Members of the protesting committee said that “drive-through protests are a moderate way of expressing our opinion while not violating the Infectious Disease Control Prevention Act and the Assembly and Demonstration Act.” 

*                 *                 *

   Through the cases of the United States and South Korea, it can be seen how history and culture impact the way nations respond to global crises such as the ongoing pandemic. Based on the lessons learned from how the two countries have reacted to the virus, hopefully world governments will be more prepared to fight any future viruses, especially those that may be more destructive than COVID-19. 

[1] The Korea Times

[2] VOA News

[3] Yonhap News Agency

[4] The New York Times

[5] Frontiers in Public Health

[6] Centre for Economic Policy Research

[7] UVA Today

[8] A Postcolonial Self

[9] International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

[10] Outbreak News Today

[11] Korea Biomedical Review

[12] Trust for America’s Health

[13] The Washington Post

[14] NBC News

[15] Ministry of Health and Welfare of South Korea

[16] Frontiers in Political Science

[17] ScienceDaily

[18] Pew Research Center

[19] Our World in Data

[20] The New York Times

[21] The Hill

[22] The Korea Herald

[23] The Economist

[24] Scientific American

[25] Forbes