This study investigated how three Asian countries–Republic of Korea (ROK), Republic of China (Taiwan), and Singapore–considered as standouts, responded to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in terms of governance system, health sector innovation, and social distancing to draw lessons that other countries can learn from. The countries were commonly in success of the response in early stage of the pandemic thanks to their effective and efficient strategies paired with advanced information and communications technology (ICT). Consequently, the three jurisdictions reported lower confirmed cases as well as fatality rate of the infectious disease compared to other high-income countries. In addition, the countries’ previous experiences with other pandemics, including influenza A, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and severe acute respiratory syndrome, enabled them to establish resilient public health systems and gain public acceptance to governmental control or surveillance during national infectious disease-related crises outbreaks. Advanced ICT infrastructure and digital technology were used as effective tools for testing, tracing, and treatment of the pandemic in collaboration with the private sector as a crucial player. The ROK, Taiwan, and Singapore adopted different strategies between containment and mitigation policy to flatten the epidemic curves effectively according to their own situation and judgement. Despite the exemplary aspect of the three nations in coping with the COVID-19 pandemic, a few limitations were also observed in terms of vaccination and unequal consequences of the pandemic among people. These should be further discussed in order to be prepared for future pandemics.

No abstract available.
Humans ; Mycobacterium

Objective: To investigate the correlation between bone mineral density (BMD) and duration of injury in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods: Patients with SCI who visited the outpatient department between January 2009 and January 2019 were enrolled. Patients’ most recent dual energy X-ray absorptiometry images were reviewed. According to the 2007 International Society for Clinical Densitometry guidelines, vertebrae with a local structural change were excluded when deriving spine BMD. If one or no vertebra is suitable for evaluation, spine BMD was judged as “improper for assessment”. Correlation analysis was performed between duration from injury and BMD Z-scores of the hip and spine. Results: Among 83 individuals with SCI, the spines of 44 were judged as improper for assessment. The correlation analysis showed a significant negative relationship between the duration from injury and femur neck BMD (r=-0.40, p<0.01) and total proximal femur BMD (r=-0.39, p<0.01). However, no significant correlation was found between the duration from injury and spine BMD Z-score. Conclusion The duration of SCI correlated with hip BMD, but not with spine BMD. Further, more than half of the individuals with SCI could not undergo spinal assessment due to local structural changes. Therefore, spine BMD measurement is not an appropriate method for predicting future fracture risk in those with SCI.