Vietnam: a COVID-19 success story

Nah Trang, Vietnam
Nah Trang during the COVID-19 lockdown. Source: Pixabay

On the surface, Vietnam is a country of notorious rule breakers. Even the most casual visitor is made quickly aware of the unruly nature of everyday life. A cyclist heads straight through a red light because his daughter is late for nursery school; another speeds 50 meters the wrong way up a one-way street because that is the shortest distance to her front door.

So how does a country that can barely get its citizens to comply with traffic regulations achieve the impressive results it has in managing the COVID-19 pandemic with no deaths and less than 300 cases in a country of 96 million? Comparatively little has been said about Vietnam’s undeniable success at this stage of the pandemic.

The first case of COVID-19 was reported in Vietnam on 23 January. Since then there has been a very slow progression to a peak of 288 cases. As of 12 May, there are 47 active cases reported in the country, with no community transmission since mid-April.

So far, Vietnam has successfully faced down two waves of COVID-19. All the first 16 people infected recovered. Then there was a pause of 22 days. From 6 March, the second wave resulted in the first instance of untraceable community transmission. A relatively light ‘lockdown’ commenced, with strict social distancing and the closing of many, but not all, businesses. Within a month, the second wave was contained.

On 21 April, small businesses opened, social distancing regulations were relaxed, and offices, cafes and restaurants opened. In relative terms, we’re back to ‘normal’.

So how then did Vietnam control the spread of the virus so quickly and effectively? Our perspective is as follows.

By the time China reported 27 cases, Vietnam’s Health Ministry began to issue prevention guidelines including border monitoring, and when the first death was recorded in China on 11 January, Vietnam closed its northern border with China and initiated health checks at border crossings and airports. Cities and provinces kept their schools closed after the annual Tet holiday celebrations, which began in late January. This is in sharp contrast to 2003, when the SARS pandemic caught the government completely off guard, prompting the development of a comprehensive preparedness strategy, putting the country on a solid footing to respond to a pandemic.

In late January, after the first domestic transmission in Vietnam, the government began providing quarantine facilities for all those suffering from or suspected of having been directly exposed to COVID-19. At their recent peak, quarantine facilities held 67,000 people. They are staffed by a combination of government employees and volunteers, often university students, and – by most accounts – are basic but clean. From mid-February, all those arriving from countries with significant outbreaks, such as Korea, were automatically taken to these facilities. Once borders fully closed on 22 March, all arrivals were required to spend two weeks in state-hosted quarantine. Importantly, as part of the comprehensive strategy, quarantine food and board are provided by the government.

Much effort has gone into tracing those who may have come into contact with someone with the disease. Each patient is assigned a number and a large – and sometimes concerning – amount of information is circulated about them and their movements through government platforms. Information on their movements is subsequently shared via the many social media networks with which people stay updated. In this way, controversial or not, the public has been provided with a significant amount of accurate information that has enabled them to make informed decisions about their health and their movements. In some cases, however, it has also led to the demonisation of particular individuals, easily identified by their description.

By the first week in February, a private company collaborating with the Ministry of Defense had developed a test kit for COVID-19. The testing regime initially targeted those who had come into contact with someone who had tested positive, regardless of whether they had symptoms. The Ministry of Health set up testing stations in kiosks in major urban areas and provided free tests. Hanoi, for instance, had 30 kiosks, most of which were conveniently located on the perimeter of city parks and gardens. This seems to have been a more effective approach to targeted testing than a focus on apparent symptoms alone. The identification of asymptomatic cases also contributed to widespread acceptance of the use of face masks in public. Moreover, the public was willing to be tested in part because health treatment related to COVID-19 has been made free to all.

All parts of government were engaged in the response process, not only the health agencies. For the first time on record, the entire Vietnam People’s Army was called up and sent to barracks to await orders, where they remain on stand-by. Local media supported the government’s response and encouraged citizen compliance. On 24 January, acting Minister of Health, Vu Duc Dam, ordered activation of the Emergency Epidemic Prevention Center. Shortly afterwards, 40 mobile response teams were set up and hospitals ordered to prepare. Although state power in Vietnam appears highly centralised, the provinces have considerable autonomy. Overall, however, they complied with the orders emanating from the capital, aware that – as the 2021 national elections and party congress approach – missteps in managing the epidemic would be noted.

The Vietnamese government has approached its public communications with a striking level of transparency. Starting in mid-December, the communications campaign has run daily on television, via mobile phones and on the Zalo platform, addressing the status quo, the unknowns and the potential sequence of next steps.

The results have been to greatly minimise the outbreak.

As Francis Fukuyama observed a little over a month ago, when the pandemic subsides, both autocracies and democracies will have seen successes and failures. Vietnam’s new brand of “transparent authoritarianism” seems to be succeeding. It builds on decades of control that leaves enough room for agency – the breaking of traffic rules and the like – giving citizens a sense of their own rights and freedoms, while the state and party set and manage the priority agendas away from the average citizen’s view or influence.

The rhetoric has been similar this time round. COVID-19 measures have been supported by a constant stream of rousing stories of heroes, sacrifice and resilience that evoke images of war and conjure up nationalist narratives of heroic past military glory to support the state’s authority.

But the transparency is new. The state’s willingness to share crisis information during the COVID-19 epidemic, to accept responsibility in managing a structured and comprehensive response, and to listen to its citizens, business owners and foreign investors in defining a recovery strategy may well be a milestone in the country’s approach to governance.

Also read this post for another account of Vietnam’s success. The post is part of the #COVID-19 and Asia series. It is co-published with The Asia Foundation.

image_pdfDownload pdf

Tran Chung Chau

Tran Chung Chau is the Junior Regional Governance Specialist for The Asia Foundation (TAF), based in Hanoi. Before moving to TAF, Chau worked for over a decade with civil society organisations – local and international – in Vietnam on collective action, freedom of movement and association and a range of policy advocacy programs. She holds a Master degree on Public Policy from Sydney University.

Michael D. Gregorio

Dr. Michael R. DiGregorio is The Asia Foundation’s country representative in Vietnam. He has directed the Foundation’s work in Vietnam since 2014, during which time he has led new projects and programs to address business related disaster risk, city level climate resilience, green finance, blockchain traceability for export agriculture, digital applications for the “gig” economy, trade facilitation, energy planning, and digital finance for rural and remote farmers and small enterprise owners.

Nicola Nixon

Dr Nicola Nixon is Governance Director at The Asia Foundation. Based in Hanoi, she supports governance programming across the 18 countries in which The Asia Foundation works.

12 Comments

  • There is a history factor as well. Vietnam was one of the first and hardest hit by SARS in 2003 and then by H5N1 (Bird flu) in 2004; and again by H1N1 (Swine flu) in 2009. Millions of dollars was spent between 2003 and 2011/12 to control the outbreaks, to build capacity of the animal and health sectors, as well as raising awareness on pandemics. UNICEF alone spent US$9m on awareness raising and behaviour change between 2004 and 2010. The country and its people had learnt it the hard way. People in Autralia, US and so on, were so unrest about isolation. They need to see the despair of Vietnamese farmers watching millions of birds, chickens, ducks, etc. culled to control the spread. That meant for millions of Vietnamese men, women, boys and girls at that time, nothing to eat the next day – opportunities for livelihood, schooling, education, marriage, hospital fees etc. just lurked away.

    It was wonderful to see familiar faces at the Ministry of Health who I worked with prior to 2010. Some of them were in junior positions and now in much more senior position to fight COVID-19. It was a long journey for Vietnam. They don’t do it just today (or this year). So proud of Vietnam.

  • In combatting the COVIC-19, Vietnamese totalitarian regime, however didn’t face such problems as other western countries did.
    As a matter of fact, there were people in some of these countries, for instance, they protested against the governments lockdown rules complaining on limited personal freedoms. In addition, people who wore face mask were repugnant even abused in public places. But Vietnamese people do know the plague is their responsibility.

  • People who use the authoritarianism to describe Vietnam are backward thinkers. It’s not an authoritarian state if the will of the people mostly align with the government.

  • The irony is that countries used to be singled out as autocratic (Vietnam, Singapore for example) are dealing with Covid without waging war on the individual liberties of their citizens, while so-called democratic Western states (France, Italy, Spain, UK) introduced all kinds of fines, penalties and restrictions on their people – no different to what China is criticized for doing, really.

    And still those countries with a heavy-handed approach ended up with much worse death tolls and an uncontrolled spread of the virus.

  • Success? What about these 50,000 forced to quarantined themselves and these vietnamese illegal immigrants from other countries that Vietnamese government refused to take ? So inflicting pains to other countries is success?

    • It is a success compared to other countries by any measure possible. Letting people repatriate freely when the healthcare system is not ready is simply being irresponsible.

    • 50k people have to go into isolation as of incumbent period of the virus. They do send airplane to pick up their people from other countries. Only chinese gov banned their people returning.

    • Not sure what your beef is. I live in District 2. My building was quarantined because someone tested positive for the virus. The health authority was very professional and understanding. I didn’t feel harrassed in anyway.

      I woke up in the middle of the night a few nights, between 2am and 4am. Getting out my my comfortable bed, looking down from the 9th floor balcony, I could see a guard sitting on a marble bench on ground level. He’s there to making sure that nobody walk out from the building. He’s been sitting there since 6pm, running a 24-hr shift. It’s outdoor, dark, quiet, alone, uncomfortable, but luckily not under the rain.

      The next morning I talked to him, “You must be tired.”

      He smiled but deflated, “Exhausted.”

      If you think my freedom is taken away, think about those professionals couldn’t go anywhere, worked 24/7 in a very uncomfortable environment. They are the ones whose freedom is way more limited than mine. They are there to make sure that society is safe. I don’t always agree to their mode of operation, but they don’t look like oppressors that you made them to be. They are humans doing their best to help others. In case you’re wondering. I’m Canadian.

    • So follow your logic VietNam must free them do as their please and let the virus infect and kill many as possible?

  • I’ve lived in Vietnam as an expatriot for thirty years and this report could not have shown the country’s capacity in dealing with the pandamic in any different light. Everything initally orchestrated quickly, harmoniously and with as little disruption to social life as possible. Citizens doing their level best to play their part in a most creditable display of order and willingness to comply with directions. Apart from the mask rule for outings, I was still able to get about my business daily with no hastles from police or authoritarian types that in any other society might test the foreigner’s resolve. Well done Vietnam, very well done indeed and now other nations might take heed on how to run a country in any similar potentially perilous situation.

    • My wife and I spent the month of February in Viet Nam and were quite impressed with the way that the government and citizens of the country worked together to heighten public awareness of the virus AND how they dealt with this extremely dangerous public health crisis.

Leave a Comment