persuasive essay about covid 19 in the philippines

How to Order

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Covid19

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

14 min read

Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Here are the steps to help you write a persuasive essay on this topic, along with an example essay:

Step 1: Choose a Specific Thesis Statement

Your thesis statement should clearly state your position on a specific aspect of COVID-19. It should be debatable and clear. For example:

"COVID-19 vaccination mandates are necessary for public health and safety."

Step 2: Research and Gather Information

Collect reliable and up-to-date information from reputable sources to support your thesis statement. This may include statistics, expert opinions, and scientific studies. For instance:

COVID-19 vaccination effectiveness data
Information on vaccine mandates in different countries
Expert statements from health organizations like the WHO or CDC

Step 3: Outline Your Essay

Create a clear and organized outline to structure your essay. A persuasive essay typically follows this structure:

Introduction
Background Information
Body Paragraphs (with supporting evidence)
Counterarguments (addressing opposing views)

Step 4: Write the Introduction

In the introduction, grab your reader's attention and present your thesis statement. For example:

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented an unprecedented global challenge, and in the face of this crisis, many countries have debated the implementation of vaccination mandates. This essay argues that such mandates are essential for safeguarding public health and preventing further devastation caused by the virus.

Step 5: Provide Background Information

Offer context and background information to help your readers understand the issue better. For instance:

COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, emerged in late 2019 and quickly spread worldwide, leading to millions of infections and deaths. Vaccination has proven to be an effective tool in curbing the virus's spread and severity.

Step 6: Develop Body Paragraphs

Each body paragraph should present a single point or piece of evidence that supports your thesis statement. Use clear topic sentences , evidence, and analysis. Here's an example:

One compelling reason for implementing COVID-19 vaccination mandates is the overwhelming evidence of vaccine effectiveness. According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines demonstrated an efficacy of over 90% in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 cases. This level of protection not only reduces the risk of infection but also minimizes the virus's impact on healthcare systems.

Step 7: Address Counterarguments

Acknowledge opposing viewpoints and refute them with strong counterarguments. This demonstrates that you've considered different perspectives. For example:

Some argue that vaccination mandates infringe on personal freedoms and autonomy. While individual freedom is a crucial aspect of democratic societies, public health measures have long been implemented to protect the collective well-being. Seatbelt laws, for example, are in place to save lives, even though they restrict personal choice.

Step 8: Write the Conclusion

Summarize your main points and restate your thesis statement in the conclusion. End with a strong call to action or thought-provoking statement. For instance:

In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination mandates are a crucial step toward controlling the pandemic, protecting public health, and preventing further loss of life. The evidence overwhelmingly supports their effectiveness, and while concerns about personal freedoms are valid, they must be weighed against the greater good of society. It is our responsibility to take collective action to combat this global crisis and move toward a safer, healthier future.

Step 9: Revise and Proofread

Edit your essay for clarity, coherence, grammar, and spelling errors. Ensure that your argument flows logically.

Step 10: Cite Your Sources

Include proper citations and a bibliography page to give credit to your sources.

Remember to adjust your approach and arguments based on your target audience and the specific angle you want to take in your persuasive essay about COVID-19.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19

When writing a persuasive essay about the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s important to consider how you want to present your argument. To help you get started, here are some example essays for you to read:

Here is another example explaining How COVID-19 has changed our lives essay:

The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in late 2019, has drastically altered the way we live. From work and education to social interactions and healthcare, every aspect of our daily routines has been impacted. Reflecting on these changes helps us understand their long-term implications.

COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, is an infectious disease first identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. It spreads through respiratory droplets and can range from mild symptoms like fever and cough to severe cases causing pneumonia and death. The rapid spread and severe health impacts have led to significant public health measures worldwide.

The pandemic shifted many to remote work and online education. While some enjoy the flexibility, others face challenges like limited access to technology and blurred boundaries between work and home.

Social distancing and lockdowns have led to increased isolation and mental health issues. However, the pandemic has also fostered community resilience, with people finding new ways to connect and support each other virtually.

Healthcare systems have faced significant challenges, leading to innovations in telemedicine and a focus on public health infrastructure. Heightened awareness of hygiene practices, like handwashing and mask-wearing, has helped reduce the spread of infectious diseases.

COVID-19 has caused severe economic repercussions, including business closures and job losses. While governments have implemented relief measures, the long-term effects are still uncertain. The pandemic has also accelerated trends like e-commerce and contactless payments.

The reduction in travel and industrial activities during lockdowns led to a temporary decrease in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. This has sparked discussions about sustainable practices and the potential for a green recovery.

COVID-19 has reshaped our lives in numerous ways, affecting work, education, social interactions, healthcare, the economy, and the environment. As we adapt to this new normal, it is crucial to learn from these experiences and work towards a more resilient and equitable future.

Let’s look at another sample essay:

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a transformative event, reshaping every aspect of our lives. In my opinion, while the pandemic has brought immense challenges, it has also offered valuable lessons and opportunities for growth.

One of the most striking impacts has been on our healthcare systems. The pandemic exposed weaknesses and gaps, prompting a much-needed emphasis on public health infrastructure and the importance of preparedness. Innovations in telemedicine and vaccine development have been accelerated, showing the incredible potential of scientific collaboration.

Socially, the pandemic has highlighted the importance of community and human connection. While lockdowns and social distancing measures increased feelings of isolation, they also fostered a sense of solidarity. People found creative ways to stay connected and support each other, from virtual gatherings to community aid initiatives.

The shift to remote work and online education has been another significant change. This transition, though challenging, demonstrated the flexibility and adaptability of both individuals and organizations. It also underscored the importance of digital literacy and access to technology.

Economically, the pandemic has caused widespread disruption. Many businesses closed, and millions lost their jobs. However, it also prompted a reevaluation of business models and work practices. The accelerated adoption of e-commerce and remote work could lead to more sustainable and efficient ways of operating in the future.

In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a profound and complex event. While it brought about considerable hardship, it also revealed the strength and resilience of individuals and communities. Moving forward, it is crucial to build on the lessons learned to create a more resilient and equitable world.

Check out some more PDF examples below:

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Pandemic

Sample Of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 In The Philippines - Example

If you're in search of a compelling persuasive essay on business, don't miss out on our “ persuasive essay about business ” blog!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19 Vaccine

Covid19 vaccines are one of the ways to prevent the spread of COVID-19, but they have been a source of controversy. Different sides argue about the benefits or dangers of the new vaccines. Whatever your point of view is, writing a persuasive essay about it is a good way of organizing your thoughts and persuading others.

A persuasive essay about the COVID-19 vaccine could consider the benefits of getting vaccinated as well as the potential side effects.

Below are some examples of persuasive essays on getting vaccinated for Covid-19.

Covid19 Vaccine Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay on Covid Vaccines

Interested in thought-provoking discussions on abortion? Read our persuasive essay about abortion blog to eplore arguments!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19 Integration

Covid19 has drastically changed the way people interact in schools, markets, and workplaces. In short, it has affected all aspects of life. However, people have started to learn to live with Covid19.

Writing a persuasive essay about it shouldn't be stressful. Read the sample essay below to get an idea for your own essay about Covid19 integration.

Persuasive Essay About Working From Home During Covid19

Searching for the topic of Online Education? Our persuasive essay about online education is a must-read.

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid 19

Covid-19 has been an ever-evolving issue, with new developments and discoveries being made on a daily basis.

Writing an argumentative essay about such an issue is both interesting and challenging. It allows you to evaluate different aspects of the pandemic, as well as consider potential solutions.

Here are some examples of argumentative essays on Covid19.

Argumentative Essay About Covid19 Sample

Argumentative Essay About Covid19 With Introduction Body and Conclusion

Looking for a persuasive take on the topic of smoking? You'll find it all related arguments in out Persuasive Essay About Smoking blog!

Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19

Do you need to prepare a speech about Covid19 and need examples? We have them for you!

Persuasive speeches about Covid-19 can provide the audience with valuable insights on how to best handle the pandemic. They can be used to advocate for specific changes in policies or simply raise awareness about the virus.

Check out some examples of persuasive speeches on Covid-19:

Persuasive Speech About Covid-19 Example

Persuasive Speech About Vaccine For Covid-19

You can also read persuasive essay examples on other topics to master your persuasive techniques!

Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Writing a persuasive essay about COVID-19 requires a thoughtful approach to present your arguments effectively.

Here are some tips to help you craft a compelling persuasive essay on this topic:

Choose a Specific Angle: Narrow your focus to a specific aspect of COVID-19, like vaccination or public health measures.
Provide Credible Sources: Support your arguments with reliable sources like scientific studies and government reports.
Use Persuasive Language: Employ ethos, pathos, and logos , and use vivid examples to make your points relatable.
Organize Your Essay: Create a solid persuasive essay outline and ensure a logical flow, with each paragraph focusing on a single point.
Emphasize Benefits: Highlight how your suggestions can improve public health, safety, or well-being.
Use Visuals: Incorporate graphs, charts, and statistics to reinforce your arguments.
Call to Action: End your essay conclusion with a strong call to action, encouraging readers to take a specific step.
Revise and Edit: Proofread for grammar, spelling, and clarity, ensuring smooth writing flow.
Seek Feedback: Have someone else review your essay for valuable insights and improvements.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Common Topics for a Persuasive Essay on COVID-19

Here are some persuasive essay topics on COVID-19:

The Importance of Vaccination Mandates for COVID-19 Control
Balancing Public Health and Personal Freedom During a Pandemic
The Economic Impact of Lockdowns vs. Public Health Benefits
The Role of Misinformation in Fueling Vaccine Hesitancy
Remote Learning vs. In-Person Education: What's Best for Students?
The Ethics of Vaccine Distribution: Prioritizing Vulnerable Populations
The Mental Health Crisis Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic
The Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 on Healthcare Systems
Global Cooperation vs. Vaccine Nationalism in Fighting the Pandemic
The Future of Telemedicine: Expanding Healthcare Access Post-COVID-19

In search of more inspiring topics for your next persuasive essay? Our persuasive essay topics blog has plenty of ideas!

To sum it up,

You have read good sample essays and got some helpful tips. You now have the tools you needed to write a persuasive essay about Covid-19. So don't let the doubts stop you, start writing!

If you need professional writing help, don't worry! We've got that for you as well.

MyPerfectWords.com is a professional persuasive essay writing service that can help you craft an excellent persuasive essay on Covid-19. Our experienced essay writer will create a well-structured, insightful paper in no time!

So don't hesitate and place your ' write my essay online ' request today!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a good title for a covid-19 essay.

A good title for a COVID-19 essay should be clear, engaging, and reflective of the essay's content. Examples include:

"The Impact of COVID-19 on Global Health"
"How COVID-19 Has Transformed Our Daily Lives"
"COVID-19: Lessons Learned and Future Implications"

How do I write an informative essay about COVID-19?

To write an informative essay about COVID-19, follow these steps:

Choose a specific focus: Select a particular aspect of COVID-19, such as its transmission, symptoms, or vaccines.
Research thoroughly: Gather information from credible sources like scientific journals and official health organizations.
Organize your content: Structure your essay with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
Present facts clearly: Use clear, concise language to convey information accurately.
Include visuals: Use charts or graphs to illustrate data and make your essay more engaging.

How do I write an expository essay about COVID-19?

To write an expository essay about COVID-19, follow these steps:

Select a clear topic: Focus on a specific question or issue related to COVID-19.
Conduct thorough research: Use reliable sources to gather information.
Create an outline: Organize your essay with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
Explain the topic: Use facts and examples to explain the chosen aspect of COVID-19 in detail.
Maintain objectivity: Present information in a neutral and unbiased manner.
Edit and revise: Proofread your essay for clarity, coherence, and accuracy.

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .

COVID-19 vaccines in the Philippine context

Several months and over 400,000 COVID-19 cases later, the Philippines has begun its long-awaited and promised process of acquiring vaccines as a means to end the pandemic. As early as April, President Duterte spoke optimistically of the prospects of a vaccine. Realistically, however, we must be aware of the realities of vaccination in the recent past in order to truly ensure its success.

Before looking at the advances of COVID-19 vaccine technology, it is important to look at the role immunization has played in the Philippine health care system. Indeed, this has been one of the cornerstones of preventive care for disease not just of childhood (mumps, chickenpox) but eventual adult concerns (HPV, pneumonia) as well. Yet despite the government’s Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) and the National Immunization Program (NIP), the country has seen a drop in population coverage, leading to the resurgence of vaccine-preventable illnesses such as measles, diphtheria, and even poliomyelitis in the past decade. The Philippines’ circulating vaccine-derived polio cases in 2019-2020 placed us on a list with African countries struggling to end the transmission of this disease.

Many attribute the dismal immunization coverage to the dengue vaccine scandal, but while it doubtless eroded vaccines confidence in the Philippines, our immunization programs have actually been problematic long before Dengvaxia, failing to reach the coverage goal of 95 percent for many years now. The scandal only represented the nadir of what’s already been an alarming trend.

In fact, when it comes to timeliness of vaccination, the 2017 National Demographic and Health Survey showed only a 10.6 percent rate for all vaccines (ranging from 38 to 67 percent per vaccine). The gaps in delivery boil down to the quality and accessibility of our public health system, which, during the recent polio vaccinations, for instance, relied heavily on private sector support. It also faces a lot of challenges when it comes to maintaining the cold chain.

Looking forward to the COVID-19 vaccines, there have been major breakthroughs, the speed and complexity of which have never been encountered before. Of those nearing approval, there are two mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer—both requiring negative temperatures in their delicate handling. There are also the vector-based vaccines from Astra-

Zeneca and Gamaleya’s Sputnik V, as well as China’s inactivated vaccines developed by Sinopharm and Sinovac, all of which will only need normal refrigerated temperature.

Beyond the vaccine type, its corresponding handling, and the limitations of our health infrastructure, a major concern is the potential politicization of the acquisition, prioritization, and distribution protocols that will be put in place. There have been conflicting reports on who will be vaccinated first—health workers, vulnerable individuals, the poor, and uniformed personnel—according to different government agencies. There is also a need to address people’s concerns about the vaccines, from fears of being made “guinea pigs” to misconceptions about side effects and efficacy.

Surprisingly, there are reports of politicians having already received the vaccine, even if no emergency use authorizations have been granted by the local FDA. The vaccine “czar,” Gen. Carlito Galvez Jr., also mentioned that equitable access to the vaccine will only be achieved by 2022—an election year, which may bring about a predicament not unlike that of Dengvaxia in 2016, which some quarters allege was funded and launched for political considerations. These issues once again raise the danger of politicizing vaccination, especially if the process for prioritization will have potential interference from vested interests. With the urgency called for by the still uncontrolled pandemic, the success of not just the COVID-19 vaccine, but also of the entire vaccination institution in our country, hangs in the balance.

In the end, however, the solution for COVID-19 goes beyond vaccination. The World Health Organization reminds governments of the continuous need to strengthen their countries’ health system to provide for adequate testing, tracing, quarantine, treatment, and monitoring, aside from the provision of essential services. States must invest in public health to strengthen the infrastructure for pandemic preparedness, and to ensure the well-being of all, now more than ever.

Joshua San Pedro, MD, and Gideon Lasco, MD, PhD, are both physicians and anthropologists.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

For more news about the novel coronavirus click here. What you need to know about Coronavirus. For more information on COVID-19, call the DOH Hotline: (02) 86517800 local 1149/1150.

The Inquirer Foundation supports our healthcare frontliners and is still accepting cash donations to be deposited at Banco de Oro (BDO) current account #007960018860 or donate through PayMaya using this link .

Fearless views on the news

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.

Unsupported Browser Detected. It seems the web browser you're using doesn't support some of the features of this site. For the best experience, we recommend using a modern browser that supports the features of this website. We recommend Google Chrome , Mozilla Firefox , or Microsoft Edge

About Asia Society
Career Opportunities
Internships
Upcoming Events
Past Events
Event Recaps
Become a Member
Asia 21 Philippines
Our Locations

Philippines

Filipinos and nationalism during the covid-19 pandemic, filipinos helping fellow filipinos.

As COVID-19 strikes the Philippine nation, people rise together to counter it. At the forefront of the fight against the virus are our healthcare workers and various frontliners. Daily, they face the hazard of infection with their mantra: “We go to work for you. Please stay at home for us.”

Healthcare workers who directly work with COVID-positive patients are outnumbered; and due to their first-hand exposure, some staff require quarantine themselves - reducing their numbers. Another big challenge for frontliners is the lack of medical supplies including Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs).

Community quarantine and social distancing has not hindered our kababayans in looking for ways to help with the battle. Different groups, individuals, classmates, colleagues - groups big and small - have come together, despite limited resources and movement. Showing everyone that we are all #InThisTogether.

Asia 21 Young Leaders , Darwin Mariano and Harvey Keh , used their platform, Ticket2Me – The Kaya Natin! Movement in coordination with the Office of the Vice President to help raise funds in order to purchase PPEs, other medical supplies, and care/food packs needed by our health workers and frontliners.

“Each PPE Daily Set Ticket consists of one N95 mask, one gown, two sets of gloves, two pieces of head covers, two sets of shoe covers and one pair of goggles. This is only good for one (1) health worker. Each Food and Care Pack Ticket will help one health worker/frontliner per day. All donors will receive an electronic ticket from our ticketing platform as proof of donation to the Kaya Natin! Movement. Ticket2Me has waived its service fees for this campaign but third-party payment gateway service fees will apply. These service fees are charged by the system's various payment partners including: the credit card processing bank, PayPal, GCash, 7-Eleven, MLhuillier, Cebuana Lhuillier or ECPay. To observe social distancing, online donations are coursed through our #AngatBuhay partner Kaya Natin!”

As of March 24, 2020, The Kaya Natin! Movement has reached PhP28,868,752.79 and have already distributed 23,475 daily sets of PPEs to 1,565 workers.

Ticket2Me is not the only platform and group reaching out to help our frontliners and our most at risk. Netizens have come together to compile organizations seeking donations and assistance through a collaborative spreadsheet HOW TO HELP OUT DURING COVID-19 CRISIS. The list includes drives for frontliners, our affected daily wage earners, homes for the elderly, and our most at risk.

Here are some of the organizations (catering to frontliners) you can donate to:

1. Tulong Kabataan – UP Manila

- What they need: Asking for masks and alcohol

- Who are they helping: patients, healthworkers, and interns of Philippine General Hospital

- Contact Details: +639082111437

2. Philippine General Hospital

- What they need: Personal Protective Equipment (n95 mask, surgical mask, face shield, surgical gowns) 70% Ethyl Alcohol

- Who are they helping: Frontliners (Healthcare Workers)

- Contact Details: Dr. Mia Tabuñar (Coordinator for Resource Generation) 09193506917

3. Ospital ng Muntinlupa

- What they need: Asking for N95 masks, face shields, 70% Ethyl Alcohol, surgical gown, clean/sterile gloves

- Contact Details: Dr. Edwin Dimatatac - 09176294301

4. Philippine Association of Medical Technologists, Inc. (PAMET)

- Contact Details: PAMET Secretariat - (02) 8817-1487 / 09178901118

5. National Children’s Hospital (NCH)

- What they need: PPE, N95 masks, face shields, 70% Ethyl Alcohol, surgical gown, clean/sterile gloves

- Who are they helping: Frontline government workers and healthworkers

- Contact Details: Dr. Jennifer Gianan, Chief Resident - National Children's Hospital 09176392278 or at 264 E. Rodriguez Ave., New Manila, QC Swift Code - BOPIPHMM

6. #ProtectTheFrontline

- What they need : Asking for Surgical masks, surgical gloves, surgical caps, PPE set, N95 masks, protective goggles, plastic boots, plastic aprons, disposable gowns, face shields, scrub suit, alcohol, soap, food, hazmat suits

- Who they are helping: Frontliners

We salute all the people who are trying their best to fight this crisis for fellow Filipinos. There are many ways to support our frontliners and each other during this time. However, one of the best ways to help them is by KEEPING HEALTHY and STAYING AT HOME .

#ProtectTheFrontline

We are here and we are #InThisTogether.

The Kaya Natin! Movement

If interested in donating click here for more details

You can also contact them at [email protected] or +639985968820

How to Help Out During Covid-19 Crisis

If interested in sharing information or donating to organizations – click here for more details

To show your appreciation for our medical frontliners, click here for more details

The Philippine economy under the pandemic: From Asian tiger to sick man again?

Subscribe to the center for asia policy studies bulletin, ronald u. mendoza ronald u. mendoza dean and professor, ateneo school of government - ateneo de manila university.

August 2, 2021

In 2019, the Philippines was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. It finally shed its “sick man of Asia” reputation obtained during the economic collapse towards the end of the Ferdinand Marcos regime in the mid-1980s. After decades of painstaking reform — not to mention paying back debts incurred under the dictatorship — the country’s economic renaissance took root in the decade prior to the pandemic. Posting over 6 percent average annual growth between 2010 and 2019 (computed from the Philippine Statistics Authority data on GDP growth rates at constant 2018 prices), the Philippines was touted as the next Asian tiger economy .

That was prior to COVID-19.

The rude awakening from the pandemic was that a services- and remittances-led growth model doesn’t do too well in a global disease outbreak. The Philippines’ economic growth faltered in 2020 — entering negative territory for the first time since 1999 — and the country experienced one of the deepest contractions in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that year (Figure 1).

Figure 1: GDP growth for selected ASEAN countries

And while the government forecasts a slight rebound in 2021, some analysts are concerned over an uncertain and weak recovery, due to the country’s protracted lockdown and inability to shift to a more efficient containment strategy. The Philippines has relied instead on draconian mobility restrictions across large sections of the country’s key cities and growth hubs every time a COVID-19 surge threatens to overwhelm the country’s health system.

What went wrong?

How does one of the fastest growing economies in Asia falter? It would be too simplistic to blame this all on the pandemic.

First, the Philippines’ economic model itself appears more vulnerable to disease outbreak. It is built around the mobility of people, yet tourism, services, and remittances-fed growth are all vulnerable to pandemic-induced lockdowns and consumer confidence decline. International travel plunged, tourism came to a grinding halt, and domestic lockdowns and mobility restrictions crippled the retail sector, restaurants, and hospitality industry. Fortunately, the country’s business process outsourcing (BPO) sector is demonstrating some resilience — yet its main markets have been hit heavily by the pandemic, forcing the sector to rapidly upskill and adjust to emerging opportunities under the new normal.

Related Books

Thomas Wright, Colin Kahl

August 24, 2021

Jonathan Stromseth

February 16, 2021

Tarun Chhabra, Rush Doshi, Ryan Hass, Emilie Kimball

June 22, 2021

Second, pandemic handling was also problematic. Lockdown is useful if it buys a country time to strengthen health systems and test-trace-treat systems. These are the building blocks of more efficient containment of the disease. However, if a country fails to strengthen these systems, then it squanders the time that lockdown affords it. This seems to be the case for the Philippines, which made global headlines for implementing one of the world’s longest lockdowns during the pandemic, yet failed to flatten its COVID-19 curve.

At the time of writing, the Philippines is again headed for another hard lockdown and it is still trying to graduate to a more efficient containment strategy amidst rising concerns over the delta variant which has spread across Southeast Asia . It seems stuck with on-again, off-again lockdowns, which are severely damaging to the economy, and will likely create negative expectations for future COVID-19 surges (Figure 2).

Figure 2 clarifies how the Philippine government resorted to stricter lockdowns to temper each surge in COVID-19 in the country so far.

Figure 2: Community quarantine regimes during the COVID-19 pandemic, Philippine National Capital Region (NCR ), March 2020 to June 2021

If the delta variant and other possible variants are near-term threats, then the lack of efficient containment can be expected to force the country back to draconian mobility restrictions as a last resort. Meanwhile, only two months of social transfers ( ayuda ) were provided by the central government during 16 months of lockdown by mid-2021. All this puts more pressure on an already weary population reeling from deep recession, job displacement, and long-term risks on human development . Low social transfers support in the midst of joblessness and rising hunger is also likely to weaken compliance with mobility restriction policies.

Third, the Philippines suffered from delays in its vaccination rollout which was initially hobbled by implementation and supply issues, and later affected by lingering vaccine hesitancy . These are all likely to delay recovery in the Philippines.

By now there are many clear lessons both from the Philippine experience and from emerging international best practices. In order to mount a more successful economic recovery, the Philippines must address the following key policy issues:

Build a more efficient containment strategy particularly against the threat of possible new variants principally by strengthening the test-trace-treat system. Based on lessons from other countries, test-trace-treat systems usually also involve comprehensive mass-testing strategies to better inform both the public and private sectors on the true state of infections among the population. In addition, integrated mobility databases (not fragmented city-based ones) also capacitate more effective and timely tracing. This kind of detailed and timely data allows for government and the private sector to better coordinate on nuanced containment strategies that target areas and communities that need help due to outbreak risk. And unlike a generalized lockdown, this targeted and data-informed strategy could allow other parts of the economy to remain more open than otherwise.
Strengthen the sufficiency and transparency of direct social protection in order to give immediate relief to poor and low-income households already severely impacted by the mishandling of the pandemic. This requires a rebalancing of the budget in favor of education, health, and social protection spending, in lieu of an over-emphasis on build-build-build infrastructure projects. This is also an opportunity to enhance the social protection system to create a safety net and concurrent database that covers not just the poor but also the vulnerable low- and lower-middle- income population. The chief concern here would be to introduce social protection innovations that prevent middle income Filipinos from sliding into poverty during a pandemic or other crisis.
Ramp-up vaccination to cover at least 70 percent of the population as soon as possible, and enlist the further support of the private sector and civil society in order to keep improving vaccine rollout. An effective communications campaign needs to be launched to counteract vaccine hesitancy, building on trustworthy institutions (like academia, the Catholic Church, civil society and certain private sector partners) in order to better protect the population against the threat of delta or another variant affecting the Philippines. It will also help if parts of government could stop the politically-motivated fearmongering on vaccines, as had occurred with the dengue fever vaccine, Dengvaxia, which continues to sow doubts and fears among parts of the population .
Create a build-back-better strategy anchored on universal and inclusive healthcare. Among other things, such a strategy should a) acknowledge the critically important role of the private sector and civil society in pandemic response and healthcare sector cooperation, and b) underpin pandemic response around lasting investments in institutions and technology that enhance contact tracing (e-platforms), testing (labs), and universal healthcare with lower out-of-pocket costs and higher inclusivity. The latter requires a more inclusive, well-funded, and better-governed health insurance system.

As much of ASEAN reels from the spread of the delta variant, it is critical that the Philippines takes these steps to help allay concerns over the country’s preparedness to handle new variants emerging, while also recalibrating expectations in favor of resuscitating its economy. Only then can the Philippines avoid becoming the sick man of Asia again, and return to the rapid and steady growth of the pre-pandemic decade.

First COVID-19 infections in the Philippines: a case report

Edna M. Edrada 1 ,
Edmundo B. Lopez 1 ,
Jose Benito Villarama 1 ,
Eumelia P. Salva Villarama 1 ,
Bren F. Dagoc 1 ,
Chris Smith 2 , 3 ,
Ana Ria Sayo 1 ,
Jeffrey A. Verona 1 ,
Jamie Trifalgar-Arches 1 ,
Jezreel Lazaro 1 ,
Ellen Grace M. Balinas 1 ,
Elizabeth Freda O. Telan 1 ,
Lynsil Roy 1 ,
Myvie Galon 1 ,
Carl Hill N. Florida 1 ,
Tatsuya Ukawa 2 ,
Annavi Marie G. Villanueva 2 ,
Nobuo Saito 4 ,
Jean Raphael Nepomuceno 2 ,
Koya Ariyoshi 5 ,
Celia Carlos 6 ,
Amalea Dulcene Nicolasora 6 &
Rontgene M. Solante 1

Tropical Medicine and Health volume 48 , Article number: 21 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

94k Accesses

51 Citations

58 Altmetric

Metrics details

A Correction to this article was published on 07 May 2020

This article has been updated

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is responsible for more fatalities than the SARS coronavirus, despite being in the initial stage of a global pandemic. The first suspected case in the Philippines was investigated on January 22, 2020, and 633 suspected cases were reported as of March 1. We describe the clinical and epidemiological aspects of the first two confirmed COVID-19 cases in the Philippines, both admitted to the national infectious disease referral hospital in Manila.

Case presentation

Both patients were previously healthy Chinese nationals on vacation in the Philippines travelling as a couple during January 2020. Patient 1, a 39-year-old female, had symptoms of cough and sore throat and was admitted to San Lazaro Hospital in Manila on January 25. Physical examination was unremarkable. Influenza B , human coronavirus 229E, Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae were detected by PCR on initial nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal (NPS/OPS) swabs. On January 30, SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was reported to be detected by PCR on the initial swabs and she was identified as the first confirmed COVID-19 case in the Philippines. Her symptoms resolved, and she was discharged. Patient 2, a 44-year-old male, had symptoms of fever, cough, and chills. Influenza B and Streptococcus pneumoniae were detected by PCR on initial NPS/OPS swabs. He was treated for community-acquired pneumonia with intravenous antibiotics, but his condition deteriorated and he required intubation. On January 31, SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was reported to be detected by PCR on the initial swabs, and he was identified as the 2nd confirmed COVID-19 infection in the Philippines. On February 1, the patient’s condition deteriorated, and following a cardiac arrest, it was not possible to revive him. He was thus confirmed as the first COVID-19 death outside of China.

Conclusions

This case report highlights several important clinical and public health issues. Despite both patients being young adults with no significant past medical history, they had very different clinical courses, illustrating how COVID-19 can present with a wide spectrum of disease. As of March 1, there have been three confirmed COVID-19 cases in the Philippines. Continued vigilance is required to identify new cases.

The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) is responsible for more fatalities than the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, despite being in the initial stage of a global pandemic. It is thought that the index case occurred on December 8, 2019, in Wuhan, China [ 1 ]. Since then, cases have been exported to other Chinese cities, as well as internationally, highlighting concern of a global outbreak [ 2 ]. The first suspected case in the Philippines was investigated on January 22, 2020, and 633 suspected cases have been reported as of March 1. Of them, 183 were in the National Capital Region of Manila, of whom many were admitted to San Lazaro Hospital (SLH) in Manila, the national infectious disease referral hospital [ 3 , 4 ]. We describe the epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of the first two confirmed COVID-19 cases in the Philippines, including the first death outside China.

In this case report, we describe two cases: patient 1, the first confirmed COVID-19 case, and patient 2, the second confirmed case, even though the symptoms of patient 2 started first. The cases are presented based on reports from the clinicians involved in patient care and results of investigations available to them at the time. Figure 1 shows a timeline of symptoms for both patients according to the day of illness and day of hospitalisation.

Timeline of symptoms according to day of illness and day of hospitalisation

History prior to hospitalisation

Both patients were Chinese nationals on vacation in the Philippines travelling as a couple. They had no known comorbidities and reported no history of smoking. Patient 2, a 44-year-old male, reported fever on January 18, 2020, whilst the couple were residing in Wuhan, China. It was reported that he was in contact with someone that was unwell in Wuhan, but not that he had visited the seafood market. During January 20 to 25, they travelled from Wuhan via Hong Kong to several locations in the Philippines (Fig. 2 ). Patient 1, a 39-year-old female, developed cough and sore throat on January 21. Due to persistence of symptoms of patient 2, they travelled to Manila on January 25. In Manila, patient 2 was denied entry to a hotel because he was febrile and both patients were transferred to San Lazaro Hospital (SLH), the national referral hospital for infectious diseases [ 4 ]. On admission, patient 2 was classified as a COVID-19 person under investigation (PUI) based on his travel history and fever [ 2 ] and was transferred to a designated isolation area with negative pressure rooms. Patient 1 did not fit the PUI criteria due to absence of fever, but was also isolated because of possible exposure.

Travels of patient 1 and 2

Clinical course of patient 1

On admission to the ward on January 25 (illness day 5), patient 1 complained of a dry cough, but the sore throat had improved. She was awake and conversant with a blood pressure of 110/80, HR 84, RR 18 and temperature 36.8 °C. Her chest was clear. The remainder of the physical examination was unremarkable. Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab (NPS/ORS) specimens were collected and sent to the Research Institute for Tropical Medicine (RITM) in Muntinlupa City [ 5 ]. A chest radiograph was reported as unremarkable (Fig. 3 ).

Posteroanterior chest radiograph of patient 1, 27 January 2020 (illness day 7). Unremarkable

On January 27, the results were released of a commercially available respiratory pathogen multiplex real-time PCR for detection of pathogen genes on the NPS/OPS samples (FTD Respiratory pathogens 33, Fast Track Diagnostics) at the RITM Molecular Biology Laboratory. These assays reported detection of Influenza B viral RNA, human coronavirus 229E viral RNA, Staphylococcus aureus DNA and Klebsiella pneumoniae DNA. A 10-day course of oseltamivir 75 mg BID was given on the basis of the influenza result. The NPS/OPS specimen was then sent by RITM to the Victorian Infectious Disease Reference Laboratory (VIDRL) in Melbourne, Australia, for COVID-19 testing [ 6 ].

On January 29, further NPS/ORS specimens were collected and sent to the RITM. On January 30, the result of the initial NPS/OPS sent to VIDRL reported detection of 2019-nCoV (subsequently termed SARS-CoV-2) viral RNA by real-time PCR. The patient was thus identified by the Department of Health as the first confirmed COVID-19 case in the Philippines [ 6 ].

On illness days 6 to 10, she remained afebrile with minimal cough and clear breath sounds. During this time, real-time PCR for detecting SARS-CoV-2 was established at the RITM using the Corman et al. protocol [ 7 ]. Further NPS/OPS specimens collected on January 29 (reported on January 31) and January 31 (reported on February 2) also reported detection of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. On illness day 11, the patient reported resolution of symptoms. She remained afebrile and clinically stable apart from two episodes of loose watery stool on illness day 12. Further samples were collected on February 2 and 4. On February 8 (illness day 19), she was discharged when SARS-CoV-2 was no longer detected on an NPS/OPS sample.

Clinical course of patient 2

In contrast, patient 2 experienced a more severe clinical course. On admission (illness day 8), he reported fever, cough and chills. On examination, he was awake and conversant with a temperature of 38.3 °C, blood pressure of 110/80, HR 84, RR 18, and SpO 2 of 96% on room air. His chest was clear. The remainder of the physical examination was unremarkable.

A working diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia and COVID-19 suspect was made. He was started on ceftriaxone 2 g intravenously (IV) once daily (OD) and azithromycin 500 mg OD. NPS/ORS specimens were collected and sent to the RITM. On January 27, the results of a respiratory pathogen real-time PCR detection panel performed at RITM on the NPS/OPS samples were released, reporting detection of Influenza B viral RNA and Streptococcus pneumoniae DNA. The NPS/OPS samples were sent to the VIDRL for additional testing. Oseltamivir 75 mg BID was commenced on the basis of the influenza result.

During illness days 9 and 10, his fever continued with occasional non-productive cough. He remained clinically stable apart from intermittent SpO 2 desaturations of 93–97% on 2–3 L/min of oxygen. On illness day 11, he developed increasing dyspnoea with reduced SpO 2 at 88% despite 8 L/min of oxygen via a face mask and haemoptysis and was noted to have bilateral chest crepitations. A chest radiograph was reported as showing hazy infiltrates in both lung fields consistent with pneumonia (Fig. 4 ). Meropenem 2 g IV three times a day (TDS) was commenced.

Posteroanterior chest radiograph of patient 2, 27 January 2020 (illness day 10). Hazy infiltrates in both lung fields consistent with pneumonia

On illness day 12, he became increasingly dyspnoeic, hypoxic and agitated and was intubated and sedated with a midazolam drip. An endotracheal aspirate (ETA) and a further NPS/OPS were collected and sent to the RITM. Vancomycin, 30 mg/kg loading dose followed by 25 mg/kg BD, was commenced with a working diagnosis of severe community-acquired pneumonia due to Streptococcus pneumoniae secondary to Influenza B infection, plus consideration of COVID-19 pending the ETA result. A complete blood count showed values within the normal range (Table 1 ). On illness day 13, he continued to be febrile (38.5–40.0 °C) with bibasal crackles. Vital signs were stable with adequate urine output. A chest radiograph was reported as showing worsening of pneumonia (Fig. 5 ).

Posteroanterior chest radiograph of patient 2, 30 January 2020 (illness day 13). Endotracheal tube in situ approximately 2 cm above the carina. There is worsening of the previously noted pneumonia

On illness day 14, increased crepitations in both lung fields were noted. Blood cultures showed no growth after 24 h of incubation. An HIV test was non-reactive. On this day, the RITM reported detection of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA by real-time PCR from the NPS/OPS taken on illness day 12 and hence the 2nd confirmed COVID-19 infection in the Philippines. This result was later confirmed on February 4 on the initial admission sample sent to VIDRL.

On the morning of illness day 15, the patient remained febrile at 40 °C, with BP 110/70, HR 95, RR 30, SpO 2 99% with 80% FiO2, and adequate urine output. However, the patient’s condition deteriorated with the formation of thick sputum and blood clots in the ET tube. Despite frequent suctioning, the patient’s condition deteriorated. He was noted to have laboured breathing followed by a cardiac arrest. Despite several rounds of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, it was not possible to revive the patient. He was thus confirmed as the first COVID-19 death outside of China.

Discussion and conclusion

This case report describes the first two confirmed cases of COVID-10 in the Philippines and highlights several important clinical and public health issues. Despite both patients being young adults with no significant past medical history, they had very different clinical courses, illustrating how COVID-19 can present with a wide spectrum of disease [ 8 ]. Whilst patient 1 had a mild uncomplicated illness consistent with an upper respiratory tract infection and recovery, patient 2 developed a severe pneumonia and died.

One possible explanation for the differing clinical courses is the presence of co-infection. In both patients, the real-time PCR detection panel was reported to be positive for multiple pathogens. The Staphylococcus aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae detected in patient 1 most likely represent bacterial colonisation, and it is unclear to what extent her presentation was due to influenza or COVID-19 or both. Patient 2 tested positive for COVID-19, Influenza B , and Streptococcus pneumoniae , all of which can cause respiratory infection and severe pneumonia. Unfortunately, sputum culture was not possible due to biosafety concerns. It is unclear which pathogen was the leading cause of death, but previous research has shown that outcomes of acute viral respiratory infection are worse if multiple pathogens are present [ 9 ]. This highlights the importance of testing for other respiratory pathogens in addition to COVID-19 in order to optimise antimicrobial therapy.

Patient 2 developed increasing dyspnoea on day 11 of illness, similar to the first COVID-19 case in the USA, where mild symptoms were initially reported with progression to pneumonia on day 9 of illness [ 10 ]. The median time from illness onset to dyspnoea in a case series in Wuhan was 8 days (range 5–13) [ 11 ]. The explanation for patient 2’s worsening condition and development of haemoptysis was progression of pneumonia rather than acute respiratory distress syndrome or pulmonary embolism, but it was not possible to perform a CT scan, additional laboratory tests or an autopsy to further assess this. Although he was treated with broad-spectrum antimicrobials, it is not clear if the outcome would have been better in a high-resource setting. Both patients were treated with oseltamivir in view of positive results for Influenza B . Further studies are required to establish the optimal treatment and role of antiviral medication for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.

Our cases contrast with the US case in terms of the relative paucity of lab data and time to receive results. Limited in-house testing was undertaken due to biosafety concerns. In the case of patient 2, the diagnosis of COVID-19 was not made until a day before the patient died. This was because SARS-2-CoV testing was being established in the Philippines at the time that the patients were admitted, and initial samples had to be sent to Australia. Although the delay of diagnosis is unlikely to have altered management, expansion of COVID-19 diagnostics including multiplex panels for other respiratory pathogens is urgently needed for prompt diagnosis of patients for screening of hospital personnel or other contacts.

Three SLH hospital staff who were caring for the patients developed symptoms and themselves became PUIs, but were later discharged following negative SARS-CoV-2 testing and symptom resolution. This highlights the risk of an outbreak in the hospital, or a ‘super-spreader’ scenario, as was observed in other settings during the early stages of the SARS coronavirus infections in 2003 [ 12 ]. In the case of SARS, as with COVID-19, SLH managed two cases and was able to contain the infection without further spread [ 13 ].

The third confirmed COVID-19 case was announced on February 3 from a sample taken on January 23, also a Chinese national who had travelled from Wuhan. She recovered and returned to China on January 31. Contact tracing has been undertaken of all three patients [ 14 ]. Despite travel to several locations in the Philippines whilst experiencing symptoms, as of March 1, there has not been any confirmed local transmission arising from these cases and the number of PUIs has decreased [ 3 ]. However, as infection can be mild or subclinical, local transmission cannot be excluded. Increasing the number of laboratories able to perform SARS-CoV-2 testing would allow better surveillance and improve detection of COVID-19 cases.

In conclusion, as of March 1, there have been three confirmed COVID-19 cases in the Philippines including the first death outside of China. No local transmission has been confirmed. Continued vigilance is required to identify new cases.

Availability of data and materials

Change history, 07 may 2020.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Abbreviations

Coronavirus disease 2019

Novel coronavirus

Nasopharyngeal swab/oropharyngeal swab

Polymerase chain reaction

Person under observation

Research Institute for Tropical Medicine

Severe acute respiratory syndrome

San Lazaro Hospital

Zhu N, Zhang D, Wang W, Li X, Yang B, Song J, et al. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020; NEJMoa2001017. Available from: http://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017 .

Wu JT, Leung K, Leung GM. Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study. Lancet. 2020;6736:20.

Google Scholar

Republic of the Philippines Department of Health. 2019-NCOV CASE TRACKER. [cited 2020 Feb 6]. Available from: https://www.doh.gov.ph/node/19197 .

Republic of the Philippines Department of Health. San Lazaro Hospital. 2020 [cited 2020 Feb 6]. Available from: http://slh.doh.gov.ph/ .

Republic of the Philippines Department of Health. Research Institute for Tropical Medicine. [cited 2020 Feb 7]. Available from: http://ritm.gov.ph/ .

Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity. Victorian Infectious Disease Reference Laboratory (VIDRL) [Internet]. [cited 2020 Feb 7]. Available from: https://www.vidrl.org.au/ .

Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, Molenkamp R, Meijer A, Chu DK, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):1–8.

Article Google Scholar

Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;6736(20):1–10 Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5 .

Yoshida L, Suzuki M, Nguyen HA, Le MN, Vu TD, Yoshino H, et al. Respiratory syncytial virus: co-infection and paediatric lower respiratory tract infections. Eur Respir J. 2013;42:461–9.

Rothe C, Schunk M, Sothmann P, Bretzel G, Froeschl G, Wallrauch C, et al. Transmission of 2019-nCoV infection from an asymptomatic contact in Germany. N Engl J Med. 2020:2019–20.

Chen N, Zhou M, Dong X, Qu J, Gong F, Han Y, et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet (London, England). 2020;6736(20):1–7 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32007143 .

Munster V, Koopmans M, van Doremalen N, van Riel D, de Wit E. A novel coronavirus emerging in China — key questions for impact assessment. NEJM. 2020:4–6.

Lopez J. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) control and surveillance :The Philippine experience. In: 4th Health Rsearch For Action National Forum. Manila; 2003.

Republic of the Philippines Department of Health. DOH CONFIRMS 3RD 2019-NCOV ARD CASE IN PH. 2020 [cited 2020 Feb 5]. Available from: https://www.doh.gov.ph/doh-press-release/doh-confirms-3rd-2019-nCoV-ARD-case-in-PH .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the patients for allowing us to prepare and publish this case report.

Not applicable

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

San Lazaro Hospital, Manila, Philippines

Edna M. Edrada, Edmundo B. Lopez, Jose Benito Villarama, Eumelia P. Salva Villarama, Bren F. Dagoc, Ana Ria Sayo, Jeffrey A. Verona, Jamie Trifalgar-Arches, Jezreel Lazaro, Ellen Grace M. Balinas, Elizabeth Freda O. Telan, Lynsil Roy, Myvie Galon, Carl Hill N. Florida & Rontgene M. Solante

School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan

Chris Smith, Tatsuya Ukawa, Annavi Marie G. Villanueva & Jean Raphael Nepomuceno

Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Chris Smith

Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Oita University, Oita, Japan

Nobuo Saito

Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan

Koya Ariyoshi

Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Alabang, Philippines

Celia Carlos & Amalea Dulcene Nicolasora

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All of the authors contributed to the writing of this case report. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Smith .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This case report was not part of a research study, and hence, ethical approval was not sought. Written consent was obtained from patient 1 and on behalf of patient 2.

Consent for publication

Written consent for the preparation and publication of a case report was provided by patient 1 and on behalf of patient 2, following discussion with his brother.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: One of the authors’ name is revised.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Edrada, E.M., Lopez, E.B., Villarama, J.B. et al. First COVID-19 infections in the Philippines: a case report. Trop Med Health 48 , 21 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-020-00203-0

Download citation

Received : 02 March 2020

Accepted : 22 March 2020

Published : 14 April 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-020-00203-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Case report
Coronavirus
Philippines

Tropical Medicine and Health

ISSN: 1349-4147

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: [email protected]

persuasive essay about covid 19 in the philippines

Charitable Giving Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Philippine Context

Published: 15 March 2023
Volume 29 , pages 49–62, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

Rosalina Palanca-Tan ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0133-7847 1 &
Nelson Matthew P. Tan 2

2118 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This paper presents the results of a survey on altruism amidst economic difficulties during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The study looked at two cases of charitable giving: (1) intention to donate to a non-government COVID-19 vaccination program, and (2) food donation to a community pantry. A two-stage regression procedure was undertaken to identify the factors affecting the willingness to contribute to a vaccination program (first stage: binary logit regression) and the contribution amount (second stage: ordinary least squares). The binary logit regression was likewise used to identify donors’ characteristics for the community pantries. The survey was conducted among 508 household heads in Metro Manila, Philippines in December 2021 using a multi-stage stratified sampling procedure. First, the study found that the proportion of respondents who expressed willingness to donate to a vaccination program is higher than the proportion of respondents who donated food to a community pantry, which could be due to the benefits (general reduction in the risk of contracting COVID-19) that donors also stood to gain from their contributions. Second, a past act of giving to a community pantry is not a robust predictor of donating to a vaccination program, implying that the decision to give depends on the specific charitable program, as supported by differing sets of robust predictors for the vaccination program (economic-related factors) and the community pantry (religiosity). Third, donating to a non-government COVID-19 vaccination program is income inelastic, implying that the donation is considered a basic consumption item.

The effect of altruism on COVID-19 vaccination rates

Is There Broad-Based Support in High-Income Countries for COVID-19 Vaccine Donation? Evidence from Seven Countries

Willingness to Pay for a COVID-19 Vaccine

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused unprecedented socioeconomic difficulties for many countries, including the Philippines. The nationwide lockdown implemented in the Philippines starting in March 2020 to slow the spread of the virus restricted mobility and business activities resulting in substantial adverse effects on jobs, household income, and food security (World Bank 2020 ). In the year 2020, the Philippine economy contracted by 9.6%, with 10.1% of firms reporting temporary closure and 0.4% permanently closed. The unemployment rate reached 17.6% (Chua 2021 ). Job losses were particularly severe in the construction and public transportation sectors and among informal workers (Fallesen 2021 ). Despite some employment recovery in 2021, households continued to experience income losses. The World Bank ( 2021 ) survey revealed that 52% of households in the Philippines still reported lower income, relative to the pre-pandemic level, or no income in May 2021. Furthermore, with the Philippine government’s pandemic assistance reduced in 2021, only about 50% of surveyed households reported receiving government aid in the form of cash, food and non-food items in May 2021, compared to almost 80% in 2020. Nearly 70% of households still reported reduced food consumption due to lack of financial resources and rising prices. Poor households resorted to delaying payment obligations, purchasing by credit, borrowing money, and selling or pawning assets to cope (World Bank 2021 ). It was about this time that community pantries, set up and stocked with food and other essentials by private individuals and group, mushroomed all over the country. In 2021, the second year of the pandemic, more households were receiving assistance from church-related and private organizations than from the government (World Bank 2021 ).

Catastrophic events are observed to induce unprecedented levels of charitable giving on the part of the general public (Eckel et al., 2007 ). Witnessing victims’ pain and sufferings evokes greater sympathy and greater giving. Bohnet and Frey ( 1999 ) explained that information about victims and their suffering, whether obtained through the media or direct contacts with disaster victims, decreases social distance between the donor and the victim, causing other-related behavior, such as charitable giving, to increase. Referred to as the "identifiable victim" effect by Schelling ( 1968 ), donors tend to be more willing to give to specific, identified victims of a particular event than to efforts to prevent or lessen the potential damage from some anticipated disasters in the future. Jenni and Loewenstein ( 1997 ) and Small and Loewenstein ( 2003 ) elaborated that during a catastrophic event, donors are sure that their donations and assistance go to actual victims, rather than just people at risk. This can also be observed in the Philippines where contributions to relief efforts surge after destructive natural calamities, like typhoons and earthquakes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened charitable giving was evident in community pantries that quickly mushroomed all over the country after one individual took the initiative to put up one pantry in her neighborhood, in the wake of hunger and difficulties, to meet basic needs due to job and income losses from the lockdown.

This paper presents the results of a survey on charitable giving in the face of health and economic difficulties brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines. One objective of the study was to investigate people’s willingness to donate to a non-government COVID-19 vaccination program. A comprehensive vaccination program is deemed to be a more favorable option in dealing with the COVID-19 crisis (Fadda et al., 2020 ) since highly aggressive and disruptive measures (such as lockdowns) could continue to drain household income, deplete resources, and hinder pandemic recovery (Ioannidis 2020 ). However, the Philippine government vaccination program has suffered significant drawbacks due to limited budget and alleged inefficiencies and corruption. Until December 2021, nationwide vaccination coverage was only about 25%. With government vaccination efforts concentrated in Metro Manila (MM), the country’s main metropolis where vaccination coverage lopsidedly surpassed 75% (Department of Health 2022 ), there was a perceived need for private or non-government initiatives to supplement the government vaccination program, particularly outside MM. Third-sector actors could potentially mobilize manpower; procure vaccines, medical supplies, and peripheral support for frontline health workers (e.g.: meals, transport, and temporary shelter) and coordinate with private hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, and manufacturers to augment and improve the implementation of the government’s vaccination program (Give2Asia 2021 ; Reliefweb 2020 ).

A second objective of the study was to relate the intention to contribute to a vaccination program with actual giving behavior within the same COVID-19 pandemic context, that of donating goods to a community pantry. There are notable differences between the two cases of charitable giving analyzed in this study. First, the willingness to donate to a vaccination program is just a stated intention to give, while donating to a community pantry is an already completed act of giving. Looking at both will allow a comparison of intended and actual giving. Second, food and other goods donated to a community pantry are private goods. In a mass vaccination program, contributions will produce a public good in the form of public health, and the donors themselves stand to benefit from their donations, in terms of a lower risk of infection. Thus, the latter case is leaning more towards impure altruism.

The study assessed the factors that influence altruistic behavior, namely, socio-demographic, economic, and individual perceptions and attitudes. Will there be substantial differences in terms of motivations between the two cases of charitable giving? Analyses of the characteristics of potential donors, and their motivations and capacity for altruistic behavior can provide relevant inputs for developing strategies for fund-raising activities for third sector initiatives. Although there has been extensive literature on the characteristics of prospective donors, historical and cultural contexts affect people’s charitable giving behavior and decisions. This paper adds to the relative dearth of literature on charitable giving in the context of a pandemic or a health emergency.

Conceptual Framework

In much of recent literature, charitable giving is defined as the voluntary donation of money or goods to an entity or program benefiting others beyond one’s own family. Bekkers and Wiepking ( 2011 , 2012 ) suggested mediating and moderating mechanisms by which individual characteristics may influence the willingness to give or donate to a charitable cause. The mechanisms, namely, (1) awareness of the need, (2) exposure to solicitation, (3) costs associated with the donation, (4) reputational impacts, (5) psychological benefits of giving, (6) values, and (7) the efficacy of the program receiving the funding, are used to support hypotheses regarding the characteristics of givers. For instance, individuals with higher education are assumed to be more likely to be donors because they have greater awareness of needs that give them a greater sense of social responsibility, they have higher level of exposure to information that enables them to assess the efficacy and efficiency of the charitable organizations, and they receive more solicitation requests due to more memberships in organizations (e.g., Gruber 2004 ; Houston 2006 ; Lyons and Nivison-Smith, 2006 ). On the other hand, religious involvement may increase charitable giving due to greater exposure to solicitation, greater sensitivity to reputation, and the predominance of social values in religious circles (Bekkers 2003 ; Bekkers and Schuyt, 2008 ; Brown and Ferris, 2007 ).

In economics, charitable giving is considered one of many consumption items among which income is allocated. Hence, like any other normal consumption good, charitable giving increases with income and wealth. The more money a household owns and earns, the more it can donate to charitable causes. The relationship between income and the amount or level of giving can be expressed in terms of the income elasticity of giving, which is defined mathematically as the percent change in the amount of donation divided by the percent change in income. An income elasticity of between 0 and 1 implies that a 1% increase in income will induce an increase in the level of giving or the donation amount of less than 1%. In this case, giving is income-inelastic, and may be considered basic good consumption. People spend only a portion of the increase in their income on basic goods. On the other hand, an income elasticity that is greater than 1 implies that a 1% increase in income induces an increase in the level of giving of more than 1%, suggesting that giving is income-elastic and considered luxury good consumption (Auten et al., 2002 ; Peloza and Steel, 2005 ).

The positive relationship between income and giving can also be explained using the charitable giving mechanisms framework of Bekkers and Wiepking ( 2012 ). More income and wealth can stimulate philanthropic behavior through the psychological benefits and values mechanisms. Intangible rewards for giving become more important and social values intensify as one’s own needs are taken care of (Ostrower 1997 ; Schervish 2006 ).

Methodology

Data used for this study were obtained from a survey of household heads in MM in December 2021. MM, the political, economic, social, and cultural center of the Philippines, is one of the more modern metropolises in Southeast Asia. Covering an area of 620 km 2 , MM is the smallest of the country’s 17 regions. However, it is the second most populous region with 13.5 million people in 2020 or 12.4% of the entire Philippine population, and the most densely populated with 21,749 people per km 2 in 2020 (Philippine Statistics Authority 2021 ). MM was the epicenter of the COVID-19 infection in the Philippines accounting for almost a fifth (19%) of both total cases and deaths in the country, as well as the focus of the government’s vaccination efforts. At the time of the survey in December 2021, more than three-quarters of the MM population had been fully vaccinated vis a vis the 25% vaccination coverage nationwide (Department of Health 2022 ).

The study employed a multi-stage stratified sampling procedure. The four districts of MM (Capitol, Eastern Manila, Northern Manila, and Southern Manila) comprised the first-stage stratification of the population. Each district was then stratified into its cities (second-stage strata). For each district, a representative city was selected from which the district sample was drawn: Manila (the sole city in the district) for the Capitol, Quezon City for the Eastern District, Caloocan City for the Northern District, and Makati City for the Southern District. All four cities are the principal cities in their respective districts, with mixed residential, commercial and industrial areas. For each city, respondents were drawn from predominantly residential barangays with a mix of low- to high-income households. Permission and assistance to conduct the survey were secured from the barangay captain’s offices, as well as from community and homeowners associations. Prior to the start of the survey, written informed consent was obtained from each respondent after the nature, objectives and possible consequences of the study were fully explained. A total of 508 respondents were generated for the study.

Charitable giving can be measured on two levels: (1) the decision to give, and (2) the level of giving or amount of donation. Both indicators were derived for the COVID-19 vaccination program. Respondents were first asked if they would be willing to donate, after which “yes” respondents were asked up to how much they would be willing to donate. For the community pantry, respondents were asked if they had visited a community pantry to contribute goods.

The predicters of charitable giving examined in the paper included sociodemographic factors, namely, age, sex, marital status, education, and religiosity (specified in terms of religious affiliation (the religious group to which the individual belongs) and religious attendance (the extent of one’s participation in a religious group). Economic factors included income, working status, house ownership, savings, and self-assessed contentment. For the willingness to donate to a non-government vaccination program, COVID-19 exposure, health conditions, vaccine confidence/hesitancy, and trust in government’s pandemic programs were analyzed, in addition to socio-demographic and economic factors.

A two-stage regression procedure was undertaken to identify the factors affecting the willingness to contribute and the amount of contribution to a non-government COVID-19 vaccination program. The first stage was a binary logit regression model specifying the willingness to donate as a function of individual and household characteristics. In the second stage, the donation amounts of the sub-sample of respondents willing to donate were regressed with donor characteristics using ordinary least squares (OLS). The binary logit regression was likewise used to identify the characteristics of donors for the community pantries. STATA econometrics software was used to run the regression models.

Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics

The first panel of Table 1 summarizes the demographic and socioeconomic variables considered in the analysis of the determinants of charitable giving. On average, respondents were 43 years old. Of the 508 respondents, 28% were male, Footnote 1 58% were married, and 67% had children. In terms of education, 60% of respondents reached college level, while 26% had some post-college education. Most (85%) respondents were Catholics, while 13% belonged to other Christian groups. The remaining 2% belonged to all other religions (e.g., Islam) or had no religion. Slightly over a third (35%) of respondents regularly attend their respective religious services. The proportion of working respondents was 78%. With a scale of 1–10 where 1 is very discontented and 10 is very contented, the mean self-assessed contentment score was 6.88. The average household in the sample had five members and a monthly income of PhP56,447 (US$1,096). About 39% of the respondents’ households owned the house and lot where they resided. In terms of financial status, 57% of respondents had savings. Revealing the severe economic impact of the pandemic on the households, the majority (53%) of respondents indicated their budget for food decreased because of the pandemic.

Respondents’ answers to questions related to COVID-19 are shown in the second panel of Table 1 . About three-fourths of respondents had relatives and friends infected by COVID-19. Almost all respondents (96%) had been vaccinated for COVID-19, reflecting high acceptance and wide availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the country’s main metropolis. Looking further into vaccine acceptance issues, respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the vaccine hesitancy-related statement “Vaccines can create more problems than solutions”. Respondents generally disagreed with the statement. Finally, as an indicator of people’s trust in the government, respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the statement “The government is doing everything it could to alleviate people’s hardships caused by the pandemic”. The average score was 0.58, indicating that there are slightly more respondents who trust the Philippine government’s efforts during the pandemic.

Charitable Giving

Table 2 presents survey results on indicators of charitable giving. The majority (59%) of respondents indicated willingness to donate to a non-government mass vaccination program. The average amount these respondents were willing to give was PhP1,994.36 (US$38.73). The much larger standard deviation of PhP2,957.79 (US$57.43) of the one-time lump-sum donation suggests wide variation in the donation amount. The proportion of respondents who had contributed to a community pantry was 25%, less than half of the respondents who indicated willingness to contribute to a hypothetical mass vaccination program.

Predictors of Charitable Giving to a Non-government COVID-19 Vaccination Program

The binary logit regression results for willingness to donate to a COVID-19 vaccination program (Table 3 ) revealed that the likelihood of donating is higher for respondents who have savings and higher contentment score, and who are already vaccinated for COVID-19. On the other hand, respondents who have children and whose households had experienced a reduced food budget because of the pandemic are less likely to donate. The sociodemographic factors (namely, age, sex, education), COVID-19 exposure and vaccine hesitancy, government trust, and giving to a community pantry were not significant predictors of willingness to donate.

Using ordinary least squares, the amount of donations to the vaccination program was regressed with household income and the basic sociodemographic variables: age, sex, marital status, and household size. The regression results (Table 4 ) suggest that the donation amount increases by PhP31.36 when income increases by PhP1,000.00. The income elasticity of donations is 0.92. This implies that the percent increase in the donation amount is just slightly lower than the percent increase in income, but still falling under the income-inelastic range that suggests that donating to the COVID-19 vaccination program could be considered a basic good consumption. Apart from income, age has a statistically significant positive coefficient, implying that the donation amount increases with age (as found in Alpizar et al., 2008 ; Bekkers and Schuyt, 2008 ; List 2004 ; Lyons and Nivison-Smith, 2006 ).

Predictors of Charitable Giving to a Community Pantry

In the case of actual giving to a community pantry (Table 5 ), religiosity (in terms of church attendance), household size, and house ownership were the significant predictors. Respondents who regularly attend church services, belong to a bigger household, and have their own house are more likely to donate to a community pantry.

Conclusions

The proportion of respondents who expressed willingness to make a one-time donation of money for a non-government COVID-19 vaccination program (59%) is much higher than the proportion of respondents who had donated food to a community pantry (25%). Actual giving appears to be much lower than intention to give, which may reflect “yeah saying”, a hypothetical bias in surveys. The mass vaccination program does not exist yet, and in such a hypothetical scenario, there is a tendency for a respondent to say “yes”. Another explanation for this result, based on rational decision-making, is the existence of private benefits that donors to a vaccination program can also realize. Donors will likewise benefit from a more timely and expansive vaccination program through a general decrease in the risk of contracting the COVID-19 virus. Donating to a COVID-19 vaccination program is a form of impure altruism as the giver, not just the recipients of the vaccines, gains from the charitable act in addition to “warm glow” effects.

Survey results also reveal that a past act of giving to a community pantry is not a robust predictor of future charitable giving to a COVID-19 vaccination program. This may imply that the decision to give is dependent on the specific charitable program, a finding that is further supported by differing sets of robust predictors for the vaccination program and the community pantry. Economic-related considerations, namely, having savings to spare, not having children whose needs a household head has to be concerned about, having no experience of food budget reductions, and contentment that is highly correlated with household income in the survey data set, are the robust predictors of donating to a COVID-19 vaccination program. On the other hand, two of the three robust predictors of giving to community pantries (regular church attendance and larger household size) are not based on economic considerations. The community pantry is similar to post-disaster-relief-good operations, a recurring charitable activity of religious organizations, thus explaining the positive influence of religiosity also found in past studies (Bekkers and Schuyt, 2008 ; Brown and Ferris, 2007 ; Lyons and Nivison-Smith, 2006 ). The influence of economic factors in the vaccination scenario is consistent with past studies on the relationship between charitable giving and indicators of financial resources and economic capacity (Bekkers and Wiepking, 2012 ). Economic factors in particular may play a central role in the case of costly programs during periods of severe economic challenges. Only when relatively small donation amounts are involved, as in the case of donations to community pantries, do economic factors become insignificant (Lee and Farrell, 2003 ; List 2004 ). Finally, this study finds that donating to a non-government COVID-19 vaccination program is income-inelastic, consistent with previous findings that charitable giving is tantamount to a basic good consumption (McClelland and Brooks, 2004 ).

Data Availability

The survey dataset used is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

The reason for the disproportionately high number of women among respondents is that enumerators visited households during weekdays when many men were out at work. Hence, many of the survey respondents were the household’s female spouse. In the Philippines, as in some other Asian countries, even though the female spouse is not the primary income earner or not even earning, she nevertheless, in many cases, makes the expenditure decisions for the family, which qualifies her to be a respondent for the survey.

Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008). Anonymity, reciprocity and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a natural park in Costa Rica. Journal of Public Economics, 92 (5–6), 1047–1060.

Article Google Scholar

Auten, G. E., Sieg, H., & Clotfelter, C. T. (2002). Charitable giving, income and taxes: An analysis of panel data. The American Economic Review, 92 (1), 371–382.

Bekkers, R. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32 , 596–615.

Bekkers, R., & Schuyt, T. (2008). And who is your neighbor? Explaining denominational differences in charitable giving and volunteering in the Netherlands. Review of Religious Research, 50 (1), 74–96.

Google Scholar

Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A Literature review of predictors of charitable giving I – Religion, education, age, and socialization. Voluntary Sector Review, 2 (3), 337–365.

Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part two: Gender, marital status, income, and wealth. Voluntary Sector Review , 3(2): 217–245.

Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. S. (1999). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: Comment. The American Economic Review, 89 , 335–339.

Brown, E., & Ferris, J. M. (2007). Social capital and philanthropy: An analysis of the impact of social capital on individual giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36 (1), 85–99.

Chua, K.K.T. (2021). The Total Cost of COVID-19 and Quarantines on the Current and Future Generations - T3 Partners’ Update. Available at: https://neda.gov.ph/the-total-cost-of-covid-19-and-quarantines-on-the-present-and-future-generations-t3-partners-update-16-september-2021/ . Accessed 18 Sept 2021.

Department of Health. (2022). National COVID-19 Vaccination Dashboard. Available at https://doh.gov.ph/covid19-vaccination-dashboard . Accessed 7 May 2022.

Eckel, C., Grossman, P. J., & Milano, A. (2007). Is more information always better? An experimental study of charitable giving and hurricane Katrina. Southern Economic Journal, 74 (2), 388–411. https://doi.org/10.2307/20111974 .

Fadda, M., Albanese, E., & Suggs, S. (2020). When a COVID-19 vaccine is ready, will we all be ready for it? International Journal of Public Health, 655 , 711–712.

Fallesen, D. (2021). How COVID-19 impacted vulnerable communities in the Philippines. In: World Bank Blogs . Available at https://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/how-covid-19-impacted-vulnerable-communitiesphilippines#:~:text=Economic%20impact%20on%20communities,and%20its%20severe%20economic%20impact . Accessed 7 Jan 2022.

Give2Asia. (2021). Support COVID-19 coronavirus response in Philippines. Available at https://give2asia.org/covid-19-pandemic-response-philippines/ . Accessed 7 Jan 2022.

Gruber, J. (2004). Pay or pray? The impact of charitable subsidies on religious attendance. Journal of Public Economics, 88 (12), 2635–2655.

Houston, D. J. (2006). “Walking the walk" of public service motivation: Public employees and charitable gifts of time, blood, and money. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16 (1), 67–86.

Ioannidis, J.P. (2020). Global perspective of COVID-19 epidemiology for a full-cycle pandemic. European Journal of Clinical Investigation , 50(12). https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13423 .

Jenni, K. E., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining the “identifiable victim effect.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14 , 235–257.

Lee, B. A., & Farrell, C. R. (2003). Buddy, can you spare a dime? Homelessness, panhandling, and the public. Urban Affairs Review, 38 (3), 299–324.

List, J. A. (2004). Young, selfish, and male: Field evidence of social preferences. Economic Journal, 114 (1), 121–149.

Lyons, M., & Nivison-Smith, I. (2006). Religion and giving in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 41 (4), 419–436.

McClelland, R., & Brooks, A. C. (2004). What is the real relationship between income and charitable giving? Public Finance Review, 32 (5), 483–497.

Ostrower, F. (1997). Why the wealthy give: The culture of elite philanthropy . Princeton University Press.

Book Google Scholar

Peloza, J., & Steel, P. (2005). The price elasticities of charitable contributions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 24 (2), 260–272.

Philippine Statistics Authority. (2021). Highlights of the Philippine Population 2020, Census of Population and Housing, 2021 July 13. Available at https://psa.gov.ph/content/highlights-philippine-population-2020-census-population-and-housing-2020-cph . Accessed 7 Jan 2022.

ReliefWeb. (2020). Public and private sectors join forces to support logistics of COVID-19 vaccine program - Philippines . Available at https://reliefweb.int/report/philippines/public-and-private-sectors-join-forces-support-logistics-covid-19-vaccine-program . Accessed 7 July 2021.

Schelling, T.C. (1968). The life you save may be your own. In: S. Chase (Ed.), Problems in public expenditure analysis , Washington DC: Brookings Institution.

Schervish, P. G. (2006). The moral biography of wealth: Philosophical reflections on the foundation of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35 (3), 477–492.

Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26 , 2–16.

World Bank. (2020). Monitoring COVID-19 impacts on families and firms in the Philippines . The World Bank Brief, November 2020. Available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/philippines/brief/monitoring-covid-19-impacts-on-firms-and-families-in-the-philippines . Accessed 9 July 2021.

World Bank. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19 on households in the Philippines: Results from the Philippines COVID-19 firm survey round 3, May 2021. Available at https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/d38345978d06b3b73bc75fea7261dea6-0070062021/original/PH-COVID-19-High-Frequency-Survey-of-Households-R3-2021-May.pdf . Accessed 7 Jan 2022.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was undertaken with a research grant from the University Research Council of the Ateneo de Manila University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, 1108, Quezon City, Philippines

Rosalina Palanca-Tan

Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

Nelson Matthew P. Tan

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosalina Palanca-Tan .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Palanca-Tan, R., Tan, N.M.P. Charitable Giving Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Philippine Context. Int Adv Econ Res 29 , 49–62 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-023-09869-8

Download citation

Accepted : 06 March 2023

Published : 15 March 2023

Issue Date : May 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-023-09869-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

COVID-19 pandemic
Community pantry
Determinants of charitable giving

JEL Classification

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Emergencies /
Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the Philippines /
Situation Reports

Last updated: 20 December 2023

COVID-19 situation reports

Who philippines situation reports by date, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 142 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 142, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 141 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 141, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 140 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 140, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 139 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 139, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 138 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 138, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 137 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 137, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 136 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 136, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 135 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 135, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 134 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 134, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 133 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 133, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 132 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 132, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 131 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 131, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 130 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 130, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 129 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 129, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 128 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 128, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 127 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 127, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 126 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 126, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 125 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 125, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 124 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 124, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 123 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 123, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 122 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 122, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 121 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 121, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 120 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 120, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 119 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 119, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 118 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 118, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 117 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 117, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 116 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 116, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 115 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 115, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 114 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 114, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 113 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 113, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 112 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 112, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 111 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 111, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 110 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 110, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 109 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 109, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 108 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 108, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 107 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 107, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 106 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 106, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 105 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 105, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 104 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 104, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 103 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 103, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 102 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 102, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 101 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 101, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 100 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 100, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 99 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 99, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 98 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 98, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 97 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 97, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 96 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 96, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 95 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 95, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 94 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 94, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 93 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 93, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 92 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 92, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 90 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 90, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 89 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 89, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 88 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 88, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 87 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 87, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 86 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 86, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 85 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 85, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 84 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 84, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 83 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 83, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 82 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 82, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 81 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 81, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 80 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 80, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 79 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 79, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 78 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 78, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 77 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 77, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 76 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 76, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 75 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 75, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 71 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 71, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 70 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 70, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 69 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 69, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 68 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 68, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 67 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 67, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 66 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 66, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 65 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 65, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 63 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 63, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 62 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 62, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 61 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 61, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 60 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 60, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 59 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 59, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 58 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 58, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 57 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 57, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 56 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 56, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 55 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 55, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 54 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 54, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 53 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 53, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 52 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 52, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 51 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 51, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 50 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 50, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 49 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 49, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 48 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 48, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 47 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 47, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 46 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 46, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 45 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 45, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 44 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 44, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 43 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 43, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 42 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 42, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 41 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 41, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 40 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 40, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 39 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 39, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 38 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 38, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 37 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 37, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 36 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 36, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 35 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 35, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 34 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 34, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 33 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 33, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 32 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 32, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 31 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 31, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 30 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 30, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 29 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 29, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 28 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 28, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 27 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 27, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 26 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 26, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 25 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 25, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 23 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 23, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 22 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 22, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 21 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 21, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 20 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 20, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 19 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 19, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 18 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 18, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 17 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 17, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 15 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 15, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 14 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 14, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 13 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 13, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 12 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 12, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 11 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 11, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 10 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 10, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 09 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 09, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 08 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 08, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 07 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 07, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 06 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 06, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 05 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 05, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 04 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 04, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 03 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 03, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 02 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 02, covid-19 in the philippines situation report 01 covid-19 in the philippines situation report 01.

More situation reports from WHO

Examining persuasive message type to encourage staying at home during the COVID-19 pandemic and social lockdown: A randomized controlled study in Japan

• We examined persuasive message types in terms of a narrator encouraging self-restraint.
• Messages from a governor, an expert, a physician, a patient, and a resident were compared.
• The message from a physician increased intention to stay at home the most.
• The physician’s message conveyed the crisis of collapse of the medical system.

Behavioral change is the only prevention against the COVID-19 pandemic until vaccines become available. This is the first study to examine the most persuasive message type in terms of narrator difference in encouraging people to stay at home during the COVID-19 pandemic and social lockdown.

Participants (n = 1,980) were randomly assigned to five intervention messages (from a governor, a public health expert, a physician, a patient, and a resident of an outbreak area) and a control message. Intention to stay at home before and after reading messages was assessed. A one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s or Games–Howell test was conducted.

Compared with other messages, the message from a physician significantly increased participants’ intention to stay at home in areas with high numbers of people infected (versus a governor, p = .002; an expert, p = .023; a resident, p = .004).

The message from a physician―which conveyed the crisis of overwhelmed hospitals and consequent risk of people being unable to receive treatment―increased the intent to stay at home the most.

Practice implications

Health professionals and media operatives may be able to encourage people to stay at home by disseminating the physicians’ messages through media and the internet.

1. Introduction

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged as the largest global pandemic ever experienced [ 1 ]. Experts have proposed that social lockdown will lead to improvements such as controlling the increase in the number of infected individuals and preventing a huge burden on the healthcare system [ [2] , [3] , [4] ]. Governments of many countries across the world have declared local and national social lockdown [ 4 , 5 ]. In April 2020, the Japanese government declared a state of emergency, which allows prefectural governors to request residents to refrain from unnecessary and nonurgent outings from home [ 6 ]. However, despite such governor declarations, people in various countries have resisted and disregarded calls to stay at home [ [7] , [8] , [9] ]. Because social lockdown is the only existing weapon for prevention of the pandemic until vaccines becomes available to treat COVID-19, behavioral change in individuals regarding staying at home is crucial [ 3 , 4 ]. Many news articles about COVID-19 are published daily by the mass media and over the internet. Such articles convey messages from governors, public health experts, physicians, COVID-19 patients, and residents of outbreak areas, encouraging people to stay at home. This is the first study to examine which narrator’s message is most persuasive in encouraging people to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic and social lockdown.

2.1. Participants and design

Participants were recruited from people registered in a survey company database in Japan. The eligibility criterion was men and women aged 18–69 years. Exclusion criteria were individuals who answered screening questions by stating: that they cannot go out because of illness or disability; that they have been diagnosed with a mental illness; or/and that they or their family members have been infected with COVID-19. A total of 1,980 participants completed the survey from May 9–11, 2020, when the state of emergency covered all prefectures in Japan. Participants were included according to the population composition ratio in Japan nationwide by gender, age, and residential area. Participants were randomly assigned either to a group that received an intervention message (i.e., from a governor, a public health expert, a physician, a patient, and a resident of the outbreak area) or to one that received a control message. The study was registered as a University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (number: UMIN000040286) on May 1, 2020. The methods of the present study adhered to CONSORT guidelines. The protocol was approved by the ethical review committee at the Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo (number: 2020032NI). All participants gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

2.2. Intervention and control messages

We searched news articles about COVID-19 using Yahoo! JAPAN News ( https://news.yahoo.co.jp ), the largest Japanese news portal site. We also searched videos posted by residents of outbreak areas such as New York using YouTube ( https://www.youtube.com/user/YouTubeJapan ). By referring to these articles and videos, we created five intervention messages from a governor, a public health expert, a physician, a patient, and a resident of an outbreak area. The content of each message encouraged readers to stay at home. We included threat and coping messages in each intervention message based on protection motivation theory (PMT) [ 10 , 11 ]. Appendix A shows the five intervention messages used in this study, translated into English for this report. For a control message we obtained textual information about bruxism from the website of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare ( https://www.e-healthnet.mhlw.go.jp/ ).

2.3. Measures

The primary outcome was intention to stay at home. The secondary outcomes were PMT constructs (i.e., perceived severity, vulnerability, response efficacy, and self-efficacy). Participants responded to two or three questions for each measure (see Appendix B ). These measures were adapted and modified from previous studies [ [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] ]. All primary and secondary outcomes were measured before and after the participants read intervention or control messages, and mean scores were calculated. Higher scores indicated greater intention and perception. All participants were asked for their sociodemographic information before they read intervention or control messages.

2.4. Sample size

Based on the effect size in a previous randomized controlled study [ 16 ], we estimated a small effect size (Cohen’s d = .20) in the current study. We conducted a power analysis at an alpha error rate of .05 (two-tailed) and a beta error rate of .20. The power analysis indicated that 330 participants were required in each of the intervention and control groups.

2.5. Statistical analysis

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with the absolute change in mean values for each measure before and after intervention as the dependent variable and the group assignment as the independent variable. For multiple comparisons, Tukey’s test was conducted on significant main effects where appropriate. The Games–Howell test was performed when the assumption of homogeneity of variances was not satisfied. Additionally, we conducted subgroup analyses including only participants who lived in 13 “specified warning prefectures,” where the number of infected individuals showed a marked increase [ 17 ]. A p value of <.05 was considered significant in all statistical tests. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

Table 1 shows the participants’ characteristics. Table 2 , Table 3 present a comparison among the five intervention groups using one-way ANOVA and multiple comparisons when including all prefectures and only participants who lived in the specified warning prefectures, respectively. More significant differences between intervention messages were found in the specified warning prefectures compared with all prefectures. In Table 3 , the Games–Howell test indicates that the message from a physician increased participants’ intention to stay at home significantly more than other narrators’ messages (versus a governor, p = .002; an expert, p = .023; a resident, p = .004). Multiple comparisons demonstrated that the message from a physician increased participants’ perceived severity (versus a governor, p = .015), response efficacy (versus a resident, p = .014), and self-efficacy (versus a governor, p = .022; a patient, p = .009) significantly more than other narrators’ messages.

Participants’ sociodemographic information.

	Governor (n = 330)	Expert (n = 330)	Physician (n = 330)	Patient (n = 330)	Resident (n = 330)	Control (n = 330)	Total (N = 1,980)
	49.7	49.7	49.7	49.7	49.7	49.7	49.7

18–29	16.1	16.1	16.1	16.1	16.1	16.1	16.1
30–39	18.5	18.5	18.5	18.5	18.5	18.5	18.5
40–49	23.6	23.6	23.6	23.6	23.6	23.6	23.6
50–59	20.6	20.6	20.6	20.6	20.6	20.6	20.6
60–69	21.2	21.2	21.2	21.2	21.2	21.2	21.2

Hokkaido	4.8	4.8	4.8	4.8	4.8	4.8	4.8
Tohoku	7.9	7.9	7.9	7.9	7.9	7.9	7.9
Kanto	32.4	32.4	32.4	32.4	32.4	32.4	32.4
Hokuriku and Chubu	17.9	17.9	17.9	17.9	17.9	17.9	17.9
Kinki	16.7	16.7	16.7	16.7	16.7	16.7	16.7
Chugoku and Shikoku	8.8	8.8	8.8	8.8	8.8	8.8	8.8
Kyushu and Okinawa	11.5	11.5	11.5	11.5	11.5	11.5	11.5
	16.8	17.3	16.2	16.3	17.8	15.5	64.3

Less than high school	1.5	1.8	1.2	3.0	1.8	0.6	1.7
High school graduate	29.1	25.2	24.2	23.0	27.0	27.6	26.0
Some college	21.5	24.5	28.2	22.7	26.4	21.5	24.1
College graduate	43.6	39.1	38.2	42.1	36.7	44.5	40.7
Graduate school	4.2	9.4	8.2	9.1	8.2	5.8	7.5

Less than 2 million yen	7.9	9.7	8.8	9.4	8.2	11.5	9.2
2–6 million yen	42.7	43.3	40.0	46.1	45.5	46.1	43.9
More than 6 million yen	41.8	34.5	42.1	35.2	36.1	33.6	37.2
Unknown	7.6	12.4	9.1	9.4	10.3	8.8	9.6

Comparison of amount of change before and after intervention among groups when including all prefectures (N = 1,980).

	Governor (n = 330)			Expert (n = 330)			Physician (n = 330)			Patient (n = 330)			Resident (n = 330)				Control (n = 330)
	Before	After	Change	Before	After	Change	Before	After	Change	Before	After	Change	Before	After	Change		Before	After	Change
Intention	4.72 (0.73)	4.89 (0.74)	0.17 (0.13–0.22)	4.81 (0.75)	5.00 (0.74)	0.19 (0.14–0.24)	4.74 (0.71)	5.01 (0.76)	0.27 (0.21–0.32)	4.69 (0.79)	4.91 (0.82)	0.22 (0.16–0.27)	4.78 (0.74)	4.96 (0.74)	0.18 (0.14–0.23)	.098	4.71 (0.74)	4.77 (0.75)	0.06 (0.01–0.09)
Severity	4.42 (0.79)	4.48 (0.84)	0.06 (0.01–0.12)	4.34 (0.84)	4.51 (0.85)	0.17 (0.10–0.24)	4.25 (0.86)	4.42 (0.87)	0.17 (0.10–0.24)	4.24 (0.93)	4.57 (0.90)		4.37 (0.88)	4.51 (0.88)	0.14 (0.09–0.21)	<.001	4.34 (0.84)	4.27 (0.86)	−0.07 (−.14 to −0.00)
Vulnerability	3.04 (0.88)	3.19 (0.86)	0.15 (0.07–0.22)	3.10 (0.97)	3.24 (1.00)	0.14 (0.06–0.23)	3.09 (0.89)	3.21 (0.97)	0.12 (0.04–0.20)	3.05 (0.96)	3.46 (1.00)		3.16 (0.90)	3.58 (0.92)		<.001	3.10 (0.86)	3.13 (0.82)	0.029 (−0.04–0.10)
Response efficacy	4.42 (0.85)	4.67 (0.75)	0.25 (0.18–0.31)	4.47 (0.84)	4.79 (0.82)	0.33 (0.26–0.39)	4.40 (0.80)	4.76 (0.82)	0.36 (0.29–0.43)	4.42 (0.86)	4.71 (0.88)	0.29 (0.22–0.37)	4.50 (0.83)	4.74 (0.83)	0.24 (0.18–0.30)	.065	4.43 (0.76)	4.52 (0.81)	.09 (0.04–0.15)
Self-efficacy	4.67 (0.73)	4.85 (0.75)	0.18 (0.12–0.23)	4.72 (0.78)	4.94 (0.75)	0.22 (0.15–0.28)	4.67 (0.73)	4.95 (0.75)	0.28 (0.22–0.34)	4.67 (0.77)	4.85 (0.81)	0.17 (0.12–0.23)	4.72 (0.78)	4.92 (0.75)	0.20 (0.15–0.26)	.089	4.65 (0.71)	4.73 (0.75)	.08 (0.03–0.12)

Comparison of amount of change before and after intervention among groups when including only the “specified warning prefectures” (N = 1,274).

	Governor (n = 214)			Expert (n = 220)			Physician (n = 207)			Patient (n = 208)			Resident (n = 227)				Control (n = 198)
	Before	After	Change	Before	After	Change	Before	After	Change	Before	After	Change	Before	After	Change		Before	After	Change
Intention	4.72 (0.72)	4.89 (0.75)	0.17 (0.11.22)	4.88 (0.72)	5.07 (0.69)	0.19 (0.13–0.25)	4.75 (0.71)	5.08 (0.70)		4.72 (0.79)	4.92 (0.84)	0.21 (0.14–0.27)	4.81 (0.76)	4.99 (0.74)	0.17 (0.12–0.23)	.003	4.68 (0.76)	4.79 (0.73)	0.11 (0.05–0.16)
Severity	4.40 (0.79)	4.46 (0.82)	0.06 (−0.00–0.12)	4.29 (0.84)	4.51 (0.84)		4.21 (0.86)	4.45 (0.85)		4.26 (0.90)	4.56 (0.91)		4.35 (0.90)	4.45 (0.90)	0.10 (0.03–0.18)	<.001	4.37 (0.81)	4.30 (0.82)	–0.08 (−0.16–0.00)
Vulnerability	3.07 (0.84)	3.23 (0.86)	0.16 (0.07–0.25)	3.12 (0.98)	3.24 (1.04)	0.12 (0.02–0.22)	3.14 (0.88)	3.24 (0.99)	0.10 (0.00–0.19)	3.11 (0.94)	3.49 (0.95)		3.14 (0.90)	3.56 (0.92)		<.001	3.09 (0.88)	3.17 (0.87)	.09 (−0.01–0.19)
Response efficacy	4.46 (0.80)	4.69 (0.74)	0.23 (0.16–0.30)	4.49 (0.84)	4.85 (0.81)		4.41 (0.78)	4.78 (0.80)		4.41 (0.86)	4.69 (0.91)	0.28 (0.19–0.37)	4.54 (0.88)	4.73 (0.88)	0.19 (0.12–0.26)	.005	4.42 (0.77)	4.52 (0.81)	.10 (0.04–0.17)
Self-efficacy	4.68 (0.75)	4.85 (0.75)	0.17 (0.11–0.23)	4.81 (0.77)	5.00 (0.74)	0.19 (0.11–0.28)	4.68 (0.68)	5.01 (0.71)		4.70 (0.76)	4.86 (0.85)	0.16 (0.09–0.23)	4.74 (0.81)	4.94 (0.76)	0.21 (0.14–0.27)	.008	4.65 (0.70)	4.73 (0.75)	.08 (0.03–0.14)

4. Discussion and conclusion

4.1. discussion.

As Appendix A shows, the message from a physician specifically communicated the critical situation of hospitals being overwhelmed and the consequent risk of people being unable to receive treatment. Depiction of the crisis of overwhelmed hospitals may have evoked heightened sensation that elicited sensory, affective, and arousal responses in recipients. Social lockdown presumably evoked psychological reactance in many individuals [ 18 ]. Psychological reactance is considered one of the factors that impedes individuals’ staying at home during a pandemic [ 18 ]. Studies of psychological reactance have indicated that heightened sensation is the feature of a message that reduces psychological reactance [ 19 , 20 ]. Additionally, in Japan recommendations by physicians have a strong influence on individuals’ decision making owing to the remnants of paternalism in the patient–physician relationship [ 21 ]. These may constitute the reasons for the message from a physician generating the greatest impact on recipients’ protection motivation.

Public health professionals, governors, media professionals, and other influencers should use messages from physicians and disseminate relevant articles through the media and social networking services to encourage people to stay at home. It is important that health professionals and media have a network and collaborate with one another [ 22 ]. To build relationships and provide reliable resources, health professionals are expected to hold press conferences and study meetings with journalists. Through such networking, journalists can acquire accurate information in dealing with the pandemic, such as using messages from physicians to encourage people to stay at home. Consequently, journalists should disseminate such messages. It is also important that governments, municipalities, medical associations, and other public institutions convey messages from physicians and that the media effectively spread those messages. Owing to the advances of Web 2.0 [ 23 ], health professionals’ grassroots communication with journalists and citizens via social media may provide opportunities for many people to access persuasive messages from physicians.

4.1.1. Limitations

First, the content of the intervention messages in this study may not represent voices of all governors, public health experts, physicians, patients, and residents of outbreak areas. Second, it is not clear from this study which sentences in the intervention message made the most impact on recipients and why. Third, this study assessed intention rather than actual behavior. Finally, it is unclear as to what extent the present findings are generalizable to populations other than the Japanese participants in this study.

4.2. Conclusion

In areas with high numbers of infected people, the message from a physician, which conveyed the crisis of hospitals being overwhelmed and the consequent risk of people being unable to receive treatment, increased the intention to stay at home to a greater extent than other messages from a governor, a public health expert, a patient with COVID-19, and a resident of an outbreak area.

4.3. Practice implications

Governors, health professionals, and media professionals may be able to encourage people to stay at home by disseminating the physicians’ messages through media such as television and newspapers as well as social networking services on the internet.

This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI (grant number 19K10615).

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Tsuyoshi Okuhara: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Funding acquisition. Hiroko Okada: Methodology, Investigation, Writing - review & editing. Takahiro Kiuchi: Supervision, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement

We thank Hugh McGonigle, from Edanz Group ( https://en-author-services.edanzgroup.com/ac ), for editing a draft of the manuscript.

Appendix A.

Intervention: the message from a governor.

The following is a message from the governor of your local area.

“As the novel coronavirus spreads, now is a crucial time in deciding whether we will see an explosive growth in the number of cases. The same epidemic and overwhelmed hospitals that have occurred in cities abroad can occur here. Unless absolutely essential, please refrain from going out unnecessarily and stay at home.
Please do not go to these three high-density places: closed spaces with poor ventilation, crowded places where many people gather together, and intimate spaces where you would have conversations in close proximity. As for commuting, please work from home or stagger commuting times where possible to reduce contact with other people.
The action taken by all of us will be the most effective remedy in overcoming this disease and ending the coronavirus epidemic quickly. We will do our utmost to improve our healthcare provision system, prevent the spread of infection, and mitigate the impacts on the local economy.
Let us all work together to overcome this difficult situation.”

Please avoid leaving your house as much as possible.

Staying at home can save lives and prevent the spread of infection.

Intervention: The message from an expert

The following is a message from an infectious disease control expert.

“One characteristic of the novel coronavirus is that it is difficult to notice that you are infected. As a result, it is possible that you could feel healthy but pass the virus on to 2–3 people within a week.
Those individuals could then each pass the virus on to a further 2–3 people, and those in turn could then pass the virus on to another 2–3 people. Two will become 4, 4 will become 8, 8 will become 16, 16 will become 32, and so on, and the number of infected people will keep doubling.
Unless contact between people decreases, it is estimated that about 850,000 people will become seriously ill in Japan and about 420,000 people will die.
However, if everybody stops going out and stays at home, and if we are able to reduce our contact with people by 80 %, we will be able to prevent the spread of infection. For example, stop meeting with your friends, stop going shopping, and work from home. If we can reduce the number of people infected, we can reduce the burden on doctors and nurses and prevent hospitals being overwhelmed.”

Intervention: The message from a physician

The following is a message from an emergency medical care doctor.

“The beds and intensive care units at my hospital have all been filled by patients who have the novel coronavirus, and we can no longer accept new patients. The overwhelming of hospitals and collapse of the healthcare system that happened in Italy and New York is already under way in Japan.
Doctors and nurses are being fully mobilized for treatment, but they lack masks and protective clothing. We have cut plastic folders with scissors to make face shields to cover our faces. We use the same mask for 3 days. With the high risk of infection, we are being pushed to the limit.
It is not uncommon for infection to occur within the hospital. Even if only one of the doctors or nurses gets infected, many co-workers have to isolate themselves at home and are unable to continue providing treatment. This means that, if any one of you becomes infected and their condition becomes critical, there may be no treatment available.
We are staying in the hospitals and continuing to provide treatment. So please, stay at home. If you do your part, we will be able to do ours.”

Intervention: The message from a patient

The following is a message from a patient who is infected with the novel coronavirus.

“I had a 40-degree fever and a headache that felt like someone was stomping on my head. I could not stop coughing, and the pain felt as though I was inhaling broken glass. I really thought that I was going to die.
I have no pre-existing conditions, do not smoke, and was perfectly healthy, but now I cannot breathe without a breathing tube. I have a drip and a catheter stuck into both of my hands. Right now, I feel ten times better than I did when I was at my worst, and I am able to talk about my condition. But my fever refused to go down even after I had taken medication, and I do not know how many days have passed since I was hospitalized.
I do not know where I was infected. I do not know the route of infection, whether it was my workplace, somewhere I had visited for work, or when I was out shopping. Afterward, the rest of my family also tested positive. I had passed it to them.
You do not know where you can be infected. Do not assume that you will be okay because you are young or healthy. The virus does not pick and choose. Please stop going out. Stay at home.”

Intervention: The message from a resident

The following is a message from an individual who lives in an area where an outbreak of novel coronavirus has occurred.

“In the beginning, I did not really feel a sense of crisis. Of course I thought ‘Coronavirus is scary; better be careful,’ but nothing more. However, in the area where I live, the number of those infected has increased tenfold from 1500 to 15,000 in just one week. It is a real outbreak.
The number of infected people increased all at once and overwhelmed the hospitals. They are lacking beds and ventilators. Some doctors and nurses are infected, and there are not enough hospital staff. Because of the healthcare system collapse, even if you are infected with coronavirus you will be unable to receive a test or treatment. If I or my family are infected and our condition becomes critical, we will likely die.
I am scared to go grocery shopping. I always disinfect my purchases with alcohol, but soon my alcohol will run out.
If you continue to go out, the number of those infected could jump to the tens of thousands, and the situation in your area will be the same as it is here. Please stop going out. Stay at home.”

A control message

According to the traditional definition, grinding one’s teeth is when somebody makes a sound by strongly grinding the teeth together, usually unconsciously or while asleep. Nowadays, it is often referred to as ‘teeth grinding,’ a term which also covers various actions that we do while awake.

Whether you are sleeping or awake, the non-functional biting habit of grinding one’s teeth dynamically or statically, or clenching one’s teeth, can also be referred to as bruxism (sleep bruxism if it occurs at night). Bruxism can be categorized into the movements of: sliding the upper and lower teeth together like mortar and pestle (grinding); firmly and statically engaging the upper and lower teeth (clenching); and dynamically bringing the upper and lower teeth together with a tap (tapping).

Bruxism is difficult to diagnose, as it often has no noticeable symptoms. Stress and dentition are thought to be causes of bruxism, but it is currently unclear and future research is anticipated.

Splint therapy, which involves the use of a mouthpiece as an artificial plastic covering on one’s teeth, and cognitive behavioral therapy are being researched as treatments for bruxism.

Appendix B.

(Cronbach’s α 0.863)

(1) Would you like to cancel or postpone plans such as “meeting people,” “eating out,” and “attending events” because of the new coronavirus infection?

(2) Would you like to reduce the time you spend shopping in stores outside your home because of the new coronavirus infection?

(3) Would you like to avoid crowded spaces because of the new coronavirus infection?

(Cronbach’s α 0.480)

(1) How serious do you think your health will be if you are infected with the new coronavirus?

(2) How serious do you think the social situation will be if the new coronavirus spreads?

(Cronbach’s α 0.875)

(1) How likely are you to be infected with the new coronavirus?

(2) How likely are you to be infected with the new coronavirus when compared with someone of the same sex and age as you?

(Cronbach’s α 0.921)

(1) Do you think that you can save your life from the new coronavirus infection and prevent the spread of infection …by canceling or postponing your appointments such as “meeting people,” “eating out,” and “attending events”?

(2) …by reducing the time you spend shopping at stores outside your home?

(3) …by avoiding crowded spaces?

(Cronbach’s α 0.853)

(1) Do you think that you can cancel or postpone your appointments such as “meeting people,” “eating out,” and “attending events” because of the new coronavirus infection?

(2) Do you think you can reduce the time you spend shopping in stores outside your home because of the new coronavirus infection?

(3) Do you think you can avoid the crowded spaces because of the new coronavirus infection?

All questions above were on a scale of 1–6, ranging from “extremely unlikely” to “unlikely,” “a little unlikely,” “a little likely,” “likely,” and “extremely likely.”

Share full article

Supported by

A Record Virus Surge in the Philippines, but Doctors Are Hopeful

Health officials say recent infections have been milder than those seen in previous waves, though they are still urging caution.

By Sui-Lee Wee and Camille Elemia

The Philippines is grappling with a Covid-19 surge that has accelerated at a pace not seen since the start of the pandemic. But fewer people are severely ill than in previous waves, an encouraging sign for countries bracing for a similar rise in cases.

The government said last week there was a “very high” likelihood that the Omicron variant had fueled the latest outbreak, which began after the Christmas and New Year holiday period, though sequencing results have also shown that the Delta variant is still spreading in the country.

What is clear is that infections appear different. Hospitals are not yet overwhelmed. Patients are showing up at health care facilities with other illnesses and then learning they have the coronavirus. People are recovering faster.

The outbreak in the Philippines adds to a growing body of evidence worldwide that the Omicron variant may not be as deadly as feared , especially among the vaccinated. Still, experts are urging caution.

Already, the surge has caused a run on medicines, and the rapid transmissibility of the virus could create new opportunities for more dangerous mutations to spread. Hospitals could be crushed in a country with one of the lowest vaccination rates in Asia, a region that is still bracing for its first wave of Omicron infections.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC) 2024

Published by the Food Security Information Network (FSIN) in support of the Global Network against Food Crises (GNAFC), the GRFC 2024 is the reference document for global, regional and country-level acute food insecurity in 2023. The report is the result of a collaborative effort among 16 partners to achieve a consensus-based assessment of acute food insecurity and malnutrition in countries with food crises and aims to inform humanitarian and development action.

FSIN and Global Network Against Food Crises. 2024. GRFC 2024 . Rome.

When citing this report online please use this link:

https://www.fsinplatform.org/report/global-report-food-crises-2024/

Document	File
Global Report on Food Crises 2023 - mid-year update
Global Report on Food Crises 2023
Global Report on Food Crises 2022
Global Report on Food Crises 2021 - September update
Global Report on Food Crises 2021
Global Report on Food Crises 2021 (In brief)
Global Report on Food Crises 2020 - September update In times of COVID-19
Global Report on Food Crises 2020
Global Report on Food Crises 2019 - September update
Global Report on Food Crises 2019
Global Report on Food Crises 2019 (In brief)
Global Report on Food Crises 2019 (Key Messages)
Global Report on Food Crises 2019 (Key Messages) - French
Global Report on Food Crises 2019 (Key Messages) - Arabic

Advanced search

IMAGES

COVID-19 & Xavier: Documents
COVID-19 & Xavier: Documents
As Covid Surges, Filipino Students Begin Second Year Online
COVID-19 and mental health
Coronavirus Alert
≫ Nationalism and Covid-19 Pandemic Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com

VIDEO

IMG 1094
How to Structure Your Persuasive Essay
#Rizal greatest #essay #Philippines #politics #history #Asia #anticolonialism #Spain #Geopolitics
Persuasive Speech Video about Covid 19
Comm 111Z Persuasive Speech due 11/19
Persuasive Speech 3 11/19/2023

COMMENTS

Persuasive Essay About Covid19
Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 In The Philippines - Example. Expert Tip. ... Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19 Integration. Covid19 has drastically changed the way people interact in schools, markets, and workplaces. In short, it has affected all aspects of life. However, people have started to learn to live with Covid19.
The Philippines' COVID-19 Response:
These were undertaken in conjunction with what General Carlito Galvez (retired), chief implementor of national policy on COVID-19, calls the first imperative of the Philippine's national action plan against COVID-19; that is, ensuring people's compliance and vigilance to the minimum health standards. 10 Galvez further reiterated that the ...
PDF Impacts of COVID-19 on Communities in the Philippines
COVID-19 Context The Philippine government has implemented varying degrees of quarantine restrictions depending on critical COVID 19 key indicators, such as reproduction rate and testing and health care capacity. During the fourth quarter of 2020 until the second quarter of 2021, majority of the provinces, cities, and ...
COVID-19: an ongoing public health crisis in the Philippines
The Philippines is contending with one of the worst COVID-19 outbreaks in southeast Asia. As of April 18, 2021, there were 926 052 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and 15 810 deaths recorded. WHO has warned that the country's health-care system risks being overwhelmed. From March 29, 2021, a new round of lockdown was implemented in Manila and four surrounding provinces to suppress the new surge ...
Journalism, public health, and COVID-19: some preliminary insights from
Abstract. In this essay, we engage with the call for Extraordinary Issue: Coronavirus, Crisis and Communication. Situated in the Philippines, we reflect on how COVID-19 has made visible the often-overlooked relationship between journalism and public health. In covering the pandemic, journalists struggle with the shrinking space for press ...
Early response to COVID-19 in the Philippines
Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with weak health systems are especially vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, we describe the challenges and early response of the Philippine Government, focusing on travel restrictions, community interventions, risk communication and testing, from 30 January 2020 when the first case was reported, to 21 March 2020.
COVID-19 vaccines in the Philippine context
By: Gideon Lasco, Joshua San Pedro - @inquirerdotnet. Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:05 AM December 16, 2020. Several months and over 400,000 COVID-19 cases later, the Philippines has begun its long-awaited and promised process of acquiring vaccines as a means to end the pandemic. As early as April, President Duterte spoke optimistically of the ...
PDF Article Title: The Philippines in the time of COVID-19: Early
The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2) has spread globally since its first report in Wuhan, China on December 31, 2019. On January 30, the Philippines reported its first two imported cases of COVID-19 in a couple from Wuhan. One of them died on February 1st, becoming the first COVID-19 death outside China.
Filipinos and Nationalism During the COVID-19 Pandemic
March 26th, 2020 by Juliene Guillermo. As COVID-19 strikes the Philippine nation, people rise together to counter it. At the forefront of the fight against the virus are our healthcare workers and various frontliners. Daily, they face the hazard of infection with their mantra: "We go to work for you.
PDF Early response to COVID-19 in the Philippines
ARLY RESPONSE TO COVID-19Travel restrictionsTravel restrictions in the Philippines were imposed as early as 28 January, before the first confirmed case was reported on 30 January (Fig. 1a).9 After the first few COVID-19 cases and deaths, the Government conducted contact tracing and imposed additional travel restrictions,10 with arrivals from ...
Fighting Covid Poverty in the Philippines
At one point, blare after dystopian blare came every 20 minutes or so. The confirmed Covid-19 case total in the Philippines breached the one million mark in late April. New daily cases were ...
The Philippine economy under the pandemic: From Asian tiger ...
The Philippines learned from the COVID-19 pandemic that a services- and remittances-led growth model doesn't do too well in a global disease outbreak. Ronald U. Mendoza explains how Manila can ...
COVID-19: an ongoing public health crisis in the Philippines
The Philippines is contending with one of the worst COVID-19 outbreaks in southeast Asia. As of April 18, 2021, there were 926 052 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection and 15 810 deaths recorded. WHO has warned that the country's health-care system risks being overwhelmed. From March 29, 2021, a new round of lockdown was implemented in Manila and four ...
Understanding COVID-19 dynamics and the effects of ...
COVID-19 dynamics in the Philippines are driven by age, contact structure, mobility, and MHS adherence. Continued compliance with low-cost MHS should help the Philippines control the epidemic until vaccines are widely distributed, but disease resurgence may be occurring due to a combination of low population immunity and detection rates and new variants of concern.
Philippines Covid-19: The hunger crisis has worsened, so why does
Mistrust of vaccines is major issue in the Philippines, and a dengue vaccine controversy hangs over the country's efforts to immunize against Covid-19. Community kitchens rely on donations to ...
Journalism, public health, and COVID-19: some preliminary insights from
In this essay, we hope to engage with ongoing discussion about journalism and public health by reflecting on how health reporting during COVID-19 in the Philippines relates to broader, emergent, and interconnected issues of journalistic practices, tech-nological changes, and structural constraints in the country.
100 days of COVID-19 in the Philippines: How WHO supported the
The World Health Organization (WHO) has been working with Ministries of Health worldwide to prepare and respond to COVID-19. In the Philippines, WHO country office in the Philippines and its partners have been working with the Department of Health and subnational authorities to respond to the pandemic. The country level response is done with support from the WHO regional office and headquarters.
Journalism, public health, and COVID-19: some preliminary insights from
In this essay, we hope to engage with ongoing discussion about journalism and public health by reflecting on how health reporting during COVID-19 in the Philippines relates to broader, emergent, and interconnected issues of journalistic practices, technological changes, and structural constraints in the country.
First COVID-19 infections in the Philippines: a case report
The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is responsible for more fatalities than the SARS coronavirus, despite being in the initial stage of a global pandemic. The first suspected case in the Philippines was investigated on January 22, 2020, and 633 suspected cases were reported as of March 1. We describe the clinical and epidemiological aspects of the first two confirmed COVID-19 cases in the ...
Charitable Giving Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Philippine ...
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused unprecedented socioeconomic difficulties for many countries, including the Philippines. The nationwide lockdown implemented in the Philippines starting in March 2020 to slow the spread of the virus restricted mobility and business activities resulting in substantial adverse effects on jobs, household income, and food security (World Bank 2020).
COVID-19 situation reports
WHO Philippines situation reports by date. 20 December 2023. COVID-19 in the Philippines Situation Report 142. 27 November 2023. COVID-19 in the Philippines Situation Report 141. 12 November 2023. COVID-19 in the Philippines Situation Report 140. 29 October 2023.
Examining persuasive message type to encourage staying at home during
Such articles convey messages from governors, public health experts, physicians, COVID-19 patients, and residents of outbreak areas, encouraging people to stay at home. This is the first study to examine which narrator's message is most persuasive in encouraging people to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic and social lockdown.
A Record Virus Surge in the Philippines, but Doctors Are Hopeful
The number of active Covid-19 cases in the Philippines hit 290,938 on Monday, a record, and sharply up from 10,095 a month ago. Health experts say the true number is far higher because the ...
Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC) 2024
The Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC) 2024 confirms the enormity of the challenge of achieving the goal of ending hunger by 2030. In 2023, nearly 282 million people or 21.5 percent of the analysed population in 59 countries/territories faced high levels of acute food insecurity requiring urgent food and livelihood assistance. This additional 24 million people since 2022 is explained by ...

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Step 1: Choose a Specific Thesis Statement

Step 2: Research and Gather Information

Step 3: Outline Your Essay

Step 4: Write the Introduction

Step 5: Provide Background Information

Step 6: Develop Body Paragraphs

Step 7: Address Counterarguments

Step 8: Write the Conclusion

Step 9: Revise and Proofread

Step 10: Cite Your Sources

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19 Vaccine

Examples of Persuasive Essay About COVID-19 Integration

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid 19

Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19

Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Common Topics for a Persuasive Essay on COVID-19

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I write an informative essay about COVID-19?

How do I write an expository essay about COVID-19?

Keep reading

COVID-19 vaccines in the Philippine context

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

Philippines

The Philippine economy under the pandemic: From Asian tiger to sick man again?

What went wrong?

First COVID-19 infections in the Philippines: a case report

Case presentation

Conclusions

History prior to hospitalisation

Clinical course of patient 1

Clinical course of patient 2

Discussion and conclusion

Availability of data and materials

Abbreviations

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Competing interests

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Tropical Medicine and Health

Charitable Giving Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Philippine Context

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

The effect of altruism on COVID-19 vaccination rates

Is There Broad-Based Support in High-Income Countries for COVID-19 Vaccine Donation? Evidence from Seven Countries

Willingness to Pay for a COVID-19 Vaccine

Introduction

Conceptual Framework

Methodology

Demographic and Socio-economic Characteristics

Charitable Giving

Predictors of Charitable Giving to a Non-government COVID-19 Vaccination Program

Predictors of Charitable Giving to a Community Pantry

Conclusions

Data Availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Corresponding author

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

JEL Classification

COVID-19 situation reports

Examining persuasive message type to encourage staying at home during the COVID-19 pandemic and social lockdown: A randomized controlled study in Japan

Practice implications

1. Introduction

2.1. Participants and design

2.2. Intervention and control messages

2.3. Measures

2.4. Sample size