Table 1.

Policies related to social resilience to COVID-19.

Related Policies	Effects (Positive +/Negative −)	Citation
Social Distancing Policy	(+) Internal regulatory policy restrictions at the national level have inhibited the spread of COVID-19.	[39]
Mitigation Actions	(+) Mitigation policies can effectively control the spread of the epidemic	[40]
National Prevention Policies	(+) Policies (masks, home orders, congregation restrictions, social distance) had a significantly lower average mortality rate for low resilience communities.	[41]
	(+) Good political communication helps to improve political messages and thus social resilience.	[42]
COVID-19 policies applied to disabled people	(−) Policy responses should focus on social resilience and disabling barriers that force disabled people into states of vulnerability.	[43]
COVID-19 vaccination	(−) Vaccination resources are allocated with attention to community-level adaptation to ensure rationalization of vaccine supply.	[44]
Urban medical allocation policy	(−) Government action has resulted in an uneven distribution of the quality impact of access to the COVID-19 due to social inequalities at the individual and municipal levels.	[45]
Non-pharmacological intervention policies	(−) Many of these measures are not feasible for people living in socially maladjusted areas.	[46]
Stay-at-home	(−) Difficulties in complying with policies during “stay-at-home” periods are associated with less social resilience, maintaining it for a long time will have a negative impact on the psychology of the public.	[47,48]
The lockdowns	(−) COVID-19 exposed Australia’s systemic, demographic, and spatial vulnerabilities, while embargo policies led to reduced economic resilience.	[49]