3/19—Understanding policy variation in pandemic response
I do it my way: Understanding policy variation in pandemic response across Europe
We first map the diversity of policy responses taken using two original indicators : the stringency and scope of freedom limitations and the depth of control used in their enforcement. Second, we elaborate three theoretical scenarios to explain cross-national variation in pandemic policy-making. Our exploratory results – based on bivariate statistical associations – reveal that structural determinants (the level of political and interpersonal trust, a country’s overall resources, democratic experience and, to a lesser extent, political check and balances) shape crisis policy-making more than crisis-related factors such as the magnitude of the crisis at stake.
The UK Government’s COVID-19 Policy: What Does “Guided by the Science” Mean in Practice?
Documentary analysis of SAGE minutes and meeting papers, and analysis of oral evidence to key House of Commons committees, shows high consistency between SAGE advice and UK government policy in the run up to lockdown. Ministers relied on their advisers to define the policy problem and identify feasible solutions throughout this period, while their advisors supported government policy and the right of ministers to make it. This new experience reflects and reinforces longstanding evidence from policy community studies: some experts remain core insiders if they advise on policies that they do not necessarily support, while outsiders have the freedom to criticize the policy they were unable to influence.
Switzerland's COVID‐19 policy response: Consociational crisis management and neo‐corporatist reopening
Switzerland responded to the first COVID‐19 wave fairly successfully by employing both public health and economic measures. During the state of emergency, the federal government made a firm decision to flatten the infection curve and to protect especially at‐risk populations. During the lockdown period, the focus of the political debate shifted from health to the economy as the Federal Council (i.e., the national executive) started to prepare for the country's reopening.
Societal impacts of pandemics: comparing COVID-19 with history to focus our response
We compare SARS-CoV-2 against three other major pandemics (1347 Black Death, 1520’s new world smallpox outbreaks, and 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic) over the course of 700 years to unearth similarities and differences in pathogen, social and medical context, human response and behaviour, and long-term social and economic impact that should be used to shape COVID-19 decision-making. Our understanding of the epidemiology and effective treatment of this virus has rapidly improved and attention is shifting towards the identification of long-term control strategies that balance consideration of health in at risk populations, societal behaviour, and economic impact.
COVID-19: A Comprehensive Review of Epidemiology and Public Health System Response in Nordic Region
The incidence rate for the Nordic region was 989.59 per 100 000, varying from 327.30 per 100 000 in Finland to 1616.51 per 100 000 in Sweden, and the mortality rate for the region was 27.63 per 100 000, ranging from 5.3 per 100 000 in Norway to 60.35 per 100 000 in Sweden. All Nordic countries prohibited mass gatherings, imposed international travel restrictions, and prohibited non-essential services and businesses. The educational institutions (eg, schools and colleges) were closed, barring few exceptions, and online classes were promoted. Finland and Norway implemented lockdown, and Denmark declared partial shutdown while Iceland and Sweden did not impose lockdown.