National health governance, science and the media

Drivers of Covid-19 responses in Germany, Sweden and the UK in 2020

Bibliographic Data

ID21879781
AuthorsClaudia Hanson (0000-0001-8066-7873, Karolinska Institutet), Susanne Luedtke (National Science and Technology Center for Disaster Reduction), Neil Spicer (0000-0003-3451-8003, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine), Jens Stilhoff Sörensen (0000-0002-3121-0938, University of Gothenburg), Susannah H Mayhew (0000-0002-2433-3809, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine), Sandra Mounier-Jack (0000-0002-2801-379X, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine)
Year2021
Volume6
Issue12
Pagese006691
Publication date2021-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueBMJ Global Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2059-7908 • E-ISSN: 2059-7908
PublisherBMJ (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006691
PMID34872972
OpenAlexW3217068739
LanguageEN
Citations received14
References cited55

The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global crisis in which governments had to act in a situation of rapid change and substantial uncertainty. The governments of Germany, Sweden and the UK have taken different paths allowing learning for future pandemic preparedness. To help inform discussions on preparedness, inspired by resilience frameworks, this paper reviews governance structures, and the role of science and the media in the COVID-19 response of Germany, Sweden and the UK in 2020. We mapped legitimacy, interdependence, knowledge generation and the capacity to deal with uncertainty. Our analysis revealed stark differences which were linked to pre-existing governing structures, the traditional role of academia, experience of crisis management and the communication of uncertainty—all of which impacted on how much people trusted their government. Germany leveraged diversity and inclusiveness, a ‘patchwork quilt’, for which it was heavily criticised during the second wave. The Swedish approach avoided plurality and largely excluded academia, while in the UK’s academia played an important role in knowledge generation and in forcing the government to review its strategies. However, the vivant debate left the public with confusing and rapidly changing public health messages. Uncertainty and the lack of evidence on how best to manage the COVID-19 pandemic—the main feature during the first wave—was only communicated explicitly in Germany. All country governments lost trust of their populations during the epidemic due to a mix of communication and transparency failures, and increased questioning of government legitimacy and technical capacity by the public

Business · Corporate governance · Economic growth · Economics · Legitimacy · Pandemic · Political science · Politics · Preparedness · Public health · Public relations · COVID-19 epidemiological studies · Disaster Response and Management · Law · Medicine · Public Administration · Viral Infections and Outbreaks Research