A pandemic, three reactions: New study separates Germany, Sweden and the UK’s covid response
How should governments have reacted to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in Europe, when so little was known at the time?
This is the question that researchers have asked in a study on the response of three European governments to the first and second wave of covid-19.
The United Kingdom, Germany and Sweden all reacted differently to the pandemic, but the responses all led to a similar loss of public confidence.
According to researchers, who wanted to gain insights on how we could better prepare for future pandemics, all three governments fought to deal with the public health crisis well.
Of the three, the UK currently has the highest covid-19 deaths at around 2,170 per 100,000 of the population – the 13th highest in Europe according to Statista. Sweden has 1,480 (20th) and Germany 1,214 (23rd).
The study, published in the open access journal BMJ Global Health, looked at differences in government structures, academics and researchers’ role in responses and public health communication.
How the countries reacted
The first cases of covid-19 were detected in the three countries in January 2020, but a serious response to the outbreak only began when the spread of infection was confirmed in early March.
On March 23, the United Kingdom carried out a strict closure that closed schools, offices, leisure and cultural facilities. Germany also closed facilities, but did not carry out a lock-in.
At this point, Sweden, unlike its Nordic neighbors, continued largely as usual, with only minor measures in place.
By the summer, when restrictions were lowered in the UK and Germany, cases per 100,000 in both of these countries were very low, while cases in Sweden had never fallen below 25 per 100,000 of the population.
Schools in all three countries reopened in the autumn of 2020 for the new school year. When the students returned, Britain began to see the number of cases rise again, signaling the second wave. Germany and Sweden began to see rising numbers about 10 days later.
The second wave in Germany was met by a “switch” closure of cafes and restaurants and culture, followed by the closure of unnecessary shops, and the order for homeschooling in mid-December.
At the same time, Sweden was surprised by rising falls in October.
The UK faced the second wave with softer measures at first, then relaxed in early December, before implementing a new lockdown in the middle of the spread of variant strains.
What do the different approaches depend on?
The differences in each country’s attitude to the pandemic can be partly attributed to existing governing structures, the academy’s role and experience of crisis management, the researchers said.
Communication and media responses also affected public confidence in government decisions.
In Germany, there was a great deal of academic involvement and public debate, but there was not enough population-based data to make decisions. The study found that the country’s news media reflected the evolving science and the difficulty of using that science to make decisions.
Unlike the other two countries, the uncertainty was explicitly communicated in Germany. Although this seemed to be appreciated during the first wave, the government faced strong criticism during the second wave as a result of the changed messages.
Sweden’s response relied heavily on handing over control to the Swedish Public Health Agency. This meant a lack of public involvement and debate with different perspectives on how to react.
Researchers say that although this resulted in less loss of public confidence than in the UK and Germany, it remains to be seen what the long-term effect of this delegation of responsibilities will be.
Britain included academia and researchers heavily in formulating the answer and forced the government to review its strategies. As a result, the public was hammered at rapidly changing public health communications.
“Our hypothesis-generating analysis suggests that crisis preparedness and resilience will need to include the governance structures beyond health that enable (i) strong and legitimate leadership, facilitate decentralized action; and (ii) reliable links to science and advisory bodies,” the study writes. concluded researchers.
“A media structure that is prepared to disseminate science and facilitate debate seems to support resilience. Cross-border learning should trump nationalism.”