Affiliation:
1. School of Government and Public Policy University of Arizona Tucson Arizona USA
2. Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy Toronto Ontario Canada
Abstract
AbstractThis paper argues that “following the science” is not always the best strategy. It does so by examining the first phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic in three countries: Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden. All three countries possessed highly respected infectious disease agencies with wide stakeholder involvement. Despite this, Danish, Dutch, and Swedish public health agencies underplayed the threat of the COVID‐19 virus, discouraged intrusive mitigation measures, and were slow to admit their mistakes. Countries that trusted their national agencies, specifically the Netherlands and Sweden, witnessed higher mortality. By contrast, the Danish government marginalized its epidemiologists and suppressed the spread of the virus. The paper thus demonstrates the limits of trusting national scientific expertise, even when properly embedded within social networks, during periods of heightened uncertainty.
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Public Administration,Sociology and Political Science,Political Science and International Relations
Reference68 articles.
1. Monotonous or pluralistic public discourse? Reason-giving and dissent in Denmark’s and Sweden’s early 2020 COVID-19 responses
2. Fighting the First Wave
3. Berlingske. (2020 July 25).Kåre Mølbak: Jeg støttede nedlukning af skolerne.https://www.berlingske.dk/danmark/kaare-moelbak-jeg-stoettede-nedlukning-af-skolerne
4. Bertelsmann Stiftung. (2022).2022 Sustainable governance indicators.https://www.sgi-network.org/2022/
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献