Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Disease Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Dec;6(12). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006691.
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.
新冠疫情是一场前所未有的全球危机,各国政府必须在快速变化和高度不确定的情况下采取行动。德国、瑞典和英国政府采取了不同的策略,为未来的大流行防范提供了经验教训。受韧性框架的启发,为帮助为大流行防范讨论提供信息,本文回顾了德国、瑞典和英国在 2020 年应对新冠疫情中的治理结构以及科学和媒体的作用。我们绘制了合法性、相互依存、知识生成和应对不确定性的能力。我们的分析揭示了明显的差异,这些差异与预先存在的治理结构、学术界的传统作用、危机管理经验以及不确定性的沟通方式有关,所有这些都影响了人们对政府的信任程度。德国利用多样性和包容性,即“拼凑”,在第二波疫情中受到了强烈批评。瑞典的方法避免了多样性,并在很大程度上排除了学术界,而英国的学术界在知识生成和迫使政府审查其战略方面发挥了重要作用。然而,激烈的辩论使得公众对不断变化的公共卫生信息感到困惑。不确定性和缺乏关于如何最好地管理新冠疫情的证据——这是第一波疫情的主要特征——仅在德国得到了明确的传达。由于沟通和透明度方面的失败,以及公众对政府合法性和技术能力的质疑增加,所有国家的政府在疫情期间都失去了民众的信任。