遵循科学:欧洲公共卫生界面临第一波新冠肺炎疫情

IF 2.7 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE European Policy Analysis Pub Date : 2023-01-18 DOI:10.1002/epa2.1167
Paulette Kurzer, Darius Ornston
{"title":"遵循科学:欧洲公共卫生界面临第一波新冠肺炎疫情","authors":"Paulette Kurzer,&nbsp;Darius Ornston","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"9 2","pages":"101-118"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Follow the science: The European public health community confronts the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Paulette Kurzer,&nbsp;Darius Ornston\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/epa2.1167\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Policy Analysis\",\"volume\":\"9 2\",\"pages\":\"101-118\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Policy Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/epa2.1167\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/epa2.1167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文认为,“遵循科学”并不总是最好的策略。它通过研究丹麦、荷兰和瑞典这三个国家2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行的第一阶段来实现这一目标。这三个国家都拥有备受尊重的传染病机构,利益攸关方广泛参与。尽管如此,丹麦、荷兰和瑞典的公共卫生机构低估了COVID-19病毒的威胁,不鼓励采取侵入性缓解措施,并且迟迟不承认自己的错误。信任国家机构的国家,特别是荷兰和瑞典,死亡率更高。相比之下,丹麦政府将其流行病学家边缘化,并抑制了病毒的传播。因此,这篇论文证明了在高度不确定的时期,信任国家科学专业知识的局限性,即使在适当地嵌入社会网络时也是如此。©2023政策研究组织。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Follow the science: The European public health community confronts the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

This 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Policy Analysis
European Policy Analysis Social Sciences-Public Administration
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Issue Information What determines effectiveness in the policy process? Is open strategy a good fit for Public-Private hybrid organizations? Triggering policy learning via formal EU evaluation requirements in the case of Cohesion Policy Between institutions and narratives: Understanding collective action in innovation policy processes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1