ArticlePDF Available


While the world was facing a rapidly progressing COVID-19 second wave, a policy paradox emerged. On the one side, much more was known by Autumn 2020 about the mechanisms underpinning the spread and lethality of Sars-CoV-2. On the other side, how such knowledge should be translated by policymakers into containment measures appeared to be much more controversial and debated than during the first wave in Spring. Value-laden, conflicting views in the scientific community emerged about both problem definition and subsequent solutions surrounding the epidemiological emergency, which underlined that the COVID-19 global crisis had evolved towards a full-fledged policy “wicked problem”. With the aim to make sense of the seemingly paradoxical scientific disagreement around COVID-19 public health policies, we offer an ethical analysis of the scientific views encapsulated in the Great Barrington Declaration and of the John Snow Memorandum, two scientific petitions that appeared in October 2020. We show that how evidence is interpreted and translated into polar opposite advice with respect to COVID-19 containment policies depends on a different ethical compass that leads to different prioritization decisions of ethical values and societal goals. We then highlight the need for a situated approach to public health policy, which recognizes that policies are necessarily value-laden, and need to be sensitive to context-specific and historic socio-cultural and socio-economic nuances.
The COVID-19 wicked problem in public health
ethics: conicting evidence, or incommensurable
Federica Angeli 1, Silvia Camporesi 2& Giorgia Dal Fabbro3
While the world was facing a rapidly progressing COVID-19 second wave, a
policy paradox emerged. On the one side, much more was known by Autumn
2020 about the mechanisms underpinning the spread and lethality of Sars-CoV-
2. On the other side, how such knowledge should be translated by policymakers
into containment measures appeared to be much more controversial and
debated than during the rst wave in Spring. Value-laden, conicting views in the
scientic community emerged about both problem denition and subsequent
solutions surrounding the epidemiological emergency, which underlined that the
COVID-19 global crisis had evolved towards a full-edged policy wicked pro-
blem. With the aim to make sense of the seemingly paradoxical scientic dis-
agreement around COVID-19 public health policies, we offer an ethical analysis
of the scientic views encapsulated in the Great Barrington Declaration and of
the John Snow Memorandum, two scientic petitions that appeared in October
2020. We show that how evidence is interpreted and translated into polar
opposite advice with respect to COVID-19 containment policies depends on a
different ethical compass that leads to different prioritization decisions of ethical
values and societal goals. We then highlight the need for a situated approach to
public health policy, which recognizes that policies are necessarily value-laden,
and need to be sensitive to context-specic and historic socio-cultural and socio-
economic nuances. OPEN
1University of York Management School, University of York, York, UK. 2Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Kings College London,
London, UK. 3School of International Studies, University of Trento, Trento, Italy. email:
Competing goals and conicting values in the COVID-19
wicked problem
At the time of writing (November 2020), while the world is
facing a rapidly progressing COVID-19 second wave, and
governments are rushing towards the reintroduction of
restrictive measures, the consensus that almost monolithically
surrounded the lockdown decisionsor slight variations of the
same formulain Spring 2020, is visibly breaking apart. Roughly
6 months into the pandemic, a paradox emerges. On the one
hand, we have more evidence about the mechanisms under-
pinning the transmission, morbidity and mortality related to
Sars-CoV-2. On the other hand, how such knowledge should be
translated into containment policies is subject of erce debates. In
particular, a polarization of views started to emerge within the
scientic community, vividly illustrated by the Great Barrington
Declaration (Kulldorff et al., 2020; Lenzer, 2020) on the one side
and the John Snow Memorandum (Alwan et al., 2020; John Snow
Memorandum, 2020) on the other side. The Great Barrington
Declaration was authored by Dr. Sunetra Gupta (University of
Oxford), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford University), and Dr.
Martin Kulldorff (Harvard University), and was written and
signed at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great
Barrington, Massachusetts, on October 4th 2020. The document
is co-signed by a further 44 medical and public health scientists
and medical practitioners working in the US, Canada, Israel,
Germany, India, New Zealand, and Sweden. The declaration
advocates against lockdown measures to favor a containment
approach based on a focused protection of the vulnerable, whilst
allowing the segments of the population nominally at lower risk
of COVID-related complications to resume normal life, thus
favouring population-level natural immunity. The John Snow
Memorandum was published in the Lancet on October 15th, 2020
as a reaction to the Great Barrington declaration, and was
authored by a team of 31 scientists from the UK, Switzerland, US,
Canada, Germany, France, Australia. The memorandums aim
was to lay out empirical evidence to justify restrictive lockdown-
like measures to prevent the uncontrolled spread of the virus and
the subsequent collapse of healthcare systems.
Such value-laden, conicting views about both problem de-
nition and problem solution are typical of policy wicked pro-
blems(Alford and Head, 2017), a construct that increasingly
applies to the COVID-19 global crisis. The pandemic has created
a context in which multiple urgent, interdependent societal goals
simultaneously exist, which generates a fundamental problem of
prioritization of one aspect over another (Camporesi and Mori,
2020). Such goals can be identied in the short-term reduction of
COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, the mitigation of long-term
social repercussions of containment policies (rising social
inequalities, mental health issues due to social isolation, inter-
generational conicts) and nancial adverse consequences, in the
form of severe economic recessions, and subsequent rise in
unemployment, poverty levels, and social tensions (Angeli and
Montefusco, 2020; Camporesi, 2020). We are currently witnessing
how such prioritization choices generate conicting stakeholder
views about what the problem is (e.g., catastrophic death toll vs
potential economic meltdown) and the related solutions (e.g.,
lockdown measures vs softer mechanisms of virus control). A
full-edged wicked problem has now arisen. However, while
wicked problems are normally associated with policy choices, the
polarization of views has now permeated the scientic commu-
nity and the very process of translation of evidence into policy
advice, therefore illustratingperhaps more than ever before
the evolution from value-free to value-laden science.
The prioritization of the shorter-term goals of reduction of
COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in the Spring of 2020
rst wave resulted in a multiplicity of policy interventions
bundles in different countries. These interventions shared simi-
larities in the way they restricted individual freedoms (Camporesi,
2020) and varied in their combination of school closures, lim-
itations on pubsand restaurantsopening times, use of face
coverings, restrictions of socialization opportunities or individual
mobility (Angeli and Montefusco, 2020). Now, as evidence about
modes of contagion and manifestations of the disease accumu-
lates, the debate about how to use the scientic evidence to
inform policy has reached the stage of a polarized conict. The
shift away in narrative from the we are all in this together
(United Nations, 2020), to the focused protection(Kulldorff
et al., 2020) shows that the COVID -19 wicked policy problem
requires more in-depth ethical considerations. In this piece, we
offer an ethics-driven view of scientic advice for COVID-19
policy formulation, to illustrate how specic ethical prisms can
lead to differenteven polar oppositeviews on containment
policies. In this sense, we highlight the importance of ethics in
decision-making and in the process of translating evidence into
policy design (Oliver and Boaz, 2019). Our analysis also aims to
provide an interdisciplinary interpretative lens, as it addresses the
problem of how decision-makers attend to multiple objectives in
space and timea well-known area of research in management
studies (Cyert and March, 1963; Ocasio, 1997; Rerup, 2009), by
theoretically drawing on the eld of public health ethics (Abbasi
et al., 2018), and public policy formulation in the context of
wicked problems (Head, 2008; Waddell, 2016).
Conicting policy viewpoints: different priorities to different
Conicting values are commonplace in the context of managerial
decision-making (e.g., Levinthal and Marengo, 2020) and in
public health, especially in relation to the management of infec-
tious diseases (Ortmann et al., 2016). Compulsory vaccination
represents one emblematic example, in which individual freedom
is restricted to favor the public good, by way of boosting heard
immunity towards specic pathogens (Dawson et al., 2007).
Public health policies revolve, although often implicitly, around a
compass of three key values, namely utility, liberty, and equity/
equality. The principle of utility aims at maximizing a certain
value Xfor the greatest number of people. Public health policies
aim at maximizing population health. In the context of measures
aimed at the containment of disease outbreak, ensuring popula-
tion health translates into reducing the disease transmission,
morbidity and mortality, whether through vaccination, natural
herd immunity, or restrictive measures aimed at reducing/mod-
ifying citizenssocialization and interaction patterns, mobility and
hygiene practices. Liberty is generally understood as the freedom
to live ones own life free from interference from others. Although
there are two main understandings of liberty, a negative (liberty
to act free from interference), and a positive one (liberty to shape
ones own life according to ones own values, and to have the
opportunity to do so beyond and above the lack of others
interference) (Berlin, 1969) in the context of public health, liberty
is generally conceptualized as negative liberty. Equity/equality is a
value that is recognized as salient for public health policies, but
also of difcult operationalization and implementation. Egalitar-
ianism is the theory that aims at ensuring a fair distribution of
benets and harms across a given population, and hence to
maintain distributive justice. Equity and equality are often used as
synonyms in public health ethics, however, they point to different
even oppositeconcepts. Equity is a normative concept,
grounded in distributive justice, while that is not necessarily the
case for equality (i.e. not all health inequalities are unfair)
(Braveman and Gruskin, 2003). In the context of public health
policies, equity means equal opportunity and implies that
resources should be distributed in ways most likely to produce a
fair distribution of harms and benets across all segments of the
population. This often implies that societal groups should not be
offered the same services (as it would be in the case of equal
treatment) but rather should receive differential care according to
their differential needs. We will focus in this piece on equity
rather than equality.
Even if not explicitly acknowledged, the values of utility, liberty
and equity underpin any public (health) policy decision, includ-
ing those aimed at containing the COVID-19 emergency.
According to a pluralistic approach to public health policy
(Selgelid, 2009b,2009a) these three values should all be con-
sidered as independent, socially legitimate public goals. Effective
public health policies are then tasked to nd creative ways to
pursue all of them at the same time, through trade-offs that are
socially and culturally acceptable. This is naturally easier said,
than done. What creates a broad spectrum of public policy
approaches in response to the COVID-19 pandemic is the dif-
ferent weight associated by different decision-makersand also
by scientiststo the three value dimensions of the ethical com-
pass, resulting in different trade-off points. The recently pub-
lished Great Barrington Declaration and John Snow
Memorandum exemplify two situations in which, provided the
same available scientic evidence, this is interpreted and trans-
lated by scientists into polar opposite advice with respect to
COVID-19 containment policies. We argue that such views can
be best understood in light of a different ethical compass that
leads to different prioritization decisions. We can assume that
signatories to both memoranda obviously want to reduce
COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, want to mitigate its socio-
economic repercussions, are concerned about restrictions of
personal freedom and increasing surveillance, appreciate the
differential impact of the policies across the population. However,
the signatories assign a different weight to each of the three values
of utility, liberty and equity, hence appraising the available sci-
entic evidence with a different, value-laden ethical prism. The
fact that the process of normative weighting assigned to empirical
data remains implicit creates a polarization that is only appar-
ently based on disagreements about empirical evidence.
The Great Barrington declaration takes a stance against
restrictive measures aimed at controlling the community spread
of the virus and instead proposes to focus policies and societal
resources towards focused protectionof the older demographics
notably those who are several times more likely to die from
COVID-19 or to suffer from long-lasting complications.
According to the signatories, this approach would also favor the
development of herd immunity, hence further shielding the older
people from the possibility of contracting the disease. This
position has sparked a strong reaction from the signatories of the
John Snow Memorandum, which highlights instead that the herd
immunity arguments based on the assumption that natural
infection from the virus will boost lasting protective immunity are
awed and lack supporting evidence. Moreover, the uncontrolled
spread of Sars-CoV-2 within communities would lead to an
excessive burden on healthcare systems and workers, and com-
promise the diagnosis and treatment of several acute and chronic
conditions, with long-lasting-negative repercussions. As a con-
sequence, the John Snow Memorandum argues that it is impor-
tant to extend social distancing, targeted restrictions of mobility
and socialization, face coverings and strengthened hygiene prac-
tices to the whole population.
With its emphasis on focused protectionthe Great Barring-
ton declaration prioritizes values of liberty and equity, as it views
the wide imposition of restrictive measures as violating individual
freedom in a way that is unfair to the less vulnerable individuals,
such as the young generations. The herd immunity argument
widely decried by the scientic community (Aschwanden, 2020)
and public opinion alike (The Guardian, 2020)is highly con-
troversial, and mostly for an ethical rather than a scientic rea-
son. The technical possibility that a population develops natural
protection from the infection exists, however, for Sars-CoV-2 it is
unclear what the threshold is as this depends on the transmission
rate and how long the immunity could last (Fontanet and
Cauchemez, 2020). Although from a technical point of view the
pursuit of (short-term) herd immunity is not, in theory, an
unattainable policy goal, there is widespread societal consensus
that it would be an unacceptable policy goal from an ethical point
of view, in the absence of improved patient management and in
the absence of optimal shielding of individuals at risk of severe
complications. In the absence of these two key factors, current
modeling of transmission dynamics predict that letting Sars-CoV-
2 epidemic run its course without non-pharmaceutical interven-
tions (i.e., social distancing, facemasks, heightened hygiene
measures) would lead to catastrophic consequences in terms of
death toll, both direct from COVID-19, and indirect, due to the
overwhelming burden on the healthcare systems (hospital capa-
city) (Brett and Rohani, 2020).
The signatories of the John Snow Memorandum are in fact
more concerned with utility, namely the short-term reduction of
COVID-19-induced mortality and morbidity and the long-term
health outcomes of delayed treatments. Interestingly, by pro-
blematizing the denition of vulnerableindividuals, John Snow
supporters implicitly defend the egalitarianism of their position,
as evidence is still scant around the reasons underpinning the
wide individual variation in COVID-19 adverse outcomeswith
some developing grave complications until death and other
showing only mild symptoms or remaining completely asymp-
tomatic. Concluding that everyone is equally at risk, the John
Snow Memorandum implicitly assumes that it is fair for restric-
tive measures to be applied to everyone, therefore leaning towards
a solution geared towards equality rather than equity. Instead, the
Great Barrington Declaration implicitly proffers that vulnerability
to the virus is only one aspect that should be taken into account.
Vulnerabilities within the population instead should be specied
taking into account vulnerability towards negative repercussion of
the economic recessionssuch as BAME minorities in the UK
(Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2020), as well vulnerability towards
the negative effects of lockdown-induced isolation and alienation,
as in adolescents (Lee, 2020). The prioritization of short-term
gains in terms of physical health with respect to impeding longer
term socio-economic disadvantage and mental health con-
sequences therefore becomes less straightforward.
Contextualizing values and policies in time and space
In dealing with a highly complex situationa wicked problem
such as the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to understand
how valueshence societal goalsare formulated and under-
stood, and the inuence of temporality. The value of utility can be
specied short-term, as the reduction in the number of COVID-
19-related deaths at a given time. However, a more encompassing,
forward-looking view will also consider the total number of
COVID-19-induced deaths in the medium-long run. The need to
prioritize COVID patients in the hospital will necessarily lead to
other collateral deaths because of missed appointments and
delayed surveillance or surgeries (Maringe et al., 2020). Economic
recession is widening inequalities and increasing poverty levels
(Kirby, 2020; Van Lancker and Parolin, 2020), while the mental
health repercussions induced by isolation especially in young
people might lead to forms of addiction and depression (Lee,
2020). While deaths from the infectious disease are short-term,
indirect casualties that will occur down the line need to be taken
into account. Public health policies cannot afford the myopic
mistake of discounting the future, a well-known individual cog-
nitive bias (Trout, 2007). The public health ethics framework also
demands that the management of infectious diseases outbreaks
follows the key principle of proportionality in restricting indivi-
dual freedoms to promote the public good (World Health
Organization, 2020). This means that, as epidemiological and
clinical evidence becomes more conclusive on the diseases
transmission, prevention and diagnosis patterns (Manigandan
et al., 2020), on the variability of health outcomes (Chen et al.,
2020), on the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions to
reduce community spread (Li et al., 2020), and on the long-term
consequences of lockdown measures such as school closures
(Bayham and Fenichel, 2020; Viner et al., 2020), the same
restrictive policies might not be as suitable, justied or acceptable
as they were in the early stage of the pandemic. This principle is
implicit in the Great Barrington declaration.
What degree of personal infringement of liberty is justied?
This is where ethics comes in. Expert groups will offer a range
of possible ethically justied policies, but, we argue, it is the
policymakerstask to do the normative weighting and to decide
which policy approach is best suited to the local socio-eco-
nomic, socio-cultural and socio-political context (Angeli and
Montefusco, 2020). While in some national settings the Great
Barrington Declaration proposal could be more attuned to the
existing social dynamics, individual mindsets, healthcare
infrastructure and economic development, in other contexts
the prescription of the very same proposal would not be
applicable nor recommended, while the solutions proposed by
the polar opposite John Snow Memorandum could be more
suitable. For example, a policy of focused protection is not
practical in settingssuch as Italywhere intergenerational
exchange is very high, grandparents often babysit grand-
children and even share living space with younger generations.
Afocused protection approach, which also aims at achieving
high levels of community spread of the disease in less vul-
nerable societal segments, will likely lead to higher burden on
the healthcare system, which is only sustainable in settings
where healthcare infrastructures are strong and widely acces-
sible, and focused protection of vulnerable segments of the
population (i.e shielding) is feasible. In a similar way, restric-
tions to individual freedom are more difcult to implement in
countries where personal liberty is culturally highly valued,
and where utilityintended as the public goodcomes sec-
ond. A case in point is the use of face coverings, which, despite
mounting evidence related to the importance of the measure to
prevent COVID-19 transmission (Cheng et al., 2020;Lyuand
Wehby, 2020), remains highly debated (Martin et al., 2020). It
is not by chance that more individualistic cultures such as the
United States, the United Kingdom or the Netherlands
(Hofstede, 1983), have seen a more patchy and less widespread
imposition of such measures (Royal Society, 2020; Statista,
2020), combined with higher societal resistance and rising
social tensions (CNN, 2020).
Finally, questions of equity and justice. Public health measures
aimed at containing an infectious disease outbreak should take
into account to what degree the measures are disproportionately
affecting certain groups of the population. This is where the
concept of vulnerability comes in and where it can be used to
operationalize the equity principle. Dening who qualies as
vulnerable is difcult, but by no means impossible, as research
ethics literature demonstrates. One approach that we think could
be well suited here is the layered approach to vulnerability (Luna,
2019, 2014), which is context dependent, and dynamic. One could
identify, for example, the following three layers of COVID-19
related vulnerability:
A biological axis: likelihood of developing severe/critical
symptoms after contracting COVID-19. Evidence widely
supports that older people and people with pre-existing co-
morbidities are at higher risk of COVID complications;
Socio-economic axis: likelihood of being severely affected
by restrictive measures. Studies have highlighted how
disadvantaged groups and communities (such as BAME
minorities in the UK) are disproportionally more severely
hit by the economic crisis ensuing from lockdown
Mental health axis: likelihood of developing severe mental
health repercussions related to containment policies.
School closures and extended lockdown periods have
increased mental health issues in the population, with
children and adolescents at particularly high risk.
Age, gender and race remain transversal axes here, as the
approach rejects applying the label of vulnerability to specic
groups. That does not mean that is impossible to dene who is
vulnerable, contrary to the John Snow memorandum positions.
However, who counts as vulnerable to COVID-19 will change
depending on the context, over time and through what layers one
decides to look at this question. While in the rst COVID-19
wave the priority has been given to the biological axis, the
attention is, in the second COVID-19 wave, importantly shifting
towards socio-economic and mental health aspects.
With the purpose of illustrating the longitudinal evolution
over time of value prioritization, and its cross-sectional, cross-
country variation, we have selected a number of containment
measures that can reect how the values of liberty, equality and
utility are incorporated into scientic advice and then translated
into policy. Restrictions to individual freedom can be appreciated
for example through the presence of restrictions to jogging
activities; the presence of a ban on amatorial sports activities; the
extent of face coverings obligations, the restrictions on household
mixing, and whether a social bubble is allowed. The value of
equity can be operationalized into whether the measures have
been prescribed to the whole population indistinctively or whe-
ther there has been a differential application to more or less
vulnerable sub-groups, or taking into account the different
morbidity and mortality levels across regions. This aspect can be
appreciated by considering whether restrictions have been
imposed nationally or following a regionalization rationale;
whether face coverings have been prescribed also to children
under 11, notably less amenable to infect, get infected and
develop severe symptoms from COVID-19; whether specic
measures have been adopted to strengthen protection of older
demographics; whether youth sport activities have been allowed;
whether business closures have been imposed indistinctively or
have instead followed an occupational health risk assessment.
Finally, utility can reect into governmentsadvocacy practices,
namely the presence of a stay-at-home advice, the emphasis of
COVID-19 as a burden for healthcare workers and systems, the
clear and frequent communication of COVID-19 epidemic
progression, the level of surveillance and sanctioning of non-
compliant individual behaviors. We have considered the pre-
sence/absence as well as the strength of the above aspects at the
highest point of rst and second wave of COVID-19, in Italy and
in the United Kingdom. As restriction levels, timing and the
combination varied across England, Scotland, Wales and
Northern Italy, we focused on England.
Table 1represents the comparison of measures between
COVID-19 rst and second wave in the two countries, as derived
from the original policy documents. Based on the nature of the
containment measures, and the effect to which they reected
values of equity, utility and liberty, we computed scores on each
Table 1 Evolution of COVID-19 containment policies across the rst and the second pandemic wave (until December 2020) in Italy and in England (partial scores for each
dimension in brackets).
Italy England
Measures First waveDPCM
(March 9th, April 22nd)
Second waveDPCM
(November, 3rd) Red zone
First waveNational
restrictions March 26th
Second waveNational
restrictions November 5th
Jogging permitted Partiallyonly in proximity
of ones home and in
adherence with social
distancing (2/5)
Yesjogging permitted in
adherence with social
distancing (5/5)
Yes, but limited to once a
day, either alone or with
members of the same
household (5/5)
Yesalone, with members of
the same household or one
person outside it, adhering to
social distancing (5/5)
Face coverings
mandatory only in
indoor settings
Noface coverings are
mandatory at all times both
indoor and outdoor (0/5)
Noface coverings are
mandatory at all times both
indoor and outdoor (0/5)
Yesface coverings
mandatory only indoor (also
outdoor in some venues
with reopenings) (5/5)
Yesface coverings
mandatory only indoor (5/5)
Amatorial sport
activities permitted
Noall sport competitions
suspended; trainings of
professional athletes
permitted (0/5)
Noonly competitions and
trainings at professional level
permitted (0/5)
Noall leisure and sports
activities are suspended (0/
Partiallyall leisure and sports
activities are suspended/
allowed those that are part of
the normal educational
activities of schools; and for
training and competitions of
elite sportspersons (2/5)
Household mixing
Nomeeting members of
other households indoor/
outdoor is strictly
forbidden (0/5)
Nomeeting members of
other households indoor/
outdoor is strictly
forbidden (0/5)
Nohousehold mixing not
permitted (0/5)
Partiallysupport bubble
permitted (2/5)
Overall score 2/20 5/20 10/20 14/20
Equity of containment policies
Regionalized approach
to lockdown-like
NoGeneral lockdown
measures have been
imposed on March 9th on
the whole country
regardless of regional
variations (0/4)
Yesdifferential lockdown
measures have been imposed
in different regions
depending on regional
variations in infection
rates (4/4)
NoEngland, Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland
adopted the same lockdown
restrictions for the whole
respective national
territories (0/4)
NoEngland, Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland adopted
the same lockdown restrictions
for the whole respective
national territories (0/4)
Maintenance of face-
to-face educational
Noall educational
activities have been
suspended (0/4)
Partiallyprimary schools
remain open, remote learning
introduced for secondary
schools (2/4)
Noschools, colleges and
universities shut down (0/
Yesschool, colleges and
universities remain open (4/4)
No face coverings for
children below 12
Noface coverings are
mandatory for all children
above 6 (0/4)
Noface coverings are
mandatory for all children
above 6 (0/4)
Yesno face coverings for
children below 11 (4/4)
Yesno face coverings for
children below 11 (4/4)
protection for
older people
Mildlimitations on
visitorsaccess to RSAs (2/
Strongpriority entrance in
supermarkets (only for some
regions); limitations to
visitorsaccess to RSAs (3/
Mildsome indications for
additional shielding of older
adults (2/4)
protection for clinically
vulnerable people(3/4)
Guidelines for
occupational risk
Noall non-essential
activities shut down (0/4)
Yesbusiness closures have
followed a rigorous risk
Noall non-essential
activities shut down (0/4)
Noall non-essential activities
shut down (0/4)
Table 1 (continued)
Italy England
Measures First waveDPCM
(March 9th, April 22nd)
Second waveDPCM
(November, 3rd) Red zone
First waveNational
restrictions March 26th
Second waveNational
restrictions November 5th
assessment in different
industrial sectors
assessment analysis (e.g.,
hairdressers remain
open) (4/4)
Overall score 2/20 13/20 6/20 11/20
Utility emphasis
Presence of a stay-at-
home advice
Very strongthe decree
was renamed #iorestoacasa
because of the strong stay-
at-home advice (5/5)
Strongthe decree (Oct
24th) conveyed the message
that measures are drastic but
proportionate, and aim at
preserving (in decreasing
order of importance) public
health, jobs and the
economy, and individual
liberties (Domenico Arcuri
TV interview on 15/11/
2020) (3/5)
Very strongRegulations
renamed Lockdown
regulations;Stay at home;
protect the NHS; save
Strong—“Hands, Face,
Emphasis of COVID-19
burden to health
systems and workers
Very highcitizens clapping
from balconies to thank
healthcare personnel;
together we will make it
banners (5/5)
Highpictures of exhausted
nurses and doctors on social
media; testimonies on talk
shows (3/5)
Very highClap for our
Carers movement; Protect
the NHS(5/5)
HighFocus on healthcare
personnel who is still
recovering from rst wave (3/
Frequent and
communication of
COVID-19 epidemic
progression to
the public
Very highregular and
transparent bulletin on
hospitalizations, death toll
and ICU occupancy.
Frequent press
conferences (5/5)
Very highregular and
transparent bulletin on
hospitalizations, death toll
and ICU occupancy. Frequent
press conferences to explain
new measures (5/5)
Highweekly ONS report
since 31st March, frequent
press conferences (3/5)
Milddata and statistics
available on the UK
Government website, NHS and
ONS (2/5)
Sanctions on non-
compliant behavior
Very highfrom 400 to
1.000 Euro, up to 5.000
Euro for violation of
April, 24th: 6.679 sanctions,
12 quarantine violations (5/
Very highfrom 400 to
1.000 Euro, up to 5.000 Euro
for violation of quarantine
November, 17th:
1.117 sanctions, 30 quarantine
violations (5/5)
Highfrom £60 to
£960 FPN
March, 27thApril, 27th:
8.877 xed penalty notices
(FPNs) (3/5)
Very Highfrom £200 to
£6.400 FPN, larger parties up
to £10.000
March, 27thOctober, 19th:
20.223 FPNs (5/5)
Overall score 20/20 16/20 16/20 13/20
dimension, for each country across the two waves, on a total of 20
points for each value dimension.
We then plotted the results in Fig. 1. The graphs highlight how
values are differentially embedded into containment policies
trough context- and time-specic trade-offs. The gure highlights
how two countries started from very different positions, with
measures in Italy in the rst wave almost entirely guided by utility
(public health) considerations, with strong restrictions of indivi-
dual freedoms and little appreciation of differences in vulner-
ability levels across populations and regions. In the second wave,
we notice the evolution of Italian policies towards more con-
sideration for liberty and equity value dimensions. England has
experienced a similar evolution, albeit starting from a much more
libertarian stance. Its policies show an evolution towards liberty
and equity considerations against a slight reduction of utility-
focused measures.
Public health policiesand particularly those aimed at the con-
tainment of a highly infectious disease such as COVID-19
revolve around a compass of moral values, which are often
implicitly given different weights by both policymakers and sci-
entic advisors. Both the understanding of these values, and the
normative weighing of the values will always necessarily be context
dependent, and dynamic. Public health policies should aim to
consider to what degree the proposed measures aimed to preserve
the public good are socio-culturally acceptable in restricting
individual freedom, in what way they disproportionately affect
certain groups of the population, according to what aspect of
vulnerability is most relevant. An approach of situated policy is
therefore most salient, which promotes policymaking that is
attuned with idiosyncrasies that are both spatial (the socio-cultural
and socio-economic local context) and temporal (given the rapid
evolution of COVID-related scientic evidence). A situated
approach to policymaking in the context of wicked problems
reects that there cannot be a one-size-ts-all approach to
COVID-19 public health policies.
Our analysis has aimed to propose an ethics-driven perspective
to better comprehend how evidence is used to inform policy-
making and how disagreement on policy can emerge within
scientic communities. In doing so, we have offered an inter-
disciplinary view at the intersection between management studies,
public policy and bioethics disciplinary boundaries. Whilst the
debate around evidence-based policymaking has been a core
focus of science and technology studies (Frickel and Moore,
2006), this commentary offers an alternative perspective that is
less concerned with the politics of sciencehence the inuence on
knowledge production of socio-political factors and power
dynamics (Hoppe, 2005)and is instead more focused on how
evidence is ltered through a situated ethical prism to inform
policymakersprioritization decisions. The recognition that pol-
icymaking is shaped by socio-contextual factors and that pol-
icymakers engage into processes of interpretation of evidence in
light of their knowledge, norms and values and towards their
economic and political goals is not new (Sohn, 2018). This
commentary suggests, however, that an ethical perspective is
salient to understand such processes, that interestingly affect not
only policymakers but also prominent representatives of the
scientic community. Our analysis thus highlighted how
evidence-based public health containment measures to address
the pandemic can be ethically justiable and understood through
a clear and transparent understanding of the values underpinning
policy decisions, and the evolution of acceptable trade-offs
over time.
Received: 20 November 2020; Accepted: 1 June 2021;
Abbasi M, Majdzadeh R, Zali A, Karimi A, Akrami F (2018) The evolution of
public health ethics frameworks: systematic review of moral values and
norms in public health policy. Med Heal Care Philos 21:387402
Alford J, Head BW (2017) Wicked and less wicked problems: a typology and a
contingency framework. Policy Soc 36:397413
Alwan NA, Burgess RA, Ashworth S, Beale R, Bhadelia N, Bogaert D, Dowd J, Eckerle
I, Goldman LR, Greenhalgh T, Gurdasani D, Hamdy A, Hanage WP, Hodcroft
EB, Hyde Z, Kellam P, Kelly-Irving M, Krammer F, Lipsitch M, McNally A,
McKee M, Nouri A, Pimenta D, Priesemann V, Rutter H, Silver J, Sridhar D,
Swanton C, Walensky RP, Yamey G, Ziauddeen H (2020) Scientic consensus
on the COVID-19 pandemic: we need to act now. Lancet 396:e71e72
Italy - First COVID-19 wave
Italy - Second COVID-19 wave
England - First COVID-19 wave
England - Second COVID-19 wave
Fig. 1 Evolution of value trade-off. Evolution of the value trade-off embedded in the COVID-19 containment policies promulgated in Italy and in England,
during the rst and the second pandemic wave (until December 2020).
Angeli F, Montefusco A (2020) Sensemaking and learning during the Covid-19
pandemic: a complex adaptive systems perspective on policy decision-
making. World Dev 136:14
Aschwanden C (2020) The false promise of herd immunity for COVID-19. Nature
Bayham J, Fenichel EP (2020) Impact of school closures for COVID-19 on the US
health-care workforce and net mortality: a modelling study. Lancet Public
Heal 5:e271e278
Berlin I (1969) Two concepts of Liberty. In: Berlin I (eds) Four essays on Liberty.
Oxford University Press, Berlin
Braveman P, Gruskin S (2003) Dening equity in health. J Epidemiol Community
Health 57:254258
Brett TS, Rohani P (2020) Transmission dynamics reveal the impracticality of
COVID-19 herd immunity strategies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
Camporesi S (2020) It didnt have to be this way reections on the ethical justi-
cation of the running ban in northern italy in response to the 2020 COVID-
19 outbreak. Bioethical Inquiry 17:643648.
Camporesi S, Mori M (2020) Ethicists, doctors and triage decisions: who should
decide? And on what basis? Journal of Medical Ethics Published Online First:
10 July 2020.
Cheng KK, Lam TH, Leung CC. (2020). Wearing face masks in the community
during the COVID-19 pandemic: altruism and solidarity. Lancet (London,
England), S0140-6736(20)30918-1. Advance online publication. https://doi.
Chen Y, Tong X, Li Y, Gu B, Yan J, Liu Y, Shen H, Huang R, Wu C (2020) A
comprehensive, longitudinal analysis of humoral responses specic to four
recombinant antigens of SARS-CoV-2 in severe and non-severe COVID-19
patients. PLoS Pathog 16:e1008796
CNN (2020) London face mask protests: Hundreds of people, some wearing masks,
protested against mask-wearing-CNN.
Cyert R, March JG (1963) A behavioral theory of the rm. Prentice Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ
Dawson A, Verweij M, Verweij MF (2007) Ethics, prevention, and public health.
Oxford University Press on Demand. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Fontanet A, Cauchemez S (2020) COVID-19 herd immunity: where are we? Nat
Rev Immunol 20:583584
Frickel S, Moore K (2006) The new political sociology of science: Institutions.
Networks, and Power. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison
Graham P. Martin, Esmée Hanna, Margaret McCartney, Robert Dingwall (2020)
Science, society, and policy in the face of uncertainty: reections on the
debate around face coverings for the public during COVID-19, Critical Public
Health, 30:5, 501508.
Head BW (2008) Wicked Problems in Public Policy. 3:2930
Hofstede G (1983) National cultures revisited. Behav Sci Res 18:285305
Hoppe R (2005) Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization
and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis
und Prax 3:199215
Institute for Fiscal Studies (2020) COVID-19 and inequalities|Inequality: the IFS
Deaton Review.
John Snow Memorandum (2020) John Snow Memorandum. https://www.
Kirby T (2020) Evidence mounts on the disproportionate effect of COVID-19 on
ethnic minorities. Lancet Respir Med 8:547548
Kulldorff M, Gupta S, Bhattacharya J (2020) Great Barrington Declaration. https://
Van Lancker W, Parolin Z (2020) COVID-19, school closures, and child poverty: a
social crisis in the making. Lancet Public Heal 5:e243e244
Lee J (2020) Mental health effects of school closures during COVID-19. Lancet
Child Adolesc Heal 4:421
Lenzer J (2020) Covid-19: Group of UK and US experts argues for focused pro-
tectioninstead of lockdowns. BMJ 371:m3908
Levinthal DA, Marengo L (2020) Organizations, ambiguity, and conict: Intro-
duction to the special issue in honor of James G. March. Ind Corp Chang
Li Y, Campbell H, Kulkarni D, Harpur A, Nundy M, Wang X, Nair H., & for
COVID, U. N. (2021). The temporal association of introducing and lifting
non-pharmaceutical interventions with the time-varying reproduction
number (R) of SARS-CoV-2: a modelling study across 131 countries. The
Lancet Infectious Diseases, 21(2):193202
Luna F (2019) Identifying and evaluating layers of vulnerabilitya way forward.
Dev World Bioeth 19:8695
Lyu W, Wehby GL (2020) Community use of face masks and COVID-19: evidence
from a natural experiment of state mandates in the US. Health Aff
Manigandan S, Wu MT, Ponnusamy VK, Raghavendra VB, Pugazhendhi A,
Brindhadevi K (2020) A systematic review on recent trends in transmission,
diagnosis, prevention and imaging features of COVID-19. Process Biochem
Maringe C, Spicer J, Morris M, Purushotham A, Nolte E, Sullivan R, Rachet B,
Aggarwal A (2020) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer deaths
due to delays in diagnosis in England, UK: a national, population-based,
modelling study. Lancet Oncol 21:10231034
Luna L (2014) Vulnerability', an interesting concept for public health: the case of
older persons. Public Health Ethics 7(2):180194
Ocasio W (1997) Towards an attention-based view of the rm. Strateg Manag J
Oliver K, Boaz A (2019) Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating
space for new conversations. Nat Humanit Soc Sci Commun 5:110
Ortmann LW, Barrett DH, Saenz C, Bernheim RG, Dawson A, Valentine JA, Reis
A (2016) Public Health Ethics: Global Cases, Practice, and Context. Public
Health Ethics Analysis. Springer, Cham, pp. 335
Rerup C (2009) Attentional triangulation: learning from unexpected rare crises.
Organ Sci 20:876893
Royal Society T (2020) Face masks and coverings for the general public: Beha-
vioural knowledge, effectiveness of cloth coverings and public messaging.
Royal Society T
Selgelid MJ (2009a) A moderate pluralist approach to public health policy and
ethics. Public Health Ethics 2:195205
Selgelid MJ (2009b) Pandethics. Public Health 123:255259
Sohn J (2018) Navigating the politics of evidence-informed policymaking: strategies
of inuential policy actors in Ontario. Palgrave Commun 4:112
Statista (2020) Masks in Europe 2020 | Statista.
The Guardian (2020) Swedish surge in Covid cases dashes immunity hopes|World
news|The Guardian.
Trout JD (2007) The psychology of discounting: a policy of balancing biases. Public
Aff Q 21:201220
United Nations (2020) We are all in this Together: Human Rights and COVID-19
Response and Recovery United Nations.
Viner RM, Russell SJ, Croker H, Packer J, Ward J, Stanseld C, Mytton O, Bonell
C, Booy R (2020) School closure and management practices during cor-
onavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: a rapid systematic review. Lancet
Child Adolesc Heal 4:397404
Waddell S (2016) Societal change systems: a framework to address wicked pro-
blems societal change systems: a framework to address wicked problems. J
Appl Behav Sci 52:422440
World Health Organization (2020) WHO|Managing Ethical Issues in Infectious
Disease Outbreaks. WHO
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to F.A.
Reprints and permission information is available at
Publishers note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional afliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
material in this article are included in the articles Creative Commons license, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
articles Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit
© The Author(s) 2021
... However, the Daubert standard is not a 1:1 translation of the scientific evidence hierarchy. Regardless of the acceptance or rejection of the Daubert standard, scientific knowledge production during the Corona pandemic is characterized by a polarization which is typical of crises situations (Angeli et al. 2021;Brownlee and Lenzer 2021). Epistemic communities have formed in which questions of knowledge and values are intertwined. ...
Full-text available
What is proportionate? The measures taken worldwide to contain SARS-CoV-2 deeply curtailed the fundamental rights of many citizens. The courts have upheld this course of containment: the protection of life and health takes precedence over individual liberties, even in the case of doubt about scientific evidence for the effectiveness of far-reaching measures. This finding is astonishing and does not automatically follow from the International Health Regulations, according to which interventions in fundamental rights have to be justified by facts. The principle of proportionality is the logical place where facts and normativity meet. Since science has polarized during the pandemic, the court selection and interpretation of scientific expertise is itself a politicized value judgment. Courts, I conclude, base their selection and interpretation on publicly available and legitimate knowledge. I develop this hypothesis on the basis of COVID-19-jurisprudence in Germany.
... The COVID-19 crisis has been widely described as a wicked problem (Angeli, Camporesi, and Dal Fabbro 2021;Lilleker and Stoeckle 2021;Rainey et al. 2021). What was the policy problem in the spring of 2020: saving lives, preventing the collapse of health systems, avoiding economic meltdown, all three, or something else altogether? ...
Full-text available
A consistent claim from governments around the world during the Coronavirus pandemic has been that they were following the science. This raises the question, central to this paper, of what and whose knowledge is or should be sought, which is being side-lined through the choice of particular framings and discourses, and with what consequences for the creation and implementation of evidence-based policy to tackle wicked problems. Through the lens of Fricker's epistemic injustice, I problematise the expertise that has guided the COVID-19 response as epistemically narrow and argue that counteracting a monolithic culture of expertise requires tackling the structural inequalities in the systems of knowledge production to diversify the social and epistemological foundations of science. Drawing on Post-normal Science (PNS) theory, I suggest that the expertise needed to respond to the challenges of a post-COVID world is one that embraces greater pluralism, avoids groupthink, challenges the accepted orthodoxy and helps us revert old models and rigid path dependencies that so often neglect the lived realities and demands of those left behind. This can only be realised by overcoming epistemic injustice and embracing epistemic democracy in the practice of evidence-based policy.
... Although rooted in the public policy domain, wicked facets can occur in technical, economic, environmental, and socio-political domains. More recently, climate change (Larrabee 2018;Levin et al. 2012;Kelley 2018) and other social-environmental issues (Duckett et al. 2016), the Covid19 pandemic (Klasche 2021;Lawrence 2020;Auld et al. 2021;Head 2022;Angeli, Camporesi, and Dal Fabbro 2021), and energy supply and efficiency (Thollander, Palm, and Hedbrant 2019;Brunnengräber et al. 2014;Everingham et al. 2016) have been associated with the 'wickedness' theory. Wicked problems affect pluralistic societies since they involve conflicts of interests, value trade-offs, and are "dilemma-laden social choice problems" (Glasser 1998, 230). ...
Full-text available
Wicked problems occur when decision-makers face constant change or unprecedented challenges and when uncertainty, complexity, and stakeholder divergence are high. We shed light on wicked problems in the German energy transition. Our methods consist of a multiple-case study and comparative multi-criteria analysis, utilising the wicked problems theoretical framework introduced by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber (1973). Based on four exemplary cases, our research covers four core energy transition sectors: energy supply (developing onshore wind power), heating/cooling (using shallow geothermal energy systems), transport (decarbonising the transport sector), and industry (decarbonising the chemical industry sector). Cross-case results illustrate where and how the 10-point frame of wicked problems manifests in the German energy transition. We do not argue that the German energy transition is inherently wicked, yet we stress the need to consider potentially wicked facets of energy transition challenges. Our results show that the four cases exhibit more wicked tendencies in the governance domain than in the technical dimension. All cases exhibit wicked facets in the governance dimension, given strong normative assumptions, value divergence, and complex governance structures with a plurality of actors. From a technical perspective, the four cases still exhibit some wicked tendencies, e.g. raw material provision, skilled workforce, and waste management. The cases differ in technology maturity, state of knowledge, and degree of policy output and regulations. In applying the wickedness lens, we acknowledge that energy transition problems cannot be solved merely by technical measures but need to be tamed. Our work reflects which challenges and main barriers pertain to the four cases of the German energy transition. Understanding the elements of wickedness in a specific problem in the first step offers insights for addressing and managing these challenges in the next step.
... The same could be said for psychologists and the psychological support provided to oncologists and cancer patients, and for bioethicists and bioethical support. 98,116 An ethics committee alone, without bioethicists, would be inadequate, 117,118 because being a biologist or a physician is not sufficient, in itself, for competence in bioethics or medical ethics, just as being an oncologist does not imply intrinsic competence, for example, in orthopaedic surgery. There are courses to be followed, diplomas to be obtained, especially doctorates, and truly scientific and pedagogic experience to be acquired. ...
Full-text available
Background: Using a specific bioethical theory (=global bioethics) and method (=a posteriori), we try here to identify and evaluate the bio-ethical issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic, and possible solutions, to improve the management of cancer patients at the hospital in future pandemics, before the emergence of vaccines or scientifically validated treatments. Materials & methods: Our work is based primarily on the clinical experience of three oncologists from the oncology department of Foch Hospital in France, who were on the frontline during the first wave of the epidemic. We compared their perceptions with published findings, to complete or nuance their views. Results: Three bio-ethical issues were identified, and possible solutions to these problems were evaluated: (1) scientific evidence versus lack of time → the creation of emergency multidisciplinary team meetings (MTM); (2) healthcare equality versus lack of resources → the development of telemedicine; (3) individual liberties versus risk of contamination → role of cancer patients' associations, psychologists and bioethicists. Conclusion: We consider the creation of an emergency MTM, in particular, in addition to a true ethics committee with real competence in bioethics, to be a first solution that would be easy to implement in hospitals in many countries.
... More holistically, and in line with the socio-ecological view, complex interactions among all these elements are foundational to understand and properly address ANC delivery in different settings. Solutions also need to be multifaceted, and mindful that one intervention might lead to unexpected adverse consequences, according to the wicked problem framework [38,39]. For example, whilst digital technologies hold enormous potential for improving ANC services in remotes, without adequate financial support and policy intervention there is high risk of increasing income-based inequity in ANC services and outcomes. ...
Full-text available
Background Shortage or low-quality antenatal care is a complex and “wicked” problem relying heavily on contextual, socio-cultural, environmental and intersectional aspects. We report the outcome of an expert consultation discussing solutions to improve antenatal care quality, access and delivery in low- and middle-income countries, and providing recommendations for implementation. Methods The social ecological model was used as an analytical lens to map and interpret discussion points and proposed solutions. In addition, a conceptual framework for maternal and neonatal health innovation based on the building blocks of the World Health Organization health system and the Tanahashi Health Systems Performance Model provided a logical overview of discussed solutions. Results Many barriers and norms continue to hinder antenatal care access. From values, beliefs, traditions, customs and norms, to poor resource allocation, there is a need of reshaping health systems in order to provide high quality, respectful maternal and childcare. The burden of poor maternal health, morbidity and mortality is concentrated among populations who are vulnerable due to gender and other types of discrimination, have financial constraints and are affected by humanitarian crises. Conclusions In order to address maternal health issues, good quality and evidence-based services should be guaranteed. Investments in strengthening health systems, including data and surveillance systems and skilled health workforce, should be considered an essential step towards improving maternal health services.
The Covid-19 pandemic, officially declared in March 2020 by the WHO, poses major challenges to public, private, and occupational life. CoronaCare is an ethnographic research project that investigates the everyday life of people during the Covid-19 pandemic in Germany with a particular focus on social health. The aim of the project was to develop recommendations for pandemic preparedness planning focusing on expanding social health care. Through a series of workshops conducted between June and November 2021 with stakeholders from the fields of science, health and social administration drawn from both local and state levels, care institutions and social associations, the research team developed specific recommendations for pandemic preparedness and response on the basis of empirically substantiated vignettes demonstrating key tensions in caring practices. These tensions illustrate that pandemic management must be understood as a so-called wicked problem in which there are only relational rather than clear-cut, ultimate solutions. As such, the recommendations developed in the workshops point to the imperative to 1. recognize the irresolvable tension between measures to contain the pandemic in planning pandemic management and the human desire to care and be cared for; 2. understand and manage pandemics at the community level; 3. aim for close collaboration between actors at the local health, social, and family level; and 4. create spaces for ethical reflection on good care during a pandemic and develop context-specific strategies for action. For pandemic preparedness and management as a 'wicked problem', this means that measures should be disseminated as recommendations rather than regulations in order to have some leeway that enables care to be tailored to individual needs. They should be accompanied by stable guidance for action as well as regular training for staff. The workshop formats can be understood as an example of multidimensional knowledge transfer in a socially challenging situation.
The SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant has become one of the greatest public health challenges worldwide since, after being first identified in India in December 2020, it has spread rapidly, affecting mainly countries with low vaccination rates and those that have relaxed the public health and social measures implemented to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The Delta variant has a higher replication capacity and is associated with viral loads up to 1 260 times higher than those of infections caused by the original strain, which may be associated with an increased likelihood of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for oxygen therapy, pneumonia, or even death. Fully vaccinated individuals have almost similar protection against both Delta and Alpha variants. Given the impact of Delta in countries where it is the dominant variant, it is necessary for all countries to develop systematic action plans focused on implementing strict public health and social measures in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and on increasing vaccination coverage. Bearing this in mind, the objective of this reflection paper is to describe the main characteristics of the Delta variant, its impact on the dynamics of the pandemic in some of the countries where it has been detected, the effectiveness of vaccines against this variant, and its implications for public health in Colombia.
This paper investigates the potential of transformative governance to address the wicked tourism problem of climate change. Drawing on a pragmatic constructivist approach that synthesises related concepts such as crisis, tourisystem, “dragons of inaction”, adaptive cycles and “panarchy”, we contend that progress toward lower-carbon tourism is currently impeded by mutually reinforcing poverty and rigidity traps which perpetuate gaps between pro-environmental attitudes and actual behaviour. Poverty traps occur when insufficient creativity is injected into the threatened system, while rigidity traps describe conservation of maladaptive system structures that reject creativity. Tourism responses to COVID-19 further demonstrate the intractability of these traps. “Soft” transformative governance, proposed as a realistic path for escaping the traps and improving system resilience, entails accelerated accrual of micro-transformations through paradigm nudge, or “transformation by stealth”. Facilitative strategies include constructive manipulation of stakeholder values, and adaptive mobilisation of citizenship rights and responsibilities.
Full-text available
Poland’s efforts to combat COVID-19 were hindered by endemic vaccination hesitancy and the prevalence of opponents to pandemic restrictions. In this environment, the policy of a COVID-19 vaccination mandate faces strong resistance in the public debate. Exploring the discourse around this resistance could help uncover the motives and develop an understanding of vaccination hesitancy in Poland. This paper aims to conduct a social network analysis and content analysis of Twitter discussions around the intention of the Polish Ministry of Health to introduce mandatory vaccinations for COVID-19. Twitter was chosen as a platform to study because of the critical role it played during the global health crisis. Twitter data were retrieved from 26 July to 9 December 2021 through the API v2 for Academic Research, and analysed using NodeXL and Gephi. When conducting social network analysis, nodes were ranked by their betweenness centrality. Clustering analysis with the Clauset–Newman–Moore algorithm revealed two important groups of users: advocates and opponents of mandatory vaccination. The temporal trends of tweets, the most used hashtags, the sentiment expressed in the most popular tweets, and correlations with epidemiological data were also studied. The results reveal a substantial degree of polarisation, a high intensity of the discussion, and a high degree of involvement of Twitter users. Vaccination mandate advocates were consistently more numerous, but less engaged and less mobilised to “preach” their own stances. Vaccination mandate opponents were vocal and more mobilised to participate: either as original authors or as information diffusers. Our research leads to the conclusion that systematic monitoring of the public debate on vaccines is essential not only in counteracting misinformation, but also in crafting evidence-based as well as emotionally motivating narratives.
Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many consumers to pause and rethink the impacts of their consumption behavior. The purpose of this paper is to explore changes to consumers’ preferences and shopping behavior in retail using a sustainable consumption lens to understand the long-term effects of the pandemic on retail services. Design/methodology/approach Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 participants to gain insights into shopping behaviors and preferences during the pandemic and to investigate changes in attitudes or behaviors toward sustainable consumption as a result of the pandemic. Data analysis involved an iterative inductive process and subsequent thematic analysis. Findings The results reveal a strong move toward sustainable and conscious consumption with three key changes occurring as a result of the pandemic, including changes in consumers’ ethos, move to purpose-driven shopping and drive to buy local and support national. Practical implications This paper reveals insights into consumer shopping behaviors and preferences that can potentially counter the collapse of “normal” marketplace activities in the face of the current global pandemic by providing a framework for how retail services can respond, reimagine and recover to move forward long term. Originality/value This study uncovers the importance of services marketing in endorsing and promoting sustainable consumption by shaping subtle shifts in conscious consumption as a way to recover from a global pandemic and move to a “new” service marketplace.
Full-text available
In this paper I discuss the ethical justifiability of the limitation of freedom of movement, in particular of the ban on running outdoors, enforced in Italy as a response to the COVID-19 outbreak in the spring of 2020. I argue that through the lens of public health ethics literature, the ban on running falls short of the criterion of proportionality that public health ethics scholars and international guidelines for the ethical management of infectious disease outbreak recommend for any measure that restricts essential individual freedoms, such as the freedom of movement. The public health ethics framework, however, falls short of explaining the widespread public support that the running ban has had in Italy. I discuss possible factors which could explain the public support for the ban in Italy. Finally, I raise the question of what societal implications the abandonment of the public health ethics framework based on proportionality might have. I conclude that if it is the case, as the history of pandemics teaches us, we will experience further waves of COVID-19 outbreaks, it becomes very important to raise these questions now, with an eye towards informing public health policies for the management of future COVID-19 outbreaks. This discussion should not become politicized along the lines of liberal pro-lockdown/conservative anti-lockdown. Instead, we should reflect on the trade-offs of lockdown policies according to a pluralist framework, in which COVID-19 related deaths are not the only possible value to pursue.
Full-text available
Significance Confronted with escalating COVID-19 outbreaks, countries at the leading edge of the pandemic have had to resort to imposing drastic social distancing measures which have serious societal and economic repercussions. Establishing herd immunity in a population by allowing the epidemic to spread, while mitigating the negative health impacts of COVID-19, presents a tantalizing resolution to the crisis. Our study simulating SARS-CoV-2 spread in the United Kingdom finds that achieving herd immunity without overwhelming hospital capacity leaves little room for error. Intervention levels must be carefully manipulated in an adaptive manner for an extended period, despite acute sensitivity to poorly quantified epidemiological factors. Such fine-tuning of social distancing renders this strategy impractical.
Full-text available
There is an urgent need for effective treatment and preventive vaccine to contain this devastating global pandemic, which requires a comprehensive understanding of humoral responses specific to SARS-CoV-2 during the disease progression and convalescent phase of COVID-19 patients. We continuously monitored the serum IgM and IgG responses specific to four SARS-CoV-2 related antigens, including the nucleoprotein (NP), receptor binding domain (RBD), S1 protein, and ectodomain (ECD) of the spike protein among non-severe and severe COVID-19 patients for seven weeks since disease onset. Most patients generated humoral responses against NP and spike protein-related antigens but with their distinct kinetics profiles. Combined detection of NP and ECD antigens as detecting antigen synergistically improved the sensitivity of the serological assay, compared to that of using NP or RBD as detection antigen. 80.7% of convalescent sera from COVID-19 patients revealed that the varying extents of neutralization activities against SARS-CoV-2. S1-specific and ECD-specific IgA responses were strongly correlated with the neutralization activities in non-severe patients, but not in severe patients. Moreover, the neutralizing activities of the convalescent sera were shown to significantly decline during the period between 21 days to 28 days after hospital discharge, accompanied by a substantial drop in RBD-specific IgA response. Our data provide evidence that are crucial for serological testing, antibody-based intervention, and vaccine design of COVID-19.
Background Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) were implemented by many countries to reduce the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causal agent of COVID-19. A resurgence in COVID-19 cases has been reported in some countries that lifted some of these NPIs. We aimed to understand the association of introducing and lifting NPIs with the level of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as measured by the time-varying reproduction number (R), from a broad perspective across 131 countries. Methods In this modelling study, we linked data on daily country-level estimates of R from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (London, UK) with data on country-specific policies on NPIs from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, available between Jan 1 and July 20, 2020. We defined a phase as a time period when all NPIs remained the same, and we divided the timeline of each country into individual phases based on the status of NPIs. We calculated the R ratio as the ratio between the daily R of each phase and the R from the last day of the previous phase (ie, before the NPI status changed) as a measure of the association between NPI status and transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We then modelled the R ratio using a log-linear regression with introduction and relaxation of each NPI as independent variables for each day of the first 28 days after the change in the corresponding NPI. In an ad-hoc analysis, we estimated the effect of reintroducing multiple NPIs with the greatest effects, and in the observed sequence, to tackle the possible resurgence of SARS-CoV-2. Findings 790 phases from 131 countries were included in the analysis. A decreasing trend over time in the R ratio was found following the introduction of school closure, workplace closure, public events ban, requirements to stay at home, and internal movement limits; the reduction in R ranged from 3% to 24% on day 28 following the introduction compared with the last day before introduction, although the reduction was significant only for public events ban (R ratio 0·76, 95% CI 0·58–1·00); for all other NPIs, the upper bound of the 95% CI was above 1. An increasing trend over time in the R ratio was found following the relaxation of school closure, bans on public events, bans on public gatherings of more than ten people, requirements to stay at home, and internal movement limits; the increase in R ranged from 11% to 25% on day 28 following the relaxation compared with the last day before relaxation, although the increase was significant only for school reopening (R ratio 1·24, 95% CI 1·00–1·52) and lifting bans on public gatherings of more than ten people (1·25, 1·03–1·51); for all other NPIs, the lower bound of the 95% CI was below 1. It took a median of 8 days (IQR 6–9) following the introduction of an NPI to observe 60% of the maximum reduction in R and even longer (17 days [14–20]) following relaxation to observe 60% of the maximum increase in R. In response to a possible resurgence of COVID-19, a control strategy of banning public events and public gatherings of more than ten people was estimated to reduce R, with an R ratio of 0·71 (95% CI 0·55–0·93) on day 28, decreasing to 0·62 (0·47–0·82) on day 28 if measures to close workplaces were added, 0·58 (0·41–0·81) if measures to close workplaces and internal movement restrictions were added, and 0·48 (0·32–0·71) if measures to close workplaces, internal movement restrictions, and requirements to stay at home were added. Interpretation Individual NPIs, including school closure, workplace closure, public events ban, ban on gatherings of more than ten people, requirements to stay at home, and internal movement limits, are associated with reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2, but the effect of introducing and lifting these NPIs is delayed by 1–3 weeks, with this delay being longer when lifting NPIs. These findings provide additional evidence that can inform policy-maker decisions on the timing of introducing and lifting different NPIs, although R should be interpreted in the context of its known limitations. Funding Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund and Data-Driven Innovation initiative.
Why proposals to largely let the virus run its course — embraced by Donald Trump’s administration and others — could bring “untold death and suffering”. Why proposals to largely let the virus run its course — embraced by Donald Trump’s administration and others — could bring “untold death and suffering”.
In November 2016, James G. March was awarded the Progress Medal and, during the ceremony held in Fontainebleau, he gave a synthetic account of his long and fascinating intellectual journey in one of his last public speeches. He began his speech by stating very clearly the overall aim of such a journey: “my work”—he said—“can be seen as reflecting an attempt to rescue microeconomics from itself.” This statement could sound quite surprising since March has published fundamental, path-breaking, and often foundational contributions to management research, he has been one of the founding fathers of modern organization studies, he has opened important lines of research in strategy, he has given important contributions to political sciences, but those familiar with his work would probably not think of him primarily as a microeconomist or someone devoted to efforts at conversion therapy. And, indeed, we cannot say that his impact in the field of microeconomics has been anywhere near his impact in the fields of organization, strategy, and political sciences, as March himself acknowledges in the following statement of that same speech, when he concludes that: “most of the time the victim [i.e. microeconomics] has not seemed to be very receptive to being rescued.”
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected more than 35 million people globally, with more than 1 million deaths recorded by WHO as of Oct 12, 2020. As a second wave of COVID-19 affects Europe, and with winter approaching, we need clear communication about the risks posed by COVID-19 and effective strategies to combat them. Here, we share our view of the current evidence-based consensus on COVID-19.
Herd immunity is a key concept for epidemic control. It states that only a proportion of a population needs to be immune (through overcoming natural infection or through vaccination) to an infectious agent for it to stop generating large outbreaks. A key question in the current COVID-19 pandemic is how and when herd immunity can be achieved and at what cost. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, the concept of herd immunity has become a topic of much debate. This Comment examines the factors that determine it, discusses how far we have come and considers what it will take to reach herd immunity safely.
As the new cases of COVID-19 are growing every daysince January 2020, the major way to control the spread wasthrough early diagnosis. Prevention and early diagnosis are the key strategies followed by most countries. This study presents the perspective of different modes of transmission of coronavirus,especially during clinical practices and among the pediatrics. Further, the diagnostic methods and the advancement of the computerized tomography have been discussed. Droplets, aerosol, and close contact are thesignificantfactors to transfer the infection to the suspect. This study predicts the possible transmission of the virus through medical practices such as ophthalmology, dental, and endoscopy procedures. With regard to pediatric transmission, as of now, only afew child fatalities had been reported. Childrenusually respond to the respiratory virus; however, COVID-19 response ison the contrary. The possibility of getting infected is minimal for the newborn. There has been no asymptomatic spread in children until now. Moreover, breastfeedingwould not transmit COVID-19, which is encouraging hygiene news for the pediatric. In addition, the current diagnostic methods for COVID-19 including Immunoglobulin M (IgM) and Immunoglobulin G (IgG)and chest computed topography(CT) scan, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) andimmunochromatographic fluorescence assay, are also discussed in detail. The introduction of artificial intelligence and deep learning algorithmhas the ability to diagnose COVID-19 in precise. However, the developments of a potential technology for the identification of the infection, such as a drone with thermal screening without human intervention, need to be encouraged.