Handling Of Pandemic Research Articles

Political trust in the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic – A survey in Denmark and Sweden

Abstract Background The two neighboring countries Denmark and Sweden differed markedly in their initial response to the coronavirus pandemic as Denmark rapidly introduced mandatory restrictions while Sweden's response was characterized by voluntary recommendations and an emphasis on personal responsibility. Both countries saw considerable discussion in media about whether restrictions were sufficient and appropriate. Aim To investigate the extent to which there was political trust in the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark and Sweden and the characteristics of those in each country who expressed the lowest degree of trust. Methods Cross-sectional surveys were completed in Denmark (n = 2619) and Sweden (n = 2633) in 2021. Trust was captured in two questions: trust in how the government and the public health authority in each country had handled the pandemic. Those who expressed “very small trust” or “moderately small trust” were labelled “low-trusters”. The effects of demographic variables were analysed by logistic regression. Results Trust in the government's handling of the pandemic was considerably higher in Denmark than in Sweden. Approximately 61% of the Danish respondents expressed moderately or very large trust in the government's handling of the pandemic. The corresponding proportion for the Swedish respondents was smaller, 42%. Further, the proportion of low-trusters was considerably smaller in Denmark than in Sweden, 11% versus 34%. Also, males in both Denmark and Sweden were more than twice as likely as females to express low trust in the handling of the pandemic. Discussions Denmark and Sweden are similar in many ways, being universal welfare states, which have been associated with high political trust. Our findings suggest that the more active involvement of the Danish government in the battle against COVID-19 generated a high degree of public trust. The Swedish government's more passive role does not seem to have resulted in the same degree of trust. Key messages • Active involvement of authorities and governments seem to increase citizens’ trust. • The degree of trust in authorities and governments during a crisis differs among groups.

Political trust in the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey in Denmark and Sweden

BackgroundThe initial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark and Sweden differed markedly. Balancing disparate concerns was crucial to generate trust in the COVID-19 restrictions. The aim was to investigate the extent to which there was trust in the handling of the pandemic by the Danish and Swedish governments and public health authorities in each country. A further aim was also to investigate the characteristics of those in Denmark and Sweden who expressed the lowest degree of trust.MethodsCross-sectional surveys were conducted in 2021, using web panels that are nationally representative of the socio-demographic characteristics. The population consisted of 2619 individuals from Denmark and 2633 from Sweden, representative of the age, sex and region of residence of the populations aged ≥ 18 years. Trust in government and health authorities was captured in two separate trust questions on a 5-point Likert scale and dichotomized into low trusters and non-low trusters for analysis.ResultsApproximately, 61% of the Danish respondents expressed moderately large or very large trust in the government’s handling of the pandemic. The corresponding proportion for Sweden was 42%. The proportion of low trusters was 11% in Denmark and 34% in Sweden (p < 0.001). Moderately large or very large trust in the public health authority’s handling was expressed by 83% of the Danish respondents and 74% of the Swedish respondents. The proportion of low trusters was 5% in Denmark and 17% in Sweden (p < 0.001). In both countries, trust was lower among men than among women. Age and education were associated with trust but differed between countries (p < = 0.011).ConclusionsIn this study, differences in trust between Denmark and Sweden and both overall and within socio-demographic factors were observed. However, given the limitations and bias in the study, it is difficult to determine the cause and true size of these differences. With that in mind, we still believe specific populations and subgroups within those populations have the potential to affect trust in handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that these should be kept in mind when developing and communicating responses to pandemics.

Handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic and Its Effects on Bariatric Surgical Practice: Analysis of GENEVA Study Database

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a worldwide suspension of bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) services. The current study analyses data on patterns of service delivery, recovery of practices, and protective measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic by bariatric teams.Materials and MethodsThe current study is a subset analysis of the GENEVA study which was an international cohort study between 01/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Data were specifically analysed regarding the timing of BMS suspension, patterns of service recovery, and precautionary measures deployed.ResultsA total of 527 surgeons from 439 hospitals in 64 countries submitted data regarding their practices and handling of the pandemic. Smaller hospitals (with less than 200 beds) were able to restart BMS programmes more rapidly (time to BMS restart 60.8 ± 38.9 days) than larger institutions (over 2000 beds) (81.3 ± 30.5 days) (p = 0.032). There was a significant difference in the time interval between cessation/reduction and restart of bariatric services between government-funded practices (97.1 ± 76.2 days), combination practices (84.4 ± 47.9 days), and private practices (58.5 ± 38.3 days) (p < 0.001).Precautionary measures adopted included patient segregation, utilisation of personal protective equipment, and preoperative testing. Following service recovery, 40% of the surgeons operated with a reduced capacity. Twenty-two percent gave priority to long waiters, 15.4% gave priority to uncontrolled diabetics, and 7.6% prioritised patients requiring organ transplantation.ConclusionThis study provides global, real-world data regarding the recovery of BMS services following the COVID-19 pandemic.Graphical abstract

Improving vaccination intent among skeptics through confidence in governments' handling of the COVID-19 pandemic

Scientific evidence suggests that individuals vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines are less likely to require hospitalization, possibly lowering the burden on the healthcare system. Despite such benefits, substantial segments of the world's population remain skeptical of COVID-19 vaccines and are hesitant to take them. Even if such individuals have been inoculated with COVID-19 vaccines out of economic, social, or legal necessity, they may be less inclined to receive booster shots or vaccinate their offspring when such options become available. What might help reduce this hesitancy? We examined this question using nationally representative survey data across 15 developed countries (max N = 122,516). Our findings suggest that inspiring confidence in the government's handling of the pandemic is pivotal in enhancing vaccination intent among vaccine skeptics. Specifically, results from a hierarchical linear analysis showed that among vaccine skeptics, confidence in the government's management of the pandemic was associated with greater intent to (a) take COVID-19 vaccines (b) take booster shots and (c) vaccinate one's children.

The Handling of Covid-19 Pandemic in Indonesia from the Perspective of Nonmilitary Defense Strategy

Pandemic coronavirus disease -2019 (COVID-19) resulted in various aspects of the life of Indonesian people, including aspects of defense and security. The defense state classifies threats into military threats, nonmilitary, and combined or hybrid threats. The epidemic of COVID-19 is a non - military threat with a public safety dimension against the national defense. The bureaucracy that has not been properly integrated, sectoral egos, and negative news about the pandemic have become obstacles in the handling of the COV ID-19 pandemic by the Government of Indonesia. This research aims to analyze the simple handling of the pandemic COVID-19 by the Indonesian Government from the perspective of nonmilitary defense principles. This becomes important to unravel and minimize the obstacles faced so that subsequent handling will be more effective and efficient. This paper uses descriptive analysis with a qualitative approach and a literature study. With the theory principles of defense strategy of nonmilitary, the author is looking at steps undertaken by Indonesia Government in handling the pandemic COVID-19. The principle of unity of command, coordination principle, the principle of anticipation, and the principle of transparency still need to be improved in a concrete way so that the handling of the pandemic COVID-19 is effective and efficient, could be reached. Building synergies and integrity policymakers consistently and continuously, inevitability to improve the defense state ability in the face of threats, military, nonmilitary and hybrid threats