Who is leading Sweden’s coronavirus strategy? For much of the pandemic, the state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, has been the public face of the government’s COVID-19 response. The Swedish government has consistently deferred to his advice (as well as the advice of the public health body he represents) to the extent that the former state epidemiologist, Johan Giesecke, has warned that Tegnell may have been given “too much power”. However, following months of relying on voluntary public measures, the government finally U-turned in November and introduced stricter restrictions on public gatherings. So, has it now stopped “following the science”?

In the Swedish capital, the healthcare system has reached breaking point. The “light touch” approach was clearly no longer sustainable. In December, Stockholm’s health authority announced that 99% of its intensive care beds were occupied, and called for help from the country’s military. Neighbouring countries, Finland and Norway, have offered to step in and provide support. Tegnell has admitted that resistance among the population to the virus through exposure and infection has not built as quickly as he had expected (though “herd immunity” was never the stated aim of the Swedish strategy).

“We are following the science” was also the mantra from the British government early in the pandemic, though it drew criticism from scientists for misrepresenting how scientific advice helps shape policy. Some scientists in the UK have even argued that ministers used them as “cover” when making difficult decisions, or that politicians misrepresented scientific advice to justify policy choices they favoured ideologically, and that this risks confusing the public and eroding trust in scientists.

Transparency is key. Politicians need to listen to scientific advice, though there should certainly be a recognition that science can change as more evidence is acquired. Scientists need to be given platforms to talk to the public and explain the evidence. However, ultimately, surely it is politicians (and not scientists) who need to be held accountable for the policy decisions they make, even in an extraordinary situation such as a pandemic?

What do our readers think? We had a comment from Proactive arguing that, ultimately, scientists need to advise but politicians need to decide. He argues that too many politicians have been “abdicating positive leadership roles during the COVID-19 pandemic and hiding behind ‘the science’.”

To get a response, we spoke to Sara Cerdas, a Portuguese medical doctor and politician who serves as a Member of the European Parliament with the Socialists & Democrats group. What would she say?

It’s a good question by Proactive, indeed. But I would say that this pandemic has given every citizen, even if they don’t have a scientific background, a sneak peak into how scientific progress is made. So, at scientific conferences you usually are there with your colleagues and are presenting the latest evidence, sometimes they clash and sometimes they converge, and you need a lot of evidence, and it’s like a puzzle; each person may have a piece and we need to put it all together. So, that’s why there are many, many differences of opinion but they converge into one.

In terms of politicians, they need to listen and pay attention to scientific advice. I come from a scientific background, and before I’m a politician I will always be a medical doctor, and will try to use the evidence that is out there and incorporate it into my role as a politician, because that’s how I believe I can add to the field.

There has been some hiding behind some scientific or technical decisions. For instance, Sweden’s response was not based on the science, but was based on the technical part. It was just one of the strategies. Now, they have said it hasn’t gone according to plan, as many others in the scientific community were saying, but that’s how it goes for science.

What we need is to give scientists a bigger spotlight and bigger stages [to communicate with the public]. For instance, in Portugal, I’ve seen so many political commentators analysing epidemiological curves, and I’m there watching the TV and am just shivering in my chair because I know so many colleagues – epidemiologists, medical doctors – that have the technical tools to analyse those tools that those political commentators do not have.

So, science is not something that just anyone can talk about, and we as politicians need to make sure who is conveying the message to the public, otherwise we are going to have a lot of misinformation arising, and so many people are already spreading inaccurate information about the pandemic. We need to convey information in the most assertive way possible, that is my message. I truly believe we need to give the stage to those that are most qualified to speak on different topics.

For another perspective, we put the same comment to Lidia Borrell-Damian, Secretary General of Science Europe, an association representing major public research organisations who fund or perform scientific research in Europe. What would she say?

Who should decide COVID-19 measures: scientists or politicians? Are politicians making decisions or “hiding behind” science? How can scientific advice best be incorporated into the policymaking process? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

Image Credits: WikiMedia (CC-BY-SA) Frankie Fouganthin; Portrait Credits: Cerdas – (cc) Circwork
Editorially independent content supported by: Fondazione Cariplo. See our FAQ for more details
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is FCARIPLO.png


12 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar
    Juan Francisco

    Tipos de traducción
    Traducción de texto
    Texto original
    1329 / 5000
    Resultados de traducción
    In my opinion the decision is always political, and they are also the ones who will be held accountable. Although it must be said that political marketing sometimes overlaps technical decisions and vice versa. Politicians in front of governments and in the opposition have mistakenly understood that the pandemic was a matter of communication. Sometimes they forgot that the health crisis also entailed a crisis of knowledge (they did not know how to deal with the situation effectively.) They hid themselves in technicians, and sometimes not the most qualified to advise with very unpopular measures. And on the other hand, the opposition understood that this was a good opportunity to overthrow the governments. We have lived through an exhausted rampant polarization to use each other’s technicians. Some governments and others have hidden themselves in Committees of Experts, which in some cases had, for example, 20% of doctors, the rest were politicians who worked in party commissions and who had not practiced for years (in the case of a regional government in Spain). Politicians used the pandemic to wear down “the other” and what the very independent technician has done to him has been to confirm his theories. There has also been a power struggle between technicians, especially those with more access to the media.

  2. avatar
    Juan Francisco

    In my opinion the decision is always political, and they are also the ones who will be held accountable. Although it must be said that political marketing sometimes overlaps technical decisions and vice versa. Politicians in front of governments and in the opposition have mistakenly understood that the pandemic was a matter of communication. Sometimes they forgot that the health crisis also entailed a crisis of knowledge (they did not know how to deal with the situation effectively.) They hid themselves in technicians, and sometimes not the most qualified to advise with very unpopular measures. And on the other hand, the opposition understood that this was a good opportunity to overthrow the governments. We have lived through an exhausted rampant polarization to use each other’s technicians. Some governments and others have hidden themselves in Committees of Experts, which in some cases had, for example, 20% of doctors, the rest were politicians who worked in party commissions and who had not practiced for years (in the case of a regional government in Spain). Politicians used the pandemic to wear down “the other” and what the very independent technician has done to him has been to confirm his theories. There has also been a power struggle between technicians, especially those with more access to the media.

  3. avatar
    Bernard

    The advice of scientists and other experts in a particular field must weigh extremely heavily in the decision that, ultimately, must be taken by politicians. The problem is that it must be transparent which scientist or expert is being listened to. Are we listening to the economist, the epidemiologist or pollster, who also happens to have an academic degree during this pandemic? (although their advice need not be mutually exclusive).Advice on which policy choices are based must of course be public, so that the decision-making process is transparent.And, finally, Any politician who invokes ‘scientific research’ in a debate. must be able to indicate immediately on which research he bases his opinion. If the author of this study indicates that the results of the study do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the politician, the politician must, for punishment, write the following line a thousand times in all European languages: “I can’t use science for my cheap political games.” ;)

  4. avatar
    Paul

    Politicians, unlike “experts” in any field are always held to account by the electorate.

  5. avatar
    Michał

    If politicians listened to science, Europe would not have an Istanbul convention. And at the best of times, scientists are subject to the same frailties everyone else is: corruption, bias, compartmentalization. Treating scientists as though they are the oracle at Delphi is precisely what a fool would do.

  6. avatar
    Bogdan

    If by scientists you also understand sociologists and crowd psychologists, then, scientists.

  7. avatar
    Julia

    A committee of unbiased experts in all fields, not just medical, is required. Economics, statistics, social, health, and specialist experts with opposing opinions are required to advise is such cases. Nobody sponsored by vaccine investors, pharmaceutical companies or NGO’s should be allowed on this committee. Media should not fear-monger or promote one view or goal. Reporting needs to be unbiased again. Then the government can consider advice from all angles and all sources and make wise decisions. Instead of the hot mess we now have, the EU included.

  8. avatar
    Yannick

    Considering how ridiculously inapt the response of politicians to the climate crisis has been in the last THIRTY years, I’d say go with scientists all the way. Let me add that the problem is that yes politicians are held somewhat accountable for decisions .. within their election cycle. But who is held accountable for decisions that impact future generations? The climate crisis – like the rest of nature – is slowly unfolding. We need new mechanisms that also give a democratic voice to future generations.

  9. avatar
    Paul

    Politicians have to listen to scientists who are independent from all lobbys !

  10. avatar
    Judy

    How about politicians who are intelligent enough to know what they don’t know making informed decisions together with the scientists?

  11. avatar
    Jef

    A collège of judges politicians and scientists.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

More debate series – Coronavirus View all

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.