The governance of Covid-19: Anthropogenic risk, evolutionary learning, and the future of the social state

‘We consider the implications of the Covid-19 crisis for the theory and practice of governance. We define ‘governance’ as the process through which, in the case of a given entity or polity, resources are allocated, decisions made and policies implemented, with a view to ensuring the effectiveness of its operations in the face of risks in its environment. Core to this, we argue, is the organisation of knowledge through public institutions, including the legal system. Covid-19 poses a particular type of ‘Anthropogenic’ risk, which arises when organised human activity triggers feedback effects from the natural environment. As such it requires the concerted mobilisation of knowledge and a directed response from governments and international agencies. 

‘In this context, neoliberal theories and practices, which emphasise the self-adjusting properties of systems of governance in response to external shocks, are going to be put to the test. In states’ varied responses to Covid-19 to date, it is already possible to observe some trends. One of them is the widespread mischaracterisation of the measures taken to address the epidemic at the point of its emergence in the Chinese city of Wuhan in January and February 2020. 

‘Public health measures of this kind, rather than constituting a ‘state of exception’ in which legality is set aside, are informed by practices which originated in the welfare or social states of industrialised countries, and which were successful in achieving a ‘mortality revolution’ in the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Relearning this history would seem to be essential for the future control of pandemics and other Anthropogenic risks.’

Read here (NCBI, Dec 4, 2020)

Lancet COVID-19 Commission Statement on the occasion of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly

Executive summary: ‘The Lancet COVID-19 Commission was launched on July 9, 2020, to assist governments, civil society, and UN institutions in responding effectively to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Commission aims to offer practical solutions to the four main global challenges posed by the pandemic: suppressing the pandemic by means of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions; overcoming humanitarian emergencies, including poverty, hunger, and mental distress, caused by the pandemic; restructuring public and private finances in the wake of the pandemic; and rebuilding the world economy in an inclusive, resilient, and sustainable way that is aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Agreement. Many creative solutions are already being implemented, and a key aim of the Commission is to accelerate their adoption worldwide.’

Download full statement here (Sept 14, 2020)

The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the Covid-19 pandemic

‘...we compile new data on 1,717 local, regional, and national non-pharmaceutical interventions deployed in the ongoing pandemic across localities in China, South Korea, Italy, Iran, France, and the United States (US)... We estimate that across these six countries, interventions prevented or delayed on the order of 62 million confirmed cases, corresponding to averting roughly 530 million total infections. These findings may help inform whether or when these policies should be deployed, intensified, or lifted, and they can support decision-making in the other 180+ countries where COVID-19 has been reported.

Read here (Nature, June 8, 2020)

Malaysia is beating all these brutal COVID-19 expectations

‘To the casual observer, Malaysia’s handling of the COVID-19 outbreak may seem bungled. Media reports highlighted a mass religious gathering later linked to thousands of infections and the Ministry of Women’s advice that wives maintain a presentable appearance and avoiding nagging and sarcasm under lockdown. But Malaysia’s response deserves greater recognition as a meaningful example for countries that have insecure borders, significant mobile and vulnerable populations, larger households in denser living conditions and less than ideal political situations.’

Read here (Channel News Asia, May 4, 2020)

The Covid-19 riddle: Why does the virus wallop some places and spare others?

This article delves into areas like age, cultural factors, heat and light, and early and strict interventions.

‘Time may still prove the greatest equalizer: The Spanish flu that broke out in the United States in 1918 seemed to die down during the summer only to come roaring back with a deadlier strain in the fall, and a third wave the following year. It eventually reached far-flung places like islands in Alaska and the South Pacific and infected a third of the world’s population.

“We are really early in this disease,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, the director of the Harvard Global Health Research Institute. “If this were a baseball game, it would be the second inning and there’s no reason to think that by the ninth inning the rest of the world that looks now like it hasn’t been affected won’t become like other places.”

Read here (New York Times, May 3, 2020)

Whose coronavirus strategy worked best? Scientists hunt most effective policies

‘Working out the effectiveness of the unprecedented measures implemented worldwide to limit the spread of the coronavirus is now one of scientists’ most pressing questions... But untangling cause and effect is extremely challenging, in part because circumstances differ in each country and because there is uncertainty over how much people adhere to measures, cautions Rosalind Eggo, a mathematical modeller at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). “It’s really hard but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try,” she adds.

‘Efforts to tackle these questions will get a boost in the coming weeks from a database that brings together information on the hundreds of different interventions that have been introduced worldwide. The platform, being prepared for the World Health Organisation (WHO) by a team at the LSHTM, gathers data collected by ten groups already tracking interventions — including teams at the University of Oxford, UK, the Complexity Science Hub Vienna (CSH Vienna), and public-health organisations and non-profit organisations such as ACAPS, which analyses humanitarian crises.’

Read here (Nature, April 28, 2020)

For the record: Two game-changing studies from Imperial College that affected Europe-wide policies

The Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team in London produced two studies that influenced policy in Europe in a big way. In particular, it helped push Britain to switch its strategy from one based on ‘herd immunity’ to that of "suppression".

(1) March 16: ‘Suppression the only viable strategy’

The first study, published March 16, 2020, concluded that ‘epidemic suppression is the only viable strategy at the current time. The social and economic effects of the measures which are needed to achieve this policy goal will be profound. Many countries have adopted such measures already, but even those countries at an earlier stage of their epidemic (such as the UK) will need to do so imminently.’

Read here (Imperial College, March 16, 2020)

(2) March 30: ‘59,000 lives saved in 11 European countries via non-pharmacologial interventions, between 7 to 43 million individuals infected -- as of March 31’

The second study, published March 30, 2020, said that ‘with current interventions remaining in place to at least the end of March, we estimate that interventions across all 11 countries will have averted 59,000 deaths up to 31 March [95% credible interval 21,000-120,000]. Many more deaths will be averted through ensuring that interventions remain in place until transmission drops to low levels.

‘We estimate that, across all 11 countries between 7 and 43 million individuals have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 28th March, representing between 1.88% and 11.43% of the population. The proportion of the population infected to date – the attack rate - is estimated to be highest in Spain followed by Italy and lowest in Germany and Norway, reflecting the relative stages of the epidemics.’

Read here (Imperial College, March 30, 2020)