Social Distancing Policies in the Coronavirus Battle: A Comparison of Denmark and Sweden

Abstract

Social distancing measures have been a key component in government strategies to mitigate COVID-19 globally. Based on official documents, this study aimed to identify, compare and analyse public social distancing policy measures adopted in Denmark and Sweden regarding the coronavirus from 1 March 2020 until 1 October 2020. A key difference was the greater emphasis on laws and executive orders (sticks) in Denmark, which allowed the country to adopt many stricter policy measures than Sweden, which relied mostly on general guidelines and recommendations (sermons). The main policy adopters in Denmark were the government and the Danish Parliament, whereas the Public Health Agency issued most policies in Sweden, reflecting a difference in political governance and administrative structure in the two countries. During the study period, Sweden had noticeably higher rates of COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations per 100,000 population than Denmark, yet it is difficult to determine the impact or relative effectiveness of sermons and sticks, particularly with regard to broader and longer-term health, economic and societal effects.

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

“…The difference was particularly large in Sweden; almost twice as many respondents expressed moderately large or very large trust in the public health authority's handling than with the government's handling. This could be interpreted as high public trust in the Public Health Agency's expertise and use of voluntary recommendations [4]. These ndings are consistent with those of Nielsen and Lindvall [24], who also found that trust in the public health authorities' ability to guide the country safely through the pandemic was higher than trust in the ability of the government of each country to do so.…”

“…However, Sweden's approach changed in response to high rates of COVID-19 cases when the second wave of the pandemic hit in the winter 2020-2021. This led to swift development of a Pandemic Law and adoption of many more mandatory restrictions, thus making Sweden's strategy more similar to Denmark's [4].…”

Framing the Covid‐19 pandemic: A comparative analysis of Swedish and Danish crisis communication

“…In Sweden, the PHA took a leading role in pandemic management, communication and decision‐making. In Denmark, the government was the central decision‐maker, with the PHA mainly responsible for providing recommendations to the government and providing general guidelines to the population (Pashakhanlou, 2022; Seing et al, 2021).…”

Ideal types’ strategies related to handling early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic: A thematic analysis of comments from an international survey

“…In general, the voices of the privileged positions in society have greater power than the less privileged positions, also in terms of disease understandings and defining related strategies (Boelsbjerg and Glasdam, 2022; Bourdieu, 1996; Chang et al, 2016). However, both governments (Gjerde, 2021; Nygren and Olofsson, 2021; Ortega and Orsini, 2020; Seing et al, 2021) and individuals (re)act differently when facing diseases or crises (Boelsbjerg and Glasdam, 2022; Chang et al, 2016). Individuals’ strategies related to new life situations, such as the pandemic, are based on habitus, capital, and social position in society (Bourdieu, 1995).…”

“…Individuals’ strategies related to new life situations, such as the pandemic, are based on habitus, capital, and social position in society (Bourdieu, 1995). Individuals’ strategies are also related to the strategy of their country of residence (Seing et al, 2021; Stjernswärd et al, 2021a). The current pandemic has earned the title of ‘infodemic’ due to the massive amount of information circulating through varied channels (Gallotti et al, 2020).…”