Improving Pandemic Response: A Sensemaking Perspective on the Spring 2009 H1N1 Pandemic

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show that 2009 H1N1 “swine” influenza pandemic vaccination policies deviated from predictions established in the theory of political survival, and to propose that pandemic response deviated because it was ruled by bureaucratized experts rather than by elected politicians. Design/methodology/approach – Focussing on the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, the paper employs descriptive statistical analysis of vaccination policies in nine western democracies. To probe the plausibility of the novel explanation, it uses quantitative and qualitative content analyses of media attention and coverage in two deviant cases, the USA and Denmark. Findings – Theories linking political survival to disaster responses find little empirical support in the substantial cross-country variations of vaccination responses during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Rather than following a political logic, the case studies of media coverage in the USA and Denmark demonstrate that the response was bureaucratized in the public health agencies (CDC and DMHA, respectively). Hence, while natural disaster responses appear to follow a political logic, the response to pandemics appears to be more strongly instituted in the hands of bureaucratic experts. Research limitations/implications – There is an added value of encompassing bureaucratic dynamics in political theories of disaster response; bureaucratized expertise proved to constitute a strong plausible explanation of the 2009 pandemic vaccination response. Practical implications – Pandemic preparedness and response depends critically on understanding the lessons of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic; a key lesson supported by this paper is that expert-based agencies rather than political leaders are the pivotal actors. Originality/value – This paper is the first to pinpoint the limitations of political survival theories of disaster responses with respect to the 2009 pandemic. Further, it is among the few to analyze the causes of variations in cross-country pandemic vaccination policies during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

Download Full-text

Tobacco smoking and influenza (review)

MedAlliance ◽

10.36422/23076348-2020-8-1-90-92 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

pp. 90-92

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Influenza Infection ◽

H1n1 Pandemic ◽

Influenza Epidemic ◽

Risk Of Death ◽

Stop Smoking ◽

2009 H1n1 ◽

Former Smokers ◽

The Russian Federation ◽

Pandemic Flu

The review analyzed data on the risks of influenza infection and severe course in tobacco smokers compared with non-smokers. The incidence of influenza in the Russian Federation in 2018 amounted to 26.33 per 100 000 people, and was 24% lower than the incidence in 2017 (34.86 per 100 000) due to the fact that in recent years the coverage of the population with preventive vaccinations has been significantly increased against the flu. Meta-analyzes shows that current smokers are more likely to get the flu than non-smokers. It is noted that smoking may increase the risk of hospitalization in smokers (OR 1.32–2.18 in various meta-analyzes) and former smokers after infection with the influenza virus. Tobacco has been found to increase the risk of death from influenza among older people. At the same time, there is a study of risk factors for severe outcomes in patients hospitalized with the 2009 H1N1 pandemic flu, in which smoking was not a risk factor for severe outcomes. During the influenza epidemic, smokers and former smokers should be given the flu shot and be informed of the risk of hospitalization, and they are also strongly advised to stop smoking.

Download Full-text