COVID-19 crisis management: what wounds the pandemic has opened and what we can learn from mistakes

“It was an eerie or long-lasting crisis that affected politicians, public officials and other stakeholders,” said TSPMI co-author TSPMI, who co-authored the discussion on COVID-19. Vitalis Nakrošis.

He, together with other TSPMI researchers, presented the 2020 agenda on Wednesday. The results of the research project “Response of Lithuania and other EU Member States to the COVID-19 pandemic: impact on public policies and management of emergencies ”implemented in June-December.

You can follow the full discussion here:

There was a lack of coherence

Another study co-author, TSPMI Associate Professor Dr. Vytautas Kuokštis noted that Lithuania stood out from other European Union (EU) countries by the severity of the pandemic restrictions, and later by its excessive liberation.

On February 26 of last year, the government led by Saulius Skvernelis declared a statewide emergency due to the threat of the spread of the coronavirus.

On March 16, despite the fact that the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Lithuania was still small, the Cabinet of Ministers announced the quarantine.

“In a sufficiently depoliticized environment, health problems, more than economic ones, dominated at that time, the role of experts was excellent, as was the belief that in a situation of high uncertainty, the answer should be the most early and strict possible, “Assoc said. Dr. V. Kuokštis.

However, the then Lithuanian government, which introduced some of the toughest restrictions in March, released the restrictions in the summer, probably mostly throughout the European Union (EU).

“Lithuania is distinguished again by the fact that it has released more than most other countries, even taking into account the epidemiological situation in Lithuania, the number of morbidities,” said the associate professor who conducted the study.

With the start of the second wave, according to doc. Dr. V. Kuokštis, Lithuania followed a different approach: it was thought that we had learned to manage the crisis, so it is no longer necessary to close down and the virus can be managed locally.

Such reassurance, he said, could have led to insufficient preparation for the second wave of the pandemic.

Overall, the study showed that Lithuania’s response to the stages of the pandemic was highly variable and was therefore not unequivocally assessed.

“It can be said that the variability of the response, on the one hand, shows such flexibility in responding to the situation. On the other hand, the lack of consistency also complicates the desire and the capacity of the population to meet the changing requirements, ”emphasized Assoc. Dr. V. Kuokštis.

He adds that the start of the second wave of coronavirus has highlighted additional problems in contact tracing, data presentation and analysis. The crisis has revealed a lack of management capacity, a lack of coordination.

Not much consistency also hampers the will and ability of the population to meet changing requirements.

The response was quick, but the volume was not the highest

“This is the first crisis of its kind in the history of Lithuania, when money was not the main or general problem, but there was a lack of management capacity and, in some cases, trust between state institutions and society o companies, “added prof. Dr. Ramūnas Vilpišauskas.

He noted that the crisis caused by the pandemic was multifaceted, so the economic policy response had to be different from previous crises.

This is the first such crisis in the history of Lithuania, when money was not the main or general problem.

“This is not only a pandemic with all the consequences for people’s health and lives, but it is also an economic crisis, arising both from the direct impact of the pandemic and in response to various measures that restrict economic activities.

What many analysts highlight is also the supply and demand crisis, because during it, due to restrictions, some services and goods become inaccessible, consumer behavior also changes ”, emphasized prof. Dr. R. Vilpišauskas.

According to him, in March, Lithuania’s response to the economic consequences of the pandemic was swift. However, volumes compared to EU countries, while unprecedented in Lithuania’s history in dealing with external challenges, were below average.

“Once implementation began, many support measures started to stagnate. By the way, the measures themselves were directed at both supply and demand. This was also in line with the nature of the crisis. But the biggest challenge was its practical implementation, especially due to the various preconditions to which the distribution of support was linked.

Implementation has been slow, leading in part to the effectiveness of horizontal support measures, particularly tax deferrals.

Lithuania has learned, there is a lot of evidence for that. There was direct communication with the ministers of other countries and the diplomatic service collected material on how other countries reacted, but most of it was learned from their experience ”, summarized R. Vilpišauskas.

Parliamentary elections had a partial impact on the management of the pandemic

The investigation also addressed the question of the Seimas elections as to whether these could have affected the management of the pandemic.

“We cannot say unequivocally that the Seimas elections had an impact on liberalization or subsequent tightening.

It is true that the Seimas elections may have had an impact from the fact that, having a better situation with the virus, the priorities simply changed differently at that time and perhaps less attention was paid to preparing for the second wave ” , Doc. Dr. V. Kuokštis.

Prof. Dr. R. Vilpišauskas added that the hypothesis about the influence of the Seimas elections was only partially confirmed – insofar as it was related to the lump sum payments in the summer – money for children or lump sum payments to people greater.

With the advent of the second wave, there was a lack of leadership

The study also looked at the issue of leadership. During the discussion, TSPMI doctoral student Rasa Bortkevičiūtė noted that at the beginning of the pandemic, the political leadership was quite clear, the best example of which was the introduction of the first quarantine.

But later, when the country faced a second wave of the pandemic and the number of infected people increased, both decisive solutions and quick responses were lacking.

Furthermore, the experience of countries that have handled the pandemic more successfully shows that their leaders have been characterized by open and empathetic communication. According to R. Bortkevičiūtė, who conducted the research, Lithuania also has a place to stretch in this place.

“On the one hand, we observed a sufficiently secure communication, a narrative of control of the situation was developed, but sometimes it was noticed that the situation is not as optimistic as described and this could generate public distrust.

On the other hand, we have seen quite controversial statements about certain groups in society, which may have contributed to the reluctance of those groups to cooperate and support the government’s crisis management policy, ”said the TSPMI doctoral student.

It notes that the interruption of pandemic management may also have been caused by a lack of trust in partners outside the public sector and a lack of involvement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in crisis management. According to her, it is the NGOs that can help solve the lack of human resources.

“The main functions in the crisis management process were performed by politicians or politically trusted officials. This raises some questions about the change of government and the future sustainability of the mechanisms created by crisis management.

“This crisis has shown a lack of leadership, a lack of responsibility, and this, of course, should be linked not only to certain systemic problems in the civil service, but also to a lack of learning from past crises,” he said.

Trust in doctors is higher, but are they on the sidelines?

“Regarding the participation of medical experts, there was a lack of a systemic approach and the political focus in the expert consultation varied,” Assoc said. R.Bortkevičiūtė.

According to her, doctors were involved at the beginning of the pandemic, when the virus was still completely unknown, but later, when the situation stabilized, experts were less consulted.

In addition, the experts were not used for direct communication, their help was more necessary to guarantee the legitimacy of the decisions. However, in the opinion of the study co-author, this raises questions because trust in scientists and experts is relatively higher than trust in politicians.

This crisis has shown a lack of leadership, a lack of responsibility.

Finally, the COCID-19 crisis has opened another problem for the public sector in terms of data analysis: the lack of integrated data systems.

“Although this system – people who are able to analyze the data – has been recruited and started working at the government level, allowing a little lower for other institutions, in this situation we are still seeing problems. <..>

We cannot say that the information exchange was fully effective, although it is noted that the countries that have developed better digitization have better coped with this crisis ”, summarized TSPMI associate professor R. Bortkevičiūtė.

Following the presentation of the study on the management of COVID-19 in Lithuania and Europe, Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė, Minister of Health Arūnas Dulkys and former adviser to the Prime Minister, Deputy Foreign Minister, now a member of Seimas Lukas Savickas, expanded the debate with The experts. Read more about it – here.