The math was brutal and simple: save lives or save the economy. For most countries during COVID-19, this felt like an impossible choice. But new research suggests some nations found a third path, with Norway emerging as the unexpected champion of pandemic management.
A comprehensive analysis published in the Journal of Policy Modeling reveals that achieving both infection control and economic stability during the pandemic was far more elusive than governments initially hoped. The study, conducted by researchers from Shinshu University and Kokugakuin University in Japan, tracked deaths, vaccination rates, production, and consumption across OECD countries plus Singapore and Taiwan from early 2020 through the end of 2022.
The findings paint a sobering picture of pandemic realities. Even countries that initially succeeded in keeping death rates low eventually saw their defenses crumble. Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan all managed to limit deaths during 2020, but by 2022, these countries too experienced significant increases in mortality.
“To enhance public health and economic performance, it is necessary to take into account the different time preferences and attitudes toward risk that vary by country and its citizens,” notes Professor Hiroaki Masuhara from Shinshu University.
The economic toll proved equally unforgiving. With rare exceptions like Norway, Finland, and Israel, virtually all countries saw production decline. Consumption dropped everywhere without exception. The trade-offs were stark: suppress the virus and watch the economy wither, or prioritize economic activity and accept higher death tolls.
The Nordic Advantage
Yet Norway managed something remarkable. The Scandinavian nation achieved what researchers describe as the most effective balance between limiting deaths and maintaining economic vitality. This success wasn’t accidental but reflected deeper cultural characteristics that shaped policy effectiveness.
The research identifies patience, risk aversion, and trust in government as crucial factors determining pandemic outcomes. Nordic countries and Pacific rim nations like Japan and South Korea share these traits, which helped them navigate the crisis more successfully than others.
In contrast, the United States, characterized by researchers as less patient and more risk-tolerant, managed steady economic recovery but at the cost of higher mortality rates. Eastern European countries, hampered by lower trust levels, faced the greatest challenges in containing deaths alongside the United Kingdom.
The influence of neighboring countries also played a significant role in shaping national responses, creating regional patterns of policy adoption and outcomes.
Lessons for Future Pandemics
The analysis reveals that national character matters more than many policymakers realized. Countries with higher patience levels and greater risk aversion were better positioned to endure short-term economic pain for long-term health benefits. Those with opposite traits faced different challenges entirely.
Japan’s experience illustrates these dynamics clearly. The country’s strong risk aversion and cultural emphasis on collective responsibility helped limit early deaths but also contributed to weaker economic revival as cautious consumers and businesses remained hesitant to resume normal activities.
“The success or failure of interventions depends on public patience and trust, and widespread cooperation with governmental interventions can contribute to building a robust social epidemic prevention system,” Professor Masuhara concludes.
The research suggests that future pandemic preparedness must account for these cultural and behavioral factors rather than assuming one-size-fits-all solutions will work globally. Understanding national risk tolerance and patience levels could help governments design more effective policies tailored to their populations’ characteristics.
As the world moves beyond COVID-19, these insights offer a roadmap for managing future health emergencies. The pandemic revealed that technical solutions alone – vaccines, treatments, testing – while crucial, aren’t sufficient without considering the human element of crisis response.
The study’s broader message is both humbling and hopeful: no country perfectly balanced health and economic concerns, but some came closer than others by understanding and working with their citizens’ fundamental attitudes toward risk and collective action. For policymakers preparing for the next pandemic, that knowledge might prove as valuable as any medical intervention.
Journal of Policy Modeling: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2025.05.008
ScienceBlog.com has no paywalls, no sponsored content, and no agenda beyond getting the science right. Every story here is written to inform, not to impress an advertiser or push a point of view.
Good science journalism takes time — reading the papers, checking the claims, finding researchers who can put findings in context. We do that work because we think it matters.
If you find this site useful, consider supporting it with a donation. Even a few dollars a month helps keep the coverage independent and free for everyone.
Sweden did even better by not shutting down its economy at all. And Nigeria did a hundred times better — no damper on the economy, very few vaccines, and a death rate from COVID literally 100 times lower than Norway.