In a newly published article in the journal Social Studies of Science, sociologist Tobias Olofsson explores how early pandemic predictions influenced policy and public discourse. The study, titled “Predictions, uncertainty, and collective epistemic work: How projected futures informed and misinformed enactments of Covid-19”, sheds light on the complex interplay between scientific modelling, uncertainty, and collective decision-making.
– The paper shows how a combination of contextual factors and an uncertain situation—where new and sometimes contradictory knowledge claims were being reported—made certain predictions more influential than others, says Tobias Olofsson.
– These predictions helped shape evolving decisions and strategies, even when they later proved inaccurate.
The research highlights the importance of understanding not just what models predict, but how they are interpreted and used in real-world contexts. It’s a timely reminder that even imperfect forecasts can play a role in guiding action—especially when the stakes are high and the future is unclear.
So, how was the research conducted?
– Through a combination of interviews with decision makers and experts; and a detailed timeline of pandemic policies, events, and debates, says Tobias Olofsson.
– And through analysis of press briefings organized by the Public Health Agency, The National Board of Health and Welfare and the Civil Contingencies Agency.
What will happen now?
– This publication marks the conclusion of a long-term research project that has also resulted in a study on organizational culture and risk awareness at the Swedish Public Health Agency, as well as the development of a database documenting key events, policies, and public debates during the Covid-19 pandemic in Sweden.
Brief Summary
Published in the leading science and technology studies journal Social Studies of Science, the article explores the ways in which predictive models and scenarios informed and misinformed pandemic strategizing in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic: It also highlights the role that competing perspectives, and the models that supported them, had for strategies, policies, and debates during the pandemic.
Read the full article on doi.org
Swedish names of the authorities mentioned
- The Public Health Agency (Folkhälsomyndigheten)
- The National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen)
- The Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB)
