Solidarity at the Needle Point - the Intersection of Compassion and Containment during the A(H1N1) Pandemic in Sweden 2009

Abstract

During the start of the A(H1N1) pandemic 2009, the WHO talked of the pandemic as an extreme expression of the global need for solidarity, and vaccination as the preferred national response. While seasonal vaccination mostly is framed as an individual benefit, the pandemic mass-vaccination in Sweden was framed in terms of solidarity. In the context of public health in Sweden, solidarity has worked as a rational evidence-based argument for politicians as proof of a reflexive and confident welfare nation. Solidarity was also perceived as an emotion that was possible to enact in bodily practice and would serve the goal of reaching herd immunity for the population. In this article these "politico-somatic" aspects of the pandemic preparedness and response are examined through qualitative methods such as ethnological interviews and fieldwork. The article discusses the entangled articulations of compassion and containment during the pandemic and how the side effect of narcolepsy from the vaccine Pandemrix disrupted the interpretations of solidarity as a relational concept. For the future, it is important to learn the lessons from the pandemic response, including how the issue of the side effect will influence coming preparedness and how the forces of compassion and containment will work. As long as it is not ignored, this side effect can enable the possibility to create strengthened reflexive awareness, which in turn strengthens public trust regarding possible future interventions.

Revisiting the pharmaceuticalisation of pandemic influenza using Lukes’ framework of power

“…Furthermore, we have argued that Swedish politicians, NPPC experts and the media formed a unified front promoting mass vaccination, and that mass vaccination was indeed a ‘pervasive expression of state power’ (Holmberg et al . : 1) since it rested on successfully keeping latent the tension between many individuals’ and the state's interests – including by downplaying the fact that most individuals were unlikely to benefit from immunisation, and by mobilising a strong discourse on solidarity (Lundgren ). Interestingly, this finding contrasts with Prainsack and Buyx's (: 78) claim that ‘the possibilities of mobilising solidarity in pandemics to justify measures that are desirable from a public health standpoint are limited’.…”

“…However, unlike their Danish counterparts, who publicly and repeatedly stressed that the influenza was benign, the Swedish general public – including parents of children – was assured by Swedish NPPC experts that vaccination would benefit most individuals as well as society at large (Baekkeskov and Öberg ). As Lundgren () showed, this message was married with a strong discourse of solidarity – ‘protect yourself, protect others and prevent the spread of disease’ – a message conveyed by the government through the Minister responsible for Public Health, who held weekly press conferences with key NPPC experts (S3; S9).…”

“…). Moreover, the view seems inconsistent with evidence that the media played an active role in encouraging individuals to vaccinate, or dissuading them from doing so (Björkman and Sanner , Lundgren , Reintjes et al . ).…”

Understanding Pandemic Solidarity: Mutual Support During the First COVID-19 Lockdown in the United Kingdom

“…1 Krishnamurthy (2013: 129) , discussing Canada’s response to the H1N1 pandemic and the failings of these responses regarding Aboriginal communities in Canada, referred to political solidarity as a relational concept in the sense ‘that citizens of a shared state can be said to stand in such a relation when they have attitudes of collective identification, mutual respect, mutual trust, loyalty and mutual support toward one another’. Lundgren (2016) discussed how the Swedish governmental response to the H1N1 pandemic framed vaccination and bodily practice with the goal to reach herd immunity in terms of solidarity, which however started to suffer cracks when side-effects of the vaccine Pandremix became visible. In another paper, Lundgren (2017: 22) , discussed different ways of ‘arguing for solidarity, herd immunity and social justice and claims for culpability of the state’ based on interviews with two communities (the National Pandemic Group and the Narcolepsy Association) during the H1N1 influenza pandemic in Sweden.…”

Inter-Work and Ethical Vigilance: Two Scenarios for the (Post-)Pandemic Future of Systems Thinking

“…Relationships manifest themselves in the continuous inviting, seducing, nudging, rejecting, challenging or even creating individually or collectively forms of thinking and acting [38]. The sense of immediacy, uncertainty and urgency that seems to prevail in the pandemic is to some a manifestation of forms of governmentality which are not imposed but structured with collective imaginaries, like solidarity, saving lives or helping out the economy [33,34,39].…”