[A Case Study on the Decision-making of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions]

To cope with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) policies were introduced around the world, with significant socioeconomic costs being simultaneously incurred. For the NPIs to be effectively implemented, public acceptance of them must be thus considered. In the process of incorporating scientific evidence into policy decisions, different interests, values, or beliefs among societal groups needs to be comprehensively discussed and deliberated. In this study, we focus on two dimensions of the contradictory dynamics that a relation between science and policy would give rise to: the politics of health policy and the politics of evidence. Based on the literature review and consultations from expert seminars we organized, comparative case analysis is employed to explore how decision-making on NPIs was made in the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), Denmark, and Taiwan. To be specific, science advice mechanisms are examined in the cases of the US and UK, while the use of behavioral science expertise in Denmark and how civic technology governance works in Taiwan are briefly discussed as policy innovations during the pandemic. We conclude with recommendations for Korean's policymakers. They include risk communication strategies firmly based on behavioral and social science expertise and the activation of better science advice mechanisms.