Risk Calibration: Divergent Interpretations of Risk Assessment in Norway's Early COVID-19 Response

During the early phases of novel disease outbreaks, risk management must rely largely on non-pharmaceutical interventions, since consensus-based biomedical solutions are yet to be developed. This paper examines how and why expert organizations arrive at divergent interpretations of the same risk assessments, and what such divergence means for risk management strategies. Using Norway's early COVID-19 response as a qualitative case, the study analyzes the disagreement between national health authorities over suppression versus mitigation strategies. Data consist of interviews with key decision-makers and senior analysts, supplemented by extensive interview material and reports from the Norwegian Corona Commission, and are analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings show that the disagreement did not primarily stem from different estimates of epidemiological risk, but from divergent interpretations of what those estimates implied: where the main consequences of the pandemic would concentrate, and whether existing health-system capacities could control the situation. To explain this, the paper introduces the concepts of (1) risk epicenter, where the risk is interpreted to concentrate and (2) risk controllability, the assessed institutional capacity to control it. Together, these constitute a process termed risk calibration, through which technical risk assessments are socially and institutionally interpreted. The contribution is a two-dimensional framework for analyzing the structure of divergent interpretations during the early phase of novel risk events. The study argues that incorporating both dimensions into early-phase risk analysis is essential for understanding policy disagreement and improving preparedness for future large-scale, novel risks.