Covid and the Public Sphere: Why Cooler Heads Prevailed in Iceland

The implications of measures to contain the spread of the Corona virus on the public sphere have been interpreted very differently across countries and continents. In some contexts, the (temporary) suspension of certain civil liberties (e.g. the right to assembly) has been viewed as an acceptable part of the fight against the global pandemic. Elsewhere, such measures have caused outrage and polarization. What explains this variation? In search for answers, the proposed paper presents the findings of a case study of the Icelandic case. The remarkable effectiveness of Iceland’s approach during the first and second waves of the pandemic (throughout the spring and summer and late fall and winter 2021/2021, respectively) has received international recognition. But the Icelandic case also contributes to a broader understanding of public sphere dynamics in the context of a global health crisis, in particular since this situation of scientific uncertainty occurs at a time of an increasing spread of mis- and disinformation. From the outset, Iceland implemented measures relying in large part on social distancing and mass testing, the latter of which was facilitated by the infrastructures of deCODE Genetics, whose founder and CEO Kári Stefánsson has also been an active participant in the Icelandic debate. Despite arguments about the detrimental impact of assembly bans on public (mental) health, the Icelandic debate was initially characterized by a strong societal consensus to rely on scientific expertise in prescribing the necessary restrictions, mirrored by a noteworthy absence of contestation, mobilization and polarization in the early phases of the crisis. Similarly, there has been virtually no evidence of any significant impact of mis- or disinformation efforts in the public sphere. Instead, trust in established institutions – including science and the mass media – has increased, and conspiracy narratives have failed to gain a foothold. Contestation about the measures imposed by the Icelandic government – which broadly followed the scientific advice of the country’s chief epidemiologist – only started to gain traction when tougher restrictions for international travelers were (re-)introduced in late August, based on concerns over the economic impact on Iceland’s tourism industry. The paper analyzes the Icelandic case from the vantage point of public sphere dynamics in a presumably postfactual age. Using a case study design, it investigates why “cooler heads” prevailed in the Icelandic public sphere, i.e. why science and expertise were able to advance as drivers of public sphere dynamics. Particular emphasis is placed on the respective roles played by the so-called “troika” (i.e. the country’s chief epidemiologist, Director of Health, and the Chief Superintendent for the Commissioner of the Icelandic Police) and the continuous communication of new research findings by deCODE Genetics in the public sphere. The analysis is based in part on policy documents, content analyses of governmental communications, mass media material and elite interviews.