Late Monday afternoon, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen held a press conference (DK) on the status of Denmark’s coronavirus emergency management. Her message seemed fairly simple. It consisted of two main points: the methods that the country has implemented to limit the spread of the virus are working, and therefore the government can begin to consider relaxing the restrictions in place. Very good news, of course, but upon reflection somewhat problematic: mixed, tentative, conditional and debatable.

Frederiksen was flanked by Magnus Heunicke, the Minister for Health, and other officials, who each spoke briefly, echoing her message. She was serious, measured, eloquent especially in addressing the concerns of those who are most threatened by the epidemic and those who have the most trouble enduring the lockdown, and emphatic in urging her fellow citizens to maintain their patience. In short, she was a model of crisis communication and everything that Trump ought to be and is not.

Flattening the curve 
People are generally adhering to the restrictions and following the guidelines for social distancing, she said. The number of infections and particularly the number of deaths are not rising exponentially as they have done in some countries. The notorious curve is flattening. If the trend continues, the Danish hospital system will be able to manage the infections and the need for critical care and respirators. Frederiksen listed the objectives of the policy decisions: to save lives, to maintain the capacity of the health care system, and to preserve the strength of the economy through the crisis. She praised and thanked people for their cooperation and praised Denmark’s “unique social model,” which facilitates such cooperation. 

Frederiksen introduced the second point – “reopening society” – with a strong caveat. “I almost dare not say it. . . . I am anxious about saying it”: If people stick with the program and if the numbers continue to follow the positive trend until April 13, the end of the current lockdown period, then the government can begin to relax restrictions in a “gradual, careful, and controlled” manner. She added immediately that this does not mean that people should begin celebrating and partying. That would be a disaster. She underscored this caution several times: If the numbers begin rising or if people begin gathering in groups and not following social distancing guidelines, the restrictions will not be relaxed; they will become more drastic.

Not the end but only the end of the beginning
Frederiksen compared this next stage to “the second half” of a sporting event. It will still be difficult, and it will be a “strange time” because many people will still be getting sick and dying even while some aspects of society begin functioning in a more normal manner. She emphasized that the reopening will take place very gradually, probably over a period of months, although she did not go into much detail about what would be permitted first. There could be staggered schedules for schools, for example, to reduce the size of groups. The process would be dependent on people’s behavior, the ongoing capacity of the hospital system, and an increase in testing, including testing of those who have recovered from the illness and are therefore presumably immune. Other speakers addressed the more technical medical issues, and Police Chief Thorkild Fogde concluded by thanking people for their cooperation but warning that, if necessary, they would not hesitate to issue fines to people who disregard the prohibitions on gathering and pose a threat of spreading the infection.

The main question that the press conference prompts is why the government should begin talking about easing restrictions at all if it is not possible for at least two weeks, which is a long time at an early stage of an epidemic. The risk that people will become less vigilant is not insignificant. The suspicion is that the administration did it as a concession to the private sector. The right-wing parties had asked for some signal about reopening the economy, and large companies and industry groups want to know what they can expect. As in the US, a segment of the population is concerned that the damage to the economy of an extended shutdown may be greater than necessary and bring on a sustained recession.

A tightrope act
On the other hand, some scenarios for a reopening, for example the American Enterprise Institute’s, recommend waiting for a period for 14 days of declining illness figures before relaxing restrictions. The figures in Denmark haven’t begun declining yet, so there is barely time for that to happen before April 13. Presumably the epidemic in Denmark would have begun to decline by that time, or at least the administration would wait to begin the reopening until after they have declined somewhat.

Altogether, Frederiksen gave the impression of a firm but fair schoolmarm telling her pupils that if they sit still and concentrate a little while longer, they can soon go out for recess. To put an optimistic spin on the announcement, the administration may feel that the conditional promise of an end to isolation will encourage people to maintain their discipline. That is, along with the signs of progress in fighting the epidemic, it will increase their willingness to endure the restrictive measures and thus further curtail the spread of the virus. As a tactic, the announcement assumes a few things that cannot be taken for granted in every country: that citizens act like rational adults, that if necessary they sacrifice personal or short-term advantage for the common good, and that they generally trust the government to act in the people’s best interest.