Read on Twitter
I began looking into the ECDC back in April for two reasons:
First, most people I spoke to didn't what the ECDC was (they thought I was saying ACDC) or even that the EU has an infectious disease agency.
First, most people I spoke to didn't what the ECDC was (they thought I was saying ACDC) or even that the EU has an infectious disease agency.
And second, the agency's first moments in the spotlight during the start of the coronavirus outbreak were, just, off.
On Feb. 27, I sat in the Commission's press room as an official from the agency compared the virus to the flu and said Europe could contain the virus.
On Feb. 27, I sat in the Commission's press room as an official from the agency compared the virus to the flu and said Europe could contain the virus.
We quickly found out how wrong this was.
Of course, we knew very little about the virus back then; and other agencies like the WHO and the U.S. CDC have also been (rightly or wrongly) criticized for a host of issues throughout the outbreak.
Of course, we knew very little about the virus back then; and other agencies like the WHO and the U.S. CDC have also been (rightly or wrongly) criticized for a host of issues throughout the outbreak.
But when I looked into the ECDC, the issue was that the agency could barely live up to its name — especially the "control" part.
This was done on purpose. During the 2002 SARS outbreak, the EU realized it needed a more coordinated response to viral outbreaks.
This was done on purpose. During the 2002 SARS outbreak, the EU realized it needed a more coordinated response to viral outbreaks.
But like most things in EU health policy, EU countries didn't want to transfer power to Brussels and the Commission just wanted an agency to function as its technical arm.
Their solution was to create an agency that has no power to coordinate.
Their solution was to create an agency that has no power to coordinate.
This caused issues over the years, but considering it was a little-known agency off in Stockholm, few noticed or cared until corona hit.
It was really the coronavirus crisis that brought to the fore the agency's limitations.
It was really the coronavirus crisis that brought to the fore the agency's limitations.
The agency did issue scientific advice but often to little effect on EU capitals — and sometimes only after countries had made their own policy decisions.
It held back from interpreting data it gathered on grounds that such a move would exceed its remit.
It held back from interpreting data it gathered on grounds that such a move would exceed its remit.
It wouldn't speak directly to citizens.
The ECDC could struggled to even do basic disease surveillance because the data it received from countries was so scattered.
The ECDC could struggled to even do basic disease surveillance because the data it received from countries was so scattered.
Now, many in the EU realize that the bloc needs an infectious disease agency with some power.
Here's the story: https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-flaws-with-european-centre-for-disease-prevention-and-control/
Here's the story: https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-flaws-with-european-centre-for-disease-prevention-and-control/
Also, a HUGE thank you to @HelenFessenden, @stephanfaris and @JournoLG for editing this piece, and @herszenhorn for his constant help.
Also, of course, many thanks to the many people who spoke to me for hours and hours as I asked endless question about the agency.
Also, of course, many thanks to the many people who spoke to me for hours and hours as I asked endless question about the agency.
And lastly, a thank you to the ECDC for their fact checks during a(n obviously) busy time and Director Andrea Ammon for a frank and interesting interview back in August, which subscribers can read here: https://pro.politico.eu/news/125965
