Wellcome Global Monitor Covid

Wellcome
Global
Monitor
How Covid-19 affected
people’s lives and their
views about science
2020
Acknowledgements
The Wellcome Global Monitor Project team at Wellcome:
Lara Clements, Philomena Gibbons, Ethan Greenwood,
Richard Hartlaub, Matthew Hickman, Lily Ickowitz-Seidler,
Alice Jamieson, Imran Khan, Kate Martin, Melissa Paramasivan,
Pri Perera, Andrew Thompson and Will Tucker.
The Wellcome Global Monitor Project team at Gallup:
Lance Stevens, Steve Crabtree, Pablo Diego-Rosell, Rebecca Dover,
Andrew Dugan, Hania Farhan, Beatrice Locatelli, Julie Ray, Andrew Rzepa
and Anne Schulte.
Gallup and Wellcome would like to thank all members of the public who took the
time to answer our questions. Both organisations would like to extend special
thanks to Professor Patrick Sturgis from the London School of Economics.
We would also like to thank the following contributors:
Professor Martin W Bauer (London School of Economics), Agnes Binagwaho
(Vice-Chancellor, University of Global Health Equity), Cary Funk (Pew Research),
Professor Heidi Larson (London School for Tropical Hygiene and Medicine),
Gabriel Leung (Dean of Medicine, University of Hong Kong), Francisca Mutapi
(University of Edinburgh), Professor Michael Parker (University of Oxford),
Basil Rodrigues (UNICEF) and Professor Nelson Torto (Permanent Secretary,
Botswana Government) for their valuable feedback and input.
The team wishes to thank experts who gave valuable insights to help shape
the questionnaire development and testing process, and many of those
topics were included in the final questionnaire: Jeremy Farrar, Mike Ferguson,
Mark Henderson, Chonnettia Jones, Carla Ross, Jim Smith, Beth Thompson,
Charlie Weller and Ed Whiting from Wellcome.
Further thanks are extended to Peta Bell, Marianne Dear, Petra Essing,
Tom Freeman, Richard Kindell, Emma Palmer, Lindsay Pentelow, Ilesh
Persand and Lucy Sillito for help with the design and production of the report.
Cover image:
Melanie, March 2020
Johannah Churchill
I am a nurse as well as a photographer. I took this portrait
of my colleague Melanie back at the start of the pandemic
as she was making preparations for the opening of a local
Covid clinic. It is taken in Wandsworth where we both
worked together.
Johannah Churchill / Wellcome Photography Prize 2021
2 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19

Summary of key findings
During late 2020, when coronavirus cases were China), Latin America and Eastern Europe —
surging in several regions around the world, the regions where this proportion was relatively low in
Wellcome Global Monitor surveyed more than 119,000 2018. However, this percentage either did not rise
members of the public in 113 countries and territories. or declined in two other regions where it had also
It asked about the impact of the pandemic on their been low in 2018: the Russia/Caucasus/Central
lives, whether they supported their government’s Asia region and Sub-Saharan Africa.
participation in global efforts to prevent future • Trust in science rose most substantially between
diseases, and how they viewed their government’s 2018 and 2020 among those who said they have
handling of scientific advice around Covid-19. ‘some’ knowledge of science (39% in 2018 to
48% in 2020) and those that knew ‘not much’
The pandemic had a big impact on people’s
or ‘nothing at all’ about science (25% in 2018 to
lives – nearly half of people globally said it
33% in 2020). Among people who said they know
had affected their lives ‘a lot’.
‘a lot’ about science, trust rose only marginally,
• Eighty per cent of adults worldwide said that the although the starting point was at a higher level,
coronavirus had affected their lives to some extent, rising from 66% in 2018 to 69% in 2020.
with nearly half (45%) saying it had affected their
lives ‘a lot’ and a third (35%) saying it had affected Perceived knowledge of science and confidence
their lives ‘some’. Fewer than one in five (19%) in government influences trust in science.
said it had not affected their lives at all. • As highlighted in the first Wave of the Wellcome
• Globally, one in three people who had jobs at Global Monitor, public trust in science and
the beginning of the pandemic (33%) said they scientists is influenced by a range of factors at
had lost their job or business because of the individual and country levels. One of the largest
coronavirus situation, while about half said they of these is the effect of science education,
had to stop working temporarily (53%), worked and another is how much people think they
fewer hours (50%) or received less pay (53%) know about science. In 2020, 63% of people who
because of Covid-19A. said they know a lot about science said that they
have ‘a lot’ of trust in scientists compared to 37%
The impact of Covid-19 has been uneven of those who said ‘not much’ or ‘nothing at all’
across the world. about how much they knew about science.
• Forty-five per cent of people in low/lower-middle- Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that in 2020 trust
income countries lost a job/business due to in scientists rose, possibly as a result of Covid-19
Covid-19 compared to just 10% in high-income moving the public closer than ever to the work of
countries. scientists fighting against the pandemic.
• Worldwide, around four in ten workers in the • However, a rise in trust has not been evident
bottom two income quintiles in their country said everywhere, and, as in 2018, there are large
they had lost a job or business due to Covid-19, regional variations. In Sub-Saharan Africa, where
compared to a little over two in ten (23%) among trust in science went down between 2018 and
those in the top fifth income quintile. 2020, only 19% expressed a high level of trust in
scientists, the lowest level in the world. This can
Globally, people were more likely to express a be contrasted with 62% in Australia/New Zealand,
high degree of trust in science and scientists where trust was highest. Another significant factor
in 2020 than they were in 2018: there was a affecting trust is how the public felt about their
10-percentage-point increase in people saying national leadership, challenging the idea that
they trust science in general ‘a lot’, while the science exists outside of a political context; in
percentage who said they trust scientists in 2020, people who had confidence in their national
their country ‘a lot’ rose nine percentage points. government were 13 percentage points more likely
• The percentage who said they trust both science to trust scientists in their country ‘a lot’ compared
and scientists ‘a lot’ rose by at least 10 percentage to people who did not have confidence in their
points in three regions: East Asia (predominantly national government (44% vs 33%)B.

Doctors and nurses are most likely to be seen as The majority of people worldwide agree
basing coronavirus-related decisions on scientific (‘strongly’/’somewhat’) that their government
advice ‘a lot’ compared to WHO or people’s should spend money to help countries prevent
national governments. and cure diseases wherever they occur. In what
• Worldwide, more than six in ten people (63%) seems to be a contradictory result, the majority
said doctors and nurses base decisions about also agree that their government should spend
coronavirus on scientific advice ‘a lot’. This figure money on prevention and cures only if their own
fell below 50% for the other four sources in the people are at risk.
survey: the World Health Organization (48%), • Two-fifths (42%) globally strongly agree that
people’s national government (41%), their friends their government should spend money to help
and family (38%) and religious leaders (23%). countries prevent and cure diseases wherever
However, more than 70% felt that each source they occur, and half (51%) also strongly agree
– except religious leaders – bases these decisions that their government should spend money on
at least somewhat on scientific advice. preventing and curing diseases only if they pose
• People in Australia/New Zealand were the most a risk to the people in their country.
likely compared to those in other regions to say • There are large regional disparities in views
that all five potential sources of advice base their about this. Most South Asian people agree with
decisions on scientific advice ‘a lot’, while those both statements, while people in East Asia and
in Russia/Caucasus/Central Asia were the least Northern America are more inclined to agree that
likely to respond in this way. their government should spend money to help
countries prevent and cure diseases everywhere.
Globally, only a quarter of the public said Those living in South East Asia and Russia/
that their government values the opinions Caucasus/Central Asia are the most likely to
and expertise of scientists ‘a lot’. agree that their government should spend money
• One in four people (25%) worldwide said leaders to prevent and cure diseases only if they pose a
in their national government place ‘a lot’ of value risk to their own people.
on the opinions and expertise of scientists,
though an additional 35% said government
leaders place ‘some’ value on them. Nearly three
in ten (28%) felt their government does not place
much or any value on scientists’ opinions.
• In 25 of the 113 countries surveyed, including
eight in Eastern Europe and six in Latin America,
people were significantly more likely to say their
government leaders place little or no value on
scientists’ opinions than to say leaders place
‘some’ or ‘a lot’ of value on them.
• Across all 113 countries and territories included
in 2020, only a minority said leaders in their
government value the opinions and expertise
of scientists ‘a lot’.
• People’s belief that their government values the
opinions and expertise of scientists was most
prevalent where overall confidence in government
was highest.
Endnotes
A. These figures on the economic impact of Covid-19 exclude respondents who said
‘Does not apply/No job.’
B. Please note this finding is taken from the Gallup World Poll and is not reported on in the
main report.

Introduction
The Covid-19 crisis has tested governments Data on public support for global efforts to prevent
and healthcare systems worldwide as they work and control disease – and how that support may
to limit the virus’s spread and treat the millions relate to people’s experiences during the pandemic
who have been infected. At the same time, – may help leaders make more informed decisions
it has presented the scientific community with about contributing to such efforts moving forward.
the urgent task of developing reliable diagnostic Just as importantly, understanding how people
tests and treatments, as well as safe and effective around the world view science and scientists is
vaccines that could end the pandemic. An equally critical to efforts to ensure widespread public
challenging aspect is that the situation has called attention to and compliance with scientific
for coordinated responses among billions of recommendations in future crises.
people to adhere to government guidelines
and recognise the importance of their role in The 2020 Wellcome Global Monitor
managing the threat.
gathered data in 113 countries during
This coordination between scientists, healthcare the pandemic.
officials and populations – or the lack of it – may
The findings presented in this report are based on
have influenced the perceptions of science’s role in
nationally representative surveys in 113 countries
combatting diseases in ways that have implications
and territories conducted in 2020 and early 2021.
for future outbreaks. In 2020, the Wellcome Global
Data collection in most countries took place between
Monitor sought to better understand how this crisis
September and early December of 2020, a period
has affected people around the world and how their
in which, according to data compiled by the World
experiences may have influenced their trust of those
Health Organization (WHO), coronavirus cases
involved in addressing it – most notably, scientists
surged in several regions5:
and the scientific community in each country, as well
as healthcare workers and government officials. • In the Americas, the number of new cases gradually
The Monitor also addressed questions that have rose from a low point in early September through to
critical implications for the management of future early November, then rose much more sharply
disease outbreaks by asking about: between mid-November and mid-December. The
United States accounted for most of the new cases
• the extent to which people feel different sources
and deaths in the region during this period.
of guidance during the pandemic – including
those of their government, healthcare workers • In the Eastern Mediterranean region, which
and religious leaders – base their decisions on includes the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
scientific advice as well as Afghanistan and Pakistan, new cases
rose steadily from a low point in late July to a peak
• people’s views regarding their government’s
in mid-November before beginning a rapid decline.
involvement in combatting future disease
outbreaks wherever they occur • In the European region, the number of new cases
remained low for much of the summer in 2020
Wellcome believes that science is a global endeavour before climbing abruptly in late October, then
and has advocated for equitable access to Covid-19 began a gradual and uneven decline for the
vaccines and treatments around the world since the remainder of the year.
start of the pandemic. However, poor decisions and
• In the Southeast Asia region (which includes India
slow responses in many countries have contributed
and Bangladesh in WHO’s category), new cases
to protracted outbreaks1,2,3. Several high-income
and deaths climbed steadily through the summer
countries, including some in the G7 and G20, have
months before peaking in mid-September and
not fully supported a global response4; as a result,
then declining until the end of 2020.
the vast majority of people in low- and middle-income
countries have not had access to vaccines in 2021.

Most data were collected prior to the WHO’s first
emergency-use vaccine validation on 31 December
20206. However, survey periods in some countries
extended from December 2020 into January or
February 2021, with possible implications for the
results. These countries comprise several Latin
American countries, including Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico and Uruguay, and eight
countries in other global regions: Croatia, India, Iraq,
Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Malaysia, Nepal and Thailand7.
Notably, the timing of the data collection may have
affected the responses to Covid-19-related questions.
For example, in countries and territories where data
collection occurred later, people had had more time to
experience consequences of the pandemic (whether
economic, health-related or otherwise). Further, many
of those interviewed in December 2020 or early 2021
probably knew that vaccine approval was imminent
or had already occurred, which may have influenced
their overall trust in science and scientists or their
perception that leaders in the healthcare community
base Covid-19 decisions on scientific advice.
However, with conditions changing rapidly around
the world during this period, it is difficult to identify
these effects in the data.
Endnotes
1. Baris, O. F., & Pelizzo, R. (2020). Research note: Governance indicators 5. Weekly epidemiological update – 29 December 2020. (2020). World Health
explain discrepancies in Covid-19 data. World Affairs, 183(3), 216-234. Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0043820020945683 update---29-december-2020
2. Covid-19: “Poor decisions” to blame for UK death toll, scientists say. (2021, January 27). 6. WHO issues its first emergency use validation for a Covid-19 vaccine and emphasizes
BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55820178 need for equitable global access | Press release. (2020, December 31). World Health
3. Deluca, N. Calatrava, A., & Armario, C. [A.P.]. (2020, October 19). Argentina hits 1 million Organization. https://www.who.int/news/item/31-12-2020-who-issues-its-first-
cases as virus slams Latin America. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/International/ emergency-use-validation-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-and-emphasizes-need-for-
wireStory/argentina-5th-nation-pass-million-coronavirus-cases-73705418 equitable-global-access
4. Wellcome statements on Covid-19 | Press release [Farrar, J. statement made 2021, 7. See Appendix B, which shows the country dataset details for each country’s specific
May 12]. (n.d.). Wellcome. https://wellcome.org/press-release/wellcome-statements- field period.
novel-coronavirus-Covid-19

Methodology
The Wellcome Global Monitor Covid-19 study was A note on Covid-19

conducted as part of the Gallup World Poll and The Covid-19 pandemic required significant changes
includes results from representative surveys in to Gallup’s mixed-mode approach of using face-to-
113 countries and territories carried out in 2020 and face and phone surveys for global data collection,
early 2021, with approximately 1,000 adults aged resulting in all Wellcome Global Monitor interviews
15 and older interviewed per country. Notably, the being conducted entirely via telephone in 2020.
results for questions specifically about Covid-19 are As a result, the 2020 Monitor included fewer
unavailable in China, Australia, New Zealand and countries than the 2018 wave. However, the 113
Japan. However, these countries are included in the countries and territories included in this study
analyses of the answers to more general questions represent more than 90% of the global population.
on trust in science and other institutions.
The transition from face-to-face to phone
For the results based on samples within each country, interviewing in 82 countries may have affected the
the margin of sampling error ranges from +/-1.1 to responses – a particularly relevant possibility when
+/-5.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. comparing the 2020 results with those from the same
See the Methodology report for full details. questions in 2018. Statistical analysis of the items
Trend comparisons with the 2018 regional results measuring trust in science and scientists discussed
include only those constituent countries which were in Chapter 3 indicates that the change in survey
subsequently surveyed in 2020. Therefore the 2018 mode probably did have some effect in these
regional results will not be the same as those quoted countries. However, the precise extent and direction
in the 2018 Wellcome Global Monitor since some of of that effect are difficult to determine due to a range
those countries weren’t included in 2020. of factors such as changes in sample composition
and how the pandemic affected responses. See
For the full Methodology report, see the
Appendix A for a more detailed discussion of
Methodology Report.
possible mode effects, and Appendix B for more
information about Covid-19 and policy responses
in each country during its data collection period.

Survey questions discussed in this report
Effects of Covid-19 Views of science amid Covid-19

• In general, to what extent has your own life • In general, would you say that you trust science
been affected by the Covid-19 situation? a lot, some, not much, or not at all?
• Have you experienced each of the following • How much do you trust each of the following?
as a result of the Covid-19 situation? - Science
- Lost your job or business - Scientists in this country
- T
emporarily stopped working at your job - The national government in this country
or business
- People in your neighbourhood
- Worked less hours at your job or business
- Journalists in this country
- R
eceived less money than usual from your
- Doctors and nurses in your country
employer or business
- People who work at charitable organisations
or NGOs in this country
Global efforts to prevent and
cure diseases • How much do you, personally, know about
science? Do you know a lot, some, not much,
• For each statement, please tell me whether you
or nothing at all?
strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat
disagree, or strongly disagree: • In general, how much do you think each of the
- A
fter the Covid-19 crisis ends, the government following make decisions about Covid-19 based
of [this country] should spend money to help on scientific advice?
other countries prevent and cure diseases - The national government
wherever they occur. - Friends and family
- After
the Covid-19 crisis ends, the government - The World Health Organization
of [this country] should spend money on - Doctors and nurses in this country
preventing and curing diseases only if they
- Religious leaders
pose a risk to people in this country.
• In general, how much do you think the leaders in
the national government value the opinions and
expertise of scientists?

Chapter 1:
Covid-19’s uneven
impact around
the world
The José López Portillo and Valle de San Lorenzo

colonies in Iztapalapa, Mexico City, Mexico,
on 11 August 2020. Soap and water dispensers were
installed in order to encourage passers-by to wash
their hands and listen to information about preventive
measures to avoid contracting coronavirus.
Gerardo Vieyra/NurPhoto via Getty Images
9 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19: Chapter 1

Chapter 1: Covid-19’s uneven impact
around the world
The Covid-19 pandemic has created devastating Covid-19’s economic impact was most
public health and economic crises in most severe in lower- and middle-income
countries8. This chapter presents Gallup’s research
countries*.
on how broadly and severely the pandemic has
impacted people’s lives around the world and Globally, one in three people who had jobs at the
explores Wellcome Global Monitor data on how beginning of the pandemic (33%) said they lost their
this shared experience may have influenced global job or business because of the coronavirus situation
opinions on science and its role in managing and (Chart 1.1), while about half said they had to stop
preventing such events. As previously stated, it is working temporarily (53%), worked fewer hours
important to note that the virus’s spread and each (50%) or received less pay (53%) because of
country’s corresponding lockdown measures at Covid-19.
the time of data collection probably influenced Job losses were most common in low- and lower-
people’s responses about the pandemic’s effects; middle-income countries, where economic activity
Appendix B includes information on such is based less on knowledge work that can be done
conditions in each country during the data remotely10. Governments in these countries also had
collection period. fewer resources to cushion Covid-19’s economic
impact through fiscal spending – for example, by
Four out of five people around the world providing employers with subsidies to retain workers
said Covid-19 has affected their lives. through necessary lockdown periods11.
Eighty per cent of adults worldwide said that

coronavirus has affected their lives to some extent,
with nearly half (45%) saying it has affected their lives
‘a lot’ and a third (35%) saying it has affected their
lives ‘some’. Fewer than one in five (19%) said it has
not affected their lives at all. Countries where people
were most likely to say their lives have not been
affected were predominantly in three more rural
regions: Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia and
Central Asia. Further, in countries where people were
most likely to say their lives have not been affected
– including Laos (61%), Ivory Coast (44%), Tanzania
(41%), Benin (40%) and Mali (38%) – Covid-19
caseloads were low and government restrictions
(as measured by the Oxford Stringency Index9) were
relatively light at the time of data collection (see the
‘Country dataset details’ table in Appendix B).
*Figures presented in this section on the economic

impact of Covid-19 exclude respondents who said
‘Does not apply/No job’.

Chart 1.1:
Workers who lost a job or business due to Covid-19,
by country income group
Percentage of workers who answered ‘yes’.
Have you [lost your job or business] as a result of the Covid-19 situation?
45%
33%
30%
10%
All Low/Lower-middle- Upper-middle- High-income

countries income countries income countries countries
More than half of the people in seven countries • India is the largest of the seven countries where
who said they were working at the beginning of the more than half of workers reported losing their job
pandemic reported losing a job or business because or business: 52% of Indians who were employed
of Covid-19: the Philippines (66%), Kenya (65%), at the onset of the pandemic said they lost their
Zimbabwe (62%), Zambia (58%), Thailand (58%), livelihoods. The Indian economy consists primarily
Peru (57%) and India (52%). of small and medium-sized enterprises, many of
which were hit particularly hard by the crisis14.
• In the Philippines, two-thirds of workers (66%)
The government estimates that the country’s GDP
reported a job loss due to the pandemic. A recent
contracted by 7.7% in the 2020-21 fiscal year,
Oxford Economics analysis found the Philippines
the worst economic downturn in 40 years15.
to be the country most vulnerable to longer-term
economic impacts from Covid-19, citing factors
such as pre-existing skill shortages and the
country’s reliance on tourism12.
• About two-thirds of workers in Kenya (65%)
also reported losing a job or business due to
Covid-19. Unfortunately, widespread poverty
and weak social safety nets in many low-income
countries often mean that job loss translates into
problems like food insecurity13. In 2020, 72% of
Kenyans said there had been times in the past
year when they had not had enough money to
buy food for themselves or their families – the
highest annual percentage since Gallup began
tracking this measure in 2006.

The map in Figure 1.1 is shaded according to the
proportion of those working at the start of the
pandemic who lost jobs or businesses in all countries
for which these data are available, from a low of 2%
in Austria to a high of 66% in the Philippines. Darker
shades indicate a higher proportion of job losses;
the question was not asked in countries shaded grey.
Figure 1.1:
Map of workers who lost a job or business
due to Covid-19, by country
2% 66%
In addition to asking about job or business losses,

the Wellcome Global Monitor asked about three
other potential economic consequences of Covid-19:
loss of income, having hours at work cut and having
to stop working temporarily (as with furloughed
workers). In four low-income regions – South Asia,
Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin
America – workers reported experiencing at least two
of these four economic consequences on average.
By contrast, Western European workers averaged
less than one. The proportions of workers who
experienced each consequence globally and by
region are presented in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1:
Economic consequences suffered
by workers due to Covid-19, by region
Have you experienced each of the following as a result of the Covid-19 situation?
Temporarily stopped Worked fewer hours Received less money

Lost your job or
working at your job or at your job than usual from your
business
business or business employer or business
WORLD 33% 53% 50% 53%
South Asia 50% 63% 54% 63%
Southeast Asia 43% 57% 60% 65%
Sub-Saharan Africa 36% 63% 62% 64%
Latin America 30% 57% 55% 56%
Middle East/North Africa 24% 58% 54% 49%
Russia/Caucasus/Central Asia 15% 39% 37% 37%
Eastern Europe 12% 35% 33% 34%
East Asia 12% 29% 35% 29%
Northern America 11% 37% 38% 32%
Western Europe 7% 24% 29% 24%
Note: Question not asked in Australia/New Zealand.
The pandemic exacerbated economic inequality

across and within countries – i.e., economic
consequences were most widespread not just in
low-income countries but among people with low
incomes within countries. People were categorised
into five similarly sized groups using income data
from each country and territory – from the 20%
with the lowest household incomes to the 20%
with the highest. As shown in Chart 1.2, worldwide,
about four in ten workers in the bottom two income
quintiles in their country said they had lost a job or
business due to Covid-19, compared to a little over
two in ten (23%) among those in the top one-fifth.

Chart 1.2:
Workers who lost a job or business due to Covid-19,
by within-country income quintile
41%
39%
32%
29%
23%
Lowest 20% of incomes Second 20% Middle 20% Fourth 20% Top 20% of incomes
in their country in their country
These differences were greater in regions and respectively. In the US, the most unequal high-income
countries where income inequality was high prior country outside Latin America* (according to these
to the pandemic, demonstrating how Covid-19 countries’ Gini coefficients, a common measure of
has worsened existing economic disparities. income inequality), about one in four workers (24%) in
For example, in Latin America, workers in the bottom the bottom income quintile said they had lost a job or
20% of their country’s income distribution were about business as a result of Covid-19, compared to just 3%
three times as likely as those in the top 20% of those in the top quintile.
to have lost a job – 44% compared to 14%,
*Based on the World Bank’s estimates of the Gini coefficient,

a common measure of income inequality, for each country.
See: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI
Endnotes
8. Impact of Covid-19 on people’s livelihoods, their health and our food systems [Joint 12. Which economies are most vulnerable to Covid-19’s long-term effects? (2020,
statement by ILO, FAO IFAD and WHO]. (2020, October 13). World Health Organization. December 15). The Economist. https://www.economist.com/graphic-
https://www.who.int/news/item/13-10-2020-impact-of-covid-19-on-people’s- detail/2020/12/15/which-economies-are-most-vulnerable-to-covid-19s-long-term-
livelihoods-their-health-and-our-food-systems effects
https://unctad.org/news/covid-19s-economic-fallout-will-long-outlive-health-crisis- 13. Win, T. L., & Harrisberg, K. (2020, April 24). Africa faces ‘hunger pandemic’ as
report-warns coronavirus destroys jobs and fuels poverty. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/
9. Oxford Covid-19 government response tracker. (n.d.). University of Oxford Blavatnik us-health-coronavirus-africa-hunger-feat/africa-faces-hunger-pandemic-as-
School of Government. https://covidtracker.bsg.ox.ac.uk/ coronavirus-destroys-jobs-and-fuels-poverty-idUSKCN22629V
10. Who on earth can work from home? A global comparison sheds light on the importance 14. Schmall, E. (2020, November 27). India’s economy shrinks sharply as Covid-19 slams
of ICT infrastructure. (2020, October 22). The World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/ small businesses. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/
en/news/feature/2020/10/22/who-on-earth-can-work-from-home-a-global- business/economy/india-economy-Covid-19.html
comparison-sheds-light-on-the-importance-of-ict-infrastructure 15. Kumar, M., & Ahmed, A. (2021, January 7). India predicts GDP 7.7% contraction,
11. International Monetary Fund. (2021). Policy Responses To COVID-19. likely to prompt steps to boost growth. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/
International Monetary Fund. (2021). https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/ india-economy-gdp/india-predicts-gdp-7-7-contraction-likely-to-prompt-steps-to-
Policy-Responses-to-COVID-19 boost-growth-idUSKBN29C1ME

Chapter 2:
Public support for global
spending on preventing
and curing diseases
Indonesia vaccinates indigenous communities
SERANG, INDONESIA – AUGUST 20: Vaccine The vaccination programme carried out by the
facilitators try to persuade a Baduy family that they Indonesian government received a positive response
meet at their house due to a lot of refusal by the Baduy from the traditional elder of the Baduy community,
people to get vaccinated because it is against their Jiro Saija, who had implemented the vaccine, but he
customary rules on August 20, 2021 in Serang, advised that the vaccine could not be forced on the
Indonesia. The Baduy indigenous people have Baduy community, some of whom have refused
only reported two cases of Covid-19, believing that because they still believe they could prevent the
their traditional customs have protected them. spread of coronavirus through traditional medicine.
Oscar Siagian/Stringer

Chapter 2: Public support for
global spending on preventing
and curing diseases
As with other problems, such as climate change, In view of the need for international coordination
the Covid-19 crisis has highlighted the need for in response to global-level crises like Covid-19,
international cooperation to prevent and mitigate the Wellcome Global Monitor tested people’s
threats that affect the entire global population16. support for their country’s participation in
The pandemic has shown how easily a virus can international efforts by asking about the extent to
spread in a world where modern transportation which they agreed with the following two statements:
allows people to routinely travel between
1. After the Covid-19 crisis ends, the government
countries and regions, as well as how broadly
of [this country] should spend money to help
the health and economic effects of poor
other countries prevent and cure diseases
preparedness can be felt worldwide.
wherever they occur.
Some development and financing experts, including
2. After the Covid-19 crisis ends, the government
the High Level Independent Panel (HLIP) on financing
of [this country] should spend money on
the global commons for pandemic preparedness and
preventing and curing diseases only if they
response established by the G20 in January 202117,18,
pose a risk to people in this country.
have called for new governance mechanisms and
pooled international financing for global problems
like pandemics. Policy analysts have argued that
pandemic preparedness constitutes a ‘global
public good’19 – that is, a cross-border effort that
contributes to health progress but is not adequately
produced by market forces – and that new
arrangements for providing global public goods
in health are necessary20,21,22,23.

As Chart 2.1 reveals, at least 70% of people who
answered this question worldwide strongly or
somewhat agreed with each item, despite these
two opinions, ostensibly at least, contradicting each
other. This finding suggests that some people either
weren’t aware that the statements were mutually
exclusive or may not have been comfortable
choosing one option over the other.
Chart 2.1:
Views on government spending to prevent and
cure diseases, global results
Percentage of people who strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed or strongly disagreed.
For each statement, please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree.
51%
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
42% Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know/Refused
28%
23%
15%
13%
11%
10%
3% 3%
Government should spend money Government should spend money on

to help other countries prevent and preventing and curing diseases only if
cure diseases wherever they occur they pose a risk to people in this country
Note: Due to rounding, percentages may sum to 100% ±1%.

In some regions, including South Asia*, East Asia and In other regions, public sentiment leaned more in one
Latin America, strong majorities agreed with both direction or the other. Western Europe, Australia/New
statements. For example, while people in South Asia Zealand and Northern America – high-income regions
and East Asia were among the most likely to agree that include more traditional ‘donor’ countries** – were
that their respective government should spend among those where people were more likely to say
money to prevent diseases wherever they occur that their government should help wherever needed
(Chart 2.2), more than three-fifths in both regions also than they were to say that their government should
said that their governments should spend money on help only if diseases pose a risk to their population.
combatting diseases that only pose a threat to their
own country (Chart 2.4).
Chart 2.2:
Views on government spending to prevent and
cure diseases wherever they occur, by region
For each statement (statement 1 of 2), please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat
disagree, or strongly disagree: After the Covid-19 crisis ends, the government of [this country] should spend
money to help other countries prevent and cure diseases wherever they occur.
Strongly agree
South Asia 61% 20% 4% 9% 6%
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
East Asia 31% 50% 13% 5% Strongly disagree
Australia/
32% 44% 14% 9%
New Zealand
Southeast Asia 40% 26% 15% 15% 4%
Sub-Saharan
Africa 40% 25% 10% 21% 3%
Eastern Europe 23% 31% 16% 25% 4%
Middle East/
North Africa 26% 26% 18% 26% 4%
Russia/Caucasus/
Central Asia 20% 25% 17% 35% 3%
*It should be noted that data collection in South Asia took place **Defined as countries that contribute the most in official
well before the massive surge in Covid-19 cases that took development assistance. See: Aid by DAC members increases
place in much of the region during the spring of 2021. in 2019 with more aid to the poorest countries. (2020, April
16). OECD – Paris. https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-
sustainable-development/development-finance-data/ODA-
2019-detailed-summary.pdf

In 13 countries within Northern America, Western
Europe and Australia/New Zealand, the percentage
who agreed that their government should spend
money fighting diseases regardless of where those
diseases occur was more than 10 points higher than
the percentage who agreed that their government
should spend money only if the disease threatens
their country (Chart 2.3).
Chart 2.3:
Countries where people were more likely to say that the
government should fight diseases wherever they occur
compared to that the government should fight diseases
only if they pose a risk to that country
Percentage of people who strongly/somewhat agreed with each statement among countries with at least a
10-percentage-point gap in agreement.
disagree, or strongly disagree.
85% Government should

Norway
33% spend money to
prevent and cure
80% diseases wherever
United Kingdom
39% they occur
80%
United States Government should
43%
spend money on
79% preventing and
Australia
43% curing diseases
only if they pose
82% risk to this country
Sweden
49%
79%
Ireland
50%
70%
Italy
41%
70%
France
43%
77%
Canada
52%
81%
Spain
60%
77%
Belgium
56%
82%
Germany
62%
78%
Switzerland
59%

As shown in Chart 2.4, people in Northern America,
Western Europe and Australia/New Zealand were the
least likely to say that their government should help
prevent and cure diseases only if they pose a threat
to people in their country. By contrast, people in
Southeast Asia, the Middle East/North Africa and
Russia/Caucasus/Central Asia regions were
considerably more likely to agree with this second
statement in the survey than they were to agree with
the first.
Chart 2.4:
Views on government spending to prevent and cure
diseases only if they pose a risk to that country, by region
disagree, or strongly disagree: After the Covid-19 crisis ends, the government of [this country] should spend
money on preventing and curing diseases only if they pose a risk to people in this country.
Strongly agree
Southeast Asia 62% 22% 7% 5% 4%
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
South Asia 65% 17% 4% 7% 6% Strongly disagree
Russia/Caucasus/
Central Asia 53% 27% 8% 8% 3
Sub-Saharan
54% 24% 8% 12%
Africa
Middle East/
North Africa 55% 22% 7% 11% 4%
East Asia 41% 36% 15% 6%
Eastern Europe 43% 29% 11% 13% 4%
Australia/
New Zealand 21% 24% 28% 26%

In 13 countries, the percentage who agreed that their
government should only spend money on diseases
that pose a risk to their country was at least 25 points
higher than the percentage who agreed that their
government should spend money to help prevent
or cure diseases wherever they occur (Chart 2.5).
Notably, most of these are middle-income countries*
that typically focus on national priorities and
development and not on development assistance
to other countries.
Chart 2.5:
Countries where people were more likely to say that the
government should fight diseases only if they pose a risk
to that country compared to that the government should
fight diseases wherever they occur
Percentage of people who strongly/somewhat agreed with each statement among countries with at least
a 25-percentage-point gap in agreement.
disagree, or strongly disagree.
38% Government should

Tunisia
87% spend money to
prevent and cure
42%
Thailand diseases wherever
89% they occur
35%
Russia Government should
81%
spend money on
40% preventing and
Latvia
78% curing diseases
only if they pose
39% risk to this country
Iran
78%
46%
Ukraine
83%
52%
Iraq
88%
55%
Jordan
90%
52%
Algeria
83%
42%
Lebanon
72%
57%
Peru
85%
65%
Egypt
93%
59%
Kosovo
85%
*All except Latvia are upper-middle-income or lower-middle-

income countries. See: World Bank country and lending groups
| Data. (n.d.). The World Bank. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.
org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-
lending-groups

Endnotes
16. Cousens, E., & Szabó de Carvalho, I. (2020, September 22). Why we need international 21. Evans, A. (2013, December 27). Middle-income countries to have the casting vote on
cooperation now more than ever. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/ future of development. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-
agenda/2020/09/global-cooperation-international-united-nations-covid-19-climate- development/poverty-matters/2013/dec/27/middle-income-countries-future-of-
change/ development
17. The G20 works on financing preparedness and response to future health challenges. 22. G20 High Level Independent Panel on Financing the Global Commons for
(2021, May 15). G20. https://www.g20.org/the-g20-works-on-financing-preparedness- Pandemic Preparedness and Response. (2021). A Global deal for our pandemic age.
and-response-to-future-health-challenges.html https://pandemic-financing.org/report/
18. Development finance data. (n.d.). OECD. https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing- 23. UN/DESA Policy Brief #83: Recovering from Covid-19: The importance of investing in
sustainable-development/development-finance-data/ global public goods for health. (2020, July 17). U.N. Department of Economic and Social
19. UN/DESA Policy Brief #83: Recovering from Covid-19: The importance of investing in Affairs. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/un-desa-policy-brief-
global public goods for health. (2020, July 17). U.N. Department of Economic and Social 83-recovering-from-Covid-19-the-importance-of-investing-in-global-public-goods-
Affairs. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/un-desa-policy-brief- for-health/
83-recovering-from-Covid-19-the-importance-of-investing-in-global-public-goods-
for-health/
20. Alonso, J. A., Glennie, J., & Sumner, A. (2014, July). Recipients and contributors: Middle
income countries and the future of development cooperation [DESA Working Paper No.
135]. United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/en/
file/71254/download?token=eIZtDL-C

Chapter 3:
Trust in and perceived
value of science amid
Covid-19
Gautang, South Africa

Nursing staff wait outside the Steve Biko Academic
Hospital in Pretoria. Many of the province’s hospitals
are full due to the Covid-19 crisis.
James Oatway/Panos Pictures

Chapter 3: Trust in and perceived
value of science amid Covid-19
Trust in science and scientists has perhaps never Increased exposure to science and scientists as a
been more important in recent times than during the result of the pandemic may have influenced public
coronavirus pandemic, as most people have been opinion in many countries. Globally, people were
asked to change their lives in response to more likely to express a high degree of trust in
recommendations made by the scientific and science and scientists in 2020 than they were in
medical communities. This chapter explores the 2018: the percentage who said they trust science
level of trust people have in science and scientists a lot rose nine percentage points, as did the
during the pandemic compared to two years prior percentage who place a lot of trust in scientists
and the extent to which people think science in their country*.
informs the decisions of those who offer guidance
People’s likelihood of trusting doctors and nurses,
on Covid-19 – particularly their national government.
their national government and people who work at
charitable organisations also increased at the global
Globally, public trust in science and level, though not to the same extent as trust in
scientists was higher in 2020 than in 2018. science and scientists. Notably, the percentage
For many people, Covid-19 has highlighted the role who said they placed a lot of trust in scientists was
of science in fighting disease around the world. significantly lower than the corresponding percentage
Scientists have become more prominent in the for doctors and nurses in the 2018 study – but in
media in many countries, providing information and 2020, trust in scientists was about as common as
guidance that has affected the day-to-day lives of trust in doctors and nurses.
countless people and ultimately developing vaccines
that promise an eventual return to normalcy.
*As noted on page 5, the Covid-19 pandemic made it necessary probably increased the percentage who said they trusted each
to change the mode of interviewing in some countries ‘not at all’ in 2020 more than it affected any other response
from face-to-face (in-person) in 2018 to telephone in 2020. option. This finding suggests that if the mode change had not
Statistical analysis of the change indicates that it probably had been necessary, the results for levels of trust in science and
some effect on the results in these countries (see Appendix scientists may have risen further than the results presented
A). However, the mode-effect analysis of the items measuring here indicate.
trust in science and scientists indicates that the change

As shown in Chart 3.1, people’s neighbours is the
only group included in the survey for which trust
declined somewhat at the global level, from 34%
who said they trust their neighbours ‘a lot’ in 2018
to 29% in 2020. The percentage who said they trust
journalists in their country a lot remained flat over
the same period*.
Chart 3.1:
Change in trust levels, global results (2018-2020)
Percentage of people who answered ‘a lot’.
How much do you trust each of the following? Do you trust them a lot, some, not much, or not at all?
2018
45% 2020
43%
42%
41%
34% 34%
32%
29%
26%
22% 23%
19%
18% 17%
Science Scientists in this Journalists in Doctors and People who National People in your
country this country nurses in your work at charities government in neighbourhood
country in this country this country
*To compare global results for 2018 and 2020, only the countries
included in both studies were used in the analysis. Since fewer
countries were surveyed in 2020, that meant excluding several
countries from the 2018 results for comparison. Thus, the
results presented here are somewhat different from those for
the same questions in the 2018 report, where those countries
were not excluded.

Chart 3.2 shows that the percentage who said they
trust science a lot rose by at least 10 percentage
points in four regions: East Asia (predominantly
China), Latin America, Eastern Europe and Southeast
Asia – regions where this proportion was relatively
low in 2018. However, this percentage did not rise
in two other regions where it had been low in 2018:
the Russia/Caucasus/Central Asia region, where it
did not change significantly, and Sub-Saharan Africa,
where it declined.
Chart 3.2:
Trust in science, by region (2018-2020)
In general, would you say that you trust science a lot, some, not much, or not at all?
31% 2018
East Asia
47% 2020
26%
Latin America
40%
25%
Eastern Europe
36%
23%
Southeast Asia
35%
50%
Western Europe
59%
30%
South Asia
38%
Australia/ 54%
New Zealand 58%
Middle East/ 36%
North Africa 40%
52%
Northern America
55%
Russia/ Caucasus/ 33%
Central Asia 32%
28%
Sub-Saharan Africa
22%

The Wellcome Global Monitor also asked people
more specifically about the extent to which they
trust scientists in their country. The regional results
(Chart 3.3) show a similar pattern to that for trust in
science generally (Chart 3.2), with a few exceptions.
In Australia/New Zealand and Northern America,
the rise was greater for trust in the country’s
scientists than for science in general. However, the
reverse was true in Southeast Asia, where trust in the
country’s scientists rose more modestly than trust in
science overall. In the Russia/Caucasus/Central Asia
region and Sub-Saharan Africa, trust in scientists fell
somewhat between 2018 and 2020.
Chart 3.3:
Trust in scientists, by region (2018-2020)
In general, would you say that you trust scientists in your country a lot, some, not much, or not at all?
33% 2018
East Asia
49% 2020
Australia/ 47%
New Zealand 62%
22%
Latin America
33%
44%
Northern America
54%
25%
Eastern Europe
36%
39%
South Asia
50%
Middle East/ 36%
North Africa 44%
52%
Western Europe
59%
19%
Southeast Asia
23%
24%
Sub-Saharan Africa
19%
Russia/ Caucasus/ 34%
Central Asia 28%

In some cases, people’s trust in their country’s Self-assessed knowledge of science
scientists was more closely related to confidence In 2018 and 2020, the Wellcome Global Monitor
in the government and national institutions than to asked people how much they know about science.
their trust in science more generally. In Australia/ These results were relatively consistent between the
New Zealand, for example, people were less likely to two years, though the proportion who said they know
trust their respective country’s scientists a lot if they ‘some’ about science rose somewhat at the global
believed corruption is widespread in their government level, from 37% to 41%, with a corresponding drop
(61%) than if they did not perceive there to be from 20% to 16% in the proportion saying they know
widespread corruption (73%). However, perceived ‘nothing at all’ (Chart 3.4).
corruption makes no difference to their trust in science
more generally (65% among both groups).
Chart 3.4:
Self-assessed science knowledge (2018-2020)
How much do you, personally, know about science? Do you know a lot, some, not much, or nothing at all?
A lot
2018 6% 37% 33% 20% 4% Some
Not much
2020 6% 41% 33% 16% 3 Nothing at all

In 2018 and 2020, higher levels of science knowledge
were associated with greater trust in science.
However, as shown in Chart 3.5, trust levels rose
most substantially during that period among people
who said they had ‘some’ science knowledge (39%
in 2018 to 48% in 2020) or that they knew ‘not much’
or ‘nothing at all’ about science (25% in 2018 to 33%
in 2020).
Chart 3.5:
Trust in science, by level of science knowledge (2018-2020)
In general, would you say that you trust science a lot, some, not much, or not at all?
69% 2018
66%
2020
48%
39%
33%
25%
Know a lot Have some knowledge Know not much or nothing

about science about science at all about science

The results are similar for people’s trust in scientists in
their country. Worldwide, as shown in Chart 3.6, those
who said they know a lot about science were not
significantly more likely in 2020 than in 2018 to say
they trust their country’s scientists a lot; in both years,
the figure was just over 60%. However, trust levels did
rise among those who said they know less about
science. In 2018, 28% of people who said they did not
know much or nothing at all about science trusted
their country’s scientists a lot; by 2020, that figure had
risen to 37%. There was a similar rise among people
who said they know ‘some’ about science.
Chart 3.6:
Trust in scientists, by level of science knowledge (2018-2020)
In general, would you say that you trust scientists in your country a lot, some, not much, or not at all?
2018
63% 2020
61%
47%
39% 37%
28%
Know a lot Have some knowledge Know not much or nothing

about science about science at all about science

The change suggests that views of scientists shifted during the pandemic use scientific advice in their
most among people who previously had less direct decision-making.
experience with science but who may have gained an
Worldwide, more than six in ten people (63%) said
awareness of its importance in combatting Covid-19.
doctors and nurses base decisions about coronavirus
At the global level, 43% of people who said their lives
on scientific advice ‘a lot’. This figure fell below 50%
have been affected ‘a lot’ by the coronavirus situation
for the other four sources in the survey: the World
put a lot of trust in their country’s scientists, compared
Health Organization (48%), their national government
to 38% of those whose lives have been affected
(41%), their friends or family (38%) and religious
‘some’ and 34% of those who said their lives have
leaders (23%). However, more than 70% felt that
not been affected at all.
each source – except religious leaders – bases their
The survey also asked people how much they believe decisions at least somewhat on scientific advice
that the sources they have relied on for guidance (Chart 3.7).
Chart 3.7:
Views on whether sources base coronavirus-related
decisions on scientific advice, global results
Percentage of people who said ‘a lot’, ‘some’, ‘not much’ or ‘not at all’.
In general, how much do you think each of the following make decisions about coronavirus based on scientific advice?
A lot
Doctors/Nurses 63% 22% 7% 4% 4%
Some
Not much
The World Health
48% 26% 9% 7% 10% Not at all
Organization
National
41% 30% 13% 10% 6%
government
Friends or family 38% 35% 14% 8% 4%
Religious leaders 23% 30% 19% 18% 10%

This pattern was generally consistent across regions, region. Notably, the Russia/Caucasus/Central Asia
though people in some regions were more likely than region is also where people’s trust in their country’s
others to say that all five potential sources of advice scientists declined most significantly between 2018
base their decisions on scientific advice a lot. As and 2020 (see Chart 3.3), pointing to a general lack of
shown in Table 3.1, the percentage who said doctors faith in the scientific and medical communities’ ability
and nurses do so ranged from 84% in Australia/New to coordinate with national governments to provide
Zealand to 47% in the Russia/Caucasus/Central Asia sound guidance about Covid-19.
Table 3.1:
Belief that sources base coronavirus-related
decisions on scientific advice, by region
Doctors The World Health National Friends Religious

and nurses Organization government or family leaders
Australia/New Zealand 84% 63% 62% 47% 13%
Western Europe 76% 57% 43% 41% 13%
Northern America 75% 57% 25% 38% 15%
Latin America 67% 57% 33% 33% 26%
Southeast Asia 62% 47% 47% 35% 31%
Middle East/North Africa 62% 53% 40% 40% 33%
South Asia 61% 40% 45% 46% 22%
Eastern Europe 58% 46% 29% 40% 14%
East Asia 57% 25% 22% 26% 5%
Sub-Saharan Africa 56% 61% 48% 30% 36%
Russia/Caucasus/Central Asia 47% 42% 40% 35% 24%
Several other findings provide additional insights

into people’s perceptions of how much influence
scientists have on high-level decisions made by
national governments and the World Health
Organization (WHO) about Covid-19:
bout six in ten people in Sub-Saharan Africa (61%)
A
believed the WHO bases its decisions on scientific
advice a lot, second only to Australia/New Zealand
(63%). And while 10% of people globally said they
‘don’t know’ about the WHO’s reliance on scientific
advice, just 7% in Sub-Saharan Africa answered this
way – which may reflect the prominent role the WHO
has played in supporting health systems across the
continent24, including efforts to mitigate the impact of
Covid-1925,26.

In many countries, people were more likely to believe government bases decisions about Covid-19 on
that the WHO bases decisions about Covid-19 on science than to say that the WHO does. (In Germany,
scientific advice than they were to say the same this is largely because of the unusually high level of
about their own country’s government. Table 3.2 trust in government rather than a lack of trust in the
shows comparisons between these measures in G20 WHO, while in India, a substantial 18% said they did
countries where both questions were asked*. Among not know about the WHO’s basis for decisions about
these countries, only people in Germany and India Covid-19.)
were significantly more likely to say that their national
Table 3.2:
Belief that the WHO bases coronavirus-related decisions
on scientific advice compared with a belief that national
governments do so, among G20 countries
The World Health National

Organization government Difference
United States 57% 21% 36 pts
Brazil 54% 22% 32 pts
United Kingdom 66% 35% 31 pts
Mexico 68% 39% 29 pts
France 62% 41% 21 pts
Argentina 56% 40% 16 pts
Canada 66% 54% 12 pts
Italy 43% 32% 11 pts
Turkey 49% 38% 11 pts
Japan 22% 11% 11 pts
South Africa 69% 65% 4 pts
Australia 61% 59% 2 pts
Russia 35% 33% 2 pts
South Korea 38% 38% 0 pts
Indonesia 37% 39% -2 pts
India 40% 45% -5 pts
Germany 54% 63% -9 pts
*Questions about the government’s response

to Covid-19 were not permitted in China or
Saudi Arabia.

As Chart 3.8 demonstrates, these two variables
were closely related at the country level. In countries
where people were more likely to be confident in their
government overall, they were also more likely to
believe it makes decisions about Covid-19 based
primarily on objective scientific advice – a notable
finding given that politics and misinformation have
complicated government responses to the pandemic
in many countries27.
Chart 3.8:
Scatterplot exploring the relationship between the
belief that the government bases coronavirus-related
decisions on scientific advice compared to overall
confidence in the government
Percentage of people who answered “a lot”.
In general, how much do you think [the national government] makes decisions about coronavirus
based on scientific advice?
80%
BELIEVE GOVERNMENT BASES CORONAVIRUS-RELATED
DECISIONS ON SCIENTIFIC ADVICE ‘A LOT’
Norway New Zealand
70%
Germany
Uganda
60%
Canada
50%
India
40% France
UK
Italy
30%
Lebanon Brazil
20% US
Hong Kong
Japan
10%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
HAVE CONFIDENCE IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
R = .74

One in four people worldwide said People in East Asia were most likely to say
their government values the opinions government leaders place a lot of value on scientists’
opinions and expertise, at 39%. China’s population
and expertise of scientists ‘a lot’.
largely accounted for this high figure;* 44% of Chinese
Given the vital role of governments in endorsing and respondents said their government leaders value
implementing scientific recommendations during the scientists’ opinions a lot, while 7% answered ‘not
pandemic, the Wellcome Global Monitor asked people much’ or ‘not at all’. However, not all East Asian
how much they think the leaders in their country value populations were so certain about their government’s
the opinions and expertise of scientists. respect for science. Just 3% of Japanese respondents
Globally, as shown in Chart 3.9, one in four people said their government places a lot of value on
(25%) said leaders in their national government scientists’ opinions, while 53% said it places some
place ‘a lot’ of value on the opinions and expertise value on them and 37% answered ‘not much’ or ‘none
of scientists, though an additional 35% said at all’. Polls from Japan have consistently found high
government leaders place ‘some’ value on it. levels of dissatisfaction with the government’s
Nearly three in ten (28%) felt their government does response throughout the pandemic28,29.
not place much or any value on scientists’ opinions.
Chart 3.9:
Views on whether government leaders value scientists’
opinions, by region
Percentage of people who said ‘a lot’, ‘some’, ‘not much or ‘not at all’.
In general, how much do you think the leaders in the national government value the opinions and expertise of scientists?
A lot
WORLD 25% 35% 18% 10% 12%
Some
Not much
East Asia 39% 36% 9% 2 14% Not at all
Southeast Asia 26% 39% 21% 6% 14%
Russia/Caucasus/
Central Asia 25% 39% 15% 8% 8%
Australia/
24% 47% 22% 5% 2
New Zealand
South Asia 22% 32% 15% 14% 18%
Sub-Saharan Africa 22% 30% 24% 13% 12%
Middle East/
19% 31% 16% 19% 15%
North Africa
Latin America 15% 34% 31% 16% 4
Eastern Europe 8% 37% 29% 18% 8%
*Because China accounts for such a large proportion of the total

population of East Asia, estimates for this region tend to follow
those of China even if estimates for other East Asian countries
are quite different.

Fewer than one in five people in Eastern Europe, In 25 of the 113 countries surveyed, including eight
Northern America and Latin America believed their in Eastern Europe and six in Latin America, people
government leaders value scientists’ opinions and were significantly more likely to say their government
expertise a lot, while more than 40% said they do leaders place little to no value on scientists’ opinions
not value scientists’ opinions much or at all. All three than to say leaders place some or a lot of value
regions are characterised by low levels of trust in on them. As seen in Table 3.3, this difference was
government and, as with views that their government greatest in Lebanon, where the government has
bases coronavirus-related decisions on scientific been on the verge of collapse amid a devastating
advice (Chart 3.8), views that national leaders value economic crisis exacerbated by the pandemic30.
scientists’ opinions were strongly related to overall
confidence in government.
Table 3.3:
Countries and territories where people were more
likely to say that their government leaders do not
value scientists’ opinions
Percentage of people who said ‘a lot’/’some’ compared to ‘not much’/’not at all’.
In general, how much do you think the leaders in the national government value the opinions and expertise of scientists?
A lot/Some Not much/Not at all Difference
Lebanon 12% 74% -62 pts

Bosnia and Herzegovina 26% 62% -36 pts
Cameroon 31% 58% -27 pts
Iraq 34% 59% -25 pts
Hong Kong SAR 38% 60% -22 pts
Moldova 34% 54% -20 pts
Ukraine 36% 55% -19 pts
Gabon 32% 49% -17 pts
Tunisia 37% 54% -17 pts
Italy 42% 58% -16 pts
Nigeria 37% 51% -14 pts
Venezuela 41% 54% -13 pts
Congo Brazzaville 36% 49% -13 pts
Brazil 43% 54% -11 pts
Kosovo 36% 46% -10 pts
Guinea 33% 42% -9 pts
North Macedonia 38% 47% -9 pts
Bolivia 42% 51% -9 pts
Paraguay 40% 49% -9 pts
Romania 40% 48% -8 pts
Ecuador 43% 51% -8 pts
Chile 44% 52% -8 pts
Benin 37% 43% -6 pts
Bulgaria 44% 50% -6 pts
Albania 40% 45% -5 pts

Remarkably, in all 113 countries and territories scientific advice, people’s belief that their
included in 2020, only a minority said leaders in their government values the opinions and expertise
government value the opinions and expertise of of scientists was most prevalent where overall
scientists a lot. However, as with the perception that confidence in government was highest (Chart 3.10).
their government bases decisions about Covid-19 on
Chart 3.10:
Scatterplot exploring the relationship between
the belief that the government values the opinion
and expertise of scientists ‘a lot’ compared to overall
confidence in the government
60%
BELIEVE GOVERNMENT VALUES THE OPINIONS
AND EXPERTISE OF SCIENTISTS ‘A LOT’
50%
Philippines
40%
Germany
30%
Norway
Canada
UK
France India
20%
Australia
Chile Kenya
US
10%
Italy
Moldova
Japan
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
HAVE CONFIDENCE IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
Endnotes
24. The work of the World Health Organization in the African Region [Report of the Regional 28. Onomitsu, G. (2020, July 18). More in Japan unhappy with government’s virus response:
Director, July 1, 2018–June 30, 2019]. (2019). Brazzaville: WHO Regional Office for Poll. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-19/more-in-
Africa. https://www.afro.who.int/sites/default/files/2019-08/WHO%20RD_Eng%20 japan-discontent-with-government-s-virus-response-poll
WEB.PDF 29. Yamaguchi, M. (2021, May 12). Frustration in Japan as leader pushes Olympics despite
25. How World Health Organization is helping African countries deal with Covid-19. (2020, virus. AP. https://apnews.com/article/japan-olympic-games-coronavirus-pandemic-
April 3). Africa Renewal. https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/how-world- sports-government-and-politics-e89382fab53f569d4cbcb49224ef0d21
health-organization-helping-african-countries-deal-Covid-19 30. Nakhoul, S., & El Dahan, M. (2021, March 26). Analysis: Lebanon frozen by political
26. Push for stronger health systems as Africa battles Covid-19. (2020, August 26). World intransigence as it hurtles towards collapse. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/
Health Organization. https://www.afro.who.int/news/push-stronger-health-systems- us-lebanon-crisis-scenario/analysis-lebanon-frozen-by-political-intransigence-as-it-
africa-battles-Covid-19 hurtles-towards-collapse-idUSKBN2BI1YY
27. Transparency, communication and trust: The role of public communication in
responding to the wave of disinformation about the new coronavirus. (n.d.). OECD.
https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/transparency-communication-
and-trust-bef7ad6e/

Appendix A:
Mode effects
2 Metres: Masked Portraits on Ridley Road About this series

Gideon Mendel (assisted by Maria Quigley) Portraits taken during the UK’s first lockdown on
Ridley Road in Hackney, east London. It’s usually the
Elam Forrester, film maker. “Everything stopped at the
site of a bustling market, but its hours were restricted
end of March. I got a mild version of the virus and
and distancing lines were painted on the road.
isolated myself beyond the recommended time as I had
lost my sense of taste and smell. Keeping one’s distance
in shops, buses and busy streets is challenging so
wearing a mask feels like the safest option.”
Gideon Mendel / Wellcome Photography Prize 2021
38 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19: Appendices

Appendix A: Mode effects
2018-2020 mode effects in the Wellcome Global Monitor
Pablo Diego-Rosell, PhD
Introduction Methods
To minimise the risks of Covid-19 transmission Gallup was interested in estimating the effect that
that face-to-face data collection entailed, Gallup mode changes may have had on Wellcome Global
conducted all interviews via telephone in 2020. Monitor trends. The challenge in estimating mode
As a result, 82 of the 111 countries and territories effects is that the survey results collected between
(74%) surveyed in the 2018 and 2020 waves of 2018 and 2020 may have changed for reasons
the Wellcome Global Monitor had to switch from other than the mode itself. The best way to address
face-to-face (F2F) to computer-assisted telephone such potential confounds is through random mode
interviewing (CATI) in 2020. The populations in these assignment. However, the mode changes that
82 countries represent approximately 4.1 billion of occurred between 2018 and 2020 were not random;
the world’s population aged 15+, with China and rather, they were driven by the mode used in 2018,
India alone accounting for 2.1 billion. Twenty-nine which in turn was driven by country characteristics.
countries did not change mode because they were More specifically, Gallup uses telephone surveys in
already implementing CATI in 2018; these countries countries where telephone coverage is available to at
and territories represent more than 900 million of the least 80% of the population or is the customary survey
world’s 15+ population, with the US accounting for methodology. In low-income, lower-middle-income
nearly 264 million. and upper-middle-income countries, which includes
much of Latin America, the former Soviet Union
Introducing a mode change for a substantial
countries, nearly all of Asia, the Middle East and
proportion of the sample represents an analytical
Africa, Gallup uses an area frame design for face-to-
challenge due to the possible confounding of mode
face interviewing in randomly selected households.
effects with trends. A mode effect may occur when
changing the mode of administration (e.g., from
F2F to CATI) results in systematic changes in
the composition of the sample or the way some
respondents may answer some questions. Gallup
designers take great care to minimise mode effects
in World Poll questionnaires. For example, World Poll
surveys do not include visual prompts or showcards
to ensure that they can be implemented over the
phone as well as in person. However, it is possible
that the mode may introduce other systematic biases
that go unnoticed. The analysis that follows seeks to
estimate the impact of mode effects on the results
for Wellcome Global Monitor countries and territories
that changed mode, with a focus on the 13 question
items collected in both waves (see Table A.2 for a list
of items).

Chart A.1:
Difference-in-differences estimation
(illustrative example only, not based on WGM data)
10
OUTCOME
Intervention
effects
8
Constant difference
in outcome
Pre-treatment Post-treatment
0
0 4 8 12
To separate the effect of overall trends from mode The DID test was estimated within a binary logistic
changes, we conducted a test of mode effects regression framework, with each item dummy
using variables that were asked in both waves using coded into variables representing each response
a difference-in-differences (DID) (see Chart A.1) option (e.g., ‘a lot’ compared to ‘other’ responses).
approach, where the countries and territories that Standard errors were adjusted to account for any
had no mode change were used as a reference, or sampling design effect.
‘control group’, and those that had a mode change
represented the ‘treatment group’.

Results
The DID tests found significant mode effects for most change mode saw an increase in the percentage who
trended items, particularly trust-related items (Table responded that they trusted the national government
A.2 shows the results of the DID tests for all trended a lot – from 11.5% in 2018 to 18.2% in 2020.
items). As an example, consider W5B (Trust the However, those that changed modes saw a flat
national government in this country). As shown in trend, from 27.4% in 2018 to 28.5% in 2020.
Chart A.2, countries and territories that did not
Chart A.2:
Mode effect for W5B – ‘Trust in national government’
How much do you trust the national government in this country?
2018
28.5% = F2F
27.4%
2018
= CATI
(Control)
18.2%
11.5%
2018 2020
(% ‘a lot’, by 2018 mode)

Within a DID framework, the control group indicates increase of only 1.1 percentage points. The difference
the ‘true’ trend for the item in the absence of a mode between the control and treatment trends (6.7 – 1.1 =
change. Therefore, we can estimate that the true trend 5.6) can be considered the mode effect, suggesting that
would have been an increase from 11.5% to 18.2%, a the trend for countries that changed mode would have
6.7-percentage-point increase (see Table A.1). The trend been 5.6 percentage points greater if they had not
within the treatment group was different, showing an experienced a mode change.
Table A.1:
DID Estimation for W5B
(‘Trust in national government’ = ‘a lot’)
How much do you trust the national government in this country?
2018 Mode 2018 2020 Differences
F2F 27.4% 28.5% -1.1%

CATI (Control) 11.5% 18.2% -6.7%
Differences 15.8% 10.3% -5.6%
Table A.2 shows that this effect was generally Conclusion

consistent across trust variables, particularly W5A The DID analysis suggests that mode effects may have
(Neighbours), W5B (National government), W5D dulled positive trends for the trust items and for the
(Journalists), W5E (Doctors and nurses) and W5F (NGO impact of science and technology on jobs. It is, however,
workers). These variables showed a decrease in the ‘a quite likely that the assumptions required to estimate
lot’ category and an increase in the ‘not at all’ category, mode effects within this analytical framework are not
suggesting that trends may have been more positive met. In the current context, DID relies on two key
for these items in the absence of mode effects. assumptions: 1) there is independence between
The results for W10 (Science and technology will intervention (mode change) and outcomes and 2) parallel
increase/decrease the number of jobs in the area in trends*. These assumptions are difficult to assess in the
the next five years) also show that mode effects may absence of historical data allowing us to estimate the
have increased the proportion who said science and relationship between mode and outcomes and the
technology would decrease the number of jobs at the equivalence of trends between F2F and CATI countries.
expense of the proportion who said that science and It is possible that countries and territories that had
technology would increase the number of jobs. a mode change showed different trends regarding
The results for the W8 item (Work of scientists trust for reasons other than the mode change itself.
benefits people in this country) show that mode may For example, before the pandemic, CATI countries in
have increased the proportion of people who said the the World Poll tended to be high-income countries,
work of scientists benefits ‘very few’ people in their whereas F2F countries tended to be lower- and
country at the expense of the proportion who said middle-income countries. It is possible that trends
that it benefits ‘some’ people. regarding trust were different in these countries
because of their economic development level.
The only items that did not seem to show a clear
mode effect were items W1 (How much you know In conclusion, while the DID analysis provides some
about science) and W2 (How much you understand causal evidence of a mode effect, the assumptions of the
the meaning of science and scientists). analysis in the current context are probably violated, and
the precise size and direction of the effect is uncertain.
For the full Survey methodology see the
Methodology Report.
*This assumption is that the change in trust for countries that

switched from face-to-face to telephone interviewing between
2018 and 2020 would have been the same as the change in
trust for countries that used phone interviewing in both waves,
had there been no change in mode

Table A.2: Difference-in-differences test for trended items
Hypothesis test
WGM item Response Coef Std. error
t df Sig.
A lot -0.132 0.087 -1.518 151345 0.129
W1. How much you know Some 0.175 0.050 3.488 151345 0.000
about science Not much 0.063 0.053 1.188 151345 0.235
Not at all -0.093 0.088 -1.051 151345 0.293
A lot 0.019 0.050 0.382 151345 0.703
W2. How much you understand Some 0.164 0.050 3.276 151345 0.001
the meaning of science and scientists Not much -0.073 0.069 -1.054 151345 0.292
Not at all -0.071 0.124 -0.574 151345 0.566
A lot -0.297 0.056 -5.338 151345 0.000
Some -0.126 0.052 -2.414 151345 0.016
W5A. Trust people in neighbourhood
Not much 0.198 0.079 2.499 151345 0.012
Not at all 0.670 0.133 5.053 151345 0.000
A lot -0.484 0.066 -7.354 141346 0.000
W5B. Trust the national government Some -0.196 0.055 -3.600 141346 0.000
in this country Not much 0.238 0.064 3.740 141346 0.000
Not at all 0.165 0.067 2.483 141346 0.013
A lot 0.066 0.053 1.245 151345 0.213
Some -0.040 0.052 -0.771 151345 0.441
W5C. Trust scientists in this country
Not much -0.125 0.102 -1.230 151345 0.219
Not at all 0.702 0.148 4.734 151345 0.000
A lot -0.158 0.072 -2.200 150345 0.028
Some -0.195 0.053 -3.716 150345 0.000
W5D. Trust journalists in this country
Not much 0.106 0.058 1.814 150345 0.070
Not at all 0.453 0.074 6.108 150345 0.000
A lot -0.309 0.052 -5.945 151345 0.000
W5E. Trust doctors and nurses Some 0.172 0.051 3.396 151345 0.001
in this country Not much 0.215 0.111 1.935 151345 0.053
Not at all 0.928 0.214 4.336 151345 0.000
A lot -0.247 0.063 -3.914 151345 0.000
W5F. Trust people who work at charitable Some -0.100 0.051 -1.965 151345 0.049
organisations or NGOs in this country Not much 0.242 0.067 3.587 151345 0.000
Not at all 0.543 0.093 5.871 151345 0.000
A lot 0.109 0.085 1.288 151345 0.198
W5G. Trust traditional healers Some -0.088 0.054 -1.632 151345 0.103
in this country Not much -0.365 0.061 -5.934 151345 0.000
Not at all 0.291 0.054 5.356 151345 0.000
A lot 0.213 0.055 3.887 151345 0.000
Some -0.062 0.052 -1.185 151345 0.236
W6. Trust science
Not much 0.013 0.106 0.126 151345 0.899
Not at all 0.462 0.228 2.032 151345 0.042
A lot 0.323 0.053 6.045 151345 0.000
W7A. Trust scientists to find out accurate Some -0.078 0.051 -1.541 151345 0.123
information about the world Not much -0.160 0.094 -1.702 151345 0.089
Not at all 0.146 0.198 0.737 151345 0.461
Most 0.088 0.051 1.702 151345 0.089
W8. Work of scientists benefits people in
Some -0.220 0.052 -4.263 151345 0.000
(country)
Very few 0.228 0.070 3.245 151345 0.001
W10. Science and technology will increase Decrease 0.484 0.056 8.665 151345 0.000
or decrease number of jobs in the area in Increase -0.345 0.050 -6.842 151345 0.000
next five years Neither -0.063 0.091 -0.690 151345 0.490
Note: Coefficients represent the exponentiated odds ratios (logits) indicating

the DID-based estimate of mode effect on each response category.

Appendix B: Country
dataset details, 2020
Wellcome Global Monitor
The patient suffers the virus,

the family carry their own affliction
Zora Kuettner
Sama Conteh was in King’s ICU for many months
with Covid-19.
The doctors thought he wasn’t going to make it. Here
he is back at home, surrounded by his three daughters.
Grateful to be alive, but apprehensive and much
weakened from a body returned from the edge of life.
Zora Kuettner / Wellcome Photography Prize 2021

Appendix B: Country dataset details,
2020 Wellcome Global Monitor
Country dataset details

Gallup worldwide research data collected from 2020
a
argin of error is calculated around a proportion at the 95% confidence level. The maximum margin
M
of error was calculated assuming a reported percentage of 50% and takes into account the design effect.
Margin of error calculation: √(0.25/N)*1.96*√(DE)
Stringency Confirmed cases per Confirmed cases per %

Number Margin
Data collection Index: Average 100,000: Cumulative 100,000: Cumulative change
Country of
dates score during total at start of total at end of in
interviews of error
a
fielding* period fielding period31 fielding period cases

Oct 19 –
Albania 1,000 3.8 57.2 605.29 1,170.68 93.41
Nov 23, 2020
Oct 30 –
Algeria 1,020 4.3 71.6 136.52 158.23 15.9
Nov 14, 2020
Nov 6, 2020 –
Argentina 1,001 4.6 79.2 2,761.72 4,043.74 46.42
Jan 17, 2021
Nov 2 –
Australia 1,001 4.4 56.1 110.48 112.27 1.62
Dec 15, 2020
Oct 19 –
Austria 1,000 3.8 69.1 770.71 2,519.27 226.88
Nov 17, 2020
Oct 1 –
Bahrain 1,005 5.2 59.2 4,547.74 5,264.56 15.76
Nov 4, 2020
Nov 19 –
Bangladesh 1,011 4.6 80.1 273.41 303.17 10.88
Dec 12, 2020
Oct 20 –
Belgium 1,001 3.4 61.0 2,100.53 4,773.68 127.26
Nov 18, 2020
Nov 21 –
Benin 1,007 4.6 40.7 25.39 26.9 5.95
Dec 9, 2020
Nov 1 –
Bolivia 1,002 4.0 81.9 1,249.28 1,268.18 1.51
Nov 22, 2020
Bosnia and Nov 15 –
1,002 3.9 48.5 2,164.79 3,218.66 48.68
Herzegovina Dec 22, 2020
Nov 3, 2020 –
Brazil 1,000 4.6 60.5 2,659.47 3,762.91 41.49
Jan 6, 2021
Nov 24 –
Bulgaria 1,007 4.4 53.7 1,841.24 2,788.4 51.44
Dec 23, 2020
Nov 12 –
Burkina Faso 1,002 5.0 18.5 13.09 21.77 66.31
Dec 15, 2020
Nov 21 –
Cambodia 1,000 4.8 53.3 1.88 2.23 18.62
Dec 18, 2020
Oct 29 –
Cameroon 1,006 5.1 39.3 86.42 99 14.56
Dec 9, 2020
Oct 13 –
Canada 1,010 3.7 64.0 504.3 924.08 83.24
Nov 24, 2020
Nov 9, 2020 –
Chile 1,021 3.8 78.1 2,791.79 3,732.74 33.7
Jan 24, 2021
Oct 28 –
China 3,502 2.5 72.8 6.59 6.82 3.49
Dec 13, 2020
Oct 15 –
Colombia 1,000 3.9 63.6 1,887.22 3,230.31 71.17
Dec 28, 2020
*Index is scored between 0 and 100, with a higher score indicating For more information, please see:
greater levels of Covid-19-related government restrictions. www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/covidtracker

Number Margin
Country of
interviews of error
a

Oct 29 –
Congo Brazzaville 1,009 4.3 45.1 100.87 118.22 17.2
Dec 14, 2020
Nov 8, 2020 –
Costa Rica 1,001 3.9 58.8 2,327.52 4,025.27 72.94
Feb 18, 2021
Nov 25, 2020 –
Croatia 1,000 4.1 48.6 2,730.46 5,405.83 97.98
Jan 12, 2021
Oct 7 –
Cyprus 1,012 4.3 64.8 159.51 1,327.63 732.32
Dec 15, 2020
Nov 17 –
Czech Republic 1,000 3.9 66.2 4,419.98 6,081.89 37.6
Dec 22, 2020
Oct 14 –
Denmark 1,000 3.7 41.8 579.83 1,017.72 75.52
Nov 12, 2020
Dominican Oct 29 –
1,000 3.9 66.5 1,184.82 1,267.48 6.98
Republic Nov 17, 2020
Oct 14 –
Ecuador 1,000 4.0 55.7 872.63 1,231.1 41.08
Dec 29, 2020
Nov 21 –
Egypt 1,004 4.9 60.2 114.48 120.33 5.11
Dec 6, 2020
Nov 18 –
El Salvador 1,000 4.4 48.0 575.71 707.32 22.86
Dec 28, 2020
Nov 24 –
Estonia 1,013 3.8 45.0 768.47 1,413.19 83.9
Dec 15, 2020
Nov 4 –
Ethiopia 1,003 5.0 52.8 89.61 104.13 16.2
Dec 7, 2020
Sep 1 –
Finland 1,000 3.9 33.3 147.62 255.12 72.82
Oct 21, 2020
Oct 19 –
France 1,000 3.8 66.8 1,359.09 2,918.31 114.73
Nov 14, 2020
Dec 2 –
Gabon 1,005 5.0 64.4 435.95 448.12 2.79
Dec 26, 2020
Nov 5 –
Georgia 1,000 4.2 74.2 1,320.74 5,703.02 331.8
Dec 22, 2020
Oct 19 –
Germany 1,000 4.6 61.6 455.79 967.55 112.28
Nov 14, 2020
Nov 18 –
Ghana 1,000 4.3 38.9 169.51 181.25 6.93
Dec 21, 2020
Nov 2 –
Greece 1,006 4.5 75.6 392.11 925.35 135.99
Nov 26, 2020
Nov 26 –
Guinea 1,009 5.4 45.7 104.31 108.54 4.06
Dec 16, 2020
Nov 10 –
Hong Kong SAR 1,004 3.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dec 20, 2020
Nov 10 –
Hungary 1,000 4.4 72.2 1,216.48 2,774.26 128.06
Dec 11, 2020
Nov 24, 2020 –
India 3,045 3.0 69.0 681.78 771.28 13.13
Jan 8, 2021
Nov 16 –
Indonesia 1,023 4.0 61.8 175.84 277.66 57.9
Dec 31, 2020
Nov 2 –
Iran 1,007 3.7 68.1 768.68 834.33 8.54
Nov 8, 2020
Dec 4, 2020 –
Iraq 1,009 3.7 50.4 1,458.68 1,553.41 6.49
Jan 2, 2021
Oct 19 –
Ireland 1,000 3.7 79.5 1,047.66 1,378.56 31.58
Nov 13, 2020
Nov 11 –
Israel 1,063 3.5 65.7 3,620.19 3,809.49 5.23
Dec 1, 2020
Oct 19 –
Italy 1,000 5.1 68.4 701.04 1,702.08 142.79
Nov 11, 2020
Nov 12 –
Ivory Coast 1,005 4.8 25.0 83.3 85.41 2.53
Dec 4, 2020
Oct 2 –
Japan 1,012 3.4 35.3 67.04 123.18 83.74
Dec 3, 2020
Dec 21 –
Jordan 1,005 3.8 81.2 2,786.74 2957.95 6.14
Dec 31, 2020

Number Margin
Country of
interviews of error
a

Nov 26, 2020 –
Kazakhstan 1,000 3.9 71.2 934.79 1,127.01 20.56
Jan 6, 2021
Oct 29 –
Kenya 1,002 4.3 63.5 102.37 155.86 52.25
Nov 26, 2020
Nov 13 –
Kosovo 1,004 4.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Dec 15, 2020
Nov 26 –
Kyrgyzstan 1,000 3.8 49.4 1,131.59 1,208.18 6.77
Dec 10, 2020
Nov 18 –
Laos 1,000 5.1 32.8 0.35 0.55 57.14
Dec 1, 2020
Oct 27 –
Latvia 1,005 3.9 51.2 253.9 1,426.7 461.91
Dec 16, 2020
Dec 11 –
Lebanon 1,035 3.4 87.0 2,098.21 2,598.89 23.86
Dec 30, 2020
Dec 3, 2020 –
Lithuania 1,001 4.4 70.1 2,394.43 6206.9 159.22
Jan 21, 2021
Dec 18, 2020 –
Malaysia 1,004 4.6 73.1 288.04 871.83 202.68
Feb 18, 2021
Oct 28 –
Mali 1,002 4.5 38.0 18.5 20.44 10.49
Nov 15, 2020
Sep 6 –
Malta 1,002 3.6 45.0 420.73 1,226.09 191.42
Oct 30, 2020
Oct 20 –
Mauritius 1,000 4.2 16.7 33.11 40.15 21.26
Dec 5, 2020
Nov 17, 2020 –
Mexico 1,000 4.3 71.8 801.29 1275.64 59.2
Jan 15, 2021
Nov 26 –
Moldova 1,005 3.9 56.2 3,802.37 4,996.47 31.4
Dec 20, 2020
Dec 3 –
Mongolia 1,000 4.0 80.3 26.21 31.32 19.5
Dec 20, 2020
Nov 22 –
Montenegro 1,027 4.0 0.0 4,992.07 7,753.92 55.32
Dec 31, 2020
Nov 12 –
Morocco 1,012 3.7 66.2 768.33 1,023.13 33.16
Dec 3, 2020
Dec 9 –
Myanmar 1,000 4.4 75.9 192.09 224.45 16.85
Dec 25, 2020
Dec 15 –
Namibia 1,007 4.2 33.7 690.82 910.32 31.77
Dec 28, 2020
Dec 13, 2020 –
Nepal 1,000 4.9 60.2 884.45 937.03 5.94
Jan 6, 2021
Sep 10 –
Netherlands 1,000 4.3 58.9 455.1 3,602.01 691.48
Dec 14, 2020
Oct 19 –
New Zealand 1,000 4.0 22.2 38.98 42.95 10.18
Dec 6, 2020
Sep 24 –
Nicaragua 1,000 4.3 8.6 78.46 90.29 15.08
Dec 1, 2020
Oct 30 –
Nigeria 1,002 4.7 50.9 32.01 33.54 4.78
Nov 18, 2020
Oct 19 –
North Macedonia 1,019 3.6 0.0 1,142.03 2,813.69 146.38
Nov 26, 2020
Aug 28 –
Norway 1,000 3.9 35.4 199.21 291.16 46.16
Oct 10, 2020
Sep 22 –
Paraguay 1,000 4.1 67.2 500.68 1,295.93 158.83
Dec 9, 2020
Sep 11 –
Peru 1,001 4.0 82.6 2,240.35 2,814.01 25.61
Oct 30, 2020
Oct 19 –
Philippines 1,000 4.2 69.4 336.77 407.27 20.93
Dec 2, 2020
Nov 9 –
Poland 1,002 4.1 75.0 1,496.09 2,812.05 87.96
Dec 7, 2020
Sep 14 –
Portugal 1,004 4.2 58.3 628.13 1,033.38 64.52
Oct 21, 2020
Nov 2 –
Romania 1,006 3.9 71.9 1,287.9 2,966.41 130.33
Dec 17, 2020

Number Margin
Country of
interviews of error
a

Oct 15, –
Russia 2,002 2.7 45.8 931.89 1,610.7 72.84
Dec 2, 2020
Sep 30 –
Saudi Arabia 1,013 5.0 57.4 992.89 1,014.41 2.17
Oct 17, 2020
Oct 25 –
Senegal 1,025 3.9 35.2 98.09 100.17 2.12
Nov 22, 2020
Nov 4 –
Serbia 1,000 4.0 55.9 766.12 2,627.06 242.9
Dec 1, 2020
Nov 2 –
Slovakia 1,004 3.8 70.5 1,135.15 2,333.25 105.55
Dec 11, 2020
Sep 24 –
Slovenia 1,001 4.3 60.1 232.22 2,199.97 847.36
Nov 9, 2020
Nov 19 –
South Africa 1,004 4.3 43.4 1,314.75 1,490.08 13.34
Dec 13, 2020
Nov 28 –
South Korea 1,009 3.8 57.0 65.54 115.82 76.72
Dec 29, 2020
Oct 19 –
Spain 1,000 3.9 69.0 2,082.31 3071.21 47.49
Nov 12, 2020
Nov 17, 2020 –
Sri Lanka 1,011 4.2 61.3 83.41 204.76 145.49
Jan 2, 2021
Sep 8 –
Sweden 1,000 4.0 55.6 845.1 1,074.49 27.14
Oct 21, 2020
Oct 19 –
Switzerland 1,000 4.0 49.0 976.82 3,224.79 230.13
Nov 17, 2020
Sep 23 –
Taiwan 1,000 4.1 23.2 2.16 2.28 5.56
Oct 19, 2020
Dec 2 –
Tajikistan 1,000 4.3 40.1 134.81 142.4 5.63
Dec 20, 2020
Nov 8 –
Tanzania 1,000 4.8 17.6 0.9 0.9 0
Nov 22, 2020
Dec 8, 2020 –
Thailand 1,000 4.8 59.1 5.94 16.22 173.06
Jan 14, 2021
Oct 12 –
Tunisia 1,006 4.3 60.7 281.5 556.52 97.7
Nov 4, 2020
Nov 24 –
Turkey 1,000 4.5 66.2 559.91 631.89 12.86
Dec 3, 2020
Nov 16 –
Uganda 1,027 4.8 47.0 38.05 44.21 16.19
Nov 25, 2020
Oct 28 –
Ukraine 1,000 4.2 59.4 838.19 1,258.51 50.15
Nov 16, 2020
United Arab Oct 13 –
1,002 3.5 49.3 1,127.7 1,439.1 27.61
Emirates Nov 5, 2020
Oct 19 –
United Kingdom 1,000 3.9 70.8 1,115.27 2,092.5 87.62
Nov 16, 2020
Aug 4 –
United States 1,001 4.2 65.2 1,461.18 2,348.1 60.7
Oct 9, 2020
Nov 20, 2020 –
Uruguay 1,003 3.6 56.8 129.79 724.03 457.85
9 Jan, 2021
Nov 20 –
Uzbekistan 1,000 4.2 39.8 216.07 227.01 5.06
Dec 12, 2020
Oct 31 –
Venezuela 1,000 4.0 86.1 318.71 391.83 22.94
Dec 30, 2020
Oct 19 –
Vietnam 1,000 5.0 48.8 1.19 1.43 20.17
Dec 6, 2020
Dec 1 –
Zambia 1,005 4.1 46.2 101.8 106.64 4.75
Dec 17, 2020
Oct 25 –
Zimbabwe 1,002 4.2 69.6 57.32 63.52 10.82
Nov 21, 2020
Endnotes
31. Guidotti, E., & Ardia, D. (2020). Covid-19 data hub. Journal of Open Source Software,
5(51), 2376. doi: 10.21105/joss.02376

Appendix C:
Measure and Middle
Ingmar Björn Nolting
Young couples meet at the previously open border
Global regions between Konstanz, Germany, and Kreuzlingen,

Switzerland. The authorities put up a fence, and later
a second one to force distancing more effectively.
Here, on a stretch on private ground, there was only
one old fence, allowing a little physical contact.
About this series
Covid-19 and lockdowns disrupted almost every
aspect of life, challenging people, governments and
organisations of every kind to find ways to adapt.
Ingmar Björn Nolting travelled through Germany in
April 2020 to see what was going on.
Ingmar Björn Nolting / Wellcome Photography Prize 2021

Appendix C: Global regions
The Wellcome Global Monitor Covid-19 study Covid-19 are unavailable for China, Australia, New
includes representative surveys in the following Zealand and Japan. However, these countries were
113 countries and territories, categorised into included in the analyses of more general questions
11 global regions for analysis. It should be noted related to trust in science and scientists as well as in
that results for questions asked specifically about other institutions.
East Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Northern America Eastern Europe

China Benin Canada Albania
Hong Kong SAR Burkina Faso United States Bosnia Herzegovina
Japan Cameroon Bulgaria
Middle East/
Mongolia Congo Brazzaville Croatia
North Africa
South Korea Ethiopia Czech Republic
Algeria
Taiwan Gabon Estonia
Bahrain
Ghana Hungary
Southeast Asia Egypt
Guinea Kosovo
Cambodia Iran
Ivory Coast Latvia
Indonesia Iraq
Kenya Lithuania
Laos Israel
Mali Macedonia
Malaysia Jordan
Mauritius Moldova
Myanmar Lebanon
Namibia Montenegro
Philippines Morocco
Nigeria Poland
Thailand Saudi Arabia
Senegal Romania
Vietnam Tunisia
South Africa Serbia
Turkey
South Asia Tanzania Slovakia
United Arab Emirates
Bangladesh Uganda Slovenia
India Zambia Western Europe Ukraine
Nepal Zimbabwe Austria
Sri Lanka Belgium
Latin America
Cyprus
Australia/New Zealand Argentina
Denmark
Bolivia
Russia/Caucasus/ Finland
Brazil
Central Asia France
Chile
Georgia Germany
Colombia
Kazakhstan Greece
Costa Rica
Kyrgyzstan Ireland
Dominican Republic
Russia Italy
Ecuador
Tajikistan Malta
El Salvador
Uzbekistan Netherlands
Mexico
Norway
Nicaragua
Portugal
Paraguay
Spain
Peru
Sweden
Uruguay
Switzerland
Venezuela
United Kingdom

The country income groups used in this report are
based on the World Bank’s classification of economies
by average income. The low-income and lower-
middle-income groups were combined for analysis.
Low income/ Upper-middle income High income

Lower-middle income Albania Australia
Algeria Argentina Austria
Bangladesh Bosnia and Herzegovina Bahrain
Benin Brazil Belgium
Bolivia Bulgaria Canada
Burkina Faso China Chile
Cambodia Colombia Croatia
Cameroon Costa Rica Cyprus
Congo Brazzaville Dominican Republic Czech Republic
Egypt Ecuador Denmark
El Salvador Gabon Estonia
Ethiopia Georgia Finland
Ghana Indonesia France
Guinea Iran Germany
India Iraq Greece
Ivory Coast Jordan Hong Kong SAR
Kenya Kazakhstan Hungary
Kyrgyzstan Kosovo Ireland
Laos Lebanon Israel
Mali Malaysia Italy
Moldova Mexico Japan
Mongolia Montenegro Latvia
Morocco Namibia Lithuania
Myanmar North Macedonia Malta
Nepal Paraguay Mauritius
Nicaragua Peru Netherlands
Nigeria Russia New Zealand
Philippines Serbia Norway
Senegal South Africa Poland
Sri Lanka Thailand Portugal
Tajikistan Turkey Romania
Tanzania Venezuela Saudi Arabia
Tunisia Slovakia
Uganda Slovenia
Ukraine South Korea
Uzbekistan Spain
Vietnam Sweden
Zambia Switzerland
Zimbabwe Taiwan
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay

Wellcome supports science to solve the
urgent health challenges facing everyone.
We support discovery research into life,
health and wellbeing, and we’re taking on
three worldwide health challenges: mental
health, global heating and infectious diseases.
Wellcome Trust, 215 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE, United Kingdom
T +44 (0)20 7611 8888, E contact@wellcome.org, wellcome.org
The Wellcome Trust is a charity registered in England and Wales, no. 210183.
Its sole trustee is The Wellcome Trust Limited, a company registered in England and Wales, no. 2711000
(whose registered office is at 215 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE, UK). PE-7306.4/11-2020/RK

Wellcome Global Monitor Covid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wellcome Global Monitor Covid

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wellcome Global Monitor Covid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wellcome

Johannah Churchill / Wellcome Photography Prize 2021

2 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19

3 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19

4 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19

5 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19

6 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19

The Wellcome Global Monitor Covid-19 study was A note on Covid-19

7 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19

Effects of Covid-19 Views of science amid Covid-19

8 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19

The José López Portillo and Valle de San Lorenzo

Gerardo Vieyra/NurPhoto via Getty Images

9 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19: Chapter 1

Eighty per cent of adults worldwide said that

*Figures presented in this section on the economic

10 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19: Chapter 1

All Low/Lower-middle- Upper-middle- High-income

11 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19: Chapter 1

In addition to asking about job or business losses,

12 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19: Chapter 1

Temporarily stopped Worked fewer hours Received less money

South Asia 50% 63% 54% 63%

Southeast Asia 43% 57% 60% 65%

Sub-Saharan Africa 36% 63% 62% 64%

Latin America 30% 57% 55% 56%

Middle East/North Africa 24% 58% 54% 49%

Russia/Caucasus/Central Asia 15% 39% 37% 37%

Eastern Europe 12% 35% 33% 34%

East Asia 12% 29% 35% 29%

Northern America 11% 37% 38% 32%

Western Europe 7% 24% 29% 24%

Note: Question not asked in Australia/New Zealand.

The pandemic exacerbated economic inequality

13 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19: Chapter 1

*Based on the World Bank’s estimates of the Gini coefficient,

14 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19: Chapter 1

15 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19: Chapter 2

16 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19: Chapter 2

Government should spend money Government should spend money on

Note: Due to rounding, percentages may sum to 100% ±1%.

17 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19: Chapter 2

Northern America 43% 37% 11% 10%

Western Europe 35% 41% 15% 9%

Latin America 35% 31% 13% 20%

Southeast Asia 40% 26% 15% 15% 4%

Eastern Europe 23% 31% 16% 25% 4%

Note: Due to rounding, percentages may sum to 100% ±1%.

18 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19: Chapter 2

85% Government should

19 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19: Chapter 2

East Asia 41% 36% 15% 6%

Latin America 46% 26% 12% 14%

Eastern Europe 43% 29% 11% 13% 4%

Western Europe 24% 27% 22% 26%

Northern America 17% 27% 21% 34%

20 | Wellcome Global Monitor 2020 – Covid 19: Chapter 2

38% Government should

*All except Latvia are upper-middle-income or lower-middle-

*Figures presented in this section on the economic

*Based on the World Bank’s estimates of the Gini coefficient,

*All except Latvia are upper-middle-income or lower-middle-

*Questions about the government’s response

*Because China accounts for such a large proportion of the total