Norway reveals: these were the effects of restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic

Redakcja

19.01.2026 12:06

Copy link

Norway reveals: these were the effects of restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic

During the pandemic, Norwegians often praised the government for its handling of the crisis. Fot. Torbjørn Kjosvold, Forsvaret

A new report from Norway's Central Bureau of Statistics (SSB) analyzes the effects of COVID-19 pandemic response strategies. The document is based on real data from several countries and compares economic consequences as well as the impact on public health.

On January 19, 2026, SSB published a report on the costs and benefits of COVID strategies. The authors analyzed decisions made during the pandemic in Norway and other countries. The study is not based on simulations. It uses ex post data (actual historical information) from 2020 to 2023. The goal was to compare the real effects of different approaches.

End of a high-profile trial in Norway. She fell ill after COVID-19 vaccination

Three models of pandemic response

The report distinguishes three strategies. The first is mitigation, which assumes limited restrictions and gradual spread of the virus. The second is suppression, which involves quickly introducing strict measures as infections rise. The third is elimination, aiming to completely stop the transmission of COVID-19.

Norway adopted the suppression strategy. It was based on testing, contact tracing, and isolation. The authors used it as a reference point. Norway's results were mainly compared with Sweden and New Zealand. The countries were selected due to similar social and economic conditions.

Plans for returning to normality were being made in Norway from early February 2022.Photo: Adobe Stock, standard license

Health, deaths, and life in pandemic Norway

The analysis shows clear differences in the number of excess deaths. Countries that used elimination had the lowest mortality rates in the initial phase of the pandemic. Suppression produced better results than mitigation. The highest excess deaths were recorded in countries with mild restrictions.

The authors converted the effects into years of life lost and saved. The elimination variant would have meant a potential gain of over 80,000 years of life for Norway. The value of the benefits was estimated at NOK 112 billion. Suppression performed worse than elimination but better than the British variant.

Will immigrants help prepare Norway for future pandemics?

Economy, labor market, and GDP during COVID-19

The January report analyzes the economic effects in detail. Countries that eliminated the virus returned to GDP growth trends more quickly. Production declines were shorter and shallower. The impact of the pandemic on the economy was smaller than in mitigation countries.

The biggest differences concerned the labor market. Elimination was associated with fewer layoffs and shorter periods of downtime. The report's authors did not find a lasting increase in unemployment after the pandemic. In the long term, there was no observed effect of persistent labor inactivity.

During the pandemic, Norway aimed, among other things, to minimize the influx of migrants.Photo: Fotolia

How quarantine affected schools and migration

The report also covers social costs. The analysis of school closures did not show significant differences between strategies. The number of days of remote learning and partial restrictions was similar. The authors did not assign decisive importance to this element.

Greater differences concerned quarantine and border controls. Elimination required longer and more restrictive entry limitations. This generated additional administrative and social costs. At the same time, it reduced the number of hospitalizations and deaths.

COVID-19 report in Norway. Here are the key data

1. Excess deaths. Norway compared to others:

– Elimination countries (New Zealand, Taiwan) had clearly lower excess deaths than Norway.
– Norway (suppression) performed better than Sweden and the UK, but worse than New Zealand.
– Mitigation countries had the highest cumulative excess deaths.

2. Pandemic strategies. Effects converted into years of life:

– Mitigation, Swedish style, meant a loss of about 19,478 years of life compared to Norwegian suppression.
– Elimination, New Zealand style, meant a gain of about 80,039 years of life compared to Norway's strategy.
– Elimination, Taiwan style, meant a gain of about 24,100 years of life.

3. Hospitalization during COVID-19:

– With the suppression strategy, Norway had 66,133 hospitalizations and about 12,540 intensive care cases.
– With mitigation, the number of hospitalizations would have been higher by 8,183 and 1,563 additional ICU stays.
– With elimination, the number of hospitalizations would have dropped by 61,097 and 11,584 fewer intensive care cases.

4. The report compares deviations in GDP from the pre-pandemic trend:

– Elimination countries had a shallower GDP decline in 2020.
– In 2021–2023, New Zealand and Taiwan returned to trend faster than Norway.
– The UK had the worst GDP result in the entire comparison (compared to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, USA, New Zealand, and Taiwan).

5. Unemployment before and after the pandemic (December 2019 to December 2023):

– Norway from 4.1% to 3.6%.
– Sweden from 6.8% to 8.2%.
– UK from 4.1% to 4.1% (no change).
– New Zealand from 4.1% to 4.1% (no change).

6. Final balance. Comparison of Norway's strategy to others:

– Elimination strategy – New Zealand variant
Net balance is positive. The gain compared to Norway is about NOK 198 to 254 billion, depending on the value assigned to a year of life. The positive result is due to saved years of life, fewer hospitalizations, and smaller economic losses. Additional costs of border controls and quarantine do not offset all the benefits.

– Elimination strategy – Taiwan variant
Net balance is positive and the highest in the entire comparison. The gain compared to Norway exceeds NOK 900 billion. This is mainly due to a very strong economic effect and a limited number of deaths and hospitalizations. However, the report's authors emphasize that the scale of the result is specific to Taiwan's conditions.

– Mitigation strategy – Sweden variant
Net balance is positive. The gain compared to Norway is about NOK 115–129 billion. The key factor is lower economic cost and less downtime. At the same time, the report points to clearly higher health costs than in Norway, which partially reduce the gain.

– Mitigation strategy – UK variant
Net balance is negative. The loss compared to Norway exceeds NOK 750 billion. This results from a combination of high excess mortality and a deep and prolonged GDP decline. This is the weakest result among all the strategies analyzed.

The SSB report does not present a full net balance for the remaining countries, limiting itself to partial comparisons such as GDP, deaths, or unemployment.

They have never visited the doctor so often before. New FHI data is shocking

The authors also considered scenarios related to vaccine uncertainty. When their effectiveness was likely in the short term, elimination brought the highest net benefits. In the absence of an effective vaccine, the Swedish strategy performed better. The report indicates that the choice of strategy should depend on the nature of the threat and available tools, and the conclusions may be used for future pandemics.