The Political and Societal Effects of Covid-19
COVID-19, as many of us remember, was a global turning point that had a dramatic effect on political and social structures across the world. It is potentially easy to forget the immense scale at which the pandemic affected us, as we were all confined to four walls for over three years; however, it did cause a tidal wave of change globally. The concept of a pandemic is a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease over a whole country or the world at a particular time, which encapsulates the effects of COVID-19 and how far the consequences of it reached.
During the period of COVID-19 there was a huge power shift politically, with the strict lockdown that first began on 23rd of March and social distancing implemented by the government under Boris Johnson. There was a use of emergency powers, having to respond quickly to the rapid change in society. By April 2020, over 90 countries had declared states of emergency, allowing governments to impose lockdowns, restrict movement, and close businesses with limited scrutiny and prolonged legislation periods. There was a mass of government intervention, including the UK’s furlough scheme, covering 80% of workers’ wages for millions of employees, and over 130 countries introduced travel bans or mandatory quarantines by mid‑2020. This was one of the largest global border closures in modern history. Many governments passed rapid legislation. In the UK, the
Coronavirus Act 2020 granted temporary powers to close schools, detain infectious individuals, and expand NHS staffing and national governments took control of public health messaging and emergency planning, reducing the autonomy of local authorities. This potentially could be viewed as a temporary regression in politics, as increased government intervention has been an idea that has been fought against from as early as the Enlightenment and with the ideas of modern liberals. It is interesting to note that democracies tended to emphasise transparency and public communication, while some authoritarian states used stricter enforcement and surveillance technologies, showing the different responses of a state with democracy and one that is authoritarian. The political changes during this time have left a mark on modern politics, due to the fact the Conservative Party are now seen as having too many scandals in the COVID-19 period, making them incapable of guiding the UK successfully through a crisis. Without being given much choice, the public gave much trust to the government, as there was clear leadership, safety regulations, relative support given and rapid legislation.
Additionally, support for the NHS and key workers was raised, with communal ways of showing appreciation and gratitude to those putting their lives below others in order to benefit society as a whole. However, distrust began to flourish after months of what felt like confinement and endless work video calls and family facetimes. Surveys in 2020–21 showed major divides over mask wearing and lockdowns, with attitudes often aligning with political identity in several countries and trust in government and scientific authorities became polarised. Some groups reported increased trust in public health experts, while others became more sceptical of official guidance. Some went even as far as anti‑lockdown and anti‑mandate protests that occurred in many countries, including the UK, Germany, Australia, and the US, reflecting deep divisions over public health measures. Different news outlets framed restrictions, vaccines, and government responses in contrasting ways, contributing to divergent public perceptions, particularly on social media platforms. Further conflicting public opinions, many lies circulated and misinformation such as when the WHO described an “infodemic,” noting that false information about cures, risks, and conspiracy theories spread rapidly on social media, influencing public debate. Much distrust in the government grew after events such as Partygate, which saw the government officials enjoying public gathering and parties (or affairs) while the rest of the population were tapped in doors, often suffering the loss of loved ones, constantly battling with the stress of protecting their families.
COVID-19 brought many things, one of them being an immense loss. Some groups in society experienced this to a much higher level, a trend that wasn’t newly discovered during the pandemic. Socioeconomically deprived groups have consistently experienced greater risk of exposure and worse health outcomes, a pattern seen across pandemics and confirmed during COVID‑19. It is slightly ironic that the NHS was so greatly praised for its hard work, yet those working for the NHS have always been overlooked and more likely to suffer the consequences of a poorly structured welfare
system. As well as this, people living in crowded households or working in face-to-face jobs with poor ventilation faced higher infection risk. This was because COVID-19 was a primarily air-borne virus and was spread through close proximity, hence the lockdown procedure and the social distancing
regulations. Most minority ethnic groups in England and Wales suffered excess mortality compared with the White British majority, even after accounting for age and region. This concept highlights the extent to which equality is still not achieved in Britain, despite the general assumption our country is modernised and equal to all. Further underlining how our healthcare system isn’t up to the standard it should be is the fact that conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, and obesity were more common in some groups and increased the risk of severe disease. Unfortunately, increasing sugar tax and promoting yo-yo dieting with short term diet plans, such as Slimming World that you attend in local village halls isn’t the ideal plan for creating a healthier population.
Additional to the strains put on welfare and healthcare institutions, education was massively affected by COVID-19. Boris Johnson’s close of schools meant that there were disproportionately harmed pupils from lower income households who had less access to devices, stable internet, or quiet study spaces. This contributed to widening gaps in education and skills. We are now facing the consequences of this as a nation, as well as Johnson himself under scrutiny for his actions from governmental committees. Due to there being little time to evaluate the consequences of actions, lots of legislation was quickly passed without much scrutiny. While this is good in one sense as it prevented more lives being on the line in the short term, it has also had massive impacts in the long term. Many children didn’t have access to schooling for many months, meaning that a crucial part if their education was taken, no matter what ages they were and what year they were in. There has been a substantial increase in children with academic limitations due to their development in schools being decreased. This idea creates some uncertainty about the future and how the coming generations will be when they are in places of occupation and authority. Restrictions such as school and hospitality closures had greater short-term impacts on deprived communities and younger people.
Unsurprisingly, after being confined in your own home with little allowance to leave, there has been a rise in mental health concerns. Home working was associated with higher psychological distress during the second lockdown, even though earlier stages showed no clear link and reduced in person social contact caused a statistically significant increase in anxiety and depression, and online contact didn’t compensate for the loss of face-to-face interaction. Young adults using more social media experienced worsening mental health, with the rise of addiction to phones being an issue that accelerated in lockdown. During lockdown, many of the things' people enjoyed doing to support their mental health, such as community walks, social events, pub gardens, clubs and general wellbeing evening walks, were all shut down and have been slow to begin again, if at all. This is seen with residential mobility restrictions being linked to adverse mental health outcomes, showing how limits on movement affected wellbeing. A nationally representative UK study found that while 67.9% of people reported no major lifestyle change, 15% experienced significantly worsened lifestyles, especially in partner relationships and social activities. These groups also showed poorer mental health outcomes. Linking to my previous point of an inadequate welfare and healthcare system, these problems haven’t seemed to be getting solved due to long waiting lists for the NHS to be seen, just to be told there was an even longer waiting list for medication, and high prices of private medication is often impossible in the current economic climate. Therefore, many are left feeling ignored and as if they are not a priority, especially when there are talks of further cuts in the welfare budget due to the struggling economy.
International relations have also suffered after the COVID-19 pandemic. A WHO strategic evaluation found that COVID‑19 exposed deep vulnerabilities in global health systems, supply chains, governance structures, and public trust, highlighting the need for stronger international coordination. WHO stressed that the world must translate “hard-earned lessons” into stronger systems, smarter cooperation, and faster, more equitable response mechanisms, as future pandemics are inevitable. In 2023, world leaders at the UN General Assembly made a historic commitment to strengthen international cooperation, governance, and investment to prevent future pandemics, recognising WHO as the coordinating authority. In 2025, the World Health Assembly adopted the first-ever WHO Pandemic Agreement, aimed at ensuring a more equitable and collaborative global response to future pandemics. It followed three years of negotiation triggered by gaps revealed during COVID‑19. Research shows that the pandemic reproduced global inequalities, with core wealthy countries accessing vaccines first, while low‑income countries faced shortages, creating idea that there was a hierarchical structure in how vaccines were distributed based on the money the country had to spend. Vaccine distribution became a geopolitical battle, with Chinese, American, and European companies competing for influence and markets, especially in the Global South. Countries used vaccines as tools of foreign policy, as China distributed Sinopharm and Sinovac widely across Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the EU and US focused on mRNA vaccine exports and donations. Many of them also ordered more vaccines than their population required, leaving less privileged places lacking supplies. Many low-income countries did not receive significant vaccine shipments until late 2021 or 2022, creating a two-tier global recovery. This selfishness caused tension and it is possible that if their help is ever needed, they may be less willing to give support, especially in a war as they wouldn’t be inclined to send their soldiers to die for a place that was selfishly greedy enough to negatively impact their population. Countries often acted individually rather than collectively, especially in the early months, leading to competition for PPE, ventilators, and vaccines. Though progress is slow in Britain, health security became a central topic in international relations. Countries began reassessing supply chain resilience, strategic autonomy, and global health funding. The pandemic accelerated discussions about global inequality, climate‑health links, and international crisis coordination.
COVID‑19 was not just a health emergency but a transformative global event that reshaped politics, society, and everyday life. The pandemic exposed vulnerabilities, accelerated existing trends, and forced governments and communities to confront uncomfortable truths. As outlined, Government power expanded rapidly, revealing tensions between freedom and public safety and political polarisation deepened, showing how crises can amplify ideological divides. Inequalities widened, proving that the pandemic’s impact was far from equal. Social behaviour shifted dramatically, altering work, relationships, and mental health. Finally, global cooperation faltered and succeeded in uneven ways, exposing the fragility of international systems. Ultimately, the legacy of COVID‑19 will depend on whether governments and societies choose to learn from the crisis, such as strengthening cooperation, reducing inequalities, and building more resilient systems for the future. If the world fails to act on the lessons of COVID‑19, the next crisis may expose even deeper fractures.
Comments