Response to COVID-19: was Italy (un)prepared?

On 31st January 2020, the Italian cabinet declared a 6-month national emergency after the detection of the first two COVID-19 positive cases in Rome, two Chinese tourists travelling from Wuhan. Between then and the total lockdown introduced on 22nd March 2020 Italy was hit by an unprecedented crisis. In addition to being the first European country to be heavily swept by the COVID-19 pandemic, Italy was the first to introduce stringent lockdown measures. The SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and related COVID-19 pandemic have been the worst public health challenge endured in recent history by Italy. Two months since the beginning of the first wave, the estimated excess deaths in Lombardy, the hardest hit region in the country, reached a peak of more than 23,000 deaths. The extraordinary pressures exerted on the Italian Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN) inevitably leads to questions about its preparedness and the appropriateness and effectiveness of responses implemented at both national and regional levels. The aim of the paper is to critically review the Italian response to the COVID-19 crisis spanning from the first early acute phases of the emergency (March-May 2020) to the relative stability of the epidemiological situation just before the second outbreak in October 2020.

Corona-regionalism? Differences in regional responses to COVID-19 in Italy.

The paper discusses the responses to the COVID-19 crisis in the acute phase of the first wave of the pandemic (February-May 2020) by different Italian regions in Italy, which has a decentralised healthcare system. We consider five regions (Lombardy, Veneto, Emilia-Romagna, Umbria, Apulia) which are located in the north, centre and south of Italy. These five regions differ both in their healthcare systems and in the extent to which they were hit by the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic. We investigate their different responses to COVID-19 reflecting on seven management factors: (1) monitoring, (2) learning, (3) decision-making, (4) coordinating, (5) communicating, (6) leading, and (7) recovering capacity. In light of these factors, we discuss the analogies and differences among the regions and their different institutional choices.