Austria + Covid 19 from 2020 to 2025
The Republic of Austria's total expenditures related to the COVID-19 pandemic amounted to approximately €46.6 billion for the period from the beginning of 2020 to the end of 2024. These expenditures include economic aid, public health measures (testing, vaccinations), and short-time work compensation.
Here are the details of the expenditures for 2020–2025:
• Overall balance (March 2020 – end of 2024):
Federal government pandemic-related expenditures amounted to approximately €46.6 billion by the end of 2024.
• Healthcare sector (2020–2025):
According to a report from April 2025, the Federal Ministry of Health's total expenditures for COVID-19 measures (such as testing and vaccinations) from the beginning of 2020 to April 2025 amounted to approximately €11.46 billion.
• Main pandemic-related expenditure items:
• Testing: At €5.18 billion, testing represents the largest expenditure item in the healthcare sector.
• Economic aid: By the end of 2024, companies had received approximately €41.7 billion in COVID-19 relief funds.
• Development 2024-2025: While COVID-19 aid largely expired at the end of 2024, residual costs from the pandemic fund were still recorded in the healthcare sector in 2025.
Total cost estimate:
Various parliamentary inquiries cited total pandemic costs, including consequences, of up to €175 billion (as of 2024/2025). This figure includes direct budget support as well as revenue losses, tax deferrals, and overall economic impacts.
Total Costs of COVID-19 Vaccinations
From the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 to the beginning of 2025, total costs amounted to approximately €1.77 billion. These expenditures are part of the overall public health response to the pandemic, which, according to a report by the Ministry of Health from April 2025, totaled approximately €11.46 billion.
Key data on vaccination costs and procurement (2020–2025):
• Total vaccination costs: approx. €1.77 billion.
• Procurement: Austria has so far procured approximately 62.1 million vaccine doses from EU contracts.
• Disposal: Due to lower demand, vaccine doses worth approximately €500 million had to be disposed of.
• Ongoing costs in 2025: Despite the declining significance of the pandemic, vaccine doses were still procured for 2025 under the long-term contracts (1.5 million doses), with some delivery obligations being postponed to 2026.
• Cost structure: In addition to the vaccine itself, costs include logistics, vaccination fees (e.g., €16 per vaccination at the doctor's office), and administration.
• Price per dose: Prices varied depending on the manufacturer (according to the EU price list, approximately €1.78 for AstraZeneca to over €14 for Moderna). Renegotiations with BioNTech-Pfizer (reducing the order by 4.9 million doses) aimed to lower costs, but delivery commitments remained in place until 2025.
In summary, the 62.1 million doses cost several hundred million euros, combined with high disposal costs (approximately €500 million), bringing the total cost of vaccine procurement to the high hundreds of millions of euros or more.
Government's Justification for Corona Measures
Statement by Chancellor Nehammer on December 31st, 2023:
"The pandemic was an extremely difficult time for all Austrians; everyone was equally affected and challenged. In the spring of this year, I announced that it was important and necessary to examine the consequences of the pandemic, especially from a socio-political and scientific perspective, in order to draw the right conclusions from these findings. Today, I am pleased to present the study by the Austrian Academy of Sciences," said Chancellor Karl Nehammer at the presentation of the results of the COVID-19 review process at the Federal Chancellery. In addition to the Chancellor, Education Minister Martin Polaschek, Director General for Public Health Katharina Rauch, and Alexander Bogner from the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW) participated in the press conference. "A study is about analyzing processes: What went well? What went wrong? What mistakes were made?" Nehammer continued. His answer, he said, is: "Where work is done, mistakes happen. Only when no work is done do they not happen, and that in itself is a mistake." It is crucial that any mistakes are analyzed and lessons are learned from them to avoid them in the future. These analyses take place retrospectively. During the pandemic, decisions had to be made without the knowledge we have today. He therefore felt it was personally important to emphasize that the goal was always to combat the virus, not to pit one person against another. This point, too, was lost in the subsequent public discourse.
He also stressed the importance of emphasizing that all measures taken by the federal government and the health authorities were based on one of the noblest motives: "Namely, saving human lives. This motive does not justify the mistakes that occurred, but it explains why they happened," the Chancellor stated. Even the scientists could only issue recommendations based on the current state of knowledge.
The social science report from the Academy of Sciences now provides an opportunity to examine closely what went well, what went wrong, and what lessons can be learned for the future, the Chancellor concluded. "It was right that we did everything we could to save as many lives as possible. It was also right that we tried, through a wide range of measures, to prevent hospitals, and especially intensive care units, from collapsing and to create capacity for life-saving operations that had to be performed despite the pandemic. It was also right to do everything possible to prevent the critical infrastructure in our country from collapsing. We succeeded in averting that."
Nevertheless, with the knowledge we have today, we would do many things differently. "As a political leader, one must choose one's words much more carefully when addressing the public. With the knowledge we have today, we will do everything in our power in the future to ensure that a division of society like this never happens again. What is needed to heal such a division is to consider both sides, those who oppose and those who support the measures. We must enter into this discourse together," the Chancellor emphasized. With far-reaching measures, the highest degree of transparency and accountability is needed to explain why certain measures are being implemented. Mistakes were undoubtedly made due to the speed of the situation and the flexibility of the virus. "We then paid too little attention to bringing people along on this journey and explaining why we implemented certain measures," said Nehammer. Transparency and accountability must be rethought in future communication, especially in crisis communication. The report also addresses the role of the media and political parties. Here, too, it is clear that in a pandemic and in combating it, this major challenge can only be truly mastered through collaboration. "Everyone bears responsibility in their respective role," the Chancellor emphasized.
Furthermore, the report involved not only scientists, but also Austrians and people living in Austria, who were selected through a process and interviewed in focus groups. All sides, from proponents to opponents of vaccination, were represented and were able to comment on how the pandemic response was perceived and what lessons were learned from this experience.”
Conclusion:
Many Austrians view the motivation and measures differently than Chancellor Nehammer. Many people, including those in the medical and scientific fields, who held different views than the government at the time, were discriminated and condemned. Unlawful lockdowns were imposed. Society was divided into vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Comparison of Austria with Sweden
The comparison of the Corona measures between Sweden and Austria during the pandemic (approx. 2020–2022) is considered one of the most striking contrasts in Europe, with both countries now having transitioned to an endemic normality (as of 2024/2025).
Key differences during the pandemic (2020–2022):
• Sweden (The Liberal Approach):
• No strict lockdowns: Schools (for children under 16), restaurants, gyms, and shops remained largely open.
• Voluntary measures and personal responsibility: Measures were based on recommendations (social distancing, working from home), not prohibitions.
• Masks: There was no mask mandate for a long time, even during peak hours.
• Strategy: The goal was to slow the pandemic, but not to halt public life.
• Protection of the elderly: The focus was on protecting nursing homes, which was only partially successful at the beginning.
• Austria (The Restrictive Approach):
• Strict lockdowns: Multiple, strict curfews, closure of schools, restaurants, and retail businesses.
• Mandatory measures: Mandatory face masks (FFP2), 3G/2G rules (vaccinated, recovered, tested) for access to many areas.
• Strategy: Stricter measures aimed at rapid containment (zero-COVID approaches in the early stages).
Comparison of the impacts:
• Economy: According to studies, Sweden's economy was the least affected by the coronavirus pandemic compared to other EU countries. Nevertheless, voluntary social distancing also led to a decline in consumption in Sweden, similar to Denmark. • Health & Mortality: Excess mortality in Austria (approx. 226 per 100,000) was higher than in Sweden (approx. 126 per 100,000) during the peak of the pandemic.
• Assessment: A report by the Swedish Commission concluded that the decision to forgo lockdowns was generally the right one, but initially offered insufficient protection for the elderly.
Current situation (2024–2025):
Both countries have lifted all restrictions. Entry is unrestricted, and COVID-19 is treated as an endemic disease.
Conclusion: Sweden relied on trust and personal responsibility, while Austria relied on government regulations and strict rules.