Populism is at the center of many debates about socio-political aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, pondering questions such as, “Is coronavirus bad for populism?” or “How do populist leaders respond to it?” is unlikely to bring significant insights into the distribution and operation of power in the context of COVID-19, or more generally. The populist label is used by elites to describe any politics that they dismiss, whether right- or left-wing, rendering populism an empty and incoherent concept. This point is supported by developments associated with COVID-19 as attitudes of “populist” regimes towards the pandemic varied and some of them followed the same strategies as those pursued by “non-populist” governments. This article reveals the limited explanatory utility of the concept of populism and proposes shifting the focus of attention towards neoliberalism as a key factor shaping individual countries’ responses to the ongoing biopolitical challenge.

民粹主义是关于COVID -19大流行的社会政治方面的许多辩论的中心。但是，在思考诸如“冠状病毒对民粹主义有害吗？”之类的问题。或“民粹主义领导人对此有何反应？” 不太可能在COVID -19或更广泛的意义上带来有关电源分配和运行的重要见解。精英主义者使用民粹主义标签来描述他们所摒弃的任何政治，无论是右翼还是左翼，都使民粹主义成为一个空洞而又不连贯的概念。这一点得到了与COVID相关的开发的支持-19岁时，“民粹主义”政权对大流行的态度有所不同，其中一些人采取了与“非民粹主义”政府奉行的相同策略。本文揭示了民粹主义概念的有限解释效用，并建议将注意力转向新自由主义，因为新自由主义是塑造各个国家对当前生物政治挑战做出反应的关键因素。