Easily a five-star book. Baldwin examines a paradigm that attributes the disease response of various European countries (Britain, France, Germany, and Sweden, mostly) to their existing political cultures: more liberal political cultures used less intrusive means in response to epidemiological challenges. He problematizes the notion a bit, noting that in all cases, inaction was frowned upon by basically everyone in power, and offers some useful complicating factors that correlate better with the decisions made: geoepidemiology, mercantile interests, and administrative capacity.
At the end, he provocatively asks us to think about switching the arrow of causation, suggesting that political cultures may have developed in concert with epidemiological challenges. I don't think he convinces me that disease was a factor in the development of political cultures, but I would be willing to see more evidence, in terms of a deep-dive study into the institutions themselves, as opposed to disease. Still, it's a clever suggestion, and one worth investigating further.
This is the best book in its class, and is definitely the one book I would recommend for someone who wants to read about the past context for present debates on quarantine, vaccination, etc. History may not repeat itself, but some themes recur over and over. If I were teaching a class on the history of disease, at least some of this would almost certainly be assigned.
Drawbacks: book is very long (563 pages); Baldwin's style is highly erudite and makes it dense at times. But it's worth the read, if you're interested in the field.