Crown medal back – VG

We all felt a huge knot in our stomach when Norway was hit by the shutdown in March. Fear. Unsafety. Loneliness. There were many emotions at stake when they sent us home indefinitely. Imagine for a second that you were transferred to Earl’s karmic world. Of your loved ones. Of family. For friends. That there’s even a sign on your door that says no one can enter here.

It looks like it was straight out of a dystopian movie, but that was the reality for many people. The VG disclosure shows that 133 municipalities introduced visit stops for the mentally disabled. At least 2,430 people had their doors closed to visitors and family members.

If this is not done for the best purpose, it is easy to think. To prevent infections. The problem is that people who live in residences or housing associations are not there for a limited period. It is your home. There is nothing in the law that says we can deny people accepting visits. Not even a pandemic. And we should be happy about that. Strictly speaking, we don’t want such a society.

It is heartbreaking to read VG’s case about Saka Maljicaj, who was not allowed to visit her mentally disabled and speechless little sister. At least seven times the police ordered her to move out of the house where her sister lived. The impression is that infection control was used as a pretext.

Much has been said and written about how the closure changed our lives. Six months of social distancing begins to be a guess at everyone. The challenges of the home office are described in detail. And there is no reason to downplay what this does to us. Many studies show that many find the new everyday life heavy and psychologically stressful.

But for some groups, it has been particularly painful. People with mental retardation who were prohibited from visiting their own homes. Nursery and other activities that were suspended for the day. Elderly people who were left alone in a nursing home without being visited by their loved ones. Vulnerable children who did not get the help they needed when schools closed and child health and wellness centers were sent to home offices.

There are many examples where infection control has become a good excuse to turn. Sometimes one may wonder what is done primarily to save time and money and what justifies infection control.

However, it has a completely different degree of severity when infection control is used as a justification for depriving people of their fundamental rights. Here we as a society have not been good enough. The municipalities claim they misunderstood the regulations. At the same time, there is no doubt that many were scared and acted blindly.

We constantly see examples of municipalities that go much further than necessary. Sometimes it can look like a national infection control championship. Before the summer, authorities almost had to ask socially critical functions to leave headquarters. Even in parts of the country that were not contagious, services for vulnerable children were located in home offices. Health Minister Bent Høie has repeatedly pointed out that nursing homes practice visiting ban too strictly. A survey by county governors shows that the rules are practiced differently and often beyond the recommendations of health authorities. The result is that many suffer. Although infection control is important, it is not the only threat to life and health.

What kind of life do we give to our elderly and vulnerable if they are not exposed to infections, but are not exposed to what gives meaning to life? Fresh air. Visits from family and friends. Experiences and coexistence.

We need an open and honest assessment of what really happened when the country closed. To an insufficient degree, other ways have been sought to solve a demanding infection situation. We, as a society, must learn from this. Sadly, fundamental rights were overlooked when fear prevailed.