[ad_1]
Norwegian borders have been closed since March 16. So far, the government has decided that this will be the case until May 15.
On Wednesday, the EU presented its strategy for a gradual opening of European borders. The European Commission recommends starting with an opening between countries with a fairly similar infection situation.
On Friday, it is clear whether the government will extend the shutdown, meaning Norwegians traveling abroad will have to be quarantined for ten days when they return.
Norwegian authorities have already notified the EU that it may be appropriate to extend border control for 90 days, but the Justice Ministry regrets that a decision has not been made. The notification is reportedly sent for formal reasons because Norway is obliged to notify the EU four weeks in advance, if it is prolonged.
– A stupid idea
Internationally recognized Swedish epidemiologist Johan Giesecke has made a critical statement about the closure of the Norwegian border. He has said that he has no infectious motives. Now warn against a closure extension.
– I think closing the Norwegian border was originally a bad idea as long as the virus was already in the country. Moving forward now is a stupid idea. Perhaps authorities want to stop border trade, says Giesecke.
He says a shutdown between Norway and Sweden could they had something for themselves at an early stage.
– In an initial phase, a border closure could have had little effect. One could have postponed or prevented the spread of the infection for a few days, but not longer. The effect of closing borders between countries that already have an epidemic is very small.
Giesecke has been a state epidemiologist in Sweden and is now an advisor to the World Health Organization (WHO).
Giesecke’s successor, Anders Tegnell, has also been repeatedly aware that the closure of the Norwegian border has no contagious reasons.
– I don’t understand what would be achieved by closing the border. There is so much contagion in all countries that the little trip across the border will neither increase nor decrease the infection, Tegnell told NRK.
Denmark has also closed its borders. The Danish government has announced a reevaluation of border control for June 1.
Sweden has open borders for all neighboring countries.
Aavitsland: not as effective in closing the border
Senior physician Preben Aavitsland of the Institute of Public Health (FHI) previously said the same thing as his Swedish colleagues:
– Closing borders from the outside is probably not as effective. It is like closing the barn door after the horse has run. This virus is in the country now, he told NRK Weekly.
Aavitsland does not want to elaborate on this in relation to Aftenposten.
Anita Daae on the FHI press watch says FHI does not want to comment on the information in this case, but points to her risk assessments:
They show that FHI infection control specialists have never recommended that the government close the border.
In FHI’s latest risk assessment, FHI recommends that:
- Norway should cooperate with the Nordic countries and the EU countries in removing travel restrictions.
- The mandatory entry quarantine should be considered mutually derogated with other countries with good control of the epidemic, such as Denmark.
FHI also describes the negative effects of the entry quarantine ring as big, while the probability of importation of infection in Norway is considered as moderate.
It is also the same risk that FHI believes you run from being internally infected in Norway; is moderate
According to Swedish public health authorities, there is now relatively little contagion in several of the Swedish counties bordering Norway, from eastern Norway to central Norway.
– More logical to close Oslo and Stockholm
FHI researcher Bjørn Grinde believes that it is now difficult for them to have closed the borders between the Nordic countries.
– If there were major differences in infection status between countries, then closing the border could make sense. For example, the infection situation in Sweden had been like in New York, so it might have been relevant. But the infection situation between Norway and Sweden is not much different, says Grinde, who claims he is not an official FHI spokesperson, but rather represents himself.
He believes that if the goal is to prevent infection, it would be logical to close Stockholm and Oslo, which have the highest infection. Closing the border between Norway and Sweden is less important.
But Grinde also recommends not “Closing” of Oslo and Stockholm.
– It is more important that people follow the basic advice on hand hygiene, keep a distance, stay home if they are sick, possibly wear gloves and mouthwash, than close borders and areas.
He says it is also an opportunity to open the border and at the same time advise that one should stay away from Stockholm.
– Of course this can be done, but again: it is more important to get people to follow the hand hygiene tips etc.
– But there is more infection in Sweden than in Norway. So can’t it be a point to keep the limit closed?
– There is a little more infection in Sweden, but not significantly different. This is not where you press the shoe. Following infection control rules is more important.
The government has justified the closure that it is necessary to restrict the import and spread of the coronavirus.
No one in the Justice Department’s political leadership on Wednesday night wanted to comment or say anything about the content of the travel tips to be held on Friday. The afternoon mail was forwarded to the Ministry of Health for further comment.
