FHI wants more exceptions – VG

At the end of October, the government raised the alarm about the increase in imported infections and introduced strict measures for people arriving in Norway from red countries.

Until December 3, everyone who comes from red countries and is not registered as a resident or owner of a house in Norway must check in at a quarantine hotel for ten days (with some exceptions).

The government now wants to extend the scheme and has therefore sent the bill for consultation.

Although the National Institute of Public Health (NIPH) writes in their query response that they are positive about the proposed change, they note that the current scheme does not meet the original intentions.

FHI did not support quarantined hotels as a primary rule when it was introduced.

Several outbreaks reported

In its contribution, FHI was concerned about the challenges related to infection during the quarantine period, and that the problem was particularly acute where many people live nearby, for example people who live near barracks and the like.

“The problem of the spread of infection among workers living near quarantine has not abated since quarantined hotels emerged, with several outbreaks reported,” the institute writes.

FHI emphasizes that in recent days there have also been reports of an extensive infection in connection with crew changes at sea, where incoming crews have gone directly aboard ships and have lived close to each other.

The institute cites an example of a municipal doctor who has reported a lot of infection in a household with workers who have traveled to Norway from a country with a high level of infection.

“So far, 13 of 39 residents have tested positive, and the municipal doctor expects more positive,” they write.

Every day that a new person tests positive, the quarantine period is renewed for ten days.

FHI writes that the time in quarantine can be very long for some and constitute a significant psychological burden.

Suggest exceptions

In response to the inquiry, FHI notes that the scheme was implemented very quickly and may have had unintended consequences as it does not contribute to dealing with groups that initially caused concern.

“Among other things, a distinction has emerged between rented and own visitor housing that is not subject to infection control,” the institute writes.

FHI also believes that the scheme so far has been too inflexible.

“In the case of strong human considerations, such as visits to sick relatives or funerals, the principle of proportionality dictates that visitors should be able to obtain exemptions from both quarantine and quarantine hotels,” the institute believes.

The Bar Association: – A form of internment

The Bar Association goes further and believes that the scheme should be eliminated.

“Based on the ambiguities of the submitted proposal, we request that this bill be withdrawn and that the scheme with a temporary quarantine hotel be eliminated. Instead, we recommend that the quarantine obligation be imposed in a specially chosen location.”

For VG, Secretary General Merete Smith explains:

– Hotels in quarantine are actually a form of internment, it is very intrusive. As described, it also doesn’t affect those you’re most concerned with capturing, he says, and targets business travelers.

The Bar Association believes that for the quarantined hotels to become a permanent agreement, the ministry must withdraw the proposal and present a new and better reasoned bill. There they should describe the complete scheme, who the scheme should cover, why they think it is necessary, and what they want to achieve with it.

Smith uses the distinction between owning and renting a home as an example of how the government should take the time to come up with a more precise scheme.

– We believe that there is a big difference in the situation in March and now. Now the government has had time to think. The need for a quarantine hotel may not have been a surprise. The borders were closed in March, and they’ve had time to consider what to do when they reopen: Should we do tests, should we have quarantined hotels?

He also says it’s unclear what the penalty is for choosing not to go to quarantined hotels.

– If, for example, a family member comes to visit from abroad and travels to a cabin or apartment, and is quarantined for 10 days, the purpose is achieved. So why punish them?

– If they are fined for that, I think the rules are not good enough.

The Bar Association also had 24 hours to respond, which they noted in the response query is too short a time.