[ad_1]
It can sometimes cause unnecessary disturbances if authorities disagree too much on important issues in a crisis.
The approach to a discussion between Councilor Raymond Johansen (Labor Party) in Oslo and Health Minister Bent Høie (H) a couple of weeks ago may be an example of this.
Generally speaking, they fought over who had done what to stop COVID-19, first. Like when mom and dad argue about who has been to handball practice the most. It is not always that interesting.
The disagreement between the National Institute of Public Health (NIPH) and the Norwegian Directorate of Health is different. It is an understandable professional disagreement to which you and I can make valuable contributions.
Already at Monday’s press conference, Prime Minister Erna Solberg (H) said that the two professional bodies needed more time to agree on some things. One of the quarantine questions in particular is easy for us ordinary people to understand:
READ HERE: The Norwegian Health Directorate is terrified and proposes tougher measures – NIPH believes it will hurt worse
Health director Bjørn Guldvolg believes that if one of the household members is in quarantine, the rest of the same household should also be quarantined. At the same time, this means that if one of the household members goes and gets tested, all the household members must be quarantined until the test result is available.
In many ways it is logical: what good is it that one is quarantined at home, while the rest of the family comes and goes, at work and in training? So they carry a possible infection with them everywhere?
But then the director of the National Institute of Public Health, Camilla Stoltenberg, says:
Damn, if it gets so great consequences for the whole family that one will be tested, then many will be reluctant to do so. So they prefer to leave.
It is also logical: if I know that about me go and give me the test, then the spouse should be home from work, maybe a couple of days, the kids should be home from school, plus the fact that they should leave the match this weekend, no, then I prefer to leave it.
It was just a little headache and sore throat, it’s probably nothing, it’s easier to think then.
In other words, a real dilemma comes to light that we should be happy about. The reason for this is that professional disagreement also shows two key things:
First: It is not certainly that the hardest measures are always the best. Some politicians may be inclined to take the strictest, because they think it will make the biggest impression, because then they seem to be active.
Secondly: Not all health problems can / should be solved only by doctors and physicians. Here, psychologists, anthropologists, educators, and you and I can provide important information. Not to mention the politicians, who will ultimately decide that.
More comments by Erik Stephansen
In the end, it all comes down to common sense or common sense, or whatever you want to call it. I lean toward the National Institute of Public Health and Camilla Stoltenberg’s side of the table.
One of the most important goals is to get as many people as possible to prove themselves, so that they really have The detected corona can be isolated.
If we make quarantine regulations so strict that we scare people into not testing themselves, they can go against their purpose and hurt worse.
[ad_2]
