– Limit reached – VG

On Monday, October 26, the government announced a further tightening of the rules, advice and recommendations in relation to the crown outbreak.

Starting at midnight on Thursday, October 28, these measures will take effect:

• In private homes, you should have no more than five guests in addition to the household members.
• Everyone should be with fewer people for a week to reduce the number of close contacts.
• From 200 to 50 at private events outside the home.
• Today’s access to have 600 people present at outdoor events is limited to events where everyone in the audience sits in fixed seats.

Lysbakken tells VG that he reacts to the government doing this without anchoring itself in the Storting.

– What we see is that the decisions that greatly interfere with the freedom of citizens are taken in a very short time, and not always in line with professional recommendations. I believe that now the limit of what the government can decide for itself has been reached. Now there is a lot of power in a few hands, he says.

Also in May, Lysbakken questioned the government’s authority to introduce measures and rules without the Storting endorsing them.

– May weaken legitimacy

He emphasizes that SV supports the government to propose measures now against the spread of the infection and recommends that people do what the government says.

– But: there are also political evaluations in this. And it is serious for people to have their rights restricted without a stronger democratic foundation, says Lysbakken.

– Simply because it can weaken the legitimacy and enthusiasm around the common work that the whole society must do. So I think people and industries must be listened to, and we need a more open debate. The most intrusive measures must come from the majority of elected representatives, says the SV leader.

Different from this spring

The party has tabled a proposal in the Storting to amend the Infection Control Act so that government measures can be reviewed by elected representatives.

If the proposal is approved, the government will be obliged to send national decisions or regulations authorized by the Communicable Diseases Act as a proposal to the Storting immediately after its implementation.

– Today’s legislation is well adapted to the acute crisis we had this spring, but it is much less adapted to a long-term crisis like the one we are in now, where they become more in need of debate, dissent and openness on the basis of the measures implemented. it works, says Lysbakken.

He emphasizes that the government will still have a lot of freedom of action under the new law.

– The government will still be able to make quick decisions as it did yesterday. This is not a criticism of the government, but of the system we have. We believe that the proposals should be discussed and that the Storting should be able to propose changes.

Won’t change now

Changing the legislation now is too early, says the Minister of Health and Care Services, Bent Høie (H).

– This is not a new SV position. This proposal was made a while ago, but I do not agree that we should change the Emergency Preparedness Act while we are in a health crisis. It is very unwise to change the framework conditions during the crisis, he tells VG.

– Time is an incredibly important factor in reducing the spread of infection and therefore important decisions need to be made in a short time in such a situation. We also see that municipalities are good at the local level, for example, what happened in Bergen today shows that the Bergen city council needs to have this kind of authority to implement very intrusive measures in a very short time, and we also have.

The minister tells VG that it will be time to discuss these issues when the Kvinnsland committee has finished its assessment of the crown’s crisis authority handling.

– It is very important that we now bear in mind that the crisis is not over and that all crisis management must take place in the plans and regulations on which we have established plans and the emergency preparedness system.

– All the knowledge about crisis management indicates that it is unwise to change the basic framework conditions in the middle of a crisis, says Høie.

Believes that government measures are premature

Sps Kjersti Toppe, who sits on the health and care committee at the Storting, believes that the government’s maximum limit of five people in private homes, also in areas without high infection, is premature and questions whether they are necessary.

– This is on the border and is very intrusive in people’s lives. I wonder if it is necessary to have such a low number in private households, says Toppe, who has six children. Only two of them still live at home.

– I must count my own children as external guests in that infection perspective, says Toppe, who is a doctor.

He notes that there have also been political and professional disagreements related to the new measures.

Assessments published on the websites of the National Institute of Public Health (NIPH) show, among other things, that health director Bjørn Guldvog proposed that the rules only apply to highly infected municipalities. However, Erna Solberg announced on Monday that the measures would be applied throughout the country.

– I am concerned about the way this has happened. Obviously, it has gone very fast by the Ministry of Health and is not professionally anchored as one would think. I’m concerned about whether people will follow the advice when they can ask questions about professionalism, says Toppe, who believes that most people do their best to limit the number of people they interact with, keep their distance, and wash their hands.

– The authorities should not extend too much trust, says the first vice president of the social and health committee.

High: I don’t know who it affects

– I am concerned about developments in Norway over the last 24 hours, and what we see in Sweden and the countries around us shows how necessary it was for the FHI government and the Norwegian Health Directorate to work on this over the weekend, Høie responds.

The Minister is aware that it is important to limit the number of guests, even in municipalities with little infection.

– We believe they are necessary because they need to reduce the number of people you know privately. We see the infection appear in many municipalities and it is not known in advance in which municipalities it appears, this has been experienced in many smaller municipalities. This will help reduce the risk of local sprouts getting bigger and we need it now.

Labor: not now

Labor Party health policy spokesperson Ingvild Kjerkol tells VG that she thinks SV’s proposals are interesting.

However, he does not believe it is correct to make major changes to the Infection Control Law in the midst of a pandemic.

– We believe that there are several things that we should review in the Infection Control Law. But we are not in favor of changing the law in the midst of a pandemic. At least not at the moment, he says.

– But if this is durable and there is no vaccine in the new year as we all hope, we can go back to that, says Kjerkol.

She believes there are many learning points that can be learned in dealing with the epidemic and wants a full review when this is over.

– A comprehensive review of the law is necessary, he says.