Oslo was recommended to ban visits

The recommendation appears in the amendment to the regulations on the prevention of corona infection in Oslo, which was completed on Tuesday. The City Council writes in the case for change document that the National Institute of Public Health, in a letter dated March 14, advised Oslo to ban private gatherings entirely, with a few exceptions.

In the letter, FHI makes the following request:

«Ban private gatherings in your own home. Singles and children / youth under 20 years old can have 1-2 regular visitors. In any case, the measure should not be an obstacle to the necessary help at home for those who need it ”.

However, when Councilmember Raymond Johansen took the podium and presented the new regulation on Monday night, the recommendation was ignored. Instead, a limit of a maximum of two visitors at the same time was introduced in private contexts.

Urgent prayer for a bleak record

Unique resort

According to the City Council document, this was done “to make the rule easier for the citizens of Oslo to understand and to ensure that everyone with a special need can have some close contacts.”

The amendment to the regulation establishes that the City Council considers that the restriction of two visitors is proportionate according to the infection situation. It is argued, among other things, that the tracking of infections in the capital shows that ten percent of the infection can be traced to private meetings. Therefore, the assessment is that reduction of infection cannot be achieved with less intrusive measures.

It is also noted that a maximum limit has been introduced so that only up to ten people can be present in a household, and that households that are ten or more in themselves cannot have private meetings with other people in the household.

Ask people to think about

Councilor Raymond Johansen tells Dagbladet that introducing a ban on visits by more than two people is in itself a very intrusive measure, which would have been completely out of the question before the mutated virus completely changed the rules. of the game and has led to a dramatic situation in Oslo. He believes that the restriction that has been introduced now is a drastic tightening.

– We chose not to introduce a total ban on visiting private homes now, among other things to ensure that the many who live alone in Oslo can have some close contacts, as larger households can. In any case, there is now a very clear encouragement for everyone in Oslo to have as little social contact as possible and to avoid visiting private homes as much as possible, says Johansen.

Oslo recorded another infection record on Wednesday, the third in the past week. On Wednesday, the number of new infections was 495. The council leader says the situation with the mutated British virus, which now accounts for 90 percent of positive samples, shows the severity.

– The City Council has used the most powerful tools that we have in the toolbox to reduce the infection. At the same time, this is not something we can decide on solely through action. Each of us has a great responsibility. Everyone’s actions mean something now, and if anyone has plans to meet someone now, I have to ask them to think again, says Johansen.

We must do this now

– Extremely serious

Professor Hans Petter Graver, Department of Private Law at the University of Oslo, tells Dagbladet that, in his opinion, it is doubtful that the Infection Control Act provides access to regulate conditions in private homes.

– However, the authorities have chosen to come in and regulate what you are allowed to do in your own home, but it must be proportionate anyway. A restraining order will affect differently, and some will be hit very hard, Graver says.

However, it highlights that the City Council in its presentation note has an assessment of the measures against human rights. He believes that this shows that the municipality has made a more comprehensive assessment, which the regulations also require.

– If the municipality had only followed the FHI evaluation, at least it would have violated the regulation, says the professor.

It goes on to say that there is a principle in law that the more intrusive a measure is, the clearer the legal basis must be. It is difficult to assess whether the situation is now serious enough that there is a legal basis for introducing such strict restrictions on social interaction.

– When it reaches two, or even a total ban, the legal basis must, in my opinion, be reasonably clear. In any case, the situation must be extremely serious for this general prohibition to be maintained, concludes the professor.

Discourage domestic travel

Provides careful guidance

However, FHI’s chief physician, Preben Aavitsland, strongly denies that his advice is against the law. In an email to Dagbladet, he writes that FHI advises on the professional conditions of infection control, and follows the Infection Control Law, which states that it is the person who takes a measure, that is, the municipalities, who must assess whether The measure is proportionate and does not violate human rights.

– We give a careful orientation to these municipalities to the regulations. This guide knows and uses the municipality as it should, also in this context, and that is how it should be. It is municipalities that are aware of local conditions and can weigh infection control considerations with other considerations, Aavitsland notes.