The closure of Bergen is uncertain, severe and halfway. It’s a bad combination.

Yes, it’s serious and it’s okay to squeeze. But the extremely intrusive rules in the Bergen area are unclear and difficult to understand.

Now we have to be home. Some had probably needed to be absent as much as possible. And many are already pushing the limits of how much it is possible to be at home.

But so it is now. It takes a force, of all, to get rid of the coronavirus. If we are good at being home, this year could also be Christmas.

The freedom we had until this week was also a bit strenuous. So many reviews to do yourself. Who is in to invite the birthday? Is it okay to complete that trip in the cabin? Is it safe to go training now?

The desire to support a nightlife in crisis, to come together to alleviate loneliness, to give children the highlights they need, had to be weighed against infection control.

Letting all of us make those decisions takes a while, but not as infection rates have evolved. The authorities have rightly assumed some of that responsibility now.

But Bergen politicians have come a long way and we should take that into account. For many, the ban on entertaining now applies. Sort of a blanket restraining order.

Going to the step of regulating who can enter residents’ homes is extreme.

Unfortunately, the very strict line is mixed with ambiguity and confusion. Not all the rules are equally clear. Not all rules have the same meaning. At worst, it could weaken confidence in politicians’ decisions in the future.

It’s really not worth denying everything you know to be unfair, as Councilor Roger Valhammer does. The reasoning must still be at stake.

An example is the closing of gyms. Regular exercise has been shown to be good for your health, both physically and mentally. The latter is perhaps even more important now during the pandemic. In other words, gym closings have a negative effect on public health. There have also been very few cases of infection in gyms.

Still, they have to close the doors. Instead of choosing an intermediate solution where, for example, group training is stopped, they should be closed completely.

The contrast with the nightlife industry is big. There have been many cases of infection, but pubs can still remain open, albeit with restrictions.

The reason is to counteract loneliness. A pub crawl can be good for your mood and mental health. That it is more important to keep the pubs open than to facilitate training, sports and religious activities, which is the anchor in many people’s lives, is special.

The problem is not that this is unfair. All the consequences of the pandemic are unfair. But the lack of agreement between where the infection occurs and what is closed requires a much better explanation.

The rules of where Many of those who may meet in private homes, on the other hand, are well informed about where most of the infection occurs. The virus thrives at parties and private parties. Banning private gatherings is likely to be effective against the spread of infection.

On the other hand, politicians, both locally and nationally, have failed miserably to create rules that are immediately understandable. The change between five and ten guests, including and not those who live there, has created confusion.

After receiving criticism that the measures may be illegal, politicians have had to confirm rather obvious things, such as that children with two households can be allowed to be in both households. And if there are more than five in the family, then everyone can continue to live there. To mention something.

The term “private meetings”, as established in the regulations, encompasses much more than the parties and companies that it is so important to stop. In practice, it means “visit from a friend” or “neighbor visited”.

The exception for children in the same cohort in kindergarten and primary school implies the free flow of fairly large groups of children between households. On the other hand, it is particularly strict for children in upper secondary school, who with the new rules in many cases have a general prohibition to visit.

The problem is not injustice, but the extremely intrusive laws are not clear and must be read with a magnifying glass so that people understand the details. Health counselor Beate Husa asks people to stop looking for loopholes in the rules. Additionally, the city council can begin to create rules that are easier to understand.

It is worth noting that the city council skipped the opportunity they had to make a loud and clear call to stay home and avoid guests for the next two weeks. The Prime Minister made such an appeal and the City Council could have done so.

Be at home. Don’t have visitors. If you live alone, it’s okay to get together with a friend or two. It is not what we want, but it is easy to understand.

Instead, politicians opted for a more vague solution, which is both extremely strict and quite liberal.

The same is true that of the home office, which is now mandatory when “possible”. Some have probably known that it can be “impossible” to have a home office when the whole family is at home all day. Others know that it is “impossible” to spend day after day alone in a small apartment. So what determines the offense? Is it the size of the house? Are you ergonomically in good working condition? The noise level of family members?

The ban is, on the one hand, an expression of distrust in the city’s businessmen, which the city council obviously does not believe would have followed a clear call. At the same time, politicians leave it up to employers themselves to figure out what the regulations should mean. Strict and lazy is a bad combination.

Now that the infection is increasing, It has been a problem that people have faced in varying degrees with the severity of the pandemic. When the prime minister spoke some time ago about the end of the party, it was a message that was hardly intended for the vast majority. This fall, most people have probably stopped having a lot of fun.

For this reason, it has been necessary to join ranks, toughen up and make an effort so that almost everyone understands that this is a true crisis. But even in a crisis, one must be very careful in using legislation to emphasize seriousness, especially when the laws can hardly be enforced.

Citizens have shown almost unlimited trust in politicians over the past six months. To a large extent, this has been for good reason. But politicians must show that they trust people too. Claiming that the rules are unfair is not a good reason why they are difficult to understand.