Happened upon this site and noted that there seem to be a lot of misunderstandings about Sweden and its policies regarding the coronavirus regulations (e.g. https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/12/08/latest-news-217/#we-need-to-talk-about-sweden ). As I am a swede I will attempt to explain the legal underpinnings of the swedish policy.
Notice that what our prime minister says and wishes is totally irrelevant for this discussion. Sweden (and its political parties) is also under a lot of pressure, really a lot, to comply ("resistance is futile") with the general narrative and that is the reason for the recent max 8 people rule and no-Christmas speech. And that is also why the Swedish advice and narrative currently is more in line with the rest of Europe compared with the spring.
I will in the following attempt try to clarify some points regarding what the swedish government and government authorities may or may not do. Do note that many swedes also misunderstand this.
1. There is no lockdown and there never has been any lockdown in Sweden. The Swedish constitution does not allow that sort of infringement on personal liberty and self-decision. Approximately 70% commute daily to and from work according to a recent poll.
2. The constitution does not allow government to infringe on bodily sanctity (i.e. compulsory medical treatment, masks and vaccination).
3. What government (national or local) is allowed to do is to issue public guidance and advice. **Citizens are free to choose if they wish to heed it or to ignore it.** (In practice it is up to the person wishing physical distance to actually move off, although general courtesy dictates certain reciprocal tact.)
Exceptions to the above
1. Government may mandate limits to *organized* public assemblies on land accessible to any and all ("public spaces"). The absolute lower limit that may be enforced is 9 people. Public gatherings of less than that are not enforceable. For *public* funeral service the limit is set to 20. For seated events the limit is 300 if a distance of one metres can be observed for parties of more than 8 people (2 if no food and drink is served).
The 20 and 300 rules may be overruled by local ordinances, although it is very dubious that a rule requiring less than 8 people has legal standing.
(Public order act, government ordinance 2020:114, "temporary restaurant" act 2020:526 and government ordinance 2020:527.)
2. Temporary *individual* interventions in the absence of consent are allowed when a person a) is deemed suicidal, b) is having a life threatening condition, c) is having a severely debilitating psychiatric condition or d) is intentionally spreading a life threatening or otherwise severely harmful disease (TBC, HIV, hepatits etc) or e) is ill with a disease deemed a threat to the general community (usually certain flu like disease). The *individual* measure may be home quarantine or compulsory hospital admission.
But compulsory treatment without consent is only allowed under exceptional circumstances (severe psychiatric illness or to save a life--yes even a person suffering from dementia may deny ordinary care). Slightly different rules apply to prison inmates. (Cummunicable diseases act.)
3. In case of a very severe and highly contagious disease outbreak isolation may *temporarily*, during infection tracing, be extend to an area of approximately at most the size of a city block. (Cummunicable diseases act.)
4. Day care, compulsory school and lyceum (upper secondary school) is regulated according to the government ordinance 2020:115. Which in practice says that a school *must continue to conduct teaching by any means*. Meaning that the school building may be closed, but that the school in that case is obligated to ensure that the education continues and that every pupil is able to partake. The ordinance allows for certain consideration of individuals wishing to follow official advice. Universities and private education do as they please.
What does the above mean in practice
1. That I may have a private event with a 1000 privately and *individually invited* (any public announcement or fee will immediately make it public) friends if I so like. (Especially if I do not disturb any neighbours.
2. That naturally occurring crowds (i.e. not due to organized events) can be as large or as much in proximity as the situation warrants. (Crowds in malls, public transport and similar.)
3. Spaces not serving food are not affected by the distancing and max visitors rules. E.g. libraries, gyms, public baths, museums, shops, shopping malls and so on. (So a restaurant in a museum has to obey the rules, while the museum per se has not to.)
Access cannot be prohibited in this occasion as there is no individual obligation to follow the general advice and it is not trespassing to enter the establishment or facility during opening hours, as it is regarded as a "public space"/"public convenience" during those hours (NJA 1995 s. 84).
4. But theatres, cinemas, restaurants, markets, religious service, sports events and similar are affected by the distancing anc max visitors rules regardless whether indoors or outdoors. Access can be prohibited in this occasion. Organized sports training is OK though.
5. Personnel working during an event is not affected by the max visitors rules, so it is perfectly fine to have 400 guards and other personnel, an orchestra etc during a concert, but not to have more than 300 people with tickets to the same event. And yes it is OK to be 700 people in this example. (Queues to an establishment or event are not included in the tally for the event and not, per se, regarded as a public event.)
6. That the head master of a compulsory school may decide where and when teaching occurs as long as it occurs and is equally available to all pupils.
I hope this clarifies the swedish approach. I you spot some factual error please send me a message.
Hi or rather Hei
It has been interesting following what is going on in Sweden, a bit disappointing that your PM is having cold feet at the eleventh hour, especially when the cases and deaths are so small. Fingers crossed that you can get through this without any Lockdowns, we're all rooting for you on here.
The crux of all this is trust, if Boris had kept his nerve in March, and not caught it, I truly believe the same would have happened here, there was stating to be a 'Keep calm and carry on' message. If the Government here had asked the people here and been straight with us from the start I don't think there would have been so many problems and issues since. the draconian nature and the arrogance of ministers is what has really made us angry, they don't trust us, so we don't trust them, basically.
I have advocated on this site that we should look to a Scandinavian model of health and social care, I appreciate that it's not perfect, but as we are now committed to higher taxes for the foreseeable future we may as well look to achieve something for it. If we had half as good a system as the Nordic Countries there would not have been so many deaths, there would be better education, diet, lifestyle choices all of which will prepare us better for any future pandemic ( as the Chinese now know what to do to destroy the west)
As a non conformist myself I have always loved the Scandinavian and Netherlands 'different' approaches to things. I know it doesn't always work and there are serious social issues everywhere now, but as soon as we are allowed, I would like to escape HMP UK for a while at least and visit your country and your neighbours, skall!!!
Tack
Hej,
Update: the pressure on Sweden has resulted in the government proposing to parliament (just hours after my previous post) a temporary law, making it possible for the government to, essentially, rule by decree and to force establishments to close and also to exact fines (that will more or less be impossible to uphold) and of course block all the possibilities mentioned in my first post.
There is a fuzzy clause in the proposal that may make it possible to compel face masks on public transport, but that can maybe be contested as being a medical procedure. The law would be in effect from march 15 2021 to march 15 2022. Let's hope that the Council of Legislation and the parties invited to comment on the proposal are very critical or outright suggest that it be rejected. And anyhow the endemic phase will hopefully have ended by then and the coronavirus will perhaps have been displaced by some old and well known virus.
Very informative posts SL, thank you. The world has been looking at Sweden more than usual, but not very objectively, so it's good to get the facts of the situation. It looks likely that at least the winter upswing of the endemic phase will soon be well down, so perhaps policy makers will regain their Nordic cool.
I think a lot of it is psychology - if you ask people to do something sensible *and* give them good reason for doing it, they'll do it. This is the Swedish approach (and Japan etc).
Contrast with the UK where they just enforce brutally restrictive edicts with no data or reasoning behind them published. This just annoys people and makes them less likely to comply with *anything*.
Treat people like adults they'll behave as such. Treat them like children they'll just ignore you.
Something else Tengell said that most people arent picking up on - he stated the restrictions as such are designed to be sustainable in the medium to long term so you avoid the spikes by going full on brutal than a drastic release.
He said they avoid those spikes by not suddenly releasing huge numbers of people at once.
That makes a lot of sense in that you give people advice or rulings they can tolerate and accept and comply with long term rather than ones so restrictive it can only last a short time then have a rebound spike.
It looks likely that at least the winter upswing of the endemic phase will soon be well down, so perhaps policy makers will regain their Nordic cool.
Unlikely, what is more likely globally is when it starts to reduce in spring as expected of a seasonal virus they'll all say "look - our lockdowns are working. Theres you proof. We need more of them".
Confirmation bias to the extreme.
