Restrictions on movement reduce contacts on a wider front than point restrictions, decision-makers say.
Government has designed regional movement restrictions to contain the coronavirus epidemic, which could be resorted to if current restrictions are not sufficient to push the virus cycle down.
The plan means that we would move directly to severe restrictions on movement instead of trying new targeted measures, such as the closure of small services such as shops, malls and barbers.
The present plans have also not included the closure of construction sites or shipyards, even though the virus has spread widely among workers in these areas.
In many countries, shops, with the exception of grocery stores and pharmacies, have been closed and barber shops are not accessible. In the Irish lock, construction sites were also put on hold.
One an explanation of the line chosen by the government gave prime minister Sanna Marin last Saturday in an interview with Yle’s Ykkösaamun. Instead of individual targeted actions, he said, a “leak” is needed, and restrictions on movement would be such a robust tool.
“Rather, the message from the health authorities has been that when the conversion virus spreads, we need a decent big tool, a lick, not so much a single screwdriver to point-pointly regulate different places,” Marin said.
Read more: Prime Minister Marin Yle: Restrictions on movement are a “big leka” that may be needed instead of smaller measures if the epidemic worsens
The Minister of Family and Basic Services also anticipates extensive work in the future Krista Kiuru on Thursday at a press conference by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (STM) and the National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).
“Especially in Helsinki and Uusimaa and Southwest Finland, the development of the disease is so severe that, in the light of these numbers, the most effective measures are not focused on individual control measures, but a rather demanding and rapid reduction of infections is needed. I do not rule out any restrictive measures, ”Kiuru said.
According to Marin, restrictions on movement would lead to widespread contact between people.
“We need to be able to intervene very extensively in all contacts, not just shopping malls and individual businesses but also people’s social contacts, and try to limit them because a large proportion of infections occur specifically there,” Marin said at Ykkösaam.
Also the director of THL Mika Salmisen according to which it would be important to reduce as much as possible the physical contacts of the adult population.
“Private social events are a very significant source of infections,” says Salminen.
In sight it is not so much a curfew but the fact that people would not go to face each other indoors.
Studies show that the risk of indoor infection is about twenty times that of outdoor encounters. The British variant of the virus increases the risk of infection in all kinds of contacts, but still the risk of infection outdoors is considerably higher than indoors.
The statement previously issued by THL to the Board of Directors recommends stricter restrictions for the areas of the hospital districts of Helsinki and Uusimaa as well as Southwest Finland. According to THL’s proposal, you could go indoors outside the home only for essential needs, and even living outdoors would be limited to outdoor activities and exercise among your own close circle.
Last Friday, THL’s Salminen resembled HS in an interviewthat “outdoor activities are safe and recommended when adequate safety distances are maintained.”
Shops and the closure of other services before the introduction of movement restrictions could also be legally cumbersome.
“The temporary closure of various selected commercial apartments and workplaces would be a legally very challenging entity for which there is no previous discussion by the Constitutional Committee or any other consideration,” THL Chief Medical Officer Taneli Puumalainen says.
According to Puumalainen, it is also not possible to reliably make an impact assessment of different point-like parentheses.
A legal research professor at Oxford University also points to legal difficulties Martin Scheinin, which has critically assessed the government’s efforts to develop legal tools to curb the epidemic.
“The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has drifted into a very vague way of regulating the Communicable Diseases Act, which often leads to harmful contradictory conclusions,” says Scheinin.
For example, it has been possible for regional government authorities to interpret indoor assembly restrictions more leniently than intended by the government.
According to him, the closure of livelihoods is also possible under Article 23 of the Constitution by a majority decision of Parliament, even if it would be politically difficult for some.
“This is definitely partly about lobbying the business. With regard to restaurants, too, it has been seen that it is extremely reluctant to go through effective ways to limit restaurant activity. Little did it move to a temporary closure, ”Scheinin estimated.
“It could have been much harder to close nightclubs, karaoke bars, discos and longer, so maybe I wouldn’t have had to close the food restaurants now.”
Neither the emergency law introduced in March does not, according to Scheinin, contain many useful tools.
“There is very little in the emergency law that could be used to push down the epidemic. Now we will find Article 118, which is a curfew or less restrictive restrictions on movement. ”
However, Scheinin believes the restrictions on movement envisaged by the government appear to be good and sufficiently precise.
#Coronavirus #government #planned #severe #restrictions #movement #close #shopping #centers #construction #sites