Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Your second point gives me pause because it makes it seem like they stumbled into a set of measures due to outside constraints and then they called it a strategy. The reasonings were delivered afterwards. At least the technical constraints could have been overcome. Was there any interest to do so?

The style of communication is weird and makes things more difficult than they have to be. They said public contacts are limited to eight. Tegnell says you can go to cinemas but the interior ministry says no. Then the health authority sends in their lawyers?!

From FOIA requests and public pronouncements it seems like herd immunity vacillates from the center of the strategy to 'nice side effect'. Then there is this weird aversion to using masks. Finally, why do they have to go out on a limb and make those very bold and very wrong predictions? While coming up with excuses why their direct neighbors have much fewer deaths and infections. From the outside looking in it's very confusing.

I'd prefer the politicians to stay mostly out of it but the technocracy is not unpolitical. Politicians at least have to legislate to provide the resources that have been sorely lacking. And they can't escape the responsibility of setting the objectives of the civil service. If the civil service says "we just want to ride this out" then that is an inherently political decision.

Schengen is toast!

by epochepoque on Wed Nov 18th, 2020 at 02:58:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series