How can governments strike the right balance between public health and business interests amid Covid-19?
The Swiss government decided to re-open many venues as of this week despite rising coronavirus cases. Some residents are relieved, while others are critical, saying the re-openings are premature. Protests and a referendum on the government’s Covid-19 policy loom. How can the right balance be struck?
From the article Coronavirus: the situation in Switzerland
The funny is that almost any question on this debates include the role of the government. As less involved the government as better.
It is not about caring, it is all about control. The government is not the panacea of the society, business and freedom are.
As a woman an a senior lawyer with more than 18 years of experience I can easily say that nobody cares about health or the people.
Since I am not Swiss I do not get to vote on any of these things. The same applies to 30% of the people actually living in Switzerland. No Swiss government will ever care about us. So, let them do what they want to the Swiss. Expats have fewer and fewer incentives to stay. At the moment Germany is a far better bet and with all the big IT companies in Ireland they also look a lot better than Switzerland and with a far friendlier culture.
Governments are only interested in big businesses who pay for the political campaigns.
Looking at examples across the globe, one region in particular seems to have figured out how to manage the pandemic since the beginning, namely East Asia. Authoritarian China enforced a lockdown and in more democratic parts, people willingly wore masks and participated in electronic contact tracing. Europeans and their former colonies didn't fare so well given the anti-authority skepticism there. Let's hope vaccine successes in Israel, UK and US can be replicated everywhere before mutations render them useless lest we see another year of this mess.
The UK has fully vaccinated 10m people, and another 22m have had one jab. The Gov here should focus on giving everyone one jab, so we are partly vaccinated, rather than wait until each Group has 2. There have been Covid jab appointments available for a week now. If this is the case for max 2 days, the Gov should move on to the next group, and give them their first jab. Plus the focus should be on workers, to get the economy moving again, not the old and sick, who do not work and have time to get their jabs later.
scary
Quick answer – it cannot be struck because there is no right balance for everybody on this question. The real issue is how far we can go towards some sort of normalcy before the level of herd immunity has been reached. Saving as many lives and jobs as possible at the same time is a real challenge because one without the other simply makes no sense. Risk assessment is a tricky thing and I would not blame politicians for an occasional misjudgment.
Thanks for your comment; do you think the Swiss system of government by consensus, with the seven-member Federal Council and many parties involved in making decisions, helps with this risk assessment?
Yes, it helps avoid major mistakes, most of the time. However, the contribution of each person involved is critical. To say it bluntly, five half-wits will not make better decisions than one bright person.
The Swiss government's response to date has been pathetic. The most recent lockdown has had very limited effect, in large part because trains were full as people travelled to open ski slopes, many companies just stayed open regardless without consequence, young people continued to party, etc. The economy was locked down, the public not so much, so the R-rate declined far too slowly, thousands of people died and the economic sacrifices of the last five months were mostly squandered. It was an act of gross negligence, incredible stupidity and enormous harm. At this point, there is little trust left and absolutely no confidence that they will get it right when, inevitably, we need to do it again. The first thing the state has to do then, is restore trust, and that means admitting that the approach has been chaotic, impractical and stupid, and taking proper accountability. Alain Berset and most of the senior management of the BAG, need to receive their marching orders and the government needs to sort its vaccination program out. Communication needs to be clearer and the next lockdown, probably in four weeks, needs to be time limited and absolute and (therefore) effective, or simply not happen. No more half measures, no more failure and please, please, please no more Berset.
Thanks for your comment; I'm curious about the clearer communication measures you feel are necessary - what kinds of things do you think need to be communicated better, and how could they be transmitted more effectively to the public?
The government's response has been a series of complex compromises, locking down part of the economy for example while allowing other parts to continue as normal or defining very clearly sanctions for private individuals who break the rules while failing to set any equivalent penalties for corporations that decided to ignore them (for instance, when I take the train to work every morning, it is full of office workers like myself who are going in despite state restrictions because their employers know that there will be no consequences). Essentially, the BAG has fudged large parts of its policy for political reasons, which is why the current lockdown has failed to have much impact. If they want to be trusted in future, they're going to have be a lot more clear about the rational behind these mysterious restrictions and provide more detail around the policy. A start would be to publish a policy paper showing the science that they used to determine that we had to close outdoor terraces in towns but that it was completely safe to funnel tens of thousands of hikers and skiers through the public transport system, or why it makes sense to fine individuals for not wearing masks but there was no need to lay out similar penalties for businesses. The sad truth is that much of the BAG's failed COVID policy has been made up on the fly and negotiated behind closed doors, then sold to public as necessary without any substantiation or support. They need to show their working because they've already shown that they can't be trusted to make difficult decisions or do their job.
Agreed, plus they neglected the young for all this time, we have no prospects. Government does not help financially yet wants us to believe in the system and pay taxes and insurance and avs, but if you just started to work and lost it due covid you won't get any help... All the lies about usefulness or not of mask and poorly monitoring of wearing of masks. I see everyday people wearing useless cloth masks and not medical one, of course with such useless masks it won't save anyone , government should have band non medical masks right away but no they were lying that masks are useless nd now public don't know what to believe from useless Berset, he should bocage his seat as he does not deserve it
Thanks for those points and comparisons; it sounds like for you it's all about transparency, which has been lacking in communication about policy making despite regular press conferences aimed at informing the public. Do you feel like the press conferences and resulting information made a difference, or led to more confusion? Do you think some of the responsibility lies with the press to find the "hidden" info and ask the right questions?
Stop the whining...all of Switzerland is suffering.
I think it's right that there are openings under precautionary measures. The economy must also recover again, so that someone then has money again to pay for it. Also one must not forget what this lockdown means physically for the interpersonal development. I live in the Middle East and after an initial lockdown period was opened and people are complying with the measures. Sure the numbers of contagions went up in the meantime but it was managed. People are happier again and that's why people are sticking to the measures. People see the sense behind it. I see this as the main problem in Switzerland. Also here is vaccinated what the stuff holds. Orders were placed early and even if I am not always a friend of everything that happens here, the organization for vaccination is first class! Top! Since it is already almost a poverty testimony as that goes off in Switzerland.
Ich finde es richtig das es unter Vorsichtsmassnahmen Öffnungen gibt. Die Wirtschaft muss sich auch wieder erholen, damit auch jemand dann mal wieder Geld hat um das zu bezahlen. Ebenfalls darf man nicht vergessen was dieses Lockdown physisch für die Zwischenmenschliche Entwicklung bedeutet. Ich lebe im Mittleren Osten und nach einer ersten Lockdown Phase wurde geöffnet und die Leute halten sich an die Massnahmen. Sicherlich sind die Zahlen von Ansteckungen zwischenzeitlich gestiegen, aber man konnte es bewältigen. Die Menschen sind wieder glücklicher und deshalb hält man sich auch an Massnahmen. Man sieht so auch den Sinn dahinter. Das sehe ich als das Hauptproblem in der Schweiz. Auch wird hier geimpft was das Zeug hält. Man hat auch früh dafür Bestellungen getätigt und wenn ich auch nicht immer ein Freund von allem bin was hier geschieht, ist die Organisation für das Impfen Erste Klasse! Top! Da ist es schon fast ein Armutszeugnis wie das in der Schweiz abgeht.
I also sometimes rub my eyes at the fact that Switzerland, as a top pharmaceutical location and inventor of the timetable, does not vaccinate more efficiently. Which country in the Middle East do you live in?
Auch ich reibe mir manchmal die Augen, dass die Schweiz als Top-Pharma-Standort und Taktfahrplan-Erfinderin nicht effizienter impft. In welchem Land im Mittleren Osten leben Sie?
The easing of measures in most countries of the world is a right-wing demand that is indifferent to human and humanism. Unscrupulous, mother of emotion. Absolute closure of fifteen days is sufficient to eliminate Corona, but political decisions are subject to the calculation of winning voter votes albeit at the expense of some people's lives and their death.
تخفيف الاجراءات في أغلب بلدان العالم مطالب يمينية غير عابئة بالانسان، والانسانية. بلا ضمير، أم عاطفة. إغلاق مطلق لخمسة عشر يوما كاف للقضاء على كورونا، انما القرارات السياسية تخضع لحساب كسب أصوات الناخب ولو على حساب * حياة البعض، وموتهم .
The matter is not that simple and clear. After the first two waves, it became clear that strict measures were taken that were unhelpful or exaggerated. Supporters of relief are not all right-wingers who do not care about humans. They include many simple workers, small merchants, or small shop owners whose lives have been disrupted and are on the verge of bankruptcy. In general, decisions in Switzerland (whether related to this matter or others) are made only after extensive consultations involving all stakeholders while striving to reconcile the majority of opinions and requests.
المسألة ليست على هذا القدر من البساطة والوضوح. بعد الموجتين الأولى والثانية، اتضح أن هناك إجراءات صارمة اتخذت غير مفيدة أو مُبالغ فيها. المؤيدون للتخفيف ليسوا كلهم يمينيون غير عابئون بالانسان بل فيهم العديد من العمال البسطاء أو صغار التجار أو أصحاب المحلات الصغيرة الذين تعطلت حياتهم ويقفون على حافة الافلاس. عموما، لا تتخذ القرارات في سويسرا (سواء تعلق الأمر بهذه المسألة أو بغيرها) إلا بعد إجراء مشاورات واسعة تشمل كل الجهات المعنية مع السعي الدؤوب للتوفيق بين أغلبية الآراء والطلبات.
So they should dissolve the Association of Scholars and Experts if decisions do not satisfy some. They (i.e. politicians) should take the opinion of those affected by the closure. There is no need for politicians to be present.
إذن عليهم حل رابطة العلماء، والخبراء إن كانت القرارات لا ترضي البعض، وعليهم (أي الساسة ) أخذ رأي المتضررين من الاغلاق فلا داعي لوجود الساسة.
You can find an overview of ongoing debates with our journalists here. Please join us!
If you want to start a conversation about a topic raised in this article or want to report factual errors, email us at english@swissinfo.ch.