|
MiddleOne posted:Regeringsformen is right here and I'd advice to just go over it yourself since it's not very long. Chapter 2 is the relevant one to these discussions as the measures government have taken predominantly fall under 24 § and reasons for it being unable to act fall under 8 §. Thank you, it was a trick question and I'm very well aware of the swedish constitution and the absolutely horseshit argumentation coming from the swedish government and affiliated legal scholars. There is an explicit exception in the constitution for plague, sweden has a very similar constitution and disease control legislation to its neigbours and Europe, the dissimilarity coming from the weird swedish interpretation of it all. Sweden seems to think you can't interpret laws in any way but according to original intent, can't have regard to established legal methodological principles outside of sweden's own rigid framework, ignores principles of derogation in times of crisis, ignores the ECHR right to life which supercedes any sort of argumentation around right to freedom of movement, and about fifty other things I'd like to talk about except I'm on cellphone. The actual actual reason this argument is being proffered is that it is a convenient excuse for the failings of the political leadership of sweden in preventing the outbreak of a deadly disease, using the most infuriating legalese bullshit to justify inaction, ignoring that the most fundamental function of law is servile; law is in interpretation meant to reach the best possible result (which in this case is minimal loss of life). Norway has very similar legislation to sweden when it comes to this and is signatory to the same ECHR but our countries are having very different outcomes based on very different practices based in very similar legal frameworks. This kind of bullshit is exactly why people hate lawyers. For anyone interested in reading about this, I liked this article which makes it simple and easy to see the pitiful excuses shining through: https://www.thelocal.se/20201119/does-swedens-constitution-really-prevent-tough-covid-measures And while you're reading please remember: 7000 deaths but they were all necessary because priciples, you see, lawyers are robots beep boop
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 08:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 01:24 |
|
|
thotsky posted:I don't get this reference, but if you mean "close the borders, enforce social distancing, begin aggressive tracing and quarantine efforts, provide financial aid to workers and nationalize businesses wholly depending on import labor" then yeah. I would also accept going back in time and doing that in the first place. I'm being sarcastic and suggesting that since the government hasn't been able to stop the virus, the solution is to abolish government and leave it to the market. Saxo Bank is the most libertarian bank, known for bankrolling Liberal Alliance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 08:58
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Thank you, it was a trick question and I'm very well aware of the swedish constitution and the absolutely horseshit argumentation coming from the swedish government and affiliated legal scholars. Do you consider Lund university's law faculty "government affiliated legal scholars"? That sounds dangerously close to conspiracy theories to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 09:03
|
|
|
I''m glad they didn't have that option, sad that they have the excuse now though. There are so many other options they could have gone for, and more importantly done the things they did faster that would have had better effects. Imagine just tightening the borders and recommending no travel a couple of weeks earlier back in feb/march. Or actually preparing for the worst this autumn instead of easing poo poo up at the worst moment. I mean people do follow the recommendations to a large extent. Just err on the side of caution and spell them out a week or two early than too late ffs. The net gain from being able to actuallly force people to this and that is probably small. Threadkiller Dog fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Dec 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 09:20
|
|
|
BonHair posted:I'm being sarcastic and suggesting that since the government hasn't been able to stop the virus, the solution is to abolish government and leave it to the market. Saxo Bank is the most libertarian bank, known for bankrolling Liberal Alliance. Jumping to the conclusion that my alternative would be to have the markets handle the response when I am critical of our corrupt/incompetent governments says more about you than me. I think we should be demanding more of our leadership, not less. It is unsurprising that they have caved to business interests, but that does not make it any less egregious and infuriating. The extent to which people believe things could not possible improve in this world, even theoretically, and the successful obfuscation of deaths as the primary metric of our pandemic response saddens and angers me. I believe it is the responsibility of the government to organize and enforce a response that protect and benefits the collective. Relying on each individual to decide for themselves what the correct response is, and to act accordingly at all times is deficient in scope and overly optimistic; even here in goody-two-shoes Scandinavia. Worse, this approach disclaims the aforementioned responsibility, which I belive erodes the sense of unity and citizenship the liberal approach relies on. thotsky fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Dec 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 09:23
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Do you consider Lund university's law faculty "government affiliated legal scholars"? That sounds dangerously close to conspiracy theories to me. Consultancy institutions (both public and private) performing paid research for government agencies are often accused of reaching politically expedient conclusions - and with good reason. This is not tinfoil hat poo poo, I've seen it happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 09:31
|
|
|
thotsky posted:Jumping to the conclusion that my alternative would be to have the markets handle the response when I am critical of our corrupt/incompetent governments says more about you than me. I think we should be demanding more of our leadership, not less. It is unsurprising that they have caved to business interests, but that does not make it any less egregious and infuriating. Yeah, it's not sarcasm directed at you, just at the general political climate in Scandinavia and the Western world in general. We both agree that individuals are dumb and selfish and need some authority to stop them from making the pandemic worse. And that authority should absolutely be the government, not Landbrug og Fødevarer or Google.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 09:47
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Do you consider Lund university's law faculty "government affiliated legal scholars"? That sounds dangerously close to conspiracy theories to me. The state owned university? No they seem very independent from government funding. All joking aside, if you want legalese horseshit go see a law faculty. What I'm interested in is what the swedish supreme court might have to say about it, and how history might judge that. A legal scholar with no skin in the game might say a lot of things, but when what you say might lead to more deaths it's not quite as simple anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 09:54
|
|
|
Nice job on deluding yourself you know what you're talking about?  Also, the problem with relying on that Local article is that you, just like others have already pointed out, lose out on the nuances of this discussion which has been had between a lot more interests than just one former twitter-active judge and one researcher on (lol) intentional law. You'll find multiple contradictory takes depending on where you go looking, but the discussion kinda petered out because the general consensus among those who study these topics was that the governments interpretation was correct. That said, all of this ultimately does not matter because there is no supreme court which decides on constitutional matters in this country. Parliament ultimately decides on whether the government is acting within their constitutionally granted capabilities and responsibilities. With no political party in parliament acting to unseat the government, with a majority behind them, their interpretation is de-facto correct and it will remain so until parliament decides otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 10:27
|
|
|
jeebus bob posted:Consultancy institutions (both public and private) performing paid research for government agencies are often accused of reaching politically expedient conclusions - and with good reason. Yeah, it doesn’t necessarily happen via direct corruption or anything. Most of the time it’s a lot more subtle. It’s often a matter of politicians simply just hiring academics who they know will reach the conclusion they want (Bjorn Lomborg is probably one of the best examples in modern history of this). Academics are lining up to do this because of 1) they are true believers in the cause themselves 2) academia (at least in Denmark) is incredibly competitive and producing research that politicians want (mostly right wing, as the left has slightly more respect for academic virtues) is a sure fire way to get academic success and get tenure. It’s pretty disgusting. It also works the other way around. There is currently a great example in Denmark of what happens when academics don’t produce the results politicians want. Where people using completely normal and standard methods of research into culture and societal issues are being vilified by a bunch of different politicians. In this case because they dared say that a bunch of young Muslims don’t feel oppressed by Islam as such. The one thing you cannot say in the danish public sphere. It’s not the first time this has happened either, last time it was some who said something bad border control I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 10:43
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:Yeah, it doesn’t necessarily happen via direct corruption or anything. Most of the time it’s a lot more subtle. It’s often a matter of politicians simply just hiring academics who they know will reach the conclusion they want (Bjorn Lomborg is probably one of the best examples in modern history of this). Academics are lining up to do this because of 1) they are true believers in the cause themselves 2) academia (at least in Denmark) is incredibly competitive and producing research that politicians want (mostly right wing, as the left has slightly more respect for academic virtues) is a sure fire way to get academic success and get tenure. It’s pretty disgusting. Or as in the case of Januariavtalet, you set that the conclusion of the paper is only allowed to be one thing no matter what is found in the text.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 10:55
|
|
|
It's only going to get worse in the future in Denmark, as an increasingly large share of PhDs on social/economic/humanity issues have to be self-funded. That is, fewer and fewer phds get funded by universities themselves - and therefore based on either on senior researcher focus, or in most cases, the phd-students own ideas - but have to get funding from other places. These 'other places' are often the big funders, such as Mærsk, Carlsberg, Rockwoool, Danish Industry, etc. you don't need to have a PhD in rocket science to realize what type of research, and as a consequence what type of phd-students, will get funded by these strongly neo-conservative and/or neo-liberal organizations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 11:06
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Thank you, it was a trick question 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 11:08
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:That said, all of this ultimately does not matter because there is no supreme court which decides on constitutional matters in this country. Parliament ultimately decides on whether the government is acting within their constitutionally granted capabilities and responsibilities. With no political party in parliament acting to unseat the government, with a majority behind them, their interpretation is de-facto correct and it will remain so until parliament decides otherwise. lmbo
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 11:32
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Nice job on deluding yourself you know what you're talking about?  Swedish arrogance, there's just nothing like it. I'm not relying on any articles. So far I've heard a lot of about how that darned constitution just plain stops all possible efforts towards disease control, but very little about exactly why the interpretation of law, the actions of the courts and the abject failure of your parliament in preventing the deaths of thousands of swedes are just immutable facts that can't be changed in any way. So how about it? How about you make an effortpost, justify why any judge would not and could not uphold any effective disease control measures in a pandemic, why the parliament simply couldn't possibly step in with a solution, and how this isn't a failure of your constitution and/or your politicians (and certainly not a failure of the swedish government's positive obligation in safeguarding the right to life). You're making the legal argument that the constitution forbids it so let's hear the legal argument. Pretend your system is opague, weird and outdated. Explain it to us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 11:51
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:
Ok afaik you are not a legal scholar but you don't trust articles and you don't trust legal scholars, unless they say things you like. But you want the people in this thread, who have not studied constitutional law at a high level, to explain, in a different way than the most learned constitutional scholars in the country have explained, why the constitution says what it says. No I will not make that effort post, since I am not a legal scholar and I don't think you would have read it in good faith even if I were.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 12:02
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:Ok afaik you are not a legal scholar but you don't trust articles and you don't trust legal scholars, unless they say things you like. But you want the people in this thread, who have not studied constitutional law at a high level, to explain, in a different way than the most learned constitutional scholars in the country have explained, why the constitution says what it says. Ok, well that's fine then. I can't force you. Let's keep to a reasonable level then: I think in my personal opinion that the weak excuses coming from public officials including Tegnell are insufficient to justify sweden's inaction and the swedish government is to blame for its inaction. Feel free to disagree without using the law as an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 12:08
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Ok, well that's fine then. I can't force you. I think we agree that there could have been more things done. I think the point we disagree is whether or not the government and national agencies should have overstepped the legal advice. As I understand it I think that the legal advice had merit while you think that not overstepping the advice is a bad excuse. That does not mean that I think that the laws as they stand, which led to the legal advice, are great. I think that the new proposed epidemic law is a good idea. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Dec 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 12:21
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:I think we agree that there could have been more things done. I think the point we disagree is whether or not the government and national agencies should have overstepped the legal advice. As I understand it I think that the legal advice had merit while you think that not overstepping the advice is a bad excuse. I think using the immutability of law is a bad excuse, because even a constitution can and must be interpreted sometimes even well beyond the original intent which are just a single authoritative source among many. I'm especially disappointed to see this line come from swedish legal scholars - while they have been asked a very specific question de lege lata and have to give the safe answer, sweden is also the country that literally invented the mutable legal methodology of much of northern europe. I simply cannot see how this is an issue of ability versus will. And I would vastly prefer a verdict (prejudicial or no) from either supreme court on the matter, because then it stops being theory. There's a lot of incredible loving reasoning from supreme courts around scandinavia when they want to get around constitutional issues, which then goes on to inform the next generation of irrelevant legal scholars as to what's "impossible".
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 12:39
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:So what you're saying is they could have made whatever measures they thought necessary constitutional. Good to know. On a strictly technical level, sure. Government can do whatever the gently caress it wants if parliament doesn't intervene and courts can only obstruct by giving governmental agencies mixed instructions which they may or may not listen to. Same applies to municipal and regional parliaments who also have a lot of constitutional lee-way to act independently. That's our system. On an institutional level however, absolutely not. Neither constitution, norms or current party relationships allow for it. See Swedish parties haggling over the pandemic law this summer (and doing so again this presently). Government does not have the past (judicial) or present (political) permission from parliament to do what has been complained about. Nice piece of fish posted:supreme court I don't know what context you're posting from (Norway?) but that does literally not apply to this discussion. There is no court above the government, not even EU courts can order it around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 13:23
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I don't know what context you're posting from (Norway?) but that does literally not apply to this discussion. There is no court above the government, not even EU courts can order it around. If only there was some sort of extraordinary once-in a lifetime event to give reason for exceptions. Anyway, I'm well aware of that the swedish supreme court (either of them) lack the power to ex nihilo declare the swedish constitution invalid or even perform basic judicial review of laws. Then again none of the supreme courts of scandinavia have this power. However, interpreting new laws or old laws with new enforcement and considering them constitutional by a wider interpretation of constitutionality seems to be well within the court's mandate? After all, we're discussing the government enforcing something new and the courts upholding that, not invalidating the constitution or a new law. The inverse of your problem. Or am I misunderstanding you, where you think the courts can't uphold a practice that's previously been held unconstitutional? Or do you think then that the courts would have to declare the constitutional freedom of assembly invalid as opposed to interpreting it differently? Do you think stare decisis is anything but a convenient tool for courts? Anyway, I noticed that constitutionally none of your laws may violate the ECHR. Is that a purely textual requirement or do you also respect it as a constitutional/consuetudinary principle that laws must also be made and followed in order to conform to the state's positive obligation in accordance with the ECHR and how do you think this impacts the duty of the swedish parliament, government and courts and their interpretation of law?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 13:50
|
|
|
What in parliament precedes over constitutional matters do you not understand? If government and opposition thinks it's unconstitutional, then it is. Both are currently in agreement that parliaments past have not granted government the right to do these things and they decide. If the government acts unconstitutionally they don't risk ending up court, they risk getting forced out by parliament. EDIT: Like it's extremely simple. To greatly infringe upon the basic freedoms of our consitution the government needs either legitimacy, such as through law, or a democratic majority, as in support of parliament. Them having neither means they can't act. They've been haggling since march (unsuccesfully) to get a majority behind doing more. They didn't get it this summer and they may very well not get it this winter. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Dec 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 13:56
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:What in parliament precedes over constitutional matters do you not understand? If government and opposition thinks it's unconstitutional, then it is. Both are currently in agreement that parliaments past have not granted government the right to do these things and they decide. Yeah, actually explain that to me because you seem to be describing a situation wholly outside of actual legal proceedings wherein nobody has loving acted. So let's say the sitting government enacts a ostensibly unconstitutional restriction on travel in Uppsala wherever the gently caress that is. The subsequent thing to happen is not a lawsuit to have that decision reversed but parliament throwing out the government subsequent to what. A vote of no confidence? Please explain the actual mechanism, because it seems like you are admitting to a complete paralysis of government in a clear parallel to the US congress with no legal remedies or recourse for citizens. While you're at it, in addition to the other things I asked about how are your current measures not unconstitutional and where is the line drawn in terms of not taking those measures just a little bit further? Also, as a darkly hilarious aside, you're describing a situation in which constitutionality is not a legal concept but a matter for political opinion which is such a hilariously inept way to handle it I don't even know what to say. E: forgot to mention, it's not "greatly" infringing, it's a reasonable infringement on a relative - not an absolute - right. If you make up your own framing yeah there's no end to the stuff you can't do. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Dec 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 14:44
|
|
|
Well it seems Sweden may get more restrictions, anyhow. Find out in an hour and change but I can’t expect anything too intense right before the holidays. On the other hand, I shouldn’t be expecting a drat thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 15:03
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Also, as a darkly hilarious aside, you're describing a situation in which constitutionality is not a legal concept but a matter for political opinion which is such a hilariously inept way to handle it I don't even know what to say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:So let's say the sitting government enacts a ostensibly unconstitutional restriction on travel in Uppsala wherever the gently caress that is. The subsequent thing to happen is not a lawsuit to have that decision reversed but parliament throwing out the government subsequent to what. A vote of no confidence? That's the mechanism and it can happen at any point for any reason. This is the cause brinkmanship is traditionally unpopular in Swedish politics. A government without a majority can fall within a matter of days if perceived as acting illegitimately. All it takes in our current situation is centerpartiet, liberalerna or vänsterpartiet telling the government to back down and the game is over. Dead end 1. But lets say they don't. Then this first becomes a matter of government agencies complying. The government, as per our 400 year old institutional tradition, does not directly control its agencies and they can decide to not comply if they perceive directives as unlawful. If the government disagrees, they can replace the head until they get one that will make it comply. Upon replacing a head, the government again risks that centerpartiet, liberalerna or vänsterpartiet percieve this as illegitimate which is a very normal constitutional point of conflict in swedish politics these days as it makes the government look both weak and incompetent. Dead end 2. But lets say the government agency nods and the parties back down even though they disagree. Here's where courts enter as they can challenge the decision made by the government agencies and while it will take a few months it will eventually get there. Governments agencies can then either decide to comply with court orders, bringing us back to dead end 2, or completely disregard the courts. Which will immediately put parliament in a bind. At this point centerpatiet, liberalerna and vänsterpartiet all have to defend both government and government agencies in acting unlawfully and hope that public opinion will have their side. Anyone backs out, dead end 3. Needlessly to say as self-evidently proven by there being neither a substantial new pandemic law or a challenge to the government from the opposition, there is no popular support in parliament for government getting past dead end 1. Much less all three. quote:Also, as a darkly hilarious aside, you're describing a situation in which constitutionality is not a legal concept but a matter for political opinion which is such a hilariously inept way to handle it I don't even know what to say. Welcome to Parliamentarism. Dominant characteristics of this system of politics are weak constitutions and weak governments. Sweden has one of the most powerful parliaments and weakest constitutions of the world. That means the norms set by parliament rule the day. quote:E: forgot to mention, it's not "greatly" infringing, it's a reasonable infringement on a relative - not an absolute - right. If you make up your own framing yeah there's no end to the stuff you can't do. Yeah no. To anyone sane restricting freedom of movement is a massive deal. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Dec 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Welcome to Parliamentarism. Dominant characteristics of this system of politics are weak constitutions and weak governments. Sweden has one of the most powerful parliaments and weakest constitutions of the world. That means the norms set by parliament rule the day. I have come to appreciate this - delat ansvar är inget ansvar liksom. Everything starting and ending with parliament means they cant ever pass the buck and they have to take full responsibility for their desicions. Little room for posturing, hoping some court will save the day or w/e.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 15:47
|
|
|
Threadkiller Dog posted:I have come to appreciate this - delat ansvar är inget ansvar liksom. Everything starting and ending with parliament means they cant ever pass the buck and they have to take full responsibility for their desicions. Pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 15:50
|
|
|
Recommending masks on public transit and no bars after kl 20! And tryyyying to enforce non essential people to work from home which lol, loving lol I can’t wait to see my office do this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
teen witch posted:Recommending masks on public transit and no bars after kl 20! And tryyyying to enforce non essential people to work from home which lol, loving lol I can’t wait to see my office do this. "Regeringen uppmanar också handeln att inte anordna någon rea eller några andra evenemang i jul. – Det kommer inte bli någon mellandagsrea, säger Johan Carlson, generaldirektör på Folkhälsomyndigheten." Svenne and Karin Banan are going to go ballistic unless no shops will follow this, which they won't
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
 The right can't meme etc. Katt fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Dec 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:That's the mechanism and it can happen at any point for any reason. This is the cause brinkmanship is traditionally unpopular in Swedish politics. A government without a majority can fall within a matter of days if perceived as acting illegitimately. All it takes in our current situation is centerpartiet, liberalerna or vänsterpartiet telling the government to back down and the game is over. Dead end 1. Basically, instead of limiting your policies to where the line is, you push it until you get where you need to be. Or closer to where you need it to be, if you can get it all the way. Or you at least force the opposition to take an unpopular stance, in the case of a pandemic one where you can point at them and say "Their resistance to our policies caused X amount of deaths".
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:That's the mechanism and it can happen at any point for any reason. This is the cause brinkmanship is traditionally unpopular in Swedish politics. A government without a majority can fall within a matter of days if perceived as acting illegitimately. All it takes in our current situation is centerpartiet, liberalerna or vänsterpartiet telling the government to back down and the game is over. Dead end 1. Okay, so I think we're finally making progress and I can see the source of my confusion at this point, I think. What you are describing is not so much a system of law as it is a codification of a set of parliamentary practices. I interpreted lilljonas et al as making a legal argument as to the unconstitutionality of infections disease control measures for the purposes of it getting struck down by the courts (somewhat like your dead end 3), which is normally where unconstitutional practices, prescriptions and sometimes laws get struck down. What "unconstitutional" in this context should actually be read as is "political opinion". Because if this is true MiddleOne posted:If government and opposition thinks it's unconstitutional, then it is. then this A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, that's what I'm getting from it too. At best "unconstitutional" means "political action taken outside the norm of parliamentary politics", which is obviously still an incredibly dumb thing to tie a pandemic response to. Is the correct take. Which means "unconstitutional", which has a very specific meaning everywhere else in the world, in the swedish meaning is meant to say "does not have a majority in parliament behind it". This is not a legal argument and none of the normal considerations and concerns I've voiced previously are really relevant. This is nakedly a political argument. Parliament does from this not appear to do any of the legal analysis normally associated with a constitutional challenge, but merely decides by fiat what is and is not constitutional. In other words, there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the swedish government from instituting more strict measures against covid, it is simply and nakedly a matter of political opinion whether or not it should be done. It's not unconstitutional - abusing this term is simply borrowing the authority or appearance of law or legal process to present a false unavoidable obstacle. Let this be a lesson to all readers. Just because someone uses a word it doesn't mean that it means what you think it means. Which means I've completely wasted my time trying to suss out the legal argument behind your claim of uconstitutionality. There isn't one. And every preventable covid-19 death is actually squarely on the shoulders of your politicians. What a crying loving shame. Norway would be exactly where sweden is if our politicians and government sat on their hands and did nothing in the face of a pandemic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
Just ban fish from the thread already. They're not remotely good faith at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
Oh Joy. I'm sure she will act quickly and in responsible fashion, as has been her style. According to the COVID-19 Event Risk Assessment Planning Tool, your risk of coming into contact with an infected person at a Christmas sermon with 50 people in Copenhagen is 81%. SplitSoul fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Dec 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
Katt posted:Just ban fish from the thread already. They're not remotely good faith at this point. SplitSoul posted:Oh Joy. I'm sure she will act quickly and in responsible fashion, as has been her style. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Dec 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Depends on how many infected you think are slipping through the nets. The 5-10 number was decided on back in March, and for the US, and is (hopefully) not accurate to the situation today here in Denmark. Not sure you can do this exactly, but even if you assume the ascertainment bias is only 2, and drop the 50 people down to 20 (not sure that's an entirely correct way to do it, but let's just go with it), that's still a 50% risk. With the positivity rate climbing the way it has been, isn't it fair to assume it's a bit more?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Is the correct take. Which means "unconstitutional", which has a very specific meaning everywhere else in the world, in the swedish meaning is meant to say "does not have a majority in parliament behind it". This is not a legal argument Only if you're an idiot. What I've told you over and over again (and this will be my last reply to you on this topic) is that government can't act against what is codified in law without support of the lawmaker. They need consent from parliament past (the law) or parliament present (political majority). It really isn't that complicated. A Buttery Pastry posted:One neat trick a government can do is attempt to create support for a policy, making it more popular among the populace. This in turn puts pressure on parliament to act in the way the government would like it to do. Sure, but then again as far as public opinion is concerned government has low trust, parties even lower and FHM is still extremely high. If I'd blame anyone here it's parliament. The opposition hasn't been acting in good faith, mostly because they're afraid to be held responsible. A Buttery Pastry posted:Basically, instead of limiting your policies to where the line is, you push it until you get where you need to be. Or closer to where you need it to be, if you can get it all the way. Or you at least force the opposition to take an unpopular stance, in the case of a pandemic one where you can point at them and say "Their resistance to our policies caused X amount of deaths". They kinda were in may but then covid just kinda petered out and the compromise law was never built upon. They are attempting to do the same thing again which is why we might actually have a pandemic law come this winter, but all this inaction stems back to everyone hoping this was over back in early august. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Dec 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
Also im pretty sure a simple parliamentary majority would not suffice for openly passing unconstitutional laws. Like if all the important parties agreed across the blocks im sure it could be paved for in the commities and constitutional court. Otherwise not really. And why bother then, just wait a few years and do it proper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 01:24 |
|
|
SplitSoul posted:With the positivity rate climbing the way it has been, isn't it fair to assume it's a bit more? In any case, if 81% risk of someone being infectious is reason enough to stay away, then 50% is too. MiddleOne posted:Sure, but then again as far as public opinion is concerned government has low trust, parties even lower and FHM is still extremely high.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2020 19:26
|
|