In the spring, various European countries closed their borders unilaterally and overnight. This resulted in uncoordinated chaos. With the start of the second wave and a sharp rise in infections that are already causing severe problems in most European countries, a standard European COVID-19 map has been issued. It is based on the traffic light system, allowing adequate coordination intra-European travel and is intended to prevent similar chaos to that of the past spring.

Learning from Past Mistakes

The principle of freedom of movement was exposed to chaos in the spring when all European countries closed their borders unilaterally without relying on a European Union solution beforehand. The hasty reaction paired with an utter lack of coordination resulted in long traffic jams and, as delivery trucks sometimes had to wait days to be processed, it also resulted in a shortage of supplies for supermarkets and sometimes stalled goods altogether.

However, the European countries appear to have learned from their past mistake. With the rapid increase in coronavirus infections across the continent, and the urgent need to have mechanisms in place to provide some efforts to slow down cross-border infections, the chaos is unlikely to repeat itself.

Several European countries have already introduced new and tight restrictions: risk areas, quarantine, testing obligations — different rules apply everywhere. EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen speaks of a patchwork quilt that hardly anyone comprehends. A change and increased cooperation are thus needed.

A Reliable COVID-19 Mapping System?

Europe’s new hope is based on a standard European COVID-19 map based on the traffic light system that significantly increases coordination. Depending on the infection rate, individual regions are classified as green, yellow, or red zones. If there is no reliable information, the area concerned remains gray.

If, on average, less than 25 people per 100,000 inhabitants are infected with the coronavirus within two weeks, the traffic light shows green, meaning travel restrictions do not exist. If there are more than 25 cases, the traffic light jumps to yellow. The red level is reached at 50 or more new cases. When evaluating the regions, the rate of positive tests also plays a role.

For travelers from the yellow and red zones, each country should be able to decide for itself whether and, if so, which restrictions apply. However, the states are concerned, and the EU Commission must be informed of this as quickly as possible.

Will the Travel Map Work?

The COVID-19 map is created by the Sweden-based European Health Agency (ECDC, European Center for Disease Control and Prevention) and updated weekly. However, whether this strategy is coherent and useful to tackle the previous chaos is uncertain. Some European ministers have their doubts.

Luxembourg’s Minister for Foreign and European Affairs Jean Asselborn, for example – or Austria’s Federal Minister for the EU and Constitution Karoline Edtstadler — remain doubtful. Both are concerned that the strategy of the three-tier system is already obsolete.

“There is now something on the table that we can, unfortunately, see that reality has overtaken it,” says Edtstadler.

Moreover, the criteria were not sufficiently accurate. Both argue that if one thought it through and did the math, most of Europe’s regions should alreadybe  colored red on the map. However, a higher level than red is currently non-existent.

The German EU Council Presidency, on the other hand, considers the map to be a first and important step which would have to be followed by others. After all, the coordination of the coronavirus restriction measures is a dramatic test for the entire European Union. It can be adjusted and increased to the best of the union’s ability, but will also almost always entail some form of a trial-and-error approach.

L'articolo The EU’s COVID-19 Traffic Light System proviene da InsideOver.

Italy and Sweden have one thing in common right now – they are both bucking the trend regarding the increasing number of coronavirus cases worldwide. Over the past two weeks, Italy’s cumulative number of COVID-19 cases was just over 37 per 100,000 people. The BBC’s Mark Lowen suggested that this was down to many reasons, which include: an efficient test and trace system, a longer lockdown and the fact that the trauma of the virus frightened numerous Italians into strict compliance with social distancing measures.

Yet Sweden was one of the very few nations in the world to not go into lockdown, and many now think that their strategy has paid off. So far, the country has recorded 5,895 deaths and 94,823 cases.

Meanwhile, Italy has recorded 35,918 deaths and 317,000 total cases. An immediate conclusion one can draw from this comparison is that Sweden managed to tackle the coronavirus without shutting down its entire economy, and they still managed to avoid recording more deaths than Italy did.

COVID-19 Deaths are Linked to Population Size

However, it was always inevitable that countries with larger population sizes were going to experience a higher number of deaths compared to smaller countries. In 2019, Italy had a population total of 60.36 million people, whereas Sweden’s population consisted of 10.23 million people that same year.

One of the main reasons why Italy experienced a higher number of COVID-19 deaths than many other countries is because it has one of the oldest populations in Europe. 23 percent of its residents are 65 or older. Many of Italy’s deaths have been among people in their 80s, and 90s, a population known to be more susceptible to severe complications from the coronavirus.

Sweden has an average age of 41.1 years. Therefore, it has a much younger population than Italy does.

Population Density is a Crucial Factor

The density of populations is another important factor that can trigger the spread of the coronavirus. Figures from the Italian statistics agency IStat show just how bad things have been in parts of northern Italy. Deaths in Lombardy during March 2020 were 186.5 percent above the five-year average, and in Bergamo they were 567.6 percent above the average.

Another reason why Sweden was able to curb the spread of the coronavirus was because it has a high proportion of single-occupancy households, and a relatively low proportion of multi-generational households. This meant that the coronavirus was far less likely to spread across Sweden than in Italy.

But it would be a mistake to suggest that Sweden did nothing to stop the spread of the virus. In March, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven urged people to take responsibility and obey the Government’s advice, which included staying at home if you feel sick, working from home if you can, and to stay at home if you are aged 70 or over. Swedish venues were also only allowed to provide table service to avoid crowding. Like Italy, many Swedes complied with their Government’s guidelines and this is why both countries are successfully curbing the spread of the pandemic.

Sweden Was More Successful Than Italy in Tackling the Virus

Due to Italy’s population density, size and age, it was always inevitable that they would experience more coronavirus deaths than Sweden, but considering the latter was able to prevent the virus’s spread without a lockdown due to its compliant population, it is a tragedy that Italy felt it had to go into lockdown. The effects of lockdown will be far greater in the long-term than COVID-19 itself.

Sweden’s GDP drop of -8.6 percent is far lower than Italy’s (-12.4 percent). A recent report from Capital Economics concludes that Sweden’s economy is the least damaged in Europe, the “best of a bad bunch”, whilst the rest of Europe suffered from a significant recession. Italy’s economy was in major trouble before lockdown, and its politicians have made it worse for generations to come.

Out of the two countries, Sweden tackled the spread of COVID-19 far better than Italy did. They avoided a total lockdown and trusted their people to follow government guidelines. The Italians also followed their government’s recommendations, but their politicians still felt it was necessary to impose draconian measures upon them. The lesson from both countries is that it does not matter how lightly or harshly governments restrict their populations, people must take ultimate responsibility for their health, not politicians.

L'articolo Italy and Sweden: Which Country Tackled the Coronavirus Most Effectively? proviene da InsideOver.

Sweden’s approach to the coronavirus continues to stir controversy as Anders Tegnell, the country’s leading epidemiologist, said that there is no point in Swedish citizens following the World Health Organization’s advice, which is to wear face masks when social distancing is not possible. Tegnell said that there is no point in adopting this measure because Sweden’s number of COVID-19 infections is dropping sharply.

The Health Agency of Sweden says that since reaching a peak in late June, the infection rate has rapidly dropped despite an increase in testing over the period.

Sweden’s Unorthodox Approach to COVID-19

Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, the Swedish Government has consistently refused to take its country into lockdown while many of its EU counterparts and the UK took the opposite direction. At one stage, the number of Swedish deaths exceeded those in the US and Brazil. On Tuesday 28th July, Sweden reported only two new deaths. The current death toll there stands at 5,743. This is a remarkable achievement for a nation that bucked the trend and kept its economy open as COVID-19 crippled the rest of Europe.

The Science Behind Face Masks is Unclear

As Sweden continues to recover from the coronavirus in its own way, was Tegnell right to argue that face masks should not be mandatory in his own country? The one reason why the face coverings debate remains unresolved is because there are a lot of contradictory arguments over their purpose and efficacy.

In the UK, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) that is advising the British Government on its response to the coronavirus argues that the evidence of coverings preventing the spread of infection from one person to another is “marginal, but positive.”

This argument is supported by a study conducted by Cambridge and Greenwich universities which discovered that requiring everyone to wear a face mask would prevent a ‘second wave’ of coronavirus for 18 months.

Some Studies Show Face Masks are Effective

Nonetheless, Denis G. Rancourt, PhD, conducted a study into whether face masks work or not. He reviewed established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, and other factors.

He found that the “second wave” of an epidemic is not a result of ‘human sin’ regarding mask wearing and hand-shaking. Instead, it is a consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness among populations that have not yet gained immunity from a virus.

Furthermore, mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation because the minimal infectious dose (MID) must also be considered. If the MID surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle is able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility.

Do Face Masks Actually Work?

Rancourt states that because there is no sufficient scientific evidence on face masks, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm.

Radonovich et al (2019) conducted a study that investigated whether N95 respirators and medical masks prevent influenza among healthcare personnel. It also found that among 2,862 participants, 2,371 completed the study. Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators versus medical masks as worn by volunteers in this experiment resulted in no substantial difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

This was also supported by a 2020 Hong Kong study which came to the same conclusion, but also stated that improper use of these masks increases the chances of getting transmitted.

Sweden’s Approach is the Right One

People in many countries are being told that cloth masks are better than nothing, but in 2015 MacIntyre et al compared medical masks to cloth masks. They found that cloth masks are ineffective and can put people at a greater risk of catching a virus. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in an increased risk of infection.

Considering Sweden has succeeded in curbing the rate of COVID-19 infections without the need to impose a lockdown so far, it would appear that Tegnell’s decision not to force Swedes to wear face masks is justified based on the scientific evidence currently available. There is no certainty that they do work and more countries would do well to follow Tegnell’s lead. It should be a matter of choice for people to wear a face covering. Sweden may well be the unsung hero of the coronavirus pandemic in years to come.

L'articolo Is Sweden Right to Refuse to Make its Citizens Wear Face Masks? proviene da InsideOver.

Sweden, typically a poster child for healthy living, has been forced to defend its coronavirus strategy as the state finally begins to see the curve flatten. The fact that Sweden — a state that was rated 8.5 for healthy by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) —failed to control the disease for so long even as its neighbors managed to succeed gives reason to question the Swedish strategy, which was unconventional from the beginning.

Voluntary Measures

From the onset, Stockholm decided not to lockdown, a decision it maintained through the worst of the crisis in April. The Swedish strategy essentially boiled down to trusting its residents to do the right thing. Social distancing has been voluntary and the only hard rule issued by the government is a prohibition of gatherings with more than 50 people, BBC News reported.

Although the government did not explicitly declare herd immunity a goal, some health experts suggested Sweden could be a test bed for the theory. However, others have argued against such an approach and most agreed that for it to work properly, an average 60-85% of a state’s population would need to be infected, according to the New York Times.

Furthermore, vulnerable demographics such as the elderly are unlikely to mingle in public as frequently as a healthy individual, thereby decreasing the likelihood that they would obtain the antibodies. Finally, the jury is still out on whether an immunity can even be established against COVID-19. Even with a vaccine, it is possible that it may not be 100% and permanently effective with the first dose.

The Swedish Public Health Agency revealed a paltry 6% of its population has tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies, as BBC News reported, which is hardly a raving endorsement for herd immunity.

Astronomical Death Rate Among the Nordic States

For these reasons, Sweden stirred controversy when it decided that it would not shutdown with the rest of the world and it continued to pay a price in casualties. As of Friday, it ranked 27th with 5,676 deaths according to health data compiled by Worldometers.

Its neighbors boast far better results, however. Denmark has only 612 deaths, Norway 255, and Finland 328. Even when considering population differences (Sweden has roughly twice the population of each of its neighbors, the numbers are harrowing. So why then are Swedish health experts so resolute in defending their strategy and insistent upon declaring it a national success?

“The epidemic is now being slowed down, in a way that I think few of us would have believed a week or so ago,” said Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist.

‘No Strong Evidence’

It is true, the numbers are now looking incredibly favorable particularly when compared with the virus’ peak in April. Tegnell hailed recent statistics as vindication of the Swedish strategy saying, “We have managed to [slow the spread] with substantially less invasive measures.

Have daily deaths and cases fallen? Yes. Did resisting a nationwide lockdown keep the Swedish economy afloat? Yes. However if these are the only metrics, then what is the point of fighting the coronavirus at all, if we are to entirely ignore the lives sacrificed needlessly?

Tegnell conceded there may have been too many casualties, but he remained in stark denial that lockdown measures would have helped, declaring there was “no strong evidence that a lockdown would have made the much of a difference.”

Lofven Government Loses Support

Lives weren’t the only casualty as a result of the strategy—support for the government, including Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, plummeted. Although Lofven and his Swedish Social Democratic Party have enjoyed higher approval numbers since before the pandemic began, June marked a turning point as Lofven’s approval rating fell 10%, according to SBS News. Public faith in Lofven’s party similarly dropped 9%.

Swedes are now questioning whether or not Stockholm leaders made the right call. Estimates anticipate a 5% economic contraction this year, less than Sweden’s neighboring states. Consumer spending was higher, however, but an unemployment rate of 9% leads the Nordic states, BBC News reported.

“Sweden, like the other Nordic countries, is a small, open economy, very dependent on trade. So the Swedish economy tends to do poorly when the rest of the world is doing poorly,” said Prof. Karolina Ekholm, a former Deputy Governor of Sweden’s central bank.

It remains to be seen if Sweden’s strategy has further reciprocal effects, but for now the damage, aside from casualties, appears to be limited to its image. The state, usually a top-tier nation in terms of health and wellness, now is forced to defend the sacrificing of its citizens to preserve its economy. 

L'articolo Sweden Defends Coronavirus Strategy Despite High Casualty Rate proviene da InsideOver.

Sweden’s controversial pandemic-fighting strategy is beginning to yield results, according to its top epidemiologist. Anders Tegnell, the lead architect of Sweden’s “trust-based” pandemic-fighting strategy said that confirmed cases and deaths in the country are beginning to stabilize.

‘The Situation is Stable’

“In major parts of Sweden, around Stockholm, we have reached a plateau [in new cases], and we’re already seeing the effect of herd immunity. In a few weeks’ time, we’ll see even more of the effects of that. And in the rest of the country, the situation is stable,” Tegnell said.

Tegnell also added that modelling data suggests that 20% of Stockholm’s population is already immune to the virus.

The Controversy of Herd Immunity

Like most areas of research into the virus, the science of COVID-19’s herd immunity is still being researched. Many scientists argue that herd immunity cannot work without a vaccine.

“Herd immunity is not this magical number where once you reach that point nobody else gets infected,” said Shane Crotty, an immunologist at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology in California.

“It would no longer be a full-blown epidemic once you get to herd immunity. The virus would still spread, it would still infect people, it would still kill people. It would just be a less common event.”

Current estimates predict that herd immunity will slow the spread of the virus once 50% to 70% of the global population become immune.

Does COVID-19 Reactivate?

Earlier in April, however, Korea’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that the coronavirus may be “reactivating” in people who have previously been cured of the disease, after 51 new cases of possible reactivation were seen in the country. The same phenomenon has been seen in China, as scientists struggle to identify the reason why. One theory has attributed these reactivation cases to incosistencies in test results.

The question remains: if the virus can reactivate in former patients, can herd immunity be viable without a vaccine, as Tegnell claims?

Group of Swedish Scientists Say Country Needs to Get Stricter ASAP

Although Tegnell boasts that Sweden’s controversial pandemic strategy is proving effective, global health experts (including Swedish experts) have warned that it is too early to conclude the success of this highly risky method. Last week, 22 high profile Swedish scientists penned an article in the Swedish newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, urging Swedish politicians to implement stricter restrictive measures. They stated that Tegnell’s methods have failed.

Tegnell is ‘Playing Russian Roulette with the Swedish People’

For Marcus Carlsson, a mathematician at Lund University, Tegnell’s approach is a “mad experiment with 10 million people.”

“At least if we’re going to do this as a people … lay the facts on the table so that we understand the reasons. The way I am feeling now is that we are being herded like a flock of sheep towards disaster.”

Carlsson further criticizes Tegnell as: “playing Russian roulette with the Swedish population.”

Sweden is currently seeing huge spikes in infection rates among children and the elderly, with the elderly also seeing high fatality rates.

In an article with science journal Nature, published on April 21, Tegnell acknowledged that, according to Swedish law, a strict lockdown cannot be legislated in the country. By law, Swedes are supposed to bear the personal responsibility of social distancing, he explained.

“The Swedish laws on communicable diseases are mostly based on voluntary measures — on individual responsibility.

Tegnell: ‘No Legal Possibility’ for a Lockdown in Sweden

“It clearly states that the citizen has the responsibility not to spread a disease. This is the core we started from, because there is not much legal possibility to close down cities in Sweden using the present laws. Quarantine can be contemplated for people or small areas, such as a school or a hotel. But [legally] we cannot lock down a geographical area,” he pronounced.

Asked for evidence concerning his trust-based approach, Tegnell replied: “It is difficult to talk about the scientific basis of a strategy with these types of disease, because we do not know much about it and we are learning as we are doing, day by day.

“Close down, lockdown, closing borders — nothing has a historical scientific basis, in my view. We have looked at a number of European Union countries to see whether they have published any analysis of the effects of these measures before they were started and we saw almost none.”

Sweden’s COVID-19 Death Toll

In the last 14 days, Sweden has reported 1,250 deaths. Neighbors, Denmark, Finland and Norway have reported 166, 109 and 86 deaths respectively. At 1,250, Sweden’s total fatality rate is more than three times the combined total of its three neighboring countries.

Both scientific data, and scientific experts, call into question Tegnell’s claims of success. Tegnell, however, is adamant that figures prove the trust-based system’s efficacy. The epidemiologist stated that he does not believe his method poses any risk to the Swedish people.

“The public-health agency has released detailed modelling on a region-by-region basis that comes to much less pessimistic conclusions than other researchers in terms of hospitalizations and deaths per thousand infections,” he said.

“There has been an increase, but it is not traumatic so far. Of course, we are going into a phase in the epidemic where we will see a lot more cases in the next few weeks — with more people in intensive-care units — but that is just like any other country. Nowhere in Europe has been able to slow down the spread considerably.”

Sweden has now begun countrywide immunity tests. With Stockholm up to an alleged 20% herd immunity, only a longitudinal study can assess whether the trust-based system is successful. Presently, there are too many uncontrolled variables in Tegnell’s methods to believe that his strategy is yielding good results. The world’s salvation rests, regardless, in the development of a vaccine.

L'articolo How Effective is Sweden’s Controversial Pandemic Strategy? proviene da InsideOver.

As many European countries impose lockdowns on their populations to tackle the spread of the coronavirus outbreak, Sweden appears to be adopting a more relaxed approach.

How is Sweden Reacting to the Coronavirus Pandemic?

Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven urged people to take responsibility and obey the Government’s advice during a televised speech on Sunday, which until last week was the same approach that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson adopted until dozens of Brits flocked to public venues last weekend.

The Swedish government’s recommendations include staying at home if you feel sick, working from home if you can, and to stay at home if you are aged 70 or over.

While Britain has left schools open for emergency workers to support the most vulnerable students, in Sweden schools and universities are only being advised to close their facilities and organize online lessons. The Swedish Parliament has also passed a bill to enable preschools and primary schools to be closed if absolutely necessary.

Numerous governments have closed pubs and restaurants, but the Swedish Government has done the opposite. Swedish venues would only be allowed to provide table service to avoid crowding. Like its EU counterparts, Sweden has closed its borders to non-necessary travel.

Is the Swedish Prime Minister Playing Russian Roulette?

The Swedish Government’s approach has been criticized by many health experts. Some of them have accused the Prime Minister of playing “Russian roulette” with the health of Swedes. Yet Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, has denied the country’s approach is to rapidly build group immunity to the virus. He defended the government’s core strategy, which is to slow the spread of the infection and ensure the health service has a reasonable workload.

However, the Guardian reports that Fredrik Elgh, a virology professor at Umeå University, and Joacim Rocklöv, a professor of epidemiology and public health at Umeå, are both concerned that Swedish politicians are failing to do more to slow the spread of the virus.

It is true that the number of Covid-19 cases in Sweden is rising. So far, there are 2,735 cases in the country and 66 deaths, including 16 people who have recovered. This could be the main reason why the Swedes are more relaxed about the coronavirus outbreak than other nations.

Could Sweden’s Case Count Rise Again?

The Swedish Public Health Agency (also known as the Folkhalsomyndigheten) and Health and Social Affairs Minister Lena Hallengren have defended the government’s approach and it seems like they will not be imposing more extreme measures for now, though they have not ruled out that option.

It remains yet to be seen whether this approach will work. The agency has also refused to make public risk assessments or prediction models for the spread of the virus. Tegnell believes that under these measures, the number of Covid-19 cases will slow in May, but will rise again in autumn.

Will Sweden’s Approach Work?

As Jasmine Andersson wrote for iNews, the reason why Swedes have not ignored the Folkhalsomyndigheten’s advice is because they have more faith in their health agency. One reason is that ministers cannot interfere in it. Sweden is a country famed for its world-leading public policy, which is why the relaxed approach still has potential there.

If Stockholm can curb the number of coronavirus cases in its country and retain the lax measures it has so far, it would prove that all the politicians who have adopted more draconian measures miscalculated the best way to deal with coronavirus. But if the country’s health agency and Löfven both get their joint approach horribly wrong, it has the potential to shatter trust in Sweden’s respected institutions. There is a lot at stake here and the eyes of the world will be watching this Scandinavian country closely for the first time.

L'articolo Why is Sweden Being More Relaxed Than Other Nations About Covid-19? proviene da InsideOver.

Following his recent visit to Ireland, Boris Johnson told Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar that a no-deal Brexit would be a failure that both their respective governments would be responsible for. The Irish backstop remains a sticking point for the British government as they try to use the time remaining before October 31st to avoid leaving the EU without a deal. Dublin is insistent that the backstop must remain part of the Withdrawal Agreement Theresa May negotiated during her premiership, but they have not suggested a suitable alternative to this proposal whilst London has stressed the backstop must be removed.

The EU has said it will consider other solutions to the Irish border problem, but only once the Withdrawal Agreement has been signed off. However, there could be a ‘Norwegian-Swedish solution’ to the Irish backstop that both London and Brussels should consider.

Both May and Johnson stressed that the UK is leaving the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union, and if this happens, it will be impossible for Britain to imitate the Norwegian-Swedish border arrangement as Norway is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA). This means it has to abide by many of the EU’s rules regarding the free movement of people, goods, capital and services, though it can pick and choose which ones it wants to implement. It is also a member of the Schengen zone that disables all passport controls between EU and EEA states. But because Norway is not part of the Customs Union, this means border checks are necessary, which proves neither Ireland nor Britain can hope to retain an ‘invisible border’ post-Brexit.

Despite this, one advantage of being outside the Customs Union for Britain is that it can impose taxes on goods being smuggled into the UK illegally. Politico reported on Swedish smugglers loading their vans with alcohol ready to transport to Norway’s black market. Within the EU, citizens can load up as much alcohol as their vehicles can safely carry and legally drive it over internal borders, as long as they can credibly claim it is for private consumption. But because Norway is outside the Customs Union, it imposes higher tariffs on cigarettes and alcohol. In 2017, Norwegian customs seized 322,000 litres of beer and 47,000 litres of spirits. Post-Brexit, it would be the UK’s discretion which goods receive heavy tariffs (if any) and which don’t.

There have been many arguments for deploying technology to ease British-Irish border tensions. The Svinesund customs office located to the south of Orje, Norway, told Voa News that frictionless borders do work, but they require development and lots of legislation. Much export information is available to Norwegian customs houses digitally, but the problem is they all use different computer systems. Also, export checks are difficult to operate when goods in one vehicle are not uniform. For the UK to mimic such a system, it would take a considerable period of time and it would be costly. A report by Kommerskollegium, the trade board for Sweden, compiled a 2017 report based on a survey of 2,000 Swedish companies that identified customs as the main problem hampering trade with Norway.

Therefore, the Norwegian-Swedish border is one possible model the UK and Ireland could imitate to a certain extent. It demonstrates the advantages leaving the Customs Union has for Britain as they can impose their own customs checks on goods they do not want to enter their borders. Though it could encourage illegal trading in the short-term, the success Norwegian customs officials have had in clamping down on alcohol in 2017 highlights how effective customs checks can be in discouraging this sort of behaviour. It is almost impossible to argue that border checks will not be necessary post-Brexit. It will take time to build the technology necessary to allow for frictionless trade. This is why it is in both Brussels’ and London’s best interests to reach a free trade deal, and fast. As Johnson said, both the British and the Irish governments can avoid a hard border.

L'articolo Is There a Norwegian-Swedish Solution To The Irish Backstop? proviene da InsideOver.

Being a teacher has never been easy, and in many parts of the world, it’s becoming increasingly difficult. This would seem to be true in Malmö, Sweden, where the local education authority has just announced that it will ask the guardians of 30,000 primary school children to sign a contract, requiring them and their children alike to adopt a ‘positive attitude’ towards teachers. The main reason: reports of violent incidents against teachers and other pupils in Swedish schools has been on the rise, increasing by 121% between 2012 and 2018, according to the Swedish Work Environment Authority (SWEA).

However, while some right-wing accounts of the rise in violence in Sweden has pinned the blame on immigration and a failure to ‘integrate’ migrants predominantly from war-torn Syria, the truth of the matter is considerably more nuanced and complex. Because as similar rises in school violence in the UK, the US, Australia and elsewhere attest, such factors as poverty, inequality and cuts in public spending play a more significant role.

Reported assaults against teachers have been rising in Sweden since at least 2011, several years before the country began witnessing significant immigration from Syria. And since 2011, there has been a steady increase in reports of school violence, rising from 393 in 2012 to 870 in 2018. But despite this equalling a growth rate of 121%, the number of foreign citizens living in Sweden rose by only 39.7% over the same period, from 667,232 in 2012 to 932,266 in 2018. Their share of the overall Swedish population increased by roughly 2%, from 7% to 9.1%. This undermines the notion of a direct, one-to-one correlation between migration and school violence.

There’s also something else which undermines the idea that migration is to blame for the rise in violent incidents: in 2012, the system for reporting violent incidents in schools was changed, with the Swedish government introducing a webpage through which reports could be quickly made online. And according to Kjell Blom, a researcher and statistician at the authority, this made it easier to report incidents, also because the webpage was used to report workplace injuries to the more familiar Swedish Social Insurance Agency (SSIA). “I think the knowledge of the reporting to SSIA is well known in Sweden,” he tells InsideOver. “But this webpage made people more aware of the reporting to SWEA also.”

There is, then, no strong evidence that Sweden’s problem with violence against teachers is getting distinctly worse, despite increasing reports. On the one hand, this impression is reinforced by figures the SWEA also keeps on cases of teachers missing work due to violence or intimidation, which show 396 such cases in 2015 and only 336 in 2018. And when the picture is expanded internationally, it becomes apparent that factors such as deprivation, inequality and public spending cuts are more pivotal in creating the conditions for violence than an influx of immigrants.

In the UK – where spending on education has been cut by around £7 billion in real terms since 2011 – violence against teachers has also been mounting: 1,400 pupils were excluded from school for physical or verbal assaults against adults in the 2016/17 academic year, as opposed to 1,330 in 2015/16. And as the Department for Education’s data made clear, children eligible for free school meals were four times more likely to be excluded than children who weren’t eligible.

Something similar is observable in the US, where a 2017 study by researchers at the University of Missouri found that teachers in schools with higher levels of student poverty were more likely to report being attacked or threatened, while they were less likely to be victimized if their school had more “supportive administrators and teachers.” Meanwhile, in Australia, the figures also reveal an increase in reports of violence against teachers, with teaching staff and their unions highlighting spending cuts as one of the chief culprits. “We’ve seen behaviour management programs cut, and fewer staff in schools who are available to engage with at-risk students before their behaviour escalates into violence,” said State School Teachers’ Union president Pat Byrne in 2016.

Even in Sweden, deprivation and insufficient support is likely the single biggest determinant of violence in schools. A study published in 2017 revealed that the performance gap between foreign-born students and Swedish students all-but disappears when socioeconomic background and neighbourhood was taken into account. This almost certainly applies to any ‘violence gap’ as well, because as headteacher Jan Jönsson told The Local in 2017, school violence in Sweden is generally concentrated in poorer areas, such as the Norsborg area where his school is based.

It’s encouraging to note that the performance of Karsby International School, which Jönsson has headed for over five years, improved after the introduction of student welfare initiatives and also a Mentors in Violence Prevention program. In other words, if rates of violence in schools are associated with immigrants, it’s only because such immigrants suffer from a variety of avoidable social ills and an absence of help, rather than from some ‘inherent’ inability to acclimatise themselves to new cultures.

L'articolo Sweden’s School Violence Problem is Part of an International Trend proviene da InsideOver.

For Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, life has not been easy since his organization published leaked classified material in 2010. The Australian-born journalist has since been either on the run or holed up in embassies in an effort to avoid extradition to the United States. Yesterday, his situation improved considerably as a Swedish court ruled Assange cannot be detained in absentia for a criminal case on rape allegations dating back to 2010. He has rebuffed these charges as a ploy for Sweden to turn him over to the US.

Assange is presently detained in London on a one-year sentence for violating the conditions of his bail. A United Nations investigator, Nils Melzer, visited Assange alongside two doctors specialized in the evaluation of torture on prisoners. Based on their findings, Assange was declared unfit for a court appearance via video link.

“He shows all the signs that are typical for person who has prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma,” Melzer said.

In 2010, he willingly turned himself over to British police after Sweden issued an international arrest warrant. After two years of fighting extradition in London courts, a battle he ultimately lost, Assange sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy. He had remained there until April of this year when Ecuador revoked his asylum, after photos of Ecuadorian President Lenin Morena began circulating online connecting him with a corruption scandal.

With the ruling from the Swedish court, the British government now must decide whether or not to extradite Assange to the US. The American government has been keen to bring Assange to trial ever since the 2010 leaks. Those cables and documents – nearly 250,000 – were published wholly without redaction, exposing the names of not only US military personnel, but also foreign informants

From Assange’s point-of-view, these documents and even video footage displayed the hidden atrocities of war.

After Chelsea Manning, former U.S. Army soldier, covertly downloaded and saved the material from military databases, she first offered the material to The Washington Post and The New York Times. They declined to publish it, so she turned to Assange who readily made the information available.

Manning was ultimately tried and convicted on 17 of 22 charges pertaining to espionage and theft of government property. She served seven years in prison after former US President Barack Obama reduced her original 35-year sentence, but she’s now behind bars again for refusing to testify at a grand jury on Wikileaks.

In both cases, with Assange and Manning, and even with fellow leaker Edward Snowden, moral dilemmas underpin court hearings and extradition requests. The first amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the government from restricting the right to freedom of speech and has historically been an incredibly strong shield protecting news publications and their sources. Even if they acted outside the law to bring this material to light, there’s the dividing question of whether or not they should be punished for revealing war crimes, corruption, and the like.

Under Obama, the Justice Department opted not to charge Assange, because they believed the legal basis wasn’t sufficient enough for court. There was also the differentiating factor between Snowden and Manning, people who’ve physically stolen classified information, and Assange who simply publishes it. Bringing the leakers to justice through US courts is much more palatable than indicting what many would consider to be a news publisher. The federal government often prefers to avoid attacking journalism companies due to the perception that it would be attacking the freedom of speech.

With Trump at the helm, things are different though. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency during the president’s first year in office. He’s made it clear that Assange will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

“WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service,” Pompeo declared as CIA director.

Two weeks ago, federal prosecutors filed 18 charges against Assange for violating the Espionage Act. Should a trial take place, it will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications as have trials for journalists in the past.

Wikileaks was the focus of the 2016 hacking of the Democratic National Convention server which revealed party favoritism for Hillary Clinton over her opponent, Bernie Sanders. The investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller only charged Assange with assisting Manning to crack a Department of Defense database, however.

Under this pretense, the US has even more ammunition to file an extradition request in London. The Swedish court’s ruling comes as Trump and Pompeo are in London visiting British leaders. Although the topic of extraditing Assange wasn’t originally on the agenda, given their shared enthusiasm for bring Assange to trial, it wouldn’t be outside the realm of possibilities to see them broach the subject.

L'articolo A Win for Wikileaks Mastermind proviene da InsideOver.

Currently, two Iraqi asylum seekers Taha and Salah are living in uncertainty, their cases were rejected by Swedish immigration services, “After leaving Iraq, I went to Sweden, but after three years and half I got a rejection on my asylum case” says the 20 year old Taha, to InsideOver.

From “open heart” to “problem”:

Sweden has been well known for its welcoming atmosphere toward refugees. In 2014, the previous Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt made a speech inviting Swedish citizen to open their heart to refugees seeking protection. In 2015, Sweden received 58,802 asylum cases for which 55% were granted asylum according to Swedish immigration service.

Fast forward to the present, the situation has changed completely. The number of asylum cases dropped down notably in 2018. Just  35,512 aplications were recorded with just 11,217 being accepted, meaning more than 68% of cases were rejected. Even the tone has changed from opening hearts, into solving the Swedish “problem”. “There was a dramatic shift in the discussion in the last four years, immigration issues are now used on the center stage of political debate” Sanna Vestin told InsideOver, author and lecturer in asylum matters and a board member of the Swedish network of refugee support group.

“My father was threatened by the militia, we escaped to Kurdish camps, and then I followed my father to Sweden” says Taha. Taha like many other Iraqis, has been forced to abandon her home because of conflict and violence, According to ‘“Iraq body count”, the number of civilians death since 2014 stood at 80,237 up to the end of October 2018. “I left Iraq after the death of my brother in 2014, he died in an explosion” says Mohamed Yacin, 28. “If we did not have problems, we would not leave our family’s and our settled life behind” Says Salah, a 32 year old who’s father died in an explosion as well.

The number of Iraqi nationals making asylum aplications has declined dramatically from 10,139 in 2017 into 4356 in 2018, in which the number of positive decisions has also lowered to 23% compared to 35% in 2017, according to the statistics of the Swedish immigration service. “The decision now is to reduce the number of refugees in Sweden to the minimum” confirms Vestin.

According to the Swedish Migration Agency, “a person is considered a refugee when they have well-founded reasons to fear persecution due to race, nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, sexual orientation or affiliation to a particular social group.” but Vestin states that the kind of reasoning the Sweden immigration policy now applies is that not everyone is in danger, if some zones of the country are at war, that person can go and live in an other part of their country”.

Fleeing for a second time

“I was afraid to get deported to Iraq, so I came to Italy” says Taha. Like many other asylum seekers, Mohamed, Salah and Taha, were advised to come to Italy, “when I arrived, many people helped me with the procedures to present my asylum case, and to get a place in the camp”. “Well, it is not easy, it is actually very hard, to handle the life here with no help” confirms Taha.

Many asylum seekers are coming to Italy after being rejected by Northern EU countries. “According to the rules of the Dublin regulation, if someone presents his asylum case in one EU country, he/she cannot seek asylum in another EU country”, emphasises Loprieno Donatella, researcher on migrant rights and professor at university of Calabria. “Dublin regulation defines which state has the obligation to evaluate the asylum cases presented by people who arrive in Europe,” says Francesca parisi, a lawyer specialised on migration issues and based in Palermo, Sicily.

But, even with such a rule, many asylum cases were recognized by Italy and were granted protection. According to Parisi, every country in Europe that signed the Dublin regulation has a free choice on its application, so when someone is rejected by an other European country, usually, they are given a provisory residence called a Dublin, waiting to decide if the case will be taken by Italy or if they will be sent back to the first country responsible for their case. Within a few months, if the country in question does not reply, then Italy will open their case.

For Fausto Melluso, responsible for immigration affairs in Sicily, he considers that Dublin regulation was never applied, “if you look at the statistics, where there are fewer asylum applications, these are the countries without external maritime borders, states that are hard to be the first country of entrance”. “I made the right choice by coming to Italy, I got subsidiary protection status some months ago” says Mohammed. “International protection is divided into two sections, political asylum and subsidiary protection, and in Italy, there is also humanitarian protection which was applicable unti 2 months ago” says Francesca Parisi

The absence of a EU perspective on asylum cases:

In Europe, there is a lack of desire for greater unity, according to Melluso, European countries do not have a common plan on asylum cases. Even though there are some international agreements like the Dublin regulation, every country judges asylum cases based on its own migration rules, confirms the lawyer Parisi.

Sharing the same perspective, Michala Bendixen, head of ‘Refugees Welcome” in Denmark emphasises, “A common EU asylum system is obviously a good idea and would solve such situations, but the EU cannot agree on such a system, the assessment in each country is very different.”

With all of this struggle, and without a future perspective, Taha and Salah are waiting for their asylum cases to be processed with the hope of getting the piece of paper that will give them safety once again. “I hope that Italy will not disappoint us” says Salah, “I am resisting this hardness and I hope to win in the end.” States Taha.

L'articolo Once Open Sweden Now a Hostile Environment for Refugees proviene da InsideOver.