Coronavirus: PM's justification for lockdown questioned

Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has been recognized internationally as one of the national leaders who has responded most resolutely and effectively to the coronavirus pandemic. She has been mentioned along with other woman leaders from New Zealand and Taiwan whose approach has been contrasted with that of reckless male leaders in the United States and Brazil, where the epidemic has gotten out of control. Now she has been accused of locking down Denmark under false pretenses (DK). The daily Jyllands-Posten has reviewed government memoranda from the days before the lockdown and found that Frederiksen’s assertion at the press conference on March 11 that it was “the authorities’ recommendation that we close down all unnecessary activity” was untrue.

Not the Health Authority

The day before the press conference, the Health Authority compiled a list of possible measures to take against the virus, and a lockdown and forcible intervention were not mentioned. A memorandum dated February 28 from Søren Brostrøm, the head of the Health Authority, indicates that the Authority was against a general intervention upon citizens’ freedom and that such measures should be permitted only in certain “specific situations.” In the March 11 announcement, Frederiksen did not say which authorities had made the recommendation. 

Kjeld Møller Pedersen, Professor of Healthcare Policy at Southern Denmark University says that “the government has misused the healthcare advice.” The day after the press conference, Parliament passed an emergency bill that gave the government power to dictate policy instead of the Health Authority. “It was not a pretty process,” says Kent Kristensen, Associate Professor of Healthcare Law at Southern Denmark University.

Now representatives of various political parties want to question Frederiksen about the process. Sophie Løhde from the Liberal Party says that “the prime minister has spoken untruthfully directly to the Danes.” The Social Liberals and the Red-Green Party, which support the administration, also want an explanation.

Administration defends the decision

Later on Friday, when she visited a museum that was reopening after two months, Frederiksen spoke to reporters about the accusations (DK). She said that government authorities recommended a partial lockdown of the country in order to minimize social contact. When asked which authorities did so if the Health Authority apparently did not, she said, “It was a broad group from the authorities that has advised us. And as a general principle, I won’t get into which words came from which authorities. . . . Specifically, how we closed Denmark and that we did it quickly were of course political decisions.”

In a written response to inquiries, Minister of Health Magnus Heunicke stated that “On the basis of an overall evaluation, the government made a decision according to a precautionary principle to close down all unnecessary activity in society.”

Any practical significance?

The healthcare spokesperson for the Liberal Party, which has been most critical of Frederiksen’s sometimes autocratic handling of the crisis, does not question whether the lockdown was the right decision (DK) but maintains, like several other parties, that the entire process should be investigated thoroughly after the crisis has passed.

The Ritzau agency was unable to get a comment from the Health Authority, which was closed because of the Ascension Day holiday. The story does not seem to be given much prominence in the main media sources. It appears very far down Danish Broadcasting Corporation’s home page (DK), for example.