Umeå University's logo

During the covid19-pandemic, most governments imposed severe restrictions on their citizens. InNorway, the legal basis for the restrictions was the Act relating to control of communicable diseases(Lovdata, 2020). In comparison to most other countries, Norway had a low covid-19 infection rateand a small number of deaths. Some citizens reacted negatively to the travel-restrictions andquestioned the legitimacy of the restrictions on free movement, which is a constitutional right.Daytrips were allowed, but an over-night stay could lead to a severe fine and/or a long quarantineperiod. The citizens who went to court argued that to travel to their secondary home in their homecountryor in the neighbouring country of Sweden did not contribute to spreading the covid-19 virus,as compared to staying at home, and it did not cause harm to others. However, the Norwegian Supreme Court unanimously concluded in favour of the government. The Supreme Court argued thatthe Norwegian government did not have to provide scientific evidence in support of the restrictions.Moreover, The Supreme Court itself should not assess the base for, nor the effect of, the restrictions.As long as the Government believed that the restrictions were necessary, it could not be overruledby the court.

In a national survey of Norwegian citizens during 2022/23, we gave respondents the following fouralternatives to choose from:a) For restrictions, it is not necessary to document scientific evidence for the restrictions. It issufficient that the government believes that they will have the planned effect.b) The same as b. In addition, the Government has to outline what they think about the effect,and who they have consulted.c) The same as b. In addition, the Government has to outline what they think about the effect,and who they have consulted including giving information about disagreements (if any)among experts on the effects on the restrictions.d) The Government should only impose restrictions when the Government has scientificevidence for the effect of the restrictions.Of the 611 respondents, 40% chose the third alternative (c), an alternative that includeddocumentation but not scientific evidence. 29% chose alternative (b), and 25% chose alternative (d).Only 6% of respondents chose alternative (a), which was that it is not necessary for the governmentto document evidence for the effectiveness of the restrictions.