Northern Europe during Pandemic -- Summers 2020 & 2021 & onwards

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes, that's absolutely right. Blanket restrictions of movement like stay at home orders are forbidden by Swedish and Finnish constitutions so there could be no real lockdown here even if someone thought it was a good idea.

However, I think Finland may have a more flexible power to declare a state of emergency than Sweden, where the constitution specifically withholds the right of the government to declare a state of emergency in peacetime.


How are things up there where you are? We have had a sharp rise of cases in Helsinki and people are getting nervous.

In Utsjoki was one tested positive last friday. They tested about everybody been in the same premises and all were negative so far. In Vadso was one case 17th november, none after that. Pretty calm..
I'm looking forward as I'm going to get the transport for the boat from Utsjoki to Vadso by Christmas, but they can't go over border if it gets closed again. Plan B is to chance the drivers (the trailer and the lift) on the border if that happens. Been studying the Norwegian Customs law not blew it and be forced pay VAT so it's my daughter importing the boat instead of me..

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Atlanticsailing

Best greetings to all from Long Island, Bahamas

Some of my friends think its nuts to exchange sailing locales from this technicolor paradise for Norway, but there is the best reason in the world to do so.... speculation happily accepted and the answer to be posted.

Meanwhile, advice/info/thoughts are sought as to cruising permits in Norway (summer) and winter land storage in Sweden.

I am told a foreign flagged vessel (my boat is registered in the USA) can get a cruising permit for about 3 months to sail Norwegian waters. A fee, naturally, is expected. Then the boat must leave Norwegian waters for XXX period of time before reentering and getting another permit.

Cruisers will recognize this as a pretty standard procedure, btw, here in the Bahamas. Arrive in early winter, get permit, depart in the spring, return perhaps next winter.

My question is about winter storage in Sweden, or Denmark for the winter, then return to Norway for the summer. Anybody out there have experience with this? I am planning on making this a multi-year experience, say for 5 years or so.

Thanks all, happy cruising and holidays!

Patrick

Excuse me. I've never heard of "Norwegian cruising permit", thou dunno if that's something for boats arriving outside Nordic countries, EU or Schengen?
There's just a limitation how long can foreign registered boat stay in Norway and, as far as I know it's two months which can be applied to extende up to a year plus another year with next application.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

In Utsjoki was one tested positive last friday. They tested about everybody been in the same premises and all were negative so far. In Vadso was one case 17th november, none after that. Pretty calm..
I'm looking forward as I'm going to get the transport for the boat from Utsjoki to Vadso by Christmas, but they can't go over border if it gets closed again. Plan B is to chance the drivers (the trailer and the lift) on the border if that happens. Been studying the Norwegian Customs law not blew it and be forced pay VAT so it's my daughter importing the boat instead of me..

Good luck!


For those reading this and wondering -- Norway is not part of the EU; hence the import issues.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Atlanticsailing

Best greetings to all from Long Island, Bahamas

Some of my friends think its nuts to exchange sailing locales from this technicolor paradise for Norway, but there is the best reason in the world to do so.... speculation happily accepted and the answer to be posted.

Meanwhile, advice/info/thoughts are sought as to cruising permits in Norway (summer) and winter land storage in Sweden.

I am told a foreign flagged vessel (my boat is registered in the USA) can get a cruising permit for about 3 months to sail Norwegian waters. A fee, naturally, is expected. Then the boat must leave Norwegian waters for XXX period of time before reentering and getting another permit.

Cruisers will recognize this as a pretty standard procedure, btw, here in the Bahamas. Arrive in early winter, get permit, depart in the spring, return perhaps next winter.

My question is about winter storage in Sweden, or Denmark for the winter, then return to Norway for the summer. Anybody out there have experience with this? I am planning on making this a multi-year experience, say for 5 years or so.

Thanks all, happy cruising and holidays!

Patrick

AFAIK, there are no "cruising permits" anywhere in Northern Europe. You deal with customs and immigration. Norway is not EU so I don't know the customs rules, but normally you are allowed to spend a certain amount of time before you have to "import" the boat and pay taxes. In the EU it's 18 months, and the clock is reset by just one day outside of EU waters. I'm sure Mr. Google will help with this.


As to immigration, I CAN help you with this as Norway, while not EU, is part of Schengen. So unless you have a long stay visa or residence permit, you have 90 days out of any 180 day period. All of Northern Europe is Schengen except Russia, and across the North Sea -- the UK. Denmark I believe has a bilateral agreement allowing Americans 90 days out of any 180 regardless of any previous stay in non-Nordic Schengen countries. This means for example that you could stay 90 days in Germany, 90 days in Denmark, 90 days in UK (e.g. cross the North Sea to Scotland), then go back to Germany. Schengen is a PITA; see many threads on the subject. Best of all is to get a resident permit or long stay visa somewhere in Schengen, then although you are officially limited to 90 out of 180 outside of your visa country, no one already checks or cares.


As to winter storage -- abundant, easy, and cheap in Denmark and Sweden. My boat is overwintering in a Danish fishing harbor, in the water.



As to WHY you would want to cruise in the Nordic region after the Carib -- having cruised both places extensively, I don't wonder at all -- I have been cruising this part of the world for the last 11 years and feel no desire to go back to the Caribbean. So my "speculation" is you learned that this is the best cruising in the world, and you want to partake.

[Dockhead]

The situation today:



More evidence that the curve is flattening in Lithuania and Sweden. That's good news. Hope it keeps going like that. The feared outbreak in Finland is still not occurring. Also good news. UK, and EU as a whole, doing very well indeed, with daily cases falling continuously.

What concerns deaths:

No big surprises here. But I think it's about time we saw death rates falling in countries with falling infection rates. We shall see.

[Dockhead]

According to this: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/12...19-coronavirus
a consensus has emerged that closing primary schools is a bad idea, because (a) it's extremely harmful to small children; and (b) primary schools are not such a significant transmission vector. Written as of December 2020. "A consensus has emerged that in-person teaching with young children is safer, and crucial for their development."

By May, the Danish and Norwegian health authorities were already saying that, and were regretting as "a mistake" that Denmark and Norway briefly closed their primary schools in March and April. By the time the school year started in Europe in September, this had become a pretty much pan-European view: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/w...lockdowns.html

Sweden closed high schools and unis during the spring, but never closed primary schools at any time -- Tegnell and his team reckoned that doing so would be (a) extremely harmful for young children; and (b) that primary schools aren't a major vector for transmission, a position which was then adopted all over the region.

It's taken 10 months, but it seems that there is a nearly global consensus on this now.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

According to this: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/12...19-coronavirus
a consensus has emerged that closing primary schools is a bad idea, because (a) it's extremely harmful to small children; and (b) primary schools are not such a significant transmission vector. Written as of December 2020. "A consensus has emerged that in-person teaching with young children is safer, and crucial for their development."

By May, the Danish and Norwegian health authorities were already saying that, and were regretting as "a mistake" that Denmark and Norway briefly closed their primary schools in March and April. By the time the school year started in Europe in September, this had become a pretty much pan-European view: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/w...lockdowns.html

Sweden closed high schools and unis during the spring, but never closed primary schools at any time -- Tegnell and his team reckoned that doing so would be (a) extremely harmful for young children; and (b) that primary schools aren't a major vector for transmission, a position which was then adopted all over the region.

It's taken 10 months, but it seems that there is a nearly global consensus on this now.

As far as I can tell this is still very contentious in the US. But as discussed, probably more for political reasons than scientific ones. The usual "opponents" that we'd expect, namely Trump and Repub governors on one "side," and Dems and the teachers' unions on the other. Those who claim the science is on their side, bemoan the "rejection of science" by their political opponents, or try to advance specious distinctions between scientific "fact vs. opinion," are often mere partisans using (or abusing) the science to advance political or personal agendas.

Having said this, I'm actually somewhat neutral on the merits of various Covid restrictions (incl. primary education) and reluctant to criticize, but mainly because of all the scientific unknowns policymakers have to try and balance. My problem instead is with the politicization of one of the most serious public health issues of our times, and one which always distorts the truth for the sake of unrelated personal and political agendas. It's heartening to read in this thread that this is not necessarily the norm in other countries.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Exile

As far as I can tell this is still very contentious in the US. But as discussed, probably more for political reasons than scientific ones. The usual "opponents" that we'd expect, namely Trump and Repub governors on one "side," and Dems and the teachers' unions on the other. Those who claim the science is on their side, bemoan the "rejection of science" by their political opponents, or try to advance specious distinctions between scientific "fact vs. opinion," are often mere partisans using (or abusing) the science to advance political or personal agendas.

How true. Sad, but true.

Originally Posted by Exile

Having said this, I'm actually somewhat neutral on the merits of various Covid restrictions (incl. primary education) and reluctant to criticize, but mainly because of all the scientific unknowns policymakers have to try and balance. My problem instead is with the politicization of one of the most serious public health issues of our times, and one which always distorts the truth for the sake of unrelated personal and political agendas. It's heartening to read in this thread that this is not necessarily the norm in other countries.

I agree completely. We don't have enough science to be totally sure about ANYTHING, so we have to do the best we can based on the best knowledge we can scrape together. At the beginning, it was largely guesswork and there is still a lot of guesswork today. Those who browbeat their political opponents with "science" very often grossly oversimplify the questions and grossly overstate the scientific evidence for what they are arguing for, and this becomes just another tiresome part of the culture wars, which does not lead to anything good, not any good critical thinking and thus no good policymaking.


Therefore like you I am cautious about making firm conclusions about any given measures. I am skeptical about lockdowns but I don't say that they should never be used -- I don't know. Probably they are effective and probably there are some desperate cases where there is no viable alternative. What seems to me to be really important, however, is to really organize like hell, communicate like hell, and whatever else you do, get all of the small, low-cost measures RIGHT, including doing a great job of educating the public with clear and unambiguous messages, and getting the public behind the measures. Instead wasting of fighting over the big dramatic and controversial measures. I guess this will turn out to be one of the major indicators of success when the dust has settled after all of this, and I guess the Nordic countries will look very good in this regard, as that is the main focus here.



What concerns primary schools -- I believe that the decision making is very much driven by the obvious harm which is done by closing them, harm which affects everyone in all parts of society (unlike lockdowns which affect working poor people but not the elites of society or even white collar workers that much), which creates political pressure to consider whether they are really necessary. Unfortunately those most affected by lockdown do not have such a political voice. And so policymakers consider that very big harm and weigh that against not all that clear benefit and it seems to make sense to open them.



In Sweden, the policymaking is uniquely insulated from politics because of the constitutional ban against "ministerial rule" in Sweden, so the health authorities were able to fall back on their longstanding pandemic plans and stick with those plans without interference from nervous politicians, and were able to make courageous, un-politicized decisions, like guessing that leaving primary schools open would not cause that much harm, while being enormously beneficial to small children and families with small children. That decision was a certain gamble, but it turned out the right way. Others, like failing to protect nursing homes, did not, of course turn out the right way.


It's similar in other Nordic countries, but Sweden protects the technocrats (like health authorities) more from political influence, than elsewhere.



And as you said, the political atmosphere is crucial. In countries with high public trust, the political leaders are able to take more nuanced measures without fear of the appearance of such measures being misused to skewer them by their opponents. Political leaders don't need to make a show of "taking bold action", or appearing "strong" -- they are given some slack to be thoughtful and nuanced. And maybe most importantly -- they are not afraid to admit errors (which are inevitable in such an unprecedented situation like this) and change course when something is not working -- for fear that they will be blamed for it. In polarized society, political leaders will double down and rationalize a wrong decision at all costs, to avoid being skewered by opponents. This is extremely harmful to good policy.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Atlanticsailing

My question is about winter storage in Sweden, or Denmark for the winter, then return to Norway for the summer. Anybody out there have experience with this? I am planning on making this a multi-year experience, say for 5 years or so.

Thanks all, happy cruising and holidays!

Patrick

Hi Patrick
I don’t have information about boat storage, but I do have some info regarding personal stays in Norway.

Post WWII (prior to Schengen) bilateral agreement were set up between several countries including Norway. These are not widely publicised. The agreement is still in place between Norway and Australia & NZ, and I think the US, but you would need to verify this by emailing the Norwegian embassy in the US.

This permits 90 days in Norway irrespective of prior time in any other non-Nordic EU country.

From experience, the customs officials in Norway tend not to be familiar with this agreement (we found this to be the case when visiting in summer of 2019), so it helps to have a recent email from the relevant embassy confirming this.

I had a response from the embassy in Australia within a day when I contacted them in 2019 prior to visiting Norway, so it is not difficult to obtain.

The relevant page on the Norwegian immigration website regarding bilateral agreements is:
https://www.udiregelverk.no/en/docum.../udi-2010-080/
It is not available in English, but together with the embassy email, this document is handy to have downloaded if you are ever questioned by officials.

During the current pandemic various additional restrictions are in place, including requirements to quarantine in a hotel for 10 days if you are arriving from a multitude of countries and are not a Norwegian resident. There are numerous exemptions to this rule:
https://www.fhi.no/en/op/novel-coron...ainer-14299688

It is essential to research these every changing requirements before planning voyages.

SWL

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The situation today:......

Hi Dockhead
I have been following your thread with interest, but without much to add as your thoughts have closely coincided with mine right from the start.

One comment regarding the graphs you are presenting. “Confirmed” cases will depend on the number of tests being done. This has varied dramatically from week to week, let alone from month to month, let alone from country to country. The significance of the graphs needs to be viewed with that in mind.

SWL

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Hi Patrick
I don’t have information about boat storage, but I do have some info regarding personal stays in Norway.

Post WWII (prior to Schengen) bilateral agreement were set up between several countries including Norway. These are not widely publicised. The agreement is still in place between Norway and Australia & NZ, and I think the US, but you would need to verify this by emailing the Norwegian embassy in the US.

This permits 90 days in Norway irrespective of prior time in any other non-Nordic EU country.

From experience, the customs officials in Norway tend not to be familiar with this agreement (we found this to be the case when visiting in summer of 2019), so it helps to have a recent email from the relevant embassy confirming this.

I had a response from the embassy in Australia within a day when I contacted them in 2019 prior to visiting Norway, so it is not difficult to obtain.

The relevant page on the Norwegian immigration website regarding bilateral agreements is:
https://www.udiregelverk.no/en/docum.../udi-2010-080/
It is not available in English, but together with the embassy email, this document is handy to have downloaded if you are ever questioned by officials.

During the current pandemic various additional restrictions are in place, including requirements to quarantine in a hotel for 10 days if you are arriving from a multitude of countries and are not a Norwegian resident. There are numerous exemptions to this rule:
https://www.fhi.no/en/op/novel-coron...ainer-14299688

It is essential to research these every changing requirements before planning voyages.

SWL

Note that time under bilateral agreements is pooled between Nordic countries. So you could stay for 90 days in Denmark and then stay another 90 days in Poland (I think it may even be 180 days in Poland), but you can't stay 90 days in Denmark and then 90 in Norway.



It's quite a tricky maze.

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Note that time under bilateral agreements is pooled between Nordic countries. So you could stay for 90 days in Denmark and then stay another 90 days in Poland (I think it may even be 180 days in Poland), but you can't stay 90 days in Denmark and then 90 in Norway.

It's quite a tricky maze.

Yes, that is why I added “This permits 90 days in Norway irrespective of prior time in any other non-Nordic EU country.”

It is an extremely tricky maze .

Loopholes are present though, that few people (including officials and including me until recently) seem to know about.

SWL

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Seaworthy Lass

Hi Dockhead
I have been following your thread with interest, but without much to add as your thoughts have closely coincided with mine right from the start.

One comment regarding the graphs you are presenting. “Confirmed” cases will depend on the number of tests being done. This has varied dramatically from week to week, let alone from month to month, let alone from country to country. The significance of the graphs needs to be viewed with that in mind.

SWL

Yes, absolutely. This is particularly true when trying to compare number of cases in the first wave with the second wave -- you actually can't -- because the volume of testing increased dramatically between now and then.

But all data of this sort needs to be taken with a grain of salt -- who is tested, how many are tested, etc. etc. etc. And the way deaths are counted also varies wildly -- in many countries a death is not counted if it takes place outside of a hospital, and not even then if there is no test performed, and they haven't been testing corpses.

I think the data are most useful for seeing TRENDS -- the shapes of the curves, at least, do not generally lie.

[Dockhead]

Swedish intensive care units are now about 1/3 full with COVID patients:

https://www.thelocal.se/20201201/for...-have-covid-19

This is far less than most other European countries, and there is still plenty of capacity so far, but this is not a good trend. During the summer Swedish ICU's were almost empty.


During the spring wave, ICU capacity in Sweden was fully doubled and hospitals were stressed but not overwhelmed. So if the second wave gets worse, there is still plenty of capacity in the system.



Sweden has one of the smallest numbers per capita of ICU beds in Europe (whereas Germany has one of the highest), but they seem to have an unusually large capacity for expanding them when needed. I wonder if this is because the Swedes simply don't do as much intensive care?

[B23iL23]

Yeah counting the number of tests doesn't make much sense. I've had 4 tests in the last 7 weeks (all clear!) but had none prior to that. We're just doing a hell of a lot more testing and so comparing to the previous wave still skew the numbers big time.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes, absolutely. This is particularly true when trying to compare number of cases in the first wave with the second wave -- you actually can't -- because the volume of testing increased dramatically between now and then.

But all data of this sort needs to be taken with a grain of salt -- who is tested, how many are tested, etc. etc. etc. And the way deaths are counted also varies wildly -- in many countries a death is not counted if it takes place outside of a hospital, and not even then if there is no test performed, and they haven't been testing corpses.

I think the data are most useful for seeing TRENDS -- the shapes of the curves, at least, do not generally lie.