Such a naive statement. Of course it's a political issue. The next election is just around the corner and every politician worth his money would like to stay in power.

Let's pretend for a moment that it's not a political issue. Some science will say lockdown, another science will say no lockdown. Which science will you choose? If you vote it's not science anymore, if you appoint a science overlord it's again politics.

Sorry 22 yards, but I see that there is a political aspect to it. Seeing as the experts on reducing covid deaths are the qualified physicians and scientists, and the experts on saving the livelihoods of people come from other areas of expertise, there has to be someone who makes the decisions as to which side to lean towards.

I would hate to be the one making the decisions as the people on either extreme of the "do nothing" or "lock us all up" sides will never be happy. Some of the economists/health experts will be proclaiming doom and gloom no matter which measures are taken. As always, when involving politicians in the decision making process, they often base their decisions on what they assume their voters want to ensure their continued careers.

And that is exactly what they were voted in for!! I expect them to do nothing else! It's not fair to claim they (all) do their job accordingly just to keep their seat.

As to <<The question of whether to lock down is NOT a political issue.>> of course it is. There are laws and the constitution to consider, they're not simply nice-weather-sales arguments (Switzerland is a country, not an insurance company ). I'm glad Berset keeps pointing that out (the first, not the latter ).
Scientists are advisors, politics hast to try to find the best way considering all aspects. Should the scientists ever all agree on corona ...... na I still don't want politics to follow their opinion blind folded, actually.

__________________
If there is a God, then I believe he’s more insulted by religion than he is by atheism.

TODAY IN THE SPECTATOR
Not only is the government now being unclear about the source of its data but the modelling is using information that is three weeks old and, when checked against what has actually transpired, is proven woefully wrong!!!
How accurate is the modelling?
by Ross Clark
The graph presented by chief scientific officer Sir Patrick Vallance during Saturday’s press briefing suggested that, in the absence of a new lockdown, deaths from Covid-19 could reach 4,000 a day by Christmas. To put this scenario in context, deaths in the first peak back in April peaked at just over 1,000 a day.
Back in spring, a pre-publication copy of Neil Ferguson’s paper – the Imperial College London modelling of Covid-19 deaths which sent Britain into the first lockdown – was released, so we could all see the assumptions and reasoning behind it. Saturday’s graph did not even reveal the source of the 4,000 deaths a day claim – although it has subsequently been revealed to be a Cambridge/Public Health England (PHE) estimate.
Now, Daniel Howdon, a research fellow at the Leeds Institute of Health Sciences and Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, have discovered that the Cambridge/PHE graph dates from three weeks ago. The pair have analysed the data and deduced that it predicted that deaths would be running at 1,000 a day by 1 November – i.e. yesterday. In fact, deaths have not turned out to be at anything like that level. The average for the past seven days (which smoothes out the ‘weekend effect’) is 214 deaths per day.
The other graphs presented on Saturday, according to Howdon and Heneghan, are also at least three weeks old. The second most frightening projection came from Imperial College London, which showed deaths peaking at just over 2,500 a day by January. This scenario also showed that deaths would be running at 486 a day by 1 November – more than twice as high as has happened in practice. The London School and Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and University of Warwick projections, which showed deaths peaking at around 2,000 a day predicted 266 and 234 deaths a day by 1 November respectively.
Howdon and Heneghan point to their own preferred mortality projections, published by the MRC Biostatistics Unit at the University of Cambridge. These only go two weeks ahead, due to the huge uncertainties involved in trying to make forecasts further into the future. Pointedly, its predictions have been falling in the past three weeks: on 12 October it predicted 588 deaths for 30 October. By 21 October it was predicting 324 deaths for 31 October. Even that has turned out to be 50 per cent higher than the reality.
Why, then, did the government present us with graphs based on studies which have already proven to be overly pessimistic? The very small print at the bottom of the graphs presented by Sir Patrick Vallance described them as ‘scenarios’ and not predictions. Nevertheless, that is exactly how they will have been taken by many viewers.

Don’t usually quote myself but Neuchâtel just announced new restrictions but not quite as drastic as Geneva.
Bars and restaurants and other entertainment venues are to be closed from Wednesday evening.

I agree. And I think it's mainly the politicians who have been trying to turn it into a political issue as well as those who think that politicians have a better understanding of viruses and pandemics than do doctors and scientists. It's interesting how some people try to negate science when it suits them and yet what will they turn to when they themselves are sick, or someone they love?

Personally, I'd rather see a month or two of lockdown, to get those numbers down to a manageable level again, than to see us drag this thing out as long as possible in order to try to prevent what will most likely become an inevitable lockdown, anyways. It's better to try to get this thing under control while that's even still possible.

No.

22yds very specifically wrote...

'The question of whether to lock down is NOT a political issue.'

The question is not a political issue. The decision to do so is.
The question is posed and answered by the scientific and medical advisors based upon their data and evidence. The decision to enact that finding is the political aspect because they have to balance it against other concerns and have the legislation in place.

I don't think politicians have a better understanding of the health issue, I also don't think they have a better understanding of the economic issue. But they are the ones who are advised and make the decisions.

In the same way as when a road is being built, it is not the experts on one side that get to decide what happens. One expert might advocate for reduced congestion and environmental pollution in a city, another expert from a different field might say the road can't be built because it will destroy the nesting grounds of some bird. Both might be 100% right but they can't both get their way.

And that is why our vote is so important & why lobbying is so dangerous...here is a perfect example as to how politics and the decisions politicians make can very much impact our health and quality of life.

Of course it's a 100% political issue. Scientists can advise but they don't have to take responsibility and are not accountable. Politicians use the advice, decide and are accountable, making a lock down decision by definition a political issue.

Canton Vaud will announce its decision this Wednesday

"November 2, 2020
After the holding of an extraordinary meeting on Monday, the Canton Council is continuing to examine the strengthening of measures to combat the COVID-19 epidemic and protect the population; it will communicate its decisions this Wednesday."

https://www.vd.ch/

Its really, really dangerous to say it is not a political decision. Any decision that affects basic human rights is a decision that needs to be taken by people who are accountable. That is to say, elected politicians. If you want decisions taken by unaccountable people, then you do not believe in democracy. Simple as that. Politicians can not "take a back seat". They must consult the various experts and be ready to explain to the electorate why the decisions they made were correct, or at least understandable based on the situation at the time.

Thus, a political decision, informed by scientists, economists, etc. etc.

Imagine you "leave it to the experts". And they get it wrong. Who do you hold accountable? Where is the check on their power? Who puts them in power? Why them over any other expert? What is the mechanism for revolving disputes between different experts?

Not only that - its also grossly unfavour to career scientists to leave them entirely open to the court of the public opinion without political shielding. They deserve to say their piece without fear or favour.

Yet further, an epidemiologist alone does not have the skills to run a government response. They might be able to determine how much "opening" we can manage, but the choice of what sectors should be opened an which should remain closed given this scope is not a scientific one. We need to bring in the economists, the educationalists. etc.

Yes, of course the politicians are the ones who make the decisions. But the reality is that some of them choose to ignore science.

Undoubtedly some flat out ignore science, but most listen to the experts who don't agree with some of the scientists. This problem is not black and white, I would hope that all valid experts are heard, wouldn't you?

Ouch. I'm sorry to hear that, Pancakes. I really hope everything will be all right, fingers crossed. As far as I know schools are not covid-19 hot spots. Children, especially those under the age of 12 are less susceptible to infection than adults. Apparently once they are infected they are less likely to pass the virus on to others. Out of curiosity, did someone contact you? Have you received any official note or instructions? Did the school write any e-mail to the parents? Is someone else going to quarantine or just that one child? I think the teachers should be the focus of measures there.
I wish you and yours all the best.

No, you're wrong. Of course it's a political decision. Unelected experts do not decide policy, elected politicians do. It is decided by the elected politicians who need to find a balance between competing objectives, no by unelected virologists who have only one objective.

Once again you are confusing what you BELIEVE IN with what it is IN REALITY.

Keeping the economy alive (at least those sectors that can still run without a lockdown) while also taking care of all people and reducing the number of deaths? We should all hope for balanced solutions. Also, younger generations' educational needs are not to be discounted. Balanced solutions.

We have roughly 40 classes in my school, and most of them have at least one kid who’s in quarantine because of an infected parent or because they’re sick themselves.

School is not allowed to communicate with the other parents for confidentiality reasons, and only the cantonal doctor can decide to close a classe or a whole school. They did it for a class where I work because 4 kids were tested positive a few weeks ago. All the students had to go get tested.

I have nothing against lobbying if it is transparent...if they make decisions that can affect everyone else but benefit only a fraction (including politicians themselves), they should be held responsible.

This is exactly where you have gone wrong. Science can (sometimes) tell you what consequences your actions will have, it says nothing about what you should do, that's the question of policy. Which is political by definition.