“There is little doubt that Nyborg and some of her Swedish and Danish colleagues hit well with their predictions in March 2020.”, writes assistant health director Espen Rostrup Nakstad in his recent book «Code red».
– I also really appreciate that Nakstad, who I see as one of our most skilled professionals, supported my professional assessments. That means a lot, says Gunhild Alvik Nyborg to Dagbladet.
The researcher, doctor and socio-economist Nyborg became known overnight when she sat in an armchair in the “Debate” studio on 17 March last year to host Fredrik Solvang.
Self-praise from Nakstad
On Tuesday this week, one year and seven months later, she was back in the same studio. This time she faced book debutant Nakstad, who went to great lengths to give her doctor colleague right in her much-discussed statements from the year before.
Nyborg describes the two different performances as «two different worlds».
– When we look back at the program from March last year, it is difficult for us to remember how dramatic that time was. It was unlike anything else most of us have experienced, says Nyborg.
– Serious accusation
– The Germans are on their way
Five days after Prime Minister Erna Solberg introduced the strongest interventions in people’s lives since World War II, Nyborg believed that people still did not understand the seriousness of the situation. That there was a better, more drastic and harder line for the authorities to follow.
In an attempt to convey this seriousness, the researcher used war metaphors and potentially sky-high deaths. Among other things, she compared the pandemic with the German warship Blücher, which was sunk in the Oslo Fjord on 9 April 1940.
– This is war. It’s like saying that the Germans are on their way, but that it’s not that dangerous, because they’re probably not going to do that much damage. We can not have that attitude, she said at the time.
Sharp criticism after controversial Debate broadcast
Strong reactions
These frightening images provoked strong reactions.
The next day, NRK went out and took self-criticism for the feature after that FHI chief physician Preben Aavitsland had criticized talk time Nyborg got. The researcher and the doctor’s employer, Oslo University Hospital, distanced himself from Nyborg’s statements. The Broadcasting Council was strongly critical of Nyborg being allowed to join the council member Trude Drevland described as “horror propaganda”
The doctor also received incitement on social media, and she uses words such as blood mist and lightning mood to describe the situation she was in after her appearance on “Debatten”.
– I had to go against those who lead us for a time when it was important for us to stand together. Taking the role I did, it was probably not looked at with happy eyes. For me, this was a completely extreme situation, says Nyborg today.
– I knew I was taking a big, personal risk when I went out. I knew I could lose everything. At the same time, I still knew I had to do it. It rushed violently. The infection curves in Oslo went vertically upwards. Every day had so much to say. I felt a tremendous responsibility for many human lives, she continues.
view more
–
Got right in a lot
“Many who watched the TV broadcast were perhaps most frightened by Nyborg’s meta-consumption when she compared the situation we were in with April 9, 1940, and said that she really wanted to wear a face mask in the studio. If you see the recording in replay a year and a half later, however, her message appears to be far more sober than many remember it as, “writes Nakstad in the book” Code red “.
Here he points out, among other things, that Nyborg pointed out that the risk of infection with coronavirus was probably significantly greater than with an influenza virus, and that she referred to research from China which indicated that aerosols (airborne infections) could occur in small, closed rooms, for example in cramped rooms. lifts and toilets. Therefore, face masks should be used.
Nyborg got it right.
Nyborg tells Dagbladet that she has received many inquiries after the contents of Nakstad’s book became known.
– I get a whole overwhelming amount of support, and am humbly grateful for this. I have done the same during the whole pandemic. Received support both from people I do not know and from acquaintances. It has meant a lot, as I have been under extreme pressure, she says.
She is especially grateful to the professionals behind it coronakritikk.no.
– These are professionals I have collaborated with all the way. They have dared to risk accepting criticism by associating with me externally. It has meant a lot.
Get praise from professionals
“Sagittarius”
During Tuesday’s “Debate”, the assistant health director used the term “trench” about the mood on social media during parts of the pandemic. That the temperature was high, and the fronts steep. Nyborg shares that experience.
– This has hindered professional and open discussion, and may have resulted in us instead of listening to new research digging us even deeper into the trenches. We have to learn from that until next time. We must have room to adjust the course, we must have room to fail.
Although Nyborg was prepared to face criticism when she went so hard against the authorities’ strategy, she was still surprised that other professionals now feared doing the same.
– Several expressed support for me directly, but could not show it to others.
The researcher also describes what she experienced as backbiting, spreading rumors and pure invisibility.
– It ended up in pure conspiracy theories about me as a person.
– Missed ugly
Stands for the war metaphor
Despite all the criticism, Nyborg stands for what she said at the time. She still believes that the pandemic can be compared to a war.
– What other metaphor should you really use? There is nothing at this level. I understand that it was very scary, but it was important, says the researcher.
To emphasize why she thought it was right to go out so hard, she points to the United Kingdom, among other places.
– See how much it has cost the country. Look at countries like England. They waited too long, and had to take even stricter measures when they first started. People there did not take the authorities’ recommendations seriously enough. This has had major consequences. Very many have had long-term health problems, very many have died and their relatives are in mourning.
– The Norwegian population took it seriously, and the authorities here went quickly to stop the virus. This caused the development here to reverse. That was my goal. It had to be given priority in the precarious situation the country was in, she continues.
–
