Showing posts with label Switzerland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Switzerland. Show all posts

Monday, June 16, 2025

For-profit hospitals flourish in Switzerland

Since 2012, the government of Switzerland has successfully integrated private for-profit hospitals into its system of universal health coverage. 

Integrating Private Health Care into Canada’s Public System: What We Can Learn from Switzerland | Fraser Institute | Yanick Labrie:

June 12, 2025 - Executive Summary 

"Access to timely care remains the Achilles’ heel of Canada’s health systems. To reduce wait times, some provinces have partnered with private clinics for publicly funded surgeries—a strategy that has proven effective, but continues to spark debate in Canada. This study explores how Switzerland successfully integrates private health care into a universal public system.... 

  • In Switzerland, universal coverage is delivered through a system of managed competition among 44 non-profit private insurers, while decentralized governance allows each of the 26 cantons to coordinate and oversee hospital services in ways that reflect local needs and priorities.
  • Nearly two-thirds of Swiss hospitals are for-profit institutions; they provide roughly half of all hospitalizations, births, and hospital beds across the country.
  • All hospitals are treated equally—regardless of legal status—and funded through the same activity-based model, implemented nationwide in 2012.
  • The reform led to a significant increase in the number of cases treated without a corresponding rise in expenditures per case, suggesting improved efficiency, better use of resources, and expanded access to hospital care.
  • The average length of hospital stay steadily decreased over time and now stands at 4.87 days in for-profit hospitals versus 5.53 days in public ones, indicating faster patient turnover and more streamlined care pathways.
  • Hospital-acquired infection rates are significantly lower in private hospitals (2.7%) than in public hospitals (6.2%), a key indicator of care quality.
  • Case-mix severity is as high or higher in private hospitals, countering the notion that they only take on simpler or less risky cases.
  • Patient satisfaction is slightly higher in private hospitals (4.28/5) than in public ones (4.17/5), reflecting strong user experience across multiple dimensions.

"Canada could benefit from regulated competition between public and private providers and activity-based funding, without breaching the Canada Health Act."

Read more: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/integrating-private-health-care-canadas-public-system-what-we-can-learn-switzerland

Read study: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2025-06/integrating-private-health-care-into-canadas-public-system.pdf

Monday, April 10, 2023

Swiss no longer recommend Covid vaccination

Switzerland's Office of Public Health is not recommending Covid vaccination for spring and summer 2023, even for high-risk individuals. Those at especially high risk can still get the vaccine following a doctor's recommendation; others who wish to be vaccinated may do so at their own expense. 

Coronavirus: Vaccination | Federal Office of Public Health FOPH:

April 3, 2023 - "In principle, no COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for spring/summer 2023. People at especially high risk can receive a vaccination following an individual consultation with their doctor....

"Nearly everyone in Switzerland has been vaccinated and/or contracted and recovered from COVID-19. Their immune system has therefore been exposed to the coronavirus. In spring/summer 2023, the virus will likely circulate less. The current virus variants also cause rather mild illness. For autumn 2023, the vaccination recommendation will be evaluated again and adjusted accordingly....


Photo courtesy Fair Observer.

"[I]t is also not currently recommended for people at especially high risk to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. They can, however, receive a vaccination following an individual consultation with their doctor. Vaccination may be wise in individual cases, as it improves protection against developing severe COVID-19 for several months. This applies regardless of the number of vaccinations you have already received.

"People at especially high risk include:

  • People aged 65 or over
  • People aged 16 or over with a chronic condition
  • People aged 16 or over with Down’s syndrome
  • Pregnant women

"If a wave of infection were to emerge in spring/summer 2023, the vaccination recommendation would be adjusted....

"The COVID-19 vaccination can be given from 6 months after the last COVID-19 vaccination or from 6 months after a known coronavirus infection..... We advise you to get vaccinated with a bivalent (i.e. variant-adapted) mRNA vaccine or with the protein-based Novavax vaccine. Which vaccine(s) you have previously received is of no importance here.... If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have a severely weakened immune system, you should get yourself vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine....

"[N]o COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for spring/summer 2023. People who want to get vaccinated without a recommendation (e.g. for a trip) can get the vaccination but have to pay for it themselves....

"[If you are] someone at especially high risk, you can receive a vaccination following an individual consultation with your doctor. A vaccination recommended by your doctor is free of charge for you and is covered by compulsory health insurance."

Read more: https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-epidemien-pandemien/aktuelle-ausbrueche-epidemien/novel-cov/impfen.html

Monday, June 6, 2022

India's Supreme Court rules no one can be forced to be vaccinated

India's courts get it right on vaccine mandates — and Canada doesn't | National Post - Rupa Subramanya:

May 5, 2022 - "On May 2, in a landmark judgment, India’s Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, ruled that 'no one can be forced to be vaccinated' and that 'bodily integrity and personal autonomy' are protected under the law as a constitutional right. Citing emerging scientific opinion 'which appears to indicate that the risk of transmission of the virus from unvaccinated individuals is almost on par with that from vaccinated persons,' the judicial bench went on to argue that since infection rates are currently low, restrictions imposed on the unvaccinated, including those that curtail their freedom of movement and access to welfare and other services, are not 'proportionate,' and urged organizations that imposed these restrictions to review these measures and modify them as necessary.

"The court was responding to a plea filed by a former member of the country’s national advisory group on immunization, seeking disclosure on vaccine clinical trials and the posting of vaccination-adverse events data. The plea argued that Indian states’ legislation mandating vaccination for government employees and as a precondition for accessing welfare and other services, including travel in public transport, was a violation of basic individual rights and, therefore, unconstitutional. The federal government in India itself has not issued any vaccine mandates and has always maintained that it is a voluntary, individual choice.... 

"What is fascinating is that this extraordinary Supreme Court judgment in India is in the context of a Westminster system, a system originating in the United Kingdom but also, of course, shared by Canada....  While India’s Supreme Court has clearly circumscribed the extent to which the federal or state governments can impinge on individual rights in the interest of public health, it’s noteworthy that nothing comparable has occurred in Canada. This is striking, given the similarities between the two countries’ judicial systems.

"Why haven’t we seen greater pushback from the courts in Canada against federal and provincial vaccine mandates? While there have been numerous challenges at both the federal and provincial levels, arbitrators have been exceptionally deferential to the mandates, agreeing, in particular, with the federal government’s rationale that vaccine mandates are justified to protect the safety of the workplace. Given this, and the fact that courts are loath to intervene, federal government vaccine mandates in Canada have remained almost entirely intact....

"The niceties of our legal system’s culture of deference aside, Canada is increasingly an outlier amongst comparable advanced Western democracies in how our governments, especially the federal government, are handling the end game of the pandemic. On May 2, Switzerland, and Greece at the same time, lifted all remaining pandemic-related travel restrictions. Visitors, and returning residents, no longer need to show proof of vaccination, proof of recovery, or a recent negative test. Even New Zealand, which had one of the strictest pandemic responses in the world while pursuing a “zero Covid” policy, has not required domestic travellers to provide proof of vaccination or a negative COVID test to fly domestically since April 13, and, as of May 1, international travellers no longer need to show proof of vaccination to board a flight.

"Given that other advanced Western countries are walking back pandemic rules and clearly have the end game in sight, why is the Trudeau government not easing its vaccine mandates? It’s becoming increasingly clear that, at this point, it’s not about the science. The rationale for mandates was originally to curb transmission of the virus, but, in the wake of the highly transmissible Omicron variant and its newer sub-variants, this renders vaccine mandates absolutely nonsensical, given that the vaccinated — even those with three or even four doses — are becoming infected and are transmitting the virus. This was even recognized by the World Health Organization [WHO] in an April 2021 policy brief. For whatever it’s worth, the WHO says vaccine mandates should be used 'only as an absolute last resort.' Many countries have gotten the memo — but not the Trudeau government."

Read more: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rupa-subramanya-indias-courts-get-it-right-on-vaccine-mandates-and-canada-doesnt

Monday, February 8, 2021

Lockdown protests go worldwide in 2021

Swiss march in lakeside tax haven to protest COVID-19 lockdown | Reuters - Arnd Wiegmann:

February 6, 2021 - "Some 500 protesters marched through the Swiss tax haven of Zug on Saturday, wearing white protective suits and chanting dystopian slogans to voice displeasure with rules aimed at limiting the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. The demonstration was reminiscent of a rally a week ago in Vienna, where thousands opposed to that country’s even-stricter lockdown faced off against police. Though Switzerland’s restrictions have been less severe than those in Germany, Austria or Italy -- restaurants and non-essential shops are closed but ski areas are open -- there is still a steady buzz of opposition.

"In Zug, police watched but did not intervene."

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-swiss-protests-idUSKBN2A60NK


Anti-lockdown demonstrations continue in Europe | WION:

Feb. 7, 2021 - "Hundreds of people took to the streets of Copenhagen on Saturday night to protest Denmark's Covid-19 restrictions and the country's plans for a digital vaccination certificate. Organised by a group calling itself 'Men in Black Denmark,' some 600 people gathered in the bitter cold in front of the parliament building to protest the 'dictatorship' of Denmark's partial lockdown. 

"Main target of people's anger was plan for digital vaccine 'passport'.... Protest organisers say such a passport implies an obligation to be vaccinated and amounts to a further restriction on individual freedom. Vaccination is not compulsory in Denmark."

Read more: https://www.wionews.com/world/anti-lockdown-demonstrations-continue-in-europe-361948


What’s driving the COVID lockdown protests? | Al Jazeera - Elizabeth Melimopoulos: 

February 7, 2021 - "Since the start of the year, widescale anti-lockdown demonstrations leading to arrests have taken place in cities across Europe, North America and the Middle East, the latest in a wave of demonstrations that first erupted in March last year, when governments initially imposed restrictions.

"In the Netherlands, there were more than 500 arrests nationwide in relation to violent protests against the introduction of a lockdown and nighttime curfew in late January, the first in the European country since World War II. Last weekend, anti-lockdown protests took place in Belgium, Austria, Hungary, France, Spain and Denmark.

"Lockdowns have been financially devastating for millions of people who have been unable to work and lost their incomes. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), unemployment has soared across major economies since the beginning of the pandemic. The IMF estimates that the global economy shrank by 4.4 percent in 2020, the worst decline since the Great Depression of the 1930s....

"But the financial impact of lockdowns has been felt most acutely in developing economies, where people are less likely to be able to work remotely and individuals and businesses are less likely to have sufficient savings to cover for losses. Lebanon was already suffering a financial and economic crisis when the pandemic struck and its economy is expected to contract by 19.2 percent in 2020 and a further 13.2 percent this year, according to the World Bank. After the government imposed a strict lockdown in January, protesters poured into the streets of Tripoli demanding the government provide more financial support for citizens....

"Financial hardship has also fuelled protests in Latin America, with protests taking place in Peru and Mexico in recent weeks after lockdowns were imposed.... Last year, Mexico saw several protests against the lockdowns from retail and hospitality workers and street vendors. The demonstrations resumed in January, when restaurant employees in Mexico City protested against a renewed lockdown and some businesses reportedly opened in defiance of the restrictions. Renewed protests were held in the city on Thursday."

Read more: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/7/protests-over-new-covid-19-measures-whats-behind-them

Monday, November 23, 2020

Nordic nations reject lockdown consensus

by George J. Dance

Good morning, Toronto and the world. Welcome to Monday, November 23, 2020: Another day and another week in the ongoing struggle between lockdowners and libertarians. On a grim note, I am locked down again as of today, as is the rest of my city. CBC News has the story: 

November 23, 2020 - "Toronto and Peel Region have officially moved into 'lockdown' as Ontario tries to curb the province's steep rise in COVID-19 cases. The shutdown will last a minimum of 28 days and could result in fines as high as $750 for people caught breaking public-health rules. Confused about what those rules are? This guide will help." 

Read more: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/open-closed-peel-toronto-lockdown-covid19-1.5812048 

Things look grim all over today. For the past two months the coronavirus has resurged in the northern hemisphere, with case rates soaring in both Europe and North America. The media panic has surged right in step, followed in turn by a new wave of lockdowns. At least 13 European nations have been locked down again. Here in Canada, Manitoba and Nunavut are closed, while regional lockdowns have been imposed on parts of Quebec, British Columbia, and Ontario. 

For a libertarian, it is hard to find any good news on this front. But there is good news out there, if one can only find it. Perhaps the best is that two Nordic countries, Finland and Norway, have rejected a second lockdown. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has that story: 

November 18, 2020 - "While the U.S. and Europe struggle to contain an autumn surge in coronavirus infections, two small nations are bucking the trend, keeping cases under control without stringent restrictions. In the north of Europe, Finland and Norway boast the West’s lowest rates of mortality linked to Covid-19 and a low incidence of coronavirus infections even though they have kept their economies and societies largely open while lockdowns returned to the continent.

"While Sweden has captured global attention with its refusal to adopt mandatory restrictions – a policy now being reversed in the face of spiraling infections and deaths – its two northern neighbors now stand out as the closest Western equivalents to Asian nations that have managed to avoid the worst of the pandemic. Their recipe: a brief, targeted lockdown in March, followed by tight border controls with mandatory testing and quarantine for all travelers."

Read more: https://www.wsj.com/articles/finland-and-norway-avoid-covid-19-lockdowns-but-keep-the-virus-at-bay-11605704407

Denmark has had one regional lockdown this fall, thanks to a species jump by the virus to mink and back to humans, but there is no sign of a national lockdown there, either. There is a rumor that the Danish state had to withdraw a draconian Covid bill in the face of widespread public protests (more good news if true) but I have not been able to confirm any of that. Meanwhile, the other two Nordic nations – Iceland and Sweden – were never locked down at all. So it could be that the whole Nordic region has turned its back on the lockdown craze. 

To be clear, Norway and Finland have not decided to "be like Sweden." Instead, it looks like their plan is to be like Iceland and keep the virus out by quarantining everyone who enters the country, at least until the deus ex machina of a safe and effective vaccine arrives. Sweden, which has resigned itself to the coronavirus becoming endemic, is still the outlier on that point. However, that makes no difference to libertarians, who can live with either strategy and either end. What is important to us is their rejection of forcibly disrupting their own societies as a means.  

The Swiss government, too, has rejected a new national lockdown. Only the Financial Times, hidden behind its paywall, has carried that story that I can see, so I can give merely a headline and link: 

"Switzerland holds out against following its neighbours into new lockdown". https://www.ft.com/content/7a29da5b-2110-4773-8320-6b344da37a6e  

Meanwhile, in the lockdown-loving media there has been a full-court press on Sweden, the non-lockdown state with the most fatalities. (Notice the snark in even the WSJ 's reporting.)  Cases, hospitalizations, and deaths have all increased sharply in Sweden this month: there may be 600 deaths there in November, as opposed to just 60 in October. Stories about the failure of "the Swedish experiment"  are ubiquitous on the web. Surely that failure is proof positive that lockdowns, and only lockdowns, can prevent mass death? Surely the country will lock down any day now? 

Surely not. For one thing, 600 deaths (while tragic) does not equate to mass death. For another, there is no reason to assume that a lockdown could have prevented any of those deaths. Whether lockdowns save lives is precisely the hypothesis in question in this experiment, in which Sweden (the only country to stick with traditional disease mitigation) is not the outlier but the control. The test is not how well Sweden does, but how well it is doing compared to the countries that locked down. And in some double-lockdown countries, the  death toll has been far higher. 

At the end of summer, Sweden had the fifth largest number of deaths with Covid per capita in Europe, behind only Belgium, Spain, Italy and the UK (not counting microstates with less than 100,000 people). Since then it has fallen from #5 to #10 in rank, being overtaken successively by France, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Czechia. All of #1 through #9 are in lockdown. All of them but North Macedonia have been locked down twice. And all of them are doing worse, per capita, than Sweden.  


Graph courtesy CTV News

In fairness, that is not the end of the story. At least four double-lockdown nations – Austria, Germany, Ireland, and Poland –  currently have less deaths per capita than Sweden. Deaths in those four countries are rising, though, just as they are rising in the Nordic nations and Switzerland. We need more data before judging the ability (essential to judging the need) of lockdowns to save lives.  

Saturday, August 4, 2018

Carbon extraction becoming commercially viable

Sucking carbon dioxide from air is cheaper than scientists thought - Jeff Tollefson, Nature:

June 7, 2018 - "Siphoning carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere could be more than an expensive last-ditch strategy for averting climate catastrophe. A detailed economic analysis published on 7 June suggests that the geoengineering technology is inching closer to commercial viability.

"The study, in Joule, was written by researchers at Carbon Engineering in Calgary, Canada, which has been operating a pilot CO2-extraction plant in British Columbia since 2015. That plant — based on a concept called direct air capture — provided the basis for the economic analysis, which includes cost estimates from commercial vendors of all of the major components. Depending on a variety of design options and economic assumptions, the cost of pulling a tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere ranges between US$94 and $232. The last comprehensive analysis of the technology, conducted by the American Physical Society in 2011, estimated that it would cost $600 per tonne.....

"'We’re really trying to commercialize direct air capture in a serious way, and to do that, you have to have everybody in the supply chain on board,' says David Keith, acting chief scientist at Carbon Engineering and a climate physicist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

"Founded in 2009, Carbon Engineering is one of a few companies pursuing direct air capture technologies. One competitor, Climeworks in Zurich, Switzerland, opened a commercial facility last year that can capture 900 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere each year for use in greenhouses. Climeworks has also opened a second facility in Iceland that can capture 50 tonnes of CO2 a year and bury it in underground basalt formations.

"Climeworks says that capturing a tonne of CO2 at its Swiss plant costs about $600. Company officials expect the figure to dip below $100 per tonne in 5-10 years as operations ramp up. In the meantime, Carbon Engineering’s paper provides the most detailed look yet at the cost of such technology....

"In the end, the economics of CO2 extraction will depend on factors that vary by location, including the price of energy and whether or not a company can access government subsidies. But the cost per tonne is still likely to remain above the market price of carbon for the foreseeable future.... But CO2-extraction technology could gain a foothold in markets where the CO2 can be sold at a premium, or converted into a useful product like fuel....

"Carbon Engineering hopes to build a small facility that can produce 200 barrels of fuel per day by 2021, and then a commercial plant that can produce 2,000 barrels per day. 'This is completely doable industrial technology,' [Keith] says. 'We just need to begin, set up markets and see what happens.'”

Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05357-w
'via Blog this'

Saturday, December 30, 2017

Swiss students fight against mandatory TV fees

How Swiss students fight against imposed TV fees | Freedom Today Network - Bill Wirtz:

November 20, 2017 - "Together with other classical liberals in Switzerland, Frédéric Jollien is fighting against the royalties imposed by the government for media consumption. 450 Swiss Francs, the equivalent of €382, is the annual fee that consumers need to pay, regardless if they want state-run TV and radio channels or not. 'We are not trying to abolish anything. We merely want consumers to choose for themselves which channels they want to watch.', says Frédéric, who works in the campaign of 'NoBillag', the citizen's initiative that intends to overturn the fee via referendum.

"The state-run channels in Switzerland date back to World War One, when they were used to communicate with the citizens. The government had completely monopolised both TV and radio 'for security reasons'. After the war period, Switzerland opened the market to private media companies, but it kept the 'Billag' fee in order to pay for the state channels which still absolutely dominate the market until this day.

"The fee even has its own website www.billag.ch, on which the mandatory contribution is explained as follows: 'In Switzerland, you are legally obligated to pay the radio and television fees. By paying the fees you enable radio and television programmes in every part of Switzerland.'

"Which almost sounds like you couldn't have any TV or radio stations if it wasn't for governmental control. For Frédéric Jollien, who is a Senior Local Coordinator for European Students for Liberty and founder of Swiss Students for Liberty, this description is dishonest: 'The opponents to our campaign claim that without the "Billag", nobody would pay for state channels, yet they simultaneously also argue that people are very fond of the content. Which one is it now?'

"The 'NoBillag' campaign has been working on the issue of media royalties for three years now, and effectively managed to get their citizen's initiative approved. This means that a public vote on the repeal of the 'Billag' will take place on March 4, 2018. Until then, the campaign is tirelessly working to promote its ideas.

"However, running such a campaign demands considerable efforts: 'The government has extended the "Billag" to include private companies as well. Despite them only receiving less than 10 per cent of the revenue generated by the fee, they now also have vested interests in keeping it in place'.... The print media is equally unimpressed by the 'NoBillag' campaign, as owners also seek to convince the government to initiate large subsidies for the papers, the same way it is practiced in countries like France.....

"Jollien is very optimistic regardless: 'We started a crowdfunding campaign and raised over 50,000 Francs in only ten days, bringing us closer of our 100,000 CHF objective. But not only that: several polls have indicated that we might very well be able to win the public vote!'

"[J]ournalists (who by the way, are exempt from paying this fee) are releasing heavy verbal fire on the campaigners. They claim it would cause massive unemployment in the media sector, that it is anti-democratic or that it would enable big foreign companies to take over the Swiss market. "It's actually quite peculiar: the Swiss conservatives, who are usually the ones spreading fear of foreigners, support us because they believe that state media is being biased against them, while the Left opposes us because they believe the evil foreign media channels from Germany, Italy and France will eat us up. This shows how strange the idea of a free market can sound to people', says Frédéric."

Read more: https://ftn.media/how-swiss-students-fight-against-imposed-tv-fees
'via Blog this'