It was difficult enough to agree on these measures. Because everyone knows that the virus cannot be controlled; at what point would that be possible? Instead, we should protect ourselves from a danger that cannot be seen. Therefore, behind the ambiguity in the formulations of leading politicians lies at least as much ambiguity in thinking.
This also applies to virologists. They may be experts in their field, but not pandemic management. That’s epidemiology, sociology, social psychology, has nothing to do with their profession, virologists only have authority based on the situation, and only borrowed it.
This describes the difference between the “what” and the “what then”; we have many specialists for the “what”. And for the other? Essentially it remains inconsistent. For example, just a few weeks ago it was said that decisions should be made regionally, sub-region and even locally. It was about how exactly measures could be adapted, in small pieces, exactly.
And now it is again decided nationally. Or in other words: trying to decide. Because it is not certain that what is decided will stand in court. This would be the next disaster for politics, which in this particular case urgently needs authority to enforce it among the citizens. She’s already seen a few.
[Wenn Sie alle aktuellen Entwicklungen zur Coronavirus-Pandemie live auf Ihr Handy haben wollen, empfehlen wir Ihnen unsere App, die Sie hier für Apple- und Android-Geräte herunterladen können.]
Any new retraction of decisions by the courts can be one too many. Why? Because judges also see: restaurants are being closed, but hundreds of thousands still take buses and trains every day, many to work. Restaurants are closed, even though they have hygiene concepts, apparently so good that the numbers show that they are not the driving forces behind the pandemic.
Personal responsibility and protection of risk groups
In contrast to celebrations at home, where – on the edge – the constitutional principle that the home is inviolable still applies. The police must come here. The lawsuits follow immediately. In short, we may not know where people are infected, but we know where they usually don’t, and that’s exactly where it is closing now.
Because it is unnecessary? Because it pretends to be sturdy. But that does not solve the problem. So what happens at the end of the month? How can politicians raise the Christmas issue without even having an answer? That takes even more authority. Citizens are already noticing that the alleged logic has been put forward.
[Alle wichtigen Updates des Tages zum Coronavirus finden Sie im kostenlosen Tagesspiegel-Newsletter “Fragen des Tages”. Dazu die wichtigsten Nachrichten, Leseempfehlungen und Debatten. Zur Anmeldung geht es hier.]
Because if there’s really the current emergency we’re talking about, then none of that is enough. Then everything has to be closed, locked, which is not absolutely necessary for survival. So then food retailers and pharmacies would still be open. For two weeks. Everyone stayed at home. The children too, of course. If that does not work?
Then something else has to go. Subsequently, on the one hand, the responsibility of the federal states and the citizens of the federal states for their lives must be emphasized, on the other hand, the risk groups must be protected. That sounds like the opposite of government education, which more and more people now dismiss as paternalism.
That sounds like: Dare more Swedes. But without the mistakes of the first wave, with an increasingly effective protection of the at-risk groups, with all the testing options, the safest masks, with enforceable rules of conduct and rules of access to housing … Agree on such a path, given the situation and the fears in but probably too difficult for politics.