Status: 14.10.2020 11:28 pm

The autumn pandemic in Germany is increasingly threatening. But politics does not seem capable of learning. The decisions that have been made now do not do justice to the contagion process or to the economy.

A comment from Thomas Kreutzmann, ARD capital studio

Fighting the corona pandemic is complicated. Germany is still learning, for example, what problems are caused by tracking infection chains. On the contrary, politics does not really seem capable of learning in this increasingly threatening autumn pandemic.

The arduous fight of today’s federal-state conference does not seem appropriate to the gravity of the situation, neither to the increase of infections nor to the economic depression. Contact restrictions here, mask requirement expansion there. That is not too much.

Non-repeal of absurd accommodation bans

Above all: even after lengthy negotiations, there was no general lifting of the absurd and legally controversial bans on accommodation. Even the Federal Minister of Health admits that traveling within Germany is not really the main problem with the spread of the virus.

Travel is considered by many scientists to be of secondary importance and accommodation bans excessive, while the economic consequences for the restaurant and hotel industries are devastating.

The curfew will exacerbate existential needs

And the general curfew will exacerbate the existential needs of the German hosts, while outside of restaurants not a few people consume their alcohol during the day in groups even after 11pm.

It can’t be repeated often enough, also at this point: almost all restrictions would be completely superfluous if large cities in particular were to consistently enforce existing crown rules. But as it stands, a decent majority population has been held hostage by selfish crown ignorant and party addicts, as in Berlin. Community consequence – nonexistent. It is hoped that Germany can now avoid cuts like in the Czech Republic or France, but it is unlikely.

Editorial note

Comments generally reflect the opinion of the respective author and not that of the editors.


At first