[ad_1]
WORLD: Ms. Edenharter, according to the Federal Chancellor, it is currently not possible to say exactly how many people were most recently infected with Corona. You “guess and know” that the incidence is well above 50. Are these facts enough to reinforce the already severe restrictions on fundamental rights?
Andrea Edenharter: Daily incidence values are published for individual cities and districts. From figures from the Bavarian State Food Safety and Health Office for January 8, for example, it appears that some cities and districts of the Free State are well below the value of 100, one city and one district even below of 50. With all due caution these figures should be treated due to the holidays, in my opinion it is disproportionate to impose measures such as the closure of schools and stricter contact restrictions for all cities and districts in an undifferentiated way.
On the other hand, of course, there are cities and municipalities with an incidence of 300 and more. Tighter measures can be indicated here. The need for such regional differentiation is also provided for in the new Infection Protection Act.
WORLD: Tightening of contact restrictions should apply across the board. So does that contradict the new Infection Protection Act?
Edenharter: The stricter measures are also fundamentally in line with the Infection Protection Act. However, the law also establishes that protection measures can be adopted taking into account the respective regional contagion process. To me, this is an indication that gradual measures are needed, especially in territorial states.
WORLD: Before their last posts, prime ministers and the chancellor consulted mainly doctors. Should other scientists, for example experts in education or economics, be involved before making such far-reaching decisions?
Edenharter: It is always problematic if you only listen to certain groups of experts. Therefore, there is a lack of a good knowledge base on the basis of which well-thought decisions can be made. There is also the risk that decisions are based solely on modeling and no longer on the actual conditions in which people live.
Which worries me at least as much: once again, the Bundestag was not involved before the measures were adopted, which massively interfere with our fundamental rights. This compromises the will of the population to cooperate, damages the established mechanisms of the democratic constitutional state and provides radical forces like the AfD with a cheap pretext to pretend to be the guardians of fundamental rights.
WORLD: According to the resolutions, meetings are limited to one household and one additional person. In some federal states, this also applies to younger children, who can no longer easily get together to play. Do you still consider this measure justified?
Edenharter: I consider the strict contact restrictions in view of the Basic Law to be very problematic. This makes contact with their peers largely impossible, especially for younger children. The Child Protection Association rightly points out that children absolutely need contact with their peers for healthy development. Additionally, the new regulation in the federal states, which have yet to provide any exceptions for young children, also applies to infants. In fact, a breastfeeding mother will no longer be able to visit family and friends because, of course, she cannot be alone for a long time.
“I consider the strict contact restrictions with a view to the Basic Law very problematic”: Andrea Edenharter, constitutional lawyer at the Staatliche Fernuni Hagen
Those: Andrea Edenharter
Regulations are also problematic because we still don’t know for sure what role children play in spreading the infection. For such massive invasions of fundamental rights, well-founded scientific studies would be needed to claim that infants and young children can also make a significant contribution to the spread of infection.
WORLD: In most federal states In the future, people in hotspots will not be more than 15 kilometers from their homes, unless they have a valid reason. Now the virus not only spreads from kilometer 16. Is it the necessary and adequate rule to contain the pandemic?
Edenharter: From my point of view, the 15 kilometer rule is unconstitutional because it does not have an adequate legal basis. The new Infection Protection Law allows exit and contact restrictions in public spaces, but the 15-kilometer rule is not an exit restriction in this sense. This does not prevent leaving the apartment. The measure is certainly not adequate to contain the pandemic. The 15-kilometer rule will inevitably lead to people clustering at critical points in the green spaces in the city center. This further increases the risk of infection. A much more appropriate means would be to regulate access to tourist attractions, because this is where people gather.
WORLD: Some criticize the fact that the 15 kilometer rule affects people in urban and rural areas differently. The townspeople have more freedom of movement than the country people …
Edenharter: In my opinion, the 15 kilometer rule violates the general principle of equality. People in big cities like Munich have much more freedom of movement than those who live in a small town in the countryside. And those whose location is adjacent to a restricted military zone, for example, whose movement radius is limited to a few kilometers. In my opinion, there is no justification for this extreme unequal treatment.
WORLD: There are also night curfews in some places, for example in Baden-Württemberg. How do you rate that?
Edenharter: In my opinion, night-out restrictions should be assessed similarly to the 15-kilometer rule. They are unconstitutional because they are not suitable to contain the pandemic. The virus does not spread simply because someone leaves the house at night, it depends on how many people are there.
WORLD: In the spring you wrote that The curfews basically represented “disproportionate interference with civil liberties”. How do you see it today?
Edenharter: I still see it the same way today and now I would get to the point even more clearly: curfews do not help in any way to achieve the objectives at stake: to protect the health system from overload and to protect groups at risk. . On the contrary: it is not clear how curfews should help protect particularly vulnerable groups, such as people in nursing homes. Instead, they lead to a variety of secondary problems, such as loneliness, depression, and domestic violence.
WORLD: Are you calling for the restrictions to be completely lifted?
Edenharter: No, definitely not, that would be absolutely wrong! However, we must concentrate on those measures that have been shown to contribute effectively and effectively to protecting the functioning of the health system and groups at risk. This requires contact restrictions, more home office in professions where possible and, above all, finally a strategy to effectively protect vulnerable groups.
Today such a strategy is still lacking, as can be seen from the fact that the majority of people who die in Corona or with Corona live in nursing homes and old people’s homes. Protecting vulnerable groups should be a priority despite the vaccination option now available, especially since older people outside of nursing homes and nursing homes have not yet been vaccinated at all.
WORLD: The courts struck down a number of measures in the spring and summer: for example, bans on demonstrations and curfews. Do you expect some of the current rules to be reapplied in court?
Edenharter: I think the courts are likely to overturn the 15 kilometer rule because it is clearly unconstitutional. In spring, many courts were very reluctant to oppose the measures. However, courts have in the past declared obviously inappropriate measures, such as a ban on accommodation, unconstitutional.
