[ad_1]
meIt is not often that epidemiologists Klaus Stöhr and Karl Lauterbach consider the same measures in the corona pandemic. SPD health expert Lauterbach is one of the hardliners in the crisis, words like “blockage” rolling off his lips faster than a quick test comes back positive. Stöhr, who previously headed the WHO influenza program, repeatedly insists that we have to learn to live with the disease. In view of the accelerated infection process, on Friday the 7-day national incidence rose to 119 according to the Robert Koch Institute, both curfews are now being discussed.
“If I really worked casually, I would have to rethink this nasty exit restriction,” Stöhr said on Friday on the “Die Wochenester” podcast. However, politics does not want to touch this “hot potato”, the usurpation of the family. At the same time, it is increasingly difficult to efficiently include family, friends, and work as the most important sites of infection in measurements. He’s also a bit lost as to what to do. It is also entirely speculative whether the increase in cases is mainly due to the proportional increase in variant B.1.1.7 or to pandemic fatigue, to the change in testing strategy or to increased mobility. However, it is quite clear that trade does not contribute in any way to infections in the same way that it does to families and friends.
“No, we don’t want a curfew,” Stöhr told WELT. He advocates agreeing to live with an incidence of 100 to 150. But if politicians stick to the currently set threshold values, there are only two options: “Either we can make people think about it, or we need a curfew,” he says. “I dare to doubt that it is the right thing to do for Germany.”
There is only the possibility of better contracting infections if participation in contact restrictions can be increased again. “With a strategy and perspective, not so many people would have been lost.” If this is not successful, consider a night curfew based on the French pattern appropriate. Nurseries, schools and shops remain open, but the “evening” is reduced and with it the contacts between family and friends.
SPD politician Lauterbach called for something similar on Thursday in view of the planned relaxation in Saarland and the tilted Easter break. “I see no other way than to work here with a curfew from 8 pm, at least for a limited time for two weeks,” he told the ARD “Mittagsmagazin.” In addition, the range of corona tests must also be expanded in companies. “Otherwise, we will lose another two weeks and then we will have case numbers of around 200 or 300 a day in mid to late April, and that is very difficult to stop.”
The federal and state governments only mention barriers in passing.
In the Corona summit resolution, which the federal and state governments unveiled Tuesday night, curfews are only mentioned in one word. In view of the “significantly exponential growth,” the number of new infections in counties with an incidence of more than 100 in 7 days would have to be reduced by additional measures, the document says. “This can be in particular: a. Passengers are required to wear medical masks even in private cars (…) b. (…) daily rapid tests c. Exit restrictions; D. more stringent contact restrictions “.
Lower Saxony Prime Minister Stephan Weil (SPD) stressed on Friday the need for the next curfews in the fight against the corona pandemic: “We are in the middle of the third wave. The number of infections is increasing day by day, throughout the country and also here in Lower Saxony, ”he said in the Hannover state parliament. “If we do not stop the spread of the virus, many people in Lower Saxony will die from or with the virus.” The previous measures were no longer sufficient. Therefore, the new Crown regulation provides for a more intensive control of night curfews at critical points. “On this basis, I hope that we will experience significantly more curfews in our country in the future, especially at hotspots,” Weil said. “They are all over the country and a lot of the infections that we have to fight come from them over and over again.”
What those exit restrictions might look like is left wide open. In an earlier draft of the resolution, there were even more specific requirements, there was talk of a curfew from x a.m. to 5 a.m. Until now, night curfews have been in effect at some German hotspots, most recently the The city of Osnabrück was considering introducing a curfew in view of the increasing number of infections.
Experience has shown that curfew hours depress the mood of the population. In the Netherlands, the introduction of the “Avondklock” in January sparked the worst riots in decades. However, its epidemiological efficacy is controversial. Stanford professor John Ioannidis, a controversial figure in the crown pandemic, called a temporary restriction on mobility “harmful” in the WELT interview. “In the limited time, more people are in the public space at the same time. As a result, they become more infected and then more and more sit together in closed rooms, ”says the health scientist.
An Oxford University study, published in Science in December, concluded that exit restrictions as a pandemic measure are more likely to be avoidable. “The results show that with effective measures, countries can control the epidemic without resorting to exit restrictions,” says the newspaper, which compared packages of measures from different countries. The most important lever turned out to be the closure of schools and universities, as well as the limitation of groups of up to ten participants.
The closure of restaurants, bars and clubs would have a little to moderate effect, while the total closure of non-essential services was somewhat more effective. “If all these measures were already in place, curfews would only have a small additional effect,” the study says. Of course, this does not take into account the fact that the willingness to comply with contact restrictions in the first wave of the pandemic was many times greater in Germany than it is today.
One of the political opponents of the curfew in Germany is the leader of the FDP Christian Lindner, who considers it “disproportionate”. The restriction of freedom is too strict and the measure does not necessarily make sense for reasons of protection against infections, said the opposition politician on Sunday night in “Bild live”: free, I see no reason to forbid them. ”
However, Stöhr points to an advantage over contact restrictions: the authorities can better control the curfew. Her favorite French model, however, is now reaching her limits. The Grande Nation currently has the fourth highest number of infections worldwide. Meanwhile, restaurants, museums, cinemas, gyms, shopping centers and other businesses have had to close. The strict departure rules also apply throughout the country during the day.
