[ad_1]
reJens Spahn set the tone for the debate Wednesday morning. “The fact that we start getting vaccinated very shortly after Christmas does not mean that all the rules are no longer necessary,” the federal Minister of Health told the television channel n-tv. “We will also need these rules until well into next year.”
Raising Hope and Discouraging Expectations: The federal government is currently doing a balancing act. On the one hand, the end of the corona pandemic is clearer than ever: this Tuesday, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) announced that it would present its opinion on the vaccine against the virus next week. This would almost pave the way for mass vaccinations in the EU member states.
Who, when and where can be vaccinated
The vaccination centers are almost finished, but many details are still open. If approval is granted in Europe, Germany will definitely want to be prepared. The most important facts at a glance.
On the other hand, this road is so long that there is still no doubt about the end of the restrictions: it will be months before a sufficient number of people are vaccinated to be able to assume herd immunity. Months in which social life continues to close, people cannot see each other, livelihoods are at stake.
Recently, frustration increased, as parliamentarians noted with concern. Less due to the tough lockdown that has been in place since Wednesday. But much more, because the feeling arose that everything is slow in Germany and in the EU again. In many places, countries started vaccinating their populations, but the EU was still weighing and analyzing. “People have said: we are vaccinated around us, but the EU does not enter the pots,” said a member of a coalition group. Others said that now the urgent signal to the population was needed: “Start.”
The coalition factions tried to send this signal on Wednesday afternoon. For a short time, the CDU, CSU and SPD had a current hour call in the Bundestag, and sent the government VIPs on the run. Two federal ministers were supposed to speak with Health Minister Spahn and Research Minister Anja Karliczek (both CDUs), and Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer (CDU) was invited, who is currently struggling with a particularly high number of infections and dissatisfaction. in Saxony. The timing of the debate was also a stab at the FDP: On Thursday, the Liberals want to introduce a bill that proposes a completely different strategy for vaccines, and once again questions the German government’s approach.
“I am in awe of the debate,” Spahn said, trying to defend the federal government’s approach to approval of the vaccination. The decision was made to go through a regular approval process and not make the vaccine immediately available as part of an emergency approval.
“Nothing is more important than trust,” he explained, so a careful examination was planned. Furthermore, they only wanted to act together with the European partners. The big states could have organized a vaccine themselves, but not the small ones. “We are stronger than me,” he said in a rather florid way, not even mentioning in the debate that he had put pressure on the EMA in the background. So things can finally progress faster there.
CSU health politician Georg Nüßlein took over this job. Addressing the government bench, he praised Spahn in the highest tones. The minister assured “that now the vaccination can be carried out earlier, because it had a timely and massive action on the EMA.” Actually, it’s a good idea for opposition factions to address EMA independence: What does it say about the authority that decides on the safety of medical devices when politicians can have a “massive” effect on them and seemingly accelerate the procedures? But the question was not asked, because AfD, FDP, Left and Greens set different priorities.
The opposition continued confrontation
The AfD dispatched Congressman Paul Podolay, who approached the lectern without a mask. Instead, he used a plastic visor with a minimalist design. In Germany you were about to destroy your society, he claimed, while in China life was already returning. The government is too rigid on vaccination and too little on efficient therapy options. AfD MP Steffen Kotré presented the vaccine as downright dangerous. The process interfered with “genes,” he claimed. In the left-wing parliamentary group, a member of parliament banged on the desk with such outrage that the panel fell off. “Enough of the riots,” complained Bundestag Vice President Claudia Roth (Greens).
The left, the Greens and the FDP also clashed. Left-wing MP Gesine Lötzsch immediately criticized the distribution process. “With the regulation, the federal government wants to put us before a fait accompli,” he said. Even the Scientific Services of the Bundestag would have said: Deciding on the distribution of the vaccine is “the job of Parliament.”
FDP MP Stephan Thomae argued similarly, praising the vaccine development as a “decisive milestone” in the fight against the pandemic. Vaccination could restore important basic rights to people. The fact that the federal government wants to clarify the distribution of the vaccine by ordinance and not by law with parliamentary participation is constitutionally “highly” questionable: “Even the question of who gets vaccinated when can be a matter of life and death.” This is a question of fundamental rights.
It is a key criticism of the national vaccination strategy: the lack of participation of parliamentarians. It is the responsibility of the Federal Minister of Health to determine who should be vaccinated and when. Because, as nearly every CSU, CDU, and SPD speaker made clear: Very few doses will be available to everyone at first. Therefore, the government plans to give priority to older people, particularly high-risk patients, people who are essential in the health system or to maintain public order, based on the Commission’s recommendation. Permanent Vaccination. Previously, it had been criticized that some groups were not given a particular priority, for example, people with trisomy 21, who are also at risk groups. Currently, the departments are coordinating a revised version of the regulation.
The uncertainties among the population arise “because the negotiation processes are opaque and not transparent for the people,” complained FDP politician Thomae. The government is sometimes too far for the people. “We received the letters from the constituency.” Therefore, the FDP is promoting a law on vaccination strategy. This is taking too long, the coalition deputies countered. If the entire legislative process passes, vaccinations could not begin until February. Furthermore, with the third Civil Protection Law, the Bundestag laid the foundations for the ordinance and provided a legally clear framework.
One proposal was not discussed more widely in the debate: that of Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU). The president of the Bundestag suggested that parliamentarians should prioritize vaccines. They perform state functions and constitutional bodies of the executive or judicial power. In the background, MPs declared: Such a prioritization could send a completely wrong signal, that is, MPs themselves were pushing themselves to the fore.
