[ad_1]
Those who oppose the mask requirement try to undermine it in every possible way. In doing so, they also refer to alleged regulations themselves, repeatedly incorrectly.
By Wulf Rohwedder, Editor, ARD Fact Seeker
In all federal states there are different regulations for the use of face and nose masks to contain the corona pandemic. Critics of the measures attempt to circumvent or eliminate them, and for their part refer to alleged regulations.
Currently, especially from the field of the “lateral thinking” movement, reference is made to a document of a working group of the German Accident Social Security (DGUV), according to which a two-hour period of use with a 30 minute post recovery time for moderate physical work.
False threats with legal ramifications
Opponents of the mask see it as a regulation to be applied in workplaces and also in schools, and they are trying to pressure employers, superiors, teachers, principals, and parent representatives. Otherwise, they will be liable for damage caused by their students ‘and employees’ masks from November 9, says “lateral thinking” lawyer Ralf Ludwig.
However, such claims cannot be derived from their recommendation, explains the DGUV, on the contrary: school administrators or teachers who order or implement measures to protect themselves against infections at school can rely on the liability exemption of legal accident insurance, says in opinion.
The DGUV has now responded to this attempted instrumentalization with a press release and has successfully initiated legal action against it. In the communication platforms of the movement, however, alleged class actions are announced with the “largest claim for damages of all time”, in which potential clients can participate for “low costs”.
Worthless “expert opinion”
Also, the opponents of the mask refer to a role of three unspecified people, supposedly proving the dangerousness of the masks. The ten page text is presented as a scientific study, but contains unsubstantiated claims and also refers to non-scientific sources. Furthermore, the quotes have been taken out of context, including a statement by Edwin Bölke, senior managing physician of the Clinic for Radiation Therapy and Radiation Oncology at Düsseldorf University Hospital.
In an interview with the “Ärzteblatt”, Bölke spoke about certain risk patients for whom wearing a mask can be harmful. His statement was generalized in the text, which horrified the doctor: 99 percent of people could wear mouth and nose protection without health problems, Bölke said. ARD fact finder.
This is of fundamental importance in times of pandemic: “A mask must be worn constantly, especially in public transport, in supermarkets and in rooms where there are many people,” said Bölke. This is also evidenced by events in Taiwan, South Korea and Japan: “There, the number of infections could be controlled by consistent behavior and wearing a mask in public.”
Over and over again: the BfArM buzz
For months now, a website of the Federal Institute of Medicines and Health Products (BfArM) has been referenced over and over again, according to which no corresponding protective effect has been demonstrated for simple mouth and nose caps. The opponents of the mask see in the quote out of context a proof of the absurdity of the orders and recommend pointing this out during the controls or confronting the schools with the claim to exempt the children from the mask requirement.
A supplier of “fake masks” also claims that “only the requirements of the Federal Institute of Medicines and Health Products apply.” However, the authority has expressly stated that the effectiveness of the face and nose masks in terms of general civil protection has been confirmed in numerous scientific publications. The information incorrectly quoted applies only to manufacturers and distributors of medical products, to which the community masks do not belong.
For those who wear the masks, the following applies: Depending on the federal state, there are more or less precise regulations on the nature of mouth and nose coverings. Anyone who circumvents this should expect a fine, regardless of what the seller claims.
