[ad_1]
reThe RKI reports over 11,000 new corona infections in a single day, Berchtesgadener Land is experiencing a new version of the lockdown, and discussions about contact restrictions and canceled events are in full swing again after a comparatively quiet summer.
Will Germany manage the radical change in the fight against the spread of the virus? That was the question “Maybrit Illner” asked his six guests on Thursday night on ZDF.
Also present were Peter Tschentscher (SPD), Hamburg’s first mayor, Christian Lindner (FDP), party leader and chairman of the parliamentary group, the writer and columnist Jagoda Marinić and the journalist Georg Mascolo.
Susanne Herold, Professor of Infectious Lung Diseases at Giessen University Hospital, and Stefan Oschmann, Executive Director of the Merck Science and Technology Group, which supports about 50 of the 200 vaccine development projects worldwide, they were also connected live.
Controversy 1: The Danger Posed by Refusers
In the evening, Tschentscher repeatedly expressed concern that some people still would not take the pandemic seriously enough, despite the growing number of infections. Relativizations, such as the reference to intensive care units, which are still far from being exhausted, are more an excuse for not following the rules. “Now we need discipline, and that also includes controls and sanctions,” said the first mayor of Hamburg.
For Marinić, this is exactly the kind of crisis communication that he doesn’t like. No one could seriously sustain such speeches for long, there had to be contradictions. She said: In theory, a crisis can also be mastered if ten percent of society refuses to accept it.
Tschentscher contradicts: “The ten percent who do not adhere to the rules, who ignore them, jeopardize the whole project.” This cannot be accepted because refusing to do so in a pandemic would not only put them in danger. But that is exactly what you can accept up to a certain critical amount, Marinić replied. “We have to learn to argue in a much more differentiated way than saying that this ten percent would destroy everything in a pandemic.” Otherwise, in the end, you just goad people on each other.
Controversy 2: the role of parliament
For Marinić, a differentiated debate also included the participation of parliament. Tschentscher pointed out that the Bundestag – and with it in Hamburg citizenship – had been involved in many decisions. However, as a controller, you are also obliged to act consistently. “And often at such short intervals that you can’t incorporate that into normal parliamentary deliberations.”
Lindner objected. The Bundestag also implemented the most complicated laws at record speed during the pandemic. He complained that the Chancellor no longer even informed parliamentarians of her conversations with the country’s leaders, as happened at the beginning of the pandemic. “The German Bundestag receives information through the media and podcasts,” Lindner said. That does not work.
Controversial point 3: the accommodation ban
What would never have happened in parliament, Lindner was convinced, was the ban on accommodation. A term that, much to Tschentscher’s chagrin, kept popping up at night. He described it as a “minor issue”, as a small regulation that causes more problems than it brings, and in fact there is almost no more.
For Mascolo, the so-called minor issue was instead a catastrophe with a long time to wait, putting the credibility of the policy for many at risk.
Because as early as May, when the travel restriction for inland areas of Germany with high levels of infection was first decided, it would have been known that districts could not regulate this at all. Tschentscher had already viewed this with skepticism at the time and came out in favor of a new regulation at Illner.
Drive round: no second lock
Already at the start of the program, Illner had wondered, in view of the strict restrictions in place in Berchtesgaden, whether one could get by with more “local anesthesia” in the future or whether artificial coma could threaten the entire country.
Over the course of the evening, everyone at the table took the opportunity to point out that they did not consider a second full closure to be imaginable or useful. The economic risks are too great, but also the social consequences such as loneliness or the dangers for the education of young people.
Herold also spoke out against a new blockade because it was no longer necessary. Unlike the spring, when there were still many things to clarify, the current situation is different. “We have learned,” he emphasized on several occasions, referring to the internalization of measures such as wearing a mask, keeping a distance, washing hands and ventilating, measures that are as important today as then.
A little hope: the vaccine
Merck CEO Oschmann was “cautiously optimistic” about vaccine development. The probability of having one in the next year is high. Even more: “I am very hopeful that we will have several vaccines.”
Therefore, there is an opportunity in the various technologies behind these substances. Herold also agreed: “Perhaps there are combinations of different vaccines that are particularly protective.”
But important scientific findings are still lacking, as well as when it comes to drugs for the treatment of sick people, because in the end it is absolutely necessary both. However, Herold concluded: “It is amazing how quickly we are testing so many different vaccines in clinical trials. A lot has happened there. “
[ad_2]
