[ad_1]
Thursday, February 04, 2021
To update
When do the restrictions end?
The Ethics Council rejects the special rules for vaccinated people
The Ethics Council currently sees no basis for ending restrictions on the freedom of vaccinated individuals earlier. It must first be clarified whether vaccines reliably protect against infection from others.
The German Ethics Council has spoken out against lifting the state-imposed restrictions on the freedom of vaccinated people earlier. “At the present time,” there should be no individual withdrawal of state restrictions on the freedom of vaccinated people, “says a committee recommendation.
In presenting the document, the president of the ethics council, Alena Buyx, emphasized that more clarity is currently needed on the degree to which corona vaccines suppress the transmission of the virus. It can be assumed that the vaccinations that are being initiated would greatly reduce the severity of illness and deaths. Vaccines also “lead to an increasing reduction in the risk of infection and disease for unvaccinated people.”
However, he restricted: “However, the extent of this reduction cannot currently be estimated with certainty.” For this reason alone, an individual withdrawal of state restrictions on the freedom of vaccinated people is out of the question.
Rather, the restrictions should be lifted for all to the extent that the risk of overloading the healthcare system can be successfully reduced. “At best, a prior individual lifting of restrictions on liberty could be justified only for vaccinated people,” says Buyx, if “it was sufficiently certain that they could no longer spread the virus.”
The Ethics Council also advocates that less severe restrictions, such as the requirement to wear respiratory masks or maintain distances, “should be maintained for longer due to the relatively low exposure involved.”
Sigrid Graumann, also a member of the Ethics Council, explained that there is currently no reliable data for the Biontech / Pfizer or Moderna vaccines on the extent to which they reliably protect against infection from others. The Astrazeneca vaccine reduces this probability by approximately two-thirds. “At the moment, there is no medical basis for an individual suspension of the liberty rights of vaccinated persons.” The demand for exceptions for vaccinated people suggests “false security, vaccinated people would not pose a risk of infection.”
Graumann also emphasized that the contact restrictions are only justified “since they are necessary to reduce the rates of illness and death and thus avoid an overload of the health system.” The infection figures alone cannot justify the restrictions. Buyx made it clear that this statement does not apply to the current situation, in which politicians aim to reduce incidence values to 50 infections per 100,000 people in seven days. “We are talking about a situation where the vaccination program is having an impact. Unfortunately, we all know that it will take a long time.” However, when the time comes, more attention should be paid to other indicators.
As one more argument against the special rules for vaccinated people, Graumann mentioned that these would be perceived as unfair as long as not everyone had the opportunity to get vaccinated. “It is questionable whether people who are not afraid of a disease and who have not yet had the opportunity to get vaccinated would be willing to comply with infection control rules.”
Volker Lipp, Sigrid Graumann and Alena Buyx from the German Ethics Council at the federal press conference.
(Photo: dpa)
Attorney Volker Lipp explained that private providers can decide for themselves to only make an offer to vaccinated people. For example, restaurants could come up with the idea of opening them only to vaccinated people, “to advertise themselves or protect their own staff.” The same could apply to airlines or concert organizers, for example. However, this is only possible within the framework of state infection control measures. “If flights to a certain country or concerts are generally prohibited, if restaurants are generally closed, these offers do not exist.”
First, restrictions on nursing homes should ease
Lipp said the Ethics Council strongly recommends that special contact restrictions be lifted “as quickly as possible” at care centers, as the burdens there “go far beyond what other citizens have to bear.”
Buyx rejected the term “privileges”, which is often used in this context, as being imprecise and unnecessarily exacerbating public debate.
The Ethics Council considers the preferred vaccination of professional athletes or exceptions for visitors to sporting events essential. Professional athletes did not belong to the high-risk groups and, therefore, were rightly not included in the vaccination priorities. “From our point of view, there is no ethical reason to give preference to groups that are not included,” Buyx said.
