[ad_1]
“The cost of a human life” is the headline of Handelsblatt’s comment on the declaration of the President of the German Parliament, Wolfgang Schieble, that the opinion that in the face of the protection of human life everything comes second is not correct in its absolute. Obviously, the Speaker of Parliament wants to show that protecting health and life in times of a pandemic cannot be the only way.
The economic newspaper notes: “In politics and society, calculating the cost of a human life is usually an abstract process. However, in times of pandemic, we weigh products often coldly, as we normally would not. On the one hand, we want to protect the elderly and vulnerable, and on the other hand, we do not want to push the health system to its limits. But at what cost? Each additional week of filming causes billions in damage, which will harm everyone. Discussion of economic impact poses the dilemma of life and death, albeit indirectly. An efficient health system cannot be financed when the economy is paralyzed. And it is not only the crowning threat to health, but also unemployment or psychological problems. Health also has a social dimension. So what is the cost of a human life? We always give the answer when we make decisions to combat the pandemic. Whether we like it or not. “
Wearing the mask: clumsiness in Germany, strategy in Belgium
“Until recently, even Chancellor Merkel was opposed to the mandatory use of a protective mask. She finally listened to the scientists’ suggestions,” taz comments with the ironic title “The goal is achieved with the strategy” and compares the measures to protect against the coronavirus in Germany and Belgium. The Berlin newspaper notes: “And suddenly it was decided to wear a mask, with some states imposing heavy fines on violators.” Although the use of a mask is directly related to individual rights, in Germany the subject was not sufficiently discussed in public.
Neighboring Belgium shows that there is a different way. There, unlike Germany, traffic restriction measures are slowing down. The Belgians return to the offices on May 4 and the stores open on May 11. Belgium Prime Minister Sophie Wilmes even announced that each citizen will receive two state masks. The Belgian strategy is in two words, first protection and then relaxation. It is inconceivable that this is not the case in Germany. Despite objections in Belgium to the Prime Minister’s measures, at least Sophie Wilmes has a strategy. But the same cannot be said of Chancellor Merkel and her associates. Germany is treating the situation as it is and leaving the problem to the people. “
Unnecessary institutionalization of remote work.
Süddeutsche Zeitung comments on the redundant plans of Social Democratic Minister Hubertus Hale to institutionalize remote work: system performs. There will definitely be managers who tacitly estimate how much they will save from restrictions in the workplace. The current situation does not mean that a law on the right to work remotely is necessary.
However, there is a need to modernize regulations for more flexible working hours, but this does not mean that all frameworks should be abolished. The so-called home office helped many families cope with the authorities’ sudden decision to close schools and kindergartens. In many cases, however, it pushed them to their limits. Many of the questions raised in this crisis are difficult to answer, but not the question of whether remote work should be institutionalized. Otherwise, most workers cannot work from home. A possible law would not benefit them. “
Source: DW – Stefanos Georgakopoulos
