[ad_1]
At the beginning of the crown crisis, the Federal Council quickly agreed. He acted decisively and probably avoided the collapse of the Swiss healthcare system. Even if the impression has arisen here and there that the goal could have been achieved with less drastic measures, this is by no means proven.
Also in Switzerland, the number of cases initially doubled in a few days. If the measures had only taken effect a few days later, the situation could have developed much more dramatically.
Drastic measures, quick loosening.
The measures had a clear objective: the health system should always be able to provide all patients with the best possible care and thus save lives.
As it became clear that this goal would be achieved, the focus changed. The negative economic consequences became increasingly clear. This brought to the fore the balance of interests between public health and economic interests.
It is in the nature of this compensation that opinions differ. The economy, especially the catering industry, put pressure on the Federal Council. Calls for a course correction also came from parliamentary committees.
The majority in the Federal Council revoked even before this week’s extraordinary session. On Easter Monday, Federal Councilman Berset confirmed that he wanted to avoid a second wave of epidemics. On Wednesday, he had to announce the fastest relaxation possible.
New announcements almost every day.
Since then, new announcements, clarifications, and corrections have followed almost daily: grandparents can hug their grandchildren again. A dispute between experts followed, correct and self-proclaimed, how sensitive he was.
A mobile phone app should help track future infection chains. But parliament requires a legal basis. Now the application is no longer so urgent and important.
Or gastronomy: it can be opened again faster thanks to a protection concept that allows the registration of all guests. Today it is said only for those who want it. The data protection officer had successfully intervened.
It’s no longer about keeping a complete guest list, said Federal Councilman Berset, but in the event of a staff infection, guests can be contacted. This was thought to have been the purpose of the most comprehensive guest list possible.
What else is valid?
And finally, today’s announcement that members of risk groups, especially the elderly, can move freely again. First, they were never prohibited from doing so. But the urgent recommendation was to stay home. The BAG is now apparently in the process of reviewing this recommendation, as Daniel Koch announced. The risk of infection has also decreased for the vulnerable.
This announcement, two days before Mother’s Day, should please all mothers belonging to a risk group. But does that already apply? Or should I wait for the revised recommendations? What applies and what no longer applies?
By referring to personal responsibility, experts and the Federal Council make it too easy for them. Only those who can assess the opportunities and risks and assess the consequences for themselves and for society can act on their own responsibility. Unclear signals from the highest point are of little help.
Erwin Schmid
Federal Chamber Editor, SRF
