Infection Protection Act - A bad German longing

A bad German longing

The current yawning emptiness in the West German alleys has probably not seen a member of the government recently

Photo: Maja Hitij / Getty Images

At night, the federal government now wants to defeat the virus, with curfews between 21:5 p.m. and XNUMX:XNUMX a.m. in the allegedly aerosol-laden streets of the republic. Its present yawning emptiness has probably not seen a member of the government recently. Angela Merkel and her cabinet could have consulted science before launching the new Infection Protection Act: Corona is an “indoor problem”, says physicist Gerhard Scheuch; and he does not bring any new knowledge to the people. "Transmission outdoors are extremely rare and never lead to 'cluster infections', as can be observed indoors," writes the Society for Aerosol Research to those in power. But that is not the only reason why this draft law marks another low point in Angela Merkel's pandemic policy.

Exit restrictions have long been negotiated by courts, the Lower Saxony Higher Administrative Court, for example, judged them to be "obviously not necessary". Reading the resolution is advisable, it is a slap in the face for key elements of politics with which the federal government and some states are responding to this crisis: “The adoption of drastic measures” only on the “suspicion” that the population is undisciplined, “lets itself into no longer justify this advanced stage of the pandemic ”. If the Infection Protection Act comes in this form - it will hardly exist before the Federal Constitutional Court.

It is not possible to take legal action against it in any other court, it is now a matter of a “federal emergency brake”. Did the judges in Karlsruhe let Berlin pass the sole focus on the incidence value? Two experts warn: "We urgently advise against defining the '7-day incidence' as the sole assessment basis for anti-pandemic protective measures in the planned statutory standardization," said Detlev Krüger, Charité's chief virologist for 27 years before Christian Drosten, and Klaus Stöhr , the former SARS research coordinator for the World Health Organization.

This government's alternative is probably too differentiated: "the daily number of COVID-related intensive inpatient admissions, differentiated according to the district of the patient's place of residence, age and gender, taking into account relevant temporal trends". Because there are great regional differences when it comes to the occurrence of infections and the situation in intensive care units.

Only one thing is almost the same everywhere: the catastrophic personnel situation in the clinics. But it is precisely this reason for the impending overload that the federal government is idly looking at. What a mockery when the Chancellor warns that doctors and nurses must not be left alone in their Herculean task!

While children are required to test, but employers are only "obliged to offer tests", while there is still a lack of vaccine supply where the federal government could have shone, Merkel goes hunting for aerosols with a sledgehammer: lockdown from incidence 100, the federal government orders.

Void of sense, this uses lower anti-federal instincts and suggests redemption in the German yearning for national unity, which even before the virus caused some to ridicule the historical doctrine of federalism as a “patchwork quilt”. In the meantime, strangled municipalities had to save on health care, for example.

Gregor Gysi is right: “We have to protect the Basic Law.” The Bundestag only has a few days to do this.