Chancellor Angela Merkel wants more power. To this end, she wants to adapt the Infection Protection Act in the coming week. This is intended to anchor competencies that the federal government can impose on the federal states by force.
These include, for example, night curfews from an incidence of 100, school closings from an incidence of 200.
Private meetings would only be permitted with one additional household and a maximum of five people. Even evening walks alone with the dog after 21 p.m. would be forbidden.
Shops are also to be closed by ordinance if the incidence mark is exceeded, as are leisure facilities and group sports, which would also be prohibited.
The fact that the gastronomy and all tourist offers remain closed has meanwhile "taken for granted".
This proposal is supported by the CDU and SPD. Incidentally, regardless of the numerous court rulings that have torn up almost all of the measures now planned by the government in some federal states.
- In the Saarland, the shop closings were prohibited by a court
- In Lower Saxony, the contact restriction for private meetings was partially overturned at the end of March
- In Hanover, the curfew was ended during the night with a resounding slap in the face to politicians.
- The kilometer rule was overturned in numerous rulings
- In Bavaria, shoe shops are allowed to reopen by court order
- In Heesen, in the Mainz-Kinzig district, the night curfew was lifted a few days ago
- Even today, the Robert Koch Institute does not see retail as the “cause” for the spread, but rather private households, schools, daycare centers and the professional environment
All of these court judgments would be overturned and disregarded by federal regulations.
The former chairman of the German Association of Judges, Jens Gnisa, considers this procedure to be "arbitrary". He says: "With such drastic measures, it is arbitrary to focus solely on the incidence, because the pure incidence depends on how much is tested. This can be manipulated. Imposing nocturnal curfews with an incidence of 100 or more, although the courts have questioned their effectiveness, is a disregard of the judiciary. For me, banning parents from meeting their children with an incidence of 100 or more does not correspond to the image of the Basic Law. This is not the bridge lockdown of 2 or 3 weeks that is being discussed, but a permanent lockdown that can no longer be captured. Our society is being put on autopilot, so to speak. No mayor, no district administrator, no prime minister, no state parliament, not even an administrative court can take corrective action. If that is not wanted, this law could at least be limited to 2 or 3 months. "
There is no need to take power over the countries
I reject such an approach from the Federal Chancellery with maximum vehemence. It cannot and must not be that a Federal Chancellor, because he does not like federal decisions within the country, should change laws according to his wishes.
The means and tools to get the pandemic under control are in place. Every federal state, including the Bavarian Count Zampano Söder, can already impose rigorous measures such as a lockdown.
It does not need the Chancellor to make such decisions. And a prime minister, Tobias Hans, can pause the model project immediately.
The courts ruled clearly that the incidence should not be the only decisive factor in restricting fundamental rights. The intensive care bed occupancy rate also plays a role. In Saarland, for example, around 20 percent of the capacities have been vacant for weeks. Sometimes it is 24%, sometimes 14. Fortunately, on average, more than 80 intensive care beds that can be operated immediately are free. Another 243 can go into operation within 7 days as an emergency reserve.
However, I never want to see this in operation. Because that would mean that we would be on the verge of "drowning" and the staff would be overloaded to the maximum, if at all still operational.
So the route is clear: Overloading the health system must be avoided. It is currently not looking good in some federal states, where all alarm sirens have to ring.
But in other federal states no overload is apparently imminent.
So instead of stupid, medieval measures from the Federal Chancellery, one should finally begin to learn from one's mistakes.
Sharpen the Saarland model - schools only open with compulsory testing
Sharpening a “Saarland model” at the moment and perhaps regulating certain critical areas more closely would not be a sign of weakness, but of leadership. According to scientific consensus, activities in closed rooms represent a very high risk. The focus here should therefore be directed much more strongly towards this.
Minister of Education Streichert-Clivot's plan to open schools without a mandatory test concept is also a suicide mission.
There are enough studies to show that the British mutant particularly affects children who become “distributors” of the virus. To enforce compulsory testing only in secondary schools is like an unprecedented misjudgment by the minister.
A return to face-to-face lessons from April 19 can and may only take place if ALL children and teachers are tested at least twice, better three times a week. Anyone who does not agree to this measure should definitely stay out of school and be taught via distance learning.
Country bosses have to act
All political actors are currently looking at popularity ratings and upcoming elections. No citizen is interested in this.
For this reason, the country leaders must finally disregard their political goals and do what is right: to act.
The emergency brake agreed weeks ago should be implemented. And if it's a nationwide lockdown.
This must be properly prepared, properly communicated and limited in time. Afterwards, public life is restarted with mandatory tests on a large scale.
Otherwise the next chaos threatens soon.
This article is a column by the named author. At where the editor expresses his opinion. This does not have to match that of the publisher.
- Column: Regio-Journal