In the second wave, we should obediently follow all the rules and argue about the essentials: weighing up freedom and security.
Let’s hold a second Lockdown by? Many people may ask themselves this question in view of the increasing number of infections. But it is irrelevant. There will be a second lockdown if the Sars-CoV-2 virus continues to spread as it did in the past two weeks. Because in the second wave, the basic logic of the first wave applies: The Number of infected people doubles steadily, currently every 10 days.
Codiv-19 lung disease may be easier to treat today than it was in April, but there are no real therapies. Overcrowded intensive care units, a collapse of the Health apparatus – it can always come to that. However, different omens apply today than in spring. Nobody counted how many existences the first lockdown demanded, how many people are desperate, how many companies were so badly damaged that they could not get back on their feet.
And now again? Anyone who dreads it has not simply lost their moral compass. Maybe he or she is just finished. That is why it takes a struggle to determine who has to bear what burden. Do daycare centers and schools Be leak-proof across the board, close the company completely, all hairdressers stay at home?
Drawing lessons from the first lockdown and insisting on at least investigating whether hygiene and protective measures work in such a way that the whole of life no longer has to be paralyzed across the board – that is an absolutely legitimate position in the coming weeks. Argue about it! But please with full awareness of the possible consequences: Every leaving it open is an experiment with human life. Masks, keeping your distance, ventilation, hygiene concepts, that’s good, yes.
But no one knows who’s sticking to how people will act when general pandemic fatigue takes hold and when it’s too cold to meet in the park. What nobody says, but still happens: Many hope that the second wave can be stopped with a minimum of restrictions. That the number of victims somehow stays in what feels like an acceptable range.
What happens when pandemic fatigue takes hold
That death from Covid-19 is still a general risk to life and not a disgrace for society as a whole. This general mood seems to level off at: As long as there are enough intensive care beds available, Covid-19 is a disease. It’s sad, but bearable. The consequence is that Germany is trying to slow down the pandemic gently – much like a car at a red light.
This is exactly what happens, with the full range of instruments of a free, democratic country. Sometimes a court overturns accommodation bans, sometimes not. Sometimes they are considered a legitimate preventive measure because in a pandemic you cannot wait for the final evidence as to whether a measure has any effect. All of this is a struggle to balance out the two greatest contradictions that one has as a society in an exceptional situation: freedom and security. Dignity and virus.
If you put epidemiological recommendations next to the Basic Law, then something like this comes out: With 35 infected people per 100,000 inhabitants, you can invite 15 people to the party. One of the resolutions of the federal-state meeting this week. Sounds absurd, arbitrary. Putting the 16th person out in the evening doesn’t change anything. But that is exactly what it does when stochastics meet reality: the overall likelihood of infections decreases when there are fewer contacts.
So accept such restrictions at the party, stoically, stuffy and obediently. And you argue honestly about what is really important, namely: How we can sensibly distribute the freedom that the virus will still give us in the next few weeks.