For an adjustment of the policy
We have been living with measures against corona for more than six months. A policy that was initially aimed at preventing an overburdening of care (“flatten the curve”), gradually gave way to the prevention of infections as such (“crush the curve”). There has been no transparent information about this policy choice, nor has there been a public debate about it.
With this manifesto, we are addressing policymakers with the urgent question to avoid knee-jerk reactions, without underestimating the seriousness of the epidemic.
The measures must be framed in a long-term policy and be in balance with the real threat and the broader wellbeing.
Measures must always be reconcilable with the achievements of the democratic constitutional state and be tested against the constitution. They may only be taken after consultation and with explicit support by the elected representatives of the people. Moreover, the government must communicate all measures in an unambiguous and crystal-clear manner to the entire population.
Measures that are insufficiently founded in a scientific consensus cannot be sustained. Some recent measures have also been disjointed, disproportionate and / or harmful in the long term. In order to avoid further mental, social, cultural and economic collateral damage, and to maintain the confidence of the public, a reasonable adjustment and rationalization of the measures is necessary.
There is a need for a policy of long-term solidarity with the most affected sectors: catering, culture and events, retail and so on.
There is a need for systematic attention to the specifically problematic consequences for young people, the elderly, the underprivileged, and people who do not have access to private outdoor spaces. The increasing poverty rate, domestic violence, and delayed diagnoses and treatment also deserve extra and careful attention.
The virus is often presented as overly terrifying without the necessary nuances. We ask that at least the official news media frame the facts well and put them into perspective. They should put statistics in a global overview and stop sensational reporting. Too often exceptions are presented as big facts and big facts that are not very spectacular are not presented.
Developing, testing, and rolling out large numbers of a safe vaccine will still be an immense challenge. Vaccines will not be the panacea in the short term. It is therefore more sensible to develop measures that allow us to learn to live with the virus in a human way.
There is insufficient scientific evidence for the added value of a general mouth mask obligation in the open air. The proliferation of restrictive mouth mask regulations and accompanying verbalisation must stop. Face masks are physically and socially bothersome, and where possible, alternatives should be considered first.
It is unacceptable that the very elderly lose their social contacts without agreement during their last years of life in order to protect them from illness. Imposed isolation until death is inhumane and must be reorganised as soon as possible with the participation of the elderly (associations) themselves.
The government could achieve health gains in many other areas with decisive measures. For example, there is scientific consensus for measures against noise nuisance and air pollution, loneliness, stress, traffic victims, and climate and other ecological problems, or investing in research into cancer and other diseases.