Corona measures: did politics fail in the fourth wave?

Hundreds of deaths every day, more than 70,000 new infections: Germany is in the middle of the fourth wave. How could that happen? What mistakes did politics make? An explanation in six points.

1. Has the corona situation worsened so drastically within a short period of time that politicians could not count on it?

July 2021 in Germany: The corona incidences are low, the country is on vacation and Health Minister Jens Spahn is still spoiling the game. In the federal press conference, he warns that Germany is currently at an incidence of eleven to twelve, “if this continues to double, every twelve days, then we will exceed 400 in September and 800 in October.”

Uli Hauck
ARD capital studio

It didn’t go that fast, but with the nationwide incidence of more than 400 this week, the situation in many intensive care units in Thuringia, Saxony and Bavaria is dramatic.

The chairman of the conference of health ministers, the Bavarian CSU politician Klaus Holetschek, still spoke at the beginning of November that the current situation could not have been foreseen. His boss, Markus Söder, even went one step further. He claimed that “almost all virologists, epidemiologists and scientists have also not correctly assessed the impact of this new wave in terms of its force and speed.”

Söder’s claim contradicts, for example, the statements of the virologist Christian Drosten, who warned of a fourth wave in July if the vaccination rate was not significantly increased. In September he repeated: “We cannot go into autumn with this vaccination quota.”

It is true that it is not possible to predict exactly how the pandemic will develop. But there were enough warnings. The Robert Koch Institute also developed scenarios for autumn and recommended measures in July – also against the background of the highly contagious Delta variant. This included nationwide booster vaccinations. But instead of promoting “boosting”, vaccination centers were closed.

2. Did the SPD, Greens and FDP misjudge the situation?

During the hot phase of the federal election campaign, the chairman of the board of the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Andreas Gassen, gave the FDP a perfect starting point. In a newspaper interview, the orthopedist and medical officer called for the end of all corona restrictions by October 30th. His motto “Freedom Day” instead of “German Angst” was gratefully received by party greats like Wolfgang Kubicki in campaign speeches.

The so-called epidemic situation of national importance had long been a thorn in the side of the FDP in particular, but also the Greens. It gave the government extensive powers such as nationwide lockdowns and school closings for months.

The three traffic light parties wanted legally secure solutions in the fight against the pandemic. They felt that such drastic national measures and rights of intervention were no longer proportionate. Although there was headwind even from within our own ranks. Among other things, three Green health ministers from the federal states called for an extension of the epidemic emergency.

After the votes for the new Infection Protection Act in the Bundestag and Bundesrat, Bavaria’s Prime Minister Markus Söder continued to criticize the principle. He tweeted not without a swipe about another agreement between the traffic light parties: It was inappropriate to abolish the epidemic emergency and legalize drugs at the same time. However, the responsibility for the implementation of strict Corona measures lies with the federal states. The instruments to do this had been around for a long time. Even now they have the opportunity to react to the infection process, also with contact restrictions and lockdowns at the local level.

But it is also clear: the future government reality has caught up with the traffic light parties in the pandemic in record time.

3. Were you too much on the legal side in the deliberations on the new Infection Protection Act?

If you ask health experts rather than lawyers in the traffic light groups, you hear criticism. The future coalition partners have approached the issue for too long, primarily from a “formal legal” point of view and less from the medical side, it is said, at least behind the scenes. The FDP in particular had to go a long way from “Freedom Day” to more stringent measures such as 3G rules at work and on buses and trains.

You see it differently with the negotiators. The infectious perspective had also been taken into account, as emphasized, for example, the Green legal expert Manuela Rottmann ARD capital studio. The experts who were invited to a public hearing in the main committee of the Bundestag included legal experts as well as representatives from intensive care medicine and virologists.

4. Were the coordination between the traffic light parties and the executive federal government the problem?

It is difficult to reconstruct all the details. Spahn has shown the traffic light parties possible ways for a new legal regulation in a letter. His ministry also helped formulate the law. On request, the ministry pointed out that there was regular contact at work and management level. When asked, a spokesman did not want to comment on details of the meeting. The Green politician Rottmann points out that the coordination processes with the still government were “intensive but tough”, also because other departments, such as the Ministry of Labor, were involved.

5. Was the managing Minister of Health Spahn lacking acceptance in your own ranks?

The future traffic light coalition members had a comrade on the government side early on. Health Minister Spahn was also in favor of an end to the epidemic emergency. However, he communicated this poorly and gave the impression that the pandemic would soon be over.

Despite headwinds from his own ranks, Spahn held on to his position until the end. According to information from ARD capital studios he even campaigned at the crucial meeting of the Union parliamentary group last week for approval of the new rules for the future government parliamentary groups. Without success, because the CDU and CSU apparently wanted to try out their future opposition role for the first time and block the “traffic light law” in the Federal Council. But that failed mainly because the Union Prime Ministers were ultimately unable to agree on a unified line.

6. Do all the measures come too late now?

While the situation in the intensive care units worsened, little concrete action was taken in Berlin and instead legal texts were negotiated. The Chancellor was concerned, but held back publicly for a long time. The Corona cabinet no longer met and little or nothing was heard from the future Chancellor Olaf Scholz. The virus was not interested in the resulting power vacuum, and the number of infections rose.

And the prime ministers of the particularly affected countries remained largely inactive for a long time. Although the “epidemic emergency” was still in place, Söder, Michael Kretschmer and Co. did not impose any really tightened measures. Important days and weeks passed in the fight against the pandemic. In the FDP it is suspected that the Union Prime Minister did not want to be pilloried because the vaccination rate in their federal states is low and the infection rate is high. Söder and Kretschmer only became really active after the Bundestag, the Prime Minister’s Conference and the Bundesrat had met.

The negotiators repeatedly emphasized that the amended Infection Protection Act with the catalog of instruments is a start. In the end, it was sharpened shortly before the Bundestag vote. The package is now to be “evaluated” at the latest by the next planned ministerial conference in early December. Possibly there will then be even stricter rules, depending on the development of the infection situation.