Corona-Pandemie: Was lief falsch? | Markus Lanz vom 09. April 2024

Where are we currently in the pandemic acceptance process? My impression was that we have already learned many lessons from the pandemic period, whether successful or not, I think there are one or several. two things we've done before. We have already talked about it a little and we have seen what measures have contributed something from a medical or sociopolitical point of view or not, what you would do again or not, so I think a lot. A lot of work has already been done, but there is clearly a feeling that it is still not enough and we have to discuss it all again.

There is a quote from Ms. Göring Eckert that says what she quoted earlier about how the pandemic is still creating a mood. against our democracy. That worries me. You share this fear before we ask you exactly how you do it. She says because it is very interesting that they were the first, yes or no. I think there is a part of the population that I don't even know how. How big it is, I think it's definitely not half, it's how much less, um, they'll get. They cannot pacify or reconcile themselves to what these people understand to be the system with any reassessment worth the word and name.

These people want 150% comprehensive admission. of guilt on the part of every politician and every journalist that everything went wrong if that doesn't happen. Not enough for this small group, but I think very loud, Mrs. Göring Ecker, this phrase about how the pandemic continues to create an environment against our democracy worries me, what do you mean by that, well, on the one hand, not on one hand? It is completely clear that we must continue to draw lessons from the pandemic by addressing how we acted in parliament, how science acted, what had economic consequences, everything that I also said in this same statement - the vast majority of those who acted at the time They did it to the best of their knowledge and conscience and with what she said, not everything was bad, not everything was bad, not everything was good, the thing was totally banal but that's how it is and we knew at all times that we would not do everything right and then J span did it.

I also said in a very remarkable speech that we will have a lot. forgive ourselves and I think I said yes in response to that in the German Bundestag and I hope we draw conclusions from that as well. What I mean by this is that there will be people who could be the same people that Mr. Blume describes. Actually, I just want to create an anti-democracy environment and do it in the context of Corona. What I think we need is for us all to sit back and take a closer look at who the actors really were and what this did to society. in the health system?

There is already a lot of process in the sense of drawing scientific but also political conclusions and there are some instruments for this that you can later discuss with pleasure. You have understood the enthusiasm surrounding this phrase, everyone. The phrase I say about Corona doesn't matter, so I might as well say it didn't exist at all or I don't know GI. I wouldn't always say, of course, I think everyone I say about Corona has a similar wave. I GL Kön understand that, of course I can understand. As a society, we really understood what he really was and what he did to the country.

If we say something like that, it wasn't all bad, but it was. It's not okay and now calm down, there is a reason why people said no, I didn't mean that, I didn't interpret the tone of voice, I wanted to say no no, but in the next breath they warned and said, but please, before to really work on it and talk critically about it, we should not abuse this review here to create an environment against people etc., we should process what it is about, i.e. the social breakdowns, what kind of economic consequences . Is that so?

Somehow I spoke a lot back then with cultural workers and businessmen who were totally desperate. Then you got help and you're still desperate. Talk to children and young people, with teachers and all that. Of course, it is a deep reason to work on it and politically I can say that that is what I wanted to say in relation to myself, for example, I always tried to do the right thing but, despite somehow, I had the feeling that it was an expert like I would never want to be an expert on any subject and yet I knew at every moment that I would do things wrong, Mr.

Strick, if you said a phrase like that, I know that you are one of those who say very, very From the beginning , I think even in a think tank, we have to work on this very seriously and we also have to discuss about it and we have to have a tough discussion about how it goes when you hear a sentence like that, well, first of all, I think that It is good that a democracy makes a review of this type and talks about it openly without having to put on rose-colored glasses under which it must be looked at because, in reality, science only knows one way: the truth and it must be discussed completely. openly and I think the main problem we have with the

corona

pandemic is that you can see that with the RKI protocols that were said at the time that this is the only right way, science says that this is how we move. before and that but it wasn't like that at all it wasn't like that at all that is such a clear path but then everyone who expressed my criticism in any way or who said yes but then was immediately presented as unscientific and put in such a corner time but also discredited there was uh there was even some agitation and um now we can't just say in retrospect that it wasn't that bad because on this basis these scientific statements or supposedly clear lines were sometimes the most absurd At the local level rules were introduced.

Sausages were no longer allowed to be given to those who were vaccinated and not to those who were not vaccinated. Bans on park benches for women in Munich, but now we laugh about it and that's something that really hurt people and they were dealt with. That is why we have to talk about this moment and find an understanding of why or why such decisions were ultimately made in the name of science, which, as the RKI protocols say, is actually not necessarily in the name of science and now. We go and try to figure that out first, so to speak.

Then when it is made public, there are a bunch of RKI documents of more than 2000 pages and then a big surprise, a surprising number of parts are blacked out in such a way that the argument is just about a few employees who should not be made public , etc., quickly becomes obsolete because it takes a long time. As a rule, people don't have any names, they say what was crossed out, even their Heinsberg study is true that was also crossed out, so I guess at the time Heinsberg was sharp, then he just said Heinsberg and then pages of blackout, I know of course that I also don't know what's behind the heavy tongues and I find that to be difficult in terms of communication.

He should have gone straight to the front in a transparent manner about why his Heinsberg study might have been weighted and with what justification. So I don't know, but I guess the law firms were sitting there and saying. Well, that's a study, we don't know if it's already been published or not. Now let's say it's better to be safe than sorry, so we just checked it out and then had a hard time calling someone and saying, tell me, what? Were you talking about Heinsberg? No, I didn't, but they did tell you about Mr. Lauterbach, but I haven't investigated what exactly he was saying.

I don't even know if anyone would tell me that because they. They are Robert Kochintitut's internal protocols but I think that in general we have a distrust in the government that has simply increased during the pandemic and especially in a case like this we should be much more transparent and move forward with transparency. To say that the RKI files, that is, the protocols, really put me at ease because I thought that there was an authority who here openly discussed the results and discussed things here in all directions and how it was supposed to be like this.

There was no clear line with politics in the RKI fils and I found it really reassuring and would have wished much more, indeed in retrospect during the pandemic, that Robert Kochintitut could also take on a moderating role and say: we already have this. We weighed different points of view, but we came to this and the conclusion, in terms of communication, they could have gone much further because I don't think what I'm reading is that bad so far, but the difficulty is that that means they say they basically argued the same as us here also in the pandemic other talk shows during the pandemic there was also a public discussion behind closed doors when the RKI discussed something and then decided something or the federal government decided it and science says and then there was peace in the box or calm I actually have a different memory, I know that we spent I don't know how many hundreds of hours of broadcasts with the debate on individual measures with the conflict between two perhaps more scientific fields, one of which prominently represented, um, um, under Drosten, maybe another So those are the voices uh that the divergent voices have been gagged by the respective main divergent voices you can say D mouth someone was gagged but I think it was said very quickly there is a single scientific attitude on how to deal with This pandemic eludes these measures and other voices that it is not necessarily about my statement, but the fact that pediatricians, for example, warned from the beginning that schools would not be closed.

That was in the spring of 2020. a letter from the German Society of Pediatricians warning against this even though everyone said it would be better to do it at the same time, pediatricians warned, other scientists said, well, that could be the bridge of infection and I'm not really a doctor and I can't really judge that, but there were different evaluations, you could say, perhaps also from different perspectives with different evaluations of the importance of the individual consequences for the children or for society as a whole and then the politicians said We'll do it this way now, and that's exactly what I think it is now and if it went wrong and things went wrong with the school closures, there's no doubt that the politicians made a decision, if you will, that's what finally happens. but firstly we need the processing and secondly the good thing is that the minutes contain something like that, the discussion is what can be read and in the future I would like to see a lesson for me that the RKI becomes stronger So I was in the opposition at that time, yes, and the question: Was it really possible to talk about the RKI or not?

That kept me very busy as a member of parliament because that's what it was. It was clear that it was not possible, but that we could only discuss things politically among ourselves. The Prime Ministers met. This instrument of the Conference of Prime Ministers is not provided for in our Constitution. But each of them also had their own little one. expert advice and the question of who is really being listened to, who is being listened to, how is the communication going. What are we talking about? How is it understandable? That was very little because there was very little interdisciplinary work, for example, yes, then the teachers, at the same time, we all experienced that too, so we were sitting at home and in my case it was the grandchildren and in others it was the children who they ran across the screen when we had zoom conferences and tried to make decisions between us.

I think everything is social, political and probably also in science. The question is: do we do it with a blame game or do we really do it very seriously? I think briefly that there is an instrument that I have been thinking about more intensely in recent days. There is an instrument. What we are currently learning The citizen council has everything, it has politics as participants, it has citizens and it has experts and since my phrase surprised you a little, I think that would be an instrument where you say what you can do It is very thorough , there were people who were attacked because they were not vaccinated.

There were also people who gave me a dog code mailbox because I was responsible for some Corona measures from the opposition, whatever, so it really went both ways and if you want to appease him then we shouldn't try to do it at all kinds of individual events, but maybe it will. Does it make much more sense to do this together in such an institution after having the study commission? I would also say that we have lost it a little bit. We should have done it at the beginning of the legislative period, otherwise it would drag on too long.

Mr. Stck, what would you say? Because I think that is the crucial point and we should not ignore the interaction between politics and the media. On the one hand, they praised how the result was discussed. openly and also how different the Robert Koch Institute basically made it, just as we did. We also did it here on the show and Nikolus Blome said yes, it was done like that everywhere and different opinions were heard and so on. Isn't it the other way around, that many people have the feeling that at some point they are all in this together?

If politics covers the media and anyone who opposes it, they will quickly have it. a problem. I'm talking about a feeling, an emotion. You would say that was the case, then there was the gallows, please, then there was the gallows, there was a harsh reaction to that, I remember the two of them exchanging ideasabout. They said, for example, that there were, for example, in the youth body in which Bravo was, for example. an expert team from Dr. Summer, yes, we all know from other contexts that they said that with vaccination, you either decide to get vaccinated or you decide to die, exactly yes, and they say that that represents a little bit of how incredibly one-sided the media opinion was in back then, the media discourse.

Is this an accusation they are making? Well, I think we need to accept it on many different levels and I think it would be particularly good for science journalism to go back and look within itself for some, more so for others. less to see how we actually report during this time, then that is possible, but I don't want to make public accusations of guilt, but for example in the daily topics for a long time they were only experts on Covid and you wonder where is the diversity of opinions But I I would see it the same way, we don't need to have a blame game here, it shouldn't be the case that individual school assignments come up, but I think we have a unique opportunity. crisis that ended in 3 years in Germany and we can rewrite our manual on how to deal with said crisis and we have an area of ​​tension between the government, science and the public or the media that needs to be redefined, what should it be?

All three interact with each other, how should the advice of experts or scientists be carried out and that is where the crisis is? In my opinion, the Corona pandemic is an indicator of future crises. We will always ask the experts about the climate, health, the economy and how this area is treated. The tension should work because you can always find an expert for their opinion. I'm totally with you. I just want one thing right now because it affects a lot of people, it's not over for everyone, there are people. who suffer from long covid, there are probably around two and a half million in Germany and 500,000 is very, very difficult, we don't have exactly good figures for this.

Today we have not survived this pandemic, we are still worried about what will happen if they or someone in the family gets sick again and I don't think we should just say it's over, we are working on it, but I don't think they said it like that manner. I think we should bring them. I walked back into the room because these people are still suffering today and for me they were a really important population group during this pandemic period because for them it didn't matter if someone was vaccinated or if they had a mild illness, but for them it meant a much more , they were very afraid of death, they were very afraid, what about the so-called vulnerable, particularly sensitive and we should not forget them, but on the subject because you just mentioned it?

The woman has been. vaccinated Regarding mandatory vaccination, which was then discussed for a long time and with great intensity, one would say that we definitely made mistakes, including in the way we excluded people who did not want to be vaccinated. I was very convinced of that, I must say. you have my speech is also shown there and it is exactly this question: How do you really deal with a minority that is particularly sensitive and of course it was stupid to say sausages, no, so when you go to the sausage stand outside, but still so the question?

It's yes, yes, you can. There's at least this requirement to wear a mask in certain situations if you're highly contagious, yes or no, and when it comes to vaccinating, I think we went too far, I would say even today because, by the way, we don't talk enough about what it really means because We said that now it is also another measure that we are taking now and from the end and we do not have what we recommend, for example Conny has carried out a campaign about how good vaccination is and what it can be good for and what it can help.

I mean, I always say now because I was in the opposition, but I always said, let's think about what we think makes sense and what we don't think makes sense and that's how you act, you have it with two or with high long covid on an individual level, but you could also say that I will never forget how I suddenly received a call from a woman whose mother had a very serious cerebral thrombosis and was very afraid to get vaccinated, but those were isolated cases. Also maybe a minority, but regardless in my opinion, when I discuss as a doctor it is about giving people some kind of reassessment so that we can also talk.

On these points, the mother had thrombosis and the daughter did not want to be vaccinated, but she was opposed to vaccination in the sense that she was afraid of the vaccine, although probably for good reason, mandatory vaccination would have meant that she. she had to get vaccinated No, actually she wouldn't have meant that because they would have said that she didn't have to do it for health reasons, it wasn't possible. That's why we force everyone but also say who can't do it. because they have certain health conditions it doesn't have to be that, but the fact that she was afraid of that is something else, that's not on the factual level, so not exactly, but that's what they are.

Those are also reasons why people didn't want to. to get vaccinated. I wanted to talk about that, it was not just a stubborn minority, but there were people who simply had injuries, but we also said that we should not do that because there is a health restriction and it was. Another Mr. Blume, how did you perceive him at that time? I still remember it and it was really difficult for me in the reports that I had here again and again from purely wise people, who, among other things, always did. reference to German history again said mandatory vaccination, under no circumstances, we will not do that, that does not have a good connotation, especially in German history, we definitely will not do that, then the federal elections came and when later the same people They were sitting here and said, unfortunately it doesn't work now, the situation has changed, we need mandatory vaccination and I thought, how can you do something like that?

That's wasting the last bit of credibility so far. not Olaf Scholz, who said that with me there will be no mandatory vaccination, whether Olaf Scholz. I know that Olaf Scholz never had an opinion, at least he never dared to express it as Chancellor, but only as a candidate before, as a candidate before, so I am perplexed, but there were enough politicians, you are absolutely right, who said before, under no circumstances come with me. I didn't even put it in the bag and then I wanted to do it. serious mistake, but to be honest, it was probably the other way around than them because I thought it was much more prudent from the beginning, before the vaccine was available, to talk about whether mandatory vaccination was a way to do it because of the pandemic or perhaps it has definitely been done and the mere fact of making the effort has been highly discussed from the beginning and is not the same for all media, which is why a very colorful concert has opened in this central point, for example some for it, others a little, the third for a group and the others not at all and that was in the media.

Now it won't surprise you that I also distributed the media across the board, including public colleagues, in addition to some of the many bugs they have. It happened, but it's broad. For example, there was talk of mandatory vaccination and it was from the beginning as soon as there was a vaccine in sight and I learned a nice phrase from my colleague at the time. I didn't write everything you didn't read. , so sometimes I have the feeling that this has been perceived very, very selectively, that's true. Still, I would like to quote a quote from you, Mr.

Blume. I thought that would be an interesting line because it's more about the issue. I, on the other hand, wrote to you on December 7, 2020. I would like to expressly ask for social disadvantages for all those who voluntarily forego a vaccine and then the consequence may be that the entire republic points the finger. It was probably an op-ed because they were still at the Spiegel back then and you can do something like that in an op-ed, but then you have to write the sentence again today, well the funny answer is that I wouldn't copy. I said it about myself, so I probably wouldn't write it a second time, um, but what was it about back then?

And the phrase sticks with me, so it comes up again and again when it comes to debates about vaccination or Corona in general and I comment. In it, I can see it immediately on the Internet. WU. No, it's happening right now, you can set the clock later, what was it about? The question is whether we are building a society, a group in society. is putting social pressure on another group. This happens here every time, this happens when 100,000 people take to the streets to demonstrate for democracy. In reality, they want to put pressure on AfD supporters. Please don't vote for this.

That's what happens when Freilis V Future takes to the streets and says the Boomers have ruined us. Boomers can please shut up and quit. We want to regulate this so that we can live on this planet. This is a political dispute, a social dispute and that is what I meant with this phrase and I hope and believe that the majority understood it that way, because one group talks to the other, no matter how big these two groups are and how powerful it is. one. They try to pressure others to follow their own example and yet it seems extremely coherent to me, without being a virologist or a doctor or an expert as I said, to say conclusively that the more people get vaccinated, the faster the risk of being healthy is reduced. regardless of the RF, if you can infect others with a vaccine or only protect yourself in quotes and that was always the fundamental point and the vaccination should have come sooner, the vaccine should have been acquired earlier, it should have been vaccinated faster than ours.

Damn it was a slow system and then it was the case in 16 different countries after 16 different variants of vaccination and yes, I would say pressure from the other side on those who voluntarily opposed vaccination, yes I want to, that's why it was so important. I want you not to blame yourself for this phrase at all, I also think that the context of this phrase also includes the date, it's really important, December 7, 2020. We were in a pretty desperate situation for a year or even two years. then definitely that's why it was the moment that was the moment that you cited when all the politicians said or many politicians said mandatory vaccination under any circumstances and never and I expressed my opinion at the time in this article but we will have to talk about it now because the we will need soon.

This question or this means that we naturally use in Mason, there is one more, that is why I say that the date is still important to understand the context. Herribert Brantel was one of the most striking phrases. That was said here on the program. This state was for me. My state has never been as strange as it was during this time. He was ruthless and at times I found him terrifying in the way he acted. It's worth thinking about, I think.