Clarity is usually a good guideline in politics. Politicians can be admitted that in a situation that cannot be reliably calculated, such as the corona pandemic, the desired clarity of statements and forecasts cannot be provided. The second wave rocked higher, the third wave in spring ended faster than expected. Even now the situation cannot be assessed with absolute certainty. But in which direction it is going from a human perspective is clear: The coming winter will be less dramatic than the previous one.
The reason for this is not disputed: vaccination helps. A large part of the population has already chosen reason. Some cannot be vaccinated. But many do not want to. They above all are the problem in the months ahead. Quite a few will be infected, then they could soon be classified as recovered. The risk they take is in most cases small – but what if they infect others who cannot be said to do so?
Greater protection
Vaccinated people can also be contagious, and in some cases the vaccination does not work. But the protection is significantly higher, there is no serious debate about this, and the spread of the virus is severely restricted. In a society of vaccinated people, Corona would be a relatively unproblematic matter this winter if nothing worse is added. This is not the case with a high percentage of the unvaccinated.
But you have the tests, you can get away with them, is a common assumption of the vaccination opponents. And testing is also a tried and tested way of organizing life with the virus. It became normal (if temporary) for months.
And that brings you back to the point of clarity. If a mistake was made here, it was the emphasis on equating testing and vaccination in the spring. Vaccinated would now be put on an equal footing with the tested – you can still hear the sentence from the days when the “Federal Emergency Brake” was introduced at the beginning of April and the question arose at the same time as to which fundamental rights restrictions one could still expect vaccinated persons to exercise.
At that time it was braked up to the Chancellery. There was a fear that there might be displeasure – in the initially quite large unvaccinated and in some cases indifferent majority who were not willing to vaccinate at all. And you didn’t want those who were vaccinated to be at a disadvantage.
Wrong signal
But the signal was wrong. Even then it should have been said with all clarity that vaccination meant more freedom. That vaccination must take precedence over everything else. And you can’t talk yourself out of it by pointing out that not everyone would get an appointment quickly, given the lack of vaccines. It was known that in the course of the summer all those willing to be vaccinated would at least have their first spades.
For too long the opinion has been strengthened or at least accepted that testing alone can get away with it. The result is that, in view of a not entirely satisfactory vaccination quota, pressure has to be exerted on vaccination skeptics and vaccination lazy people. Or you come up with embarrassing “incentives”. That would not have to be the case if the consequences of not being vaccinated had been pointed out very clearly at an early stage.
I am a technology author with 8 years of experience in journalism. My writing covers the latest technology advancements and trends, drawing on my expertise in news journalism and social media platforms. I have contributed to major media outlets such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Reuters.
