The rhetoric surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic is becoming uglier. Germany's parliament can cope, says Christoph Strack, but it's becoming harder to contain the protests on the streets.
Advertisement
Image: Abdulhamid Hosbas/AA/picture alliance
Wednesday's heated debate on changes to Germany's infection protection law went on for two hours. Meanwhile, on the streets outside the Bundestag, several thousand angry protesters also made their voices heard. Denouncing the measures put in place to curb the spread of the pandemic, they called for the storming of parliament. Police in riot gear had to resort to a water cannon to break things up, sparking scenes not witnessed in Germany in decades.
Since March, the German government — like other governments all over the world —has been struggling to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. It has introduced concrete measures to contain the virus, calling on people to wear face masks and banning gatherings in public spaces. It has imposed restrictions on cultural life, on the food and catering industry, on hotels and also on places of worship.
These measures have been annoying and painful for almost everyone — and some have also seen them as a violation of their fundamental rights. On Wednesday, demonstrators — among them COVID-19 deniers and supporters of the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) — went so far as to compare the government's proposed measures with the Enabling Act of 1933 which paved the way for Hitler's dictatorship.
For such a term to be used is outrageous. The act, which effectively gave the chancellor powers to bypass the government and enact laws on his own, symbolized Germany's complete departure from democracy. Those politicians who resisted, Social Democrats and Communists, were later persecuted and, in some cases, murdered.
Advertisement
Nauseating rhetoric
Some AfD lawmakers, including Petr Bystron, joined in the demonstrations outside before the parliamentary debate. Bystron also referenced the Enabling Act and said 1933 was a "good comparison." He likened the government's face mask legislation to the Nazi laws that banned Jewish people from shopping in certain stores, and said he thought such comparisons were justified.
Christoph Strack is a DW correspondent based in BerlinImage: DW/B. Geilert
This rhetoric is nauseating and cynical toward those who suffered under the Nazi dictatorship. It's an insult to all the Jews who were persecuted and murdered.
It's also an affront to the founding consensus of our democracy, and offensive to those democratically elected politicians who are struggling to cope with the pandemic.
Bystron's response shows that right-wing populists are less interested in democracy than in scoring political points off the tumultuous mix of far-right extremists, conspiracy theorists and people who are simply suffering.
Democracy needs opposition
Parliamentary debate is part of democracy and Wednesday's Bundestag debate was one of the year's most exciting discussions, even though the AfD made more noise than proper arguments. But the strongest speeches did not come from the ranks of the coalition government. That was left to Christian Lindner, leader of the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) and, in particular, Jan Korte, leader of the Left party's parliamentary group, who had insisted that lawmakers be given more freedom to participate in the debate.
Both highlighted various details to show which changes to the law had been achieved in the short time allocated to discussion, and what might have been achieved had there been more time. Both also reminded their audience of the fundamental importance of opposition in politics. It might be practical to have a grand coalition in times of crisis, but this country needs a stronger opposition.
After the debate, the law was passed by both houses of parliament and then sent to the president for his signature. But despite these changes, Germany's democracy will remain the same: there will still be pandemic fatigue, and there will still be despair over which measures should be taken to curb the spread of the virus. And the country will still have the same health care system, where medical workers will continue to be overworked and overstretched.
On Tuesday alone, 14,419 new infections were recorded in Germany, along with at least 267 deaths. The situation remains serious, as is the political response.
What the protesters on the streets and the right-wing lawmakers in parliament have to offer is bleak. The debate surrounding the COVID-19 response has deteriorated and is getting uglier. Our democracy is at stake — but it will survive.
This article has been translated from German.
Coronavirus rules: How much physical distancing is enough?
Physical distancing is important. But a set distance rule does not do justice to the way viruses actually spread, British researchers say. And the CDC warns: Infections can occur after only a few minutes of exposure.
Image: Reuters/M. Darlington
Keep your distance, please!
These are the coronavirus rules as we know them: Keep a distance of 1.5 to 2 meters (5 to 6 feet) from others, observe good hygiene and wear a mask. But this does not do justice to the complex reality of how aerosols spread, researchers from Oxford and London (UK) and Cambridge MA (US) have written in an analysis published in the British Medical Journal in late August.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/J. Büttner
This much? Or more?
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has tried to show schoolchildren how it should be done. But what does his gesture mean exactly? Do his fingertips have to be 1.5 meters away from the fingertips of another person? That would be a reasonable interpretation of the regulations. But two arm lengths alone measure 1.5 meters, so distances of 4.5 meters or more could easily result.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/Evening Standard/L. Young
Are sheep lengths better?
The Icelandic Association of Sheep Breeders has established its own rules: Two sheep lengths are appropriate to avoid infection. One may wonder if face masks are also supposed to be knitted from real sheep's wool. This young shepherd in Senegal may be trying to find out how long a sheep is by pulling its hind leg. The Icelanders already know — exactly 1 meter.
Image: AFP/J. Wessels
Natural spacers
Of course, this could also work. The standard length of a dog leash corresponds pretty exactly to the current coronavirus rules. Could it be a coincidence that a six-foot leash is usually prescribed for places where leashes are compulsory?
Image: picture-alliance/chromorange
Where does the 2-meter rule come from?
The authors led by Lydia Bourouiba, an expert in fluid dynamics and disease transmission at MIT, writes that the rule is outdated. Two meters was the distance recommended by the German physician C. Flügge in 1897. Visible droplets that he had caught within this distance were still contagious. A 1948 study showed that 90% of streptococci coughed out in droplets flew no further than 1.7 meters.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/PA/Jordan
Two meters are not enough
The 1948 study was published in the American Medical Journal. It also showed that 10% of streptococci flew much further: up to 2.9 meters. If that were the case, perhaps the people on this lawn on the banks of the Rhine in Dusseldorf would be safe — if every other circle remained free. But wait a minute — we are not dealing with streptococci (bacteria) here, but with viruses.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/M. Becker
Viruses spread via aerosols
Viruses are much smaller than bacteria, so they can float around for hours and spread better in the air. This is why the researchers recommend that the distance between people should not be the only safety criterion but that other factors should be considered, too: How well a room is ventilated, whether people are wearing masks, and whether they are silent, speaking softly or singing and shouting.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/Bayerischer Rundfunk
Do not sing or cough
Numerous studies have also shown that coughing can propel veritable parcels of viruses up to 8 meters through the air. Speaking or singing loudly also spread a lot of aerosols and droplets about the room. If, however, people only speak quietly, as in a library, and sit in the fresh air, safe distances can be smaller again.
Image: Getty Images/AFP/A. McBride
How long should I stay in the room?
The duration of a stay in a contaminated room and how many people are in that room are also decisive factors when assessing the risk of infection. The researchers have used those factors to develop a traffic light model. The clear result: In rooms with a high occupancy, you should generally stay only for a short time, make sure they are well aired, wear a mask and speak quietly.
Image: picture-alliance/dpa/S. Hoppe
One minute is enough to get infected
Even very brief contact can be enough to transmit SARS-CoV-2. The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) had to tighten its rules on October 21, after a prison guard caught SARS-CoV-2 from prisoners with whom he had only had contact with for a few minutes at a time. Now, "close contact" is defined as being within 2 metres of an infected person for at least 15 minutes cumulatively within 24 hours.
Image: picture-alliance/empics
No mask needed here
Here, however, the traffic light of the UK-US research team would show green. Outside, people can be safe for long periods of time even without a mask, provided there are few people around, everything is well ventilated and no one talks much. But even so, will the distance between deck chairs being measured here be enough?
