A Hamburg weekly takes stock. If the self-critical processing of the greatest state of emergency in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany begins like this, then there is still a lot of work to be done.
“Our Corona mistakes” is the headline of the current issue of the weekly newspaper The time and lets 20 people “who played an important role in the pandemic” admit “where they went wrong – and what they wouldn’t do the same way today”.
If this is to be the beginning of a self-critical appraisal of the greatest state of emergency in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, then there is still a lot of work to be done.
The front page announcement time-Print version sounds promising:
Where were they too fearful, where too careless? Where have they exaggerated, where have they looked the other way? Confessions of scientists and physicians, politicians and journalists – also from our own editorial team.
Die Zeit, issue no. 5 of January 26, 2023
However, no matter how the questions were formulated, the published answers reveal only very modest self-criticism on the part of many of the actors. 20 answers are in the printed newspaper, together with five others they are also chargeable to be found online.
Errors, opinions, facts – and modelers
Frank Ulrich Montgomery (like wrong if “World Medical President” presented). Because the doctor lobbyist writes:
My second mistake was believing that vaccines could create herd immunity and that vaccines were free from side effects.
Prof. Frank Ulrich Montgomery, radiologist
Even if they are two mistakes, but here someone actually admits to having talked nonsense. However he came to believe that a drug could only and precisely produce one desired effect, without any further sequelae, it is a clear admission.
The problem, of course, wasn’t Montgomery’s belief – it’s free in Germany – but the presentation of this belief as science, as fact. And this confusion runs through many of the 25 alleged error admissions.
Of course, knowledge about Corona has grown over time and the virus has changed. With increased knowledge one can come to other evaluations. But not that much has happened in the biological world and the events of a pandemic have not reinvented themselves with Corona.
The problem with many mistakes is that opinions are taken for facts and assumptions of fact are passed off as facts (see: “Facts as a problem of understanding”).
Viola Priesemann sums this up clearly:
As a modeler, it was important to me to provide a factual basis – it’s not my job to evaluate it politically.
dr Viola Priesemann, Head of the Max Planck Research Group Theory of Complex Systems
Models don’t provide facts, they try to explain facts and, in Priesemann’s case, to predict the future. It is a fact that Priesemann made predictions; but these assumptions about the future are not themselves facts.
“It was clear that we politicians would also be wrong”
A statement by Michael Kretschmer suggests that there could still be a lot of controversy about who is responsible for this misinterpretation:
In the first year of the pandemic, 2020, everything was new to us. At that time there was clear advice from science to close the schools. I think that was okay too, given what we knew at the time.
Michael Kretschmer, CDU, Prime Minister of the Free State of Saxony
While scientists like Priesemann or Christian Drosten (who timecollection does not occur) always emphasize that they do not want to make any political decisions, politicians have referred to such concrete recommendations from the researchers from the very beginning.
It cannot be inferred from his statement that Kretschmer assumes responsibility, especially since he seems to be wiping away the collateral damage that has arisen with the knowledge available at the time: We knew little, the probability of being wrong is high, you can’t do anything about it. Or in other words:
It was clear that we politicians would also be wrong. We have never experienced a pandemic like this.
Bodo Ramelow, Die Linke, Prime Minister of Thuringia
Dirk Brockmann, professor of physics at the Humboldt University in Berlin, says that “we modelers had a lot of room for improvement when it came to communication”. And he was surprised at how strongly the population “reacted to the models and debates”. He does not name any more mistakes.
Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, Professor of Arbovirology at the University of Hamburg, thinks he chose the wrong time when publishing a position paper.
Prof. Hendrik Streeck, virologist at the University Clinic Bonn, sees the fact that he did not pick up the phone more often to exchange ideas with colleagues as his Corona omission.
But what about responsibility?
Karl-Josef Laumann begins his “Mea Culpa” in a very political way:
I have to start by saying that I consider the state and national management of Corona to be quite successful overall. I also believe that many things that are criticized in retrospect always have to be assessed against the background of the situation.
Karl-Josef Laumann, CDU, Health Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia
He is critical of the “strict visiting regulations for hospitals and nursing homes and the burden of the measures on children and young people”. But what about the responsibility, the apology, a reparation?
There were people who had to spend the last phase of their lives alone because of this, and families who were unable to say goodbye to their loved ones. I find it very difficult to bear the thought of it.
Karl Josef Laumann
That’s how it goes. After the 25 statements, no one knows how all the “mistakes” can be avoided in the future, decisions that have caused suffering and misery. How the further enlightenment is supposed to succeed is particularly puzzling because one group responsible is particularly rare: journalists.
