opinion
The Expert Council has presented its eagerly awaited evaluation report. But the hoped-for guidelines for politics did not materialize. The traffic light must now make the most of the missing foundation.
Great hopes were placed on the evaluation report of the Corona Expert Council. On Friday it was presented with a one-day delay – and unfortunately could not fulfill many of the hopes. We know that we don’t actually know much. This is how you could exaggerate the 165 pages of the Expert Council in a nutshell. Reliable data would be urgently needed. The autumn wave already seems to be shifting to summer. Stricter measures against the pandemic may soon be brought into play again. Right now the federal government needs precise data and a good basis for the next decisions.
But hardly anything tangible can be derived from the paper. “The aim is to make a significant contribution to giving decision-makers in politics and administration an informed, solid basis for future decisions and measures and strategies,” said the chemist and member of the expert panel, Helga Rübsamen-Schaeff at the beginning of the Press conference.
But what follows is the complete opposite of a solid foundation. One could also say: missed the target. The database in Germany is more than poor, they say. There are over 200,000 studies on the subject of Corona worldwide. But in Germany there has been a lack of a stringent data basis since the beginning of the pandemic, so society and politics have to deal with it. The almost defiant justification is that evidence has been collected and evaluated to the best of our knowledge and belief. Other countries would definitely be in a better position – a clear dig at politicians: put more money into research, support educational institutions, then we can help you better. Corona explainer Christian Drosten had already said goodbye to the expert council early on and criticized that the resources were too poor to make a proper assessment.
Don’t expect recommendations from the experts
The assessment of the individual corona measures also shows that the data basis is so vague. The committee does not even want to comment on the subject of vaccination and medication. The Stiko is responsible for that. It’s a pity, because a recommendation would have been interesting, especially in view of the declining protection, the new Omicron variants and the adapted vaccines.
But there will be no recommendations from the expert panel anyway.
On the subject of lockdown, it is said that it is difficult to compare because each country has enforced the measure with different degrees of strictness. However, there is no doubt that fewer contacts minimize the risk of further infection. But the effect wore off over time. Probably the most controversial, because it is the most massive measure, cannot be conclusively evaluated because there is a lack of data. An absurdity.
How about 2G? It could work, but that won’t get more people to vaccinate. Contact tracing and regular testing might be more helpful, but doubts remain. And the masks? According to the expert panel, they only help if they are worn correctly. However, no special effect can be seen with the FFP2 masks, so one does not want to comment on it. A separate commission would have to deal with their effectiveness. And what did the school closures bring? There is no clear answer to that either.
Anyone who hoped to get answers as to how sensible, how necessary and how effective the drastic measures in our lives were in the end and, above all, which ones we should repeat when the situation worsens again, will be disappointed.
improve communication
However, the committee makes a clear recommendation: the government must improve its communication and reach risk groups better. Unfortunately, this is not a new finding. The fact that something went wrong in terms of communication in the last two years is of no news value. Rather, the question remains: How is this to be achieved? Using a practical example: How should you explain to citizens that they should wear FFP2 masks if the experts cannot clearly confirm their effectiveness in practice?
And so there remains an evaluation that must first be evaluated by the government so that the basis for future decisions can be derived from it. It feels like you’ve lost time. After two years of the pandemic, the only thing that is clear is that a lot is still not clear. One does not have to be a pessimist to fear that we will again not be well prepared for the next wave, which has already begun.
Source: Stern
David William is a talented author who has made a name for himself in the world of writing. He is a professional author who writes on a wide range of topics, from general interest to opinion news. David is currently working as a writer at 24 hours worlds where he brings his unique perspective and in-depth research to his articles, making them both informative and engaging.
