Press reviews
The corona virus is raging, and the possible future government partners SPD, Greens and FDP are sharpening their course. Too late and too discouraged, say commentators. The press reviews.
Partial lockdown for unvaccinated people and compulsory testing in buses and trains – this is how the SPD, Greens and FDP want to improve their corona plans (). It remains to be seen whether the crisis can be defused in this way. “Determination is different”, comment about the “Westphalian News”. the “general newspaper” complained that the traffic light parties “completely on the wrong track” be. You would have “got lost in a purely legal view of the pandemic”says she “Frankfurter Rundschau”, but now “rightly made a U-turn”.
“Much should, little has to”
“Southwest Press” (Ulm): “Angela Merkel (CDU) is still in power in the Chancellery and Olaf Scholz (SPD) is not yet in power. This intermediate world of governance is a problem. The impression is reinforced by the federal states, which could take action, but for many reasons do not want to decide to do so. At the beginning of July, the health ministers indicated for the first time that booster vaccinations are now necessary. It was bad luck that there was a general election in between, and it was a failure that no one felt really responsible.”
“New Osnabrück Newspaper”: “SPD chancellor candidate Scholz did not dare to call the vaccine skeptics to account during the election campaign, and he remained silent for far too long after the election. A deadline for a lockdown only for the non-immunized should have been decided in the summer. Then everyone could have adjusted to it, then we would not have the long lines in front of the vaccination centers. Anyone who opts for the spades now has to wait weeks for full vaccination protection.”
“general newspaper” (Mainz):“Why are the three parties stubbornly sticking to an end to the epidemic situation? Like three stubborn children, they do not want to admit that they are completely on the wrong track here. There is something to be said for involving Parliament more in the fight against the pandemic. However, you are damaging this concern if you declare the pandemic to be over just at the point in time when this is clearly not the case for everyone.”
“Westphalian news” (Münster): “Much should, little has to: Even if the soon-to-be coalition members sound of a ‘de facto lockdown’ for those who don’t like vaccinations: There is a difference in decision-making, and if something is going to happen, even debutants have to have the courage to be courageous. This includes: presenting measures that work. Believes: Everything that is decided in terms of restrictions must be controllable and consistently monitored. We haven’t heard much about it so far. I wonder why?”
“Augsburg General”: “Too many politicians are more likely to have the next shit storm or the next headline in their heads than the next corona wave. So it was preferred to rant about the German ‘Freedom Day’ instead of taking measures that make further restrictions on freedom superfluous. By the summer at the latest, clear rules that apply to unvaccinated people should have been presented should the number of infections rise massively again. Then at least those who still think straight ahead would have known what to expect – and might have decided to vaccinate after all.”
“Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”: “Especially those who love freedom and want to avoid disproportionate lockdown measures for everyone can probably not avoid an obligation for certain professional groups. The idea is unbearable that nurses, doctors, even public servants consciously contribute to the spread of the pandemic among vulnerable people. It is also clear that a duty is a duty. Anyone who does not comply with it must feel sanctions. There is already a problem here. Since the fight against the pandemic is not just about endangering oneself, but also about protecting others, in an acute situation it is appropriate to exclude those who have not been vaccinated. This also creates a – legitimate – vaccination pressure. Social exclusion? Conversely: Those who persistently refuse to join the community have to pay a price.”
“Mitteldeutsche Zeitung” (Halle): “Now the problem could be dismissed as a matter for the unvaccinated. They want to be left alone, they don’t want to hear any more reproaches, they want to live their (unprotected) life. That is their right, after all, Germany is a democracy. However, it is also the right of the vaccinated and the unintentionally unvaccinated to live their lives safely. However, this does not work if, for example, the risk of infection in buses and trains by unvaccinated people increases or cancer operations have to be canceled because the majority of intensive care beds are occupied by unvaccinated Covid patients.”
“Nuremberg News”: “The future coalitionists have probably recognized that they are on the wrong track. They were warned: their more experienced country colleagues have been pushing for a turnaround for days. They give in a little now. However, that will hardly be enough. And so we continue to stumble through the pandemic, against all better knowledge.”
“Frankfurter Rundschau”: “The traffic light parties had gotten lost in a purely legal view of the pandemic and have now correctly turned around. If the SPD, Greens and FDP plan nationwide 3G in public areas and at work, daily test obligations in nursing homes, 2G in many leisure activities and contact restrictions for the unvaccinated, then they will go further than the previous government in some areas. Even compulsory vaccination for certain occupational groups is under discussion. It does carry the risk that the already scarce nursing staff will now become even scarcer. But isn’t a nurse in the wrong job anyway if she accepts the risk to her protégés?”
Source From: 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.
