opinion
Politicians are finding it increasingly difficult to justify the Corona measures. The opaque crisis communication is also to blame for this – there is a committee with which the problem could be solved. Only one position needs to be filled urgently.
After two years of the pandemic, the corona measures are sometimes just hair-raising. Sense and purpose are no longer clear to me in many places. Why is it not mandatory for people who have been boosted to have a test immediately after the vaccination, while people who have been vaccinated twice are not considered vaccinated until two weeks after the peak? Why would I be considered fully vaccinated after three vaccinations if vaccinations are compulsory, even though studies show that the vaccination protection decreases again? And why am I allowed to eat my popcorn in Bremen cinemas with 2G-Plus without a mask while in Hamburg, for exampledoes not work?
This eternal back and forth with the measures, the lack of uniformity is one thing above all: annoying. Sure, the virus is changing and forcing us to regularly readjust. That’s not the problem either. The problem is government communication. It is stressful that there are simply no clear answers to so many questions. I really want to believe that with all the measures we take, we will eventually end the pandemic. However, this is becoming increasingly difficult given the numerous contradictions. On the other hand, it’s unfortunate because politicians are slowly but surely losing my trust. And I’m not the only one. The Cosmo study from the University of Erfurt shows that trust in political institutions is declining. It is now even below the level we had before the pandemic.
This is a problem, because when trust falls, the necessary protective measures become less and less accepted. The latest Cosmo report states that “protective behavior is at best stable and below protective behavior in recent waves”. 30 percent of those surveyed no longer know exactly which rules apply to them. And: “Anyone who has lost the overview here also adheres less to the AHA-AL rules.”. On the other hand, there is a growing desire for nationwide rules. According to the study, 75 percent would be in favor of it.
“Evidence-based” is not an explanation, dear politicians!
Political mediation is clearly to blame for this. Jens Spahn has perfected the communicative chaos. The former health minister took the drama out of the situation with his promise that we could vaccinate our way out of the pandemic and the decision to end the pandemic emergency. And then the British study appeared, which showed that the vaccination does not protect as well as thought. Suddenly we were in conflict, because the news shook people up and finally offered an explanation for the sudden increase in incidences. But politicians weren’t particularly interested in it. Under the traffic light, which was still being constituted at the time, Freedom Day was proclaimed for March, and the end of the pandemic was promised.
And now Omicron is here. Vaccination, on the other hand, only provides limited protection, but it continues to be advertised and compulsory vaccination is threatened. From one day to the next, the recovered status is shortened – without explanation. When the message came out, I wrote to the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) asking for a scientific explanation. The answer: The status has been shortened, “because the previous scientific evidence indicates that unvaccinated people who have had an infection have reduced and temporally even more limited protection against renewed infection with the omicron variant compared to the delta variant.”
Angry letters came from readers. “Are you satisfied with this justification? Or do you no longer have to justify words like ‘scientific’ and ‘evidence’ when you mention them? (…) I find that unsatisfactory, uncritical, underage…” The reader was right. How should one understand this decision as a normal citizen? The studies to which the RKI referred at the time of the query were only linked later on the page – but do not contain any really tangible evidence or explanations for the decision.
The Corona Expert Council should advertise a new position
To this day, I have the feeling that all the institutions entrusted with pandemic management have no idea how to communicate properly. It doesn’t help that the federal government is committed to a “scientific pandemic policy”, the current federal health minister is a specialist and understands more about medical studies than his predecessor.
Those who cannot explain their decisions quickly fail. This endangers political and scientific work. The expert council probably sees it that way too. The panel published a paper over the weekend that was about exactly that: about . “A lack of consistency between available information, its assessments and the resulting recommendations contributes to the uncertainty of the population, offers a target for misinformation and disinformation, undermines trust in government action and jeopardizes the success of important health protection measures.” it in the position paper. Members emphasize that scientific information must be translated and then brought to the public through all channels.
Will that do anything? One does not know. If that is not the case, there is another solution. The Expert Council should include a communications consultant in its ranks. Maybe he can explain to politicians why explaining is so important.
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.
