Lindner doesn’t want to get it

0
19
Lindner doesn't want to get it





© ZDF / screenshot



The FDP leader does not understand why scientists sometimes say one thing today and something else tomorrow. The virologist in the group has to explain scientific matters again.

Lindner doesn’t want to get it

FDP boss Christian Lindner had a lot to straighten out on Thursday evening at Maybrit Illner. It was his deputy Wolfgang Kubicki who said on Tuesday that the corona numbers of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) “give the impression that they are politically motivated numbers rather than scientifically sound”. With which he at least rhetorically got himself close to all those who consider the virus and the resulting lockdown measures to be a global secret plan to weaken German productivity.

It seems fashionable at the moment to torpedo scientific knowledge with private opinions. From theater directors to Swabian mayors, hardly a day goes by without someone speaking up with an argumentative, well, interesting interjection. That is of course allowed, it would only be nice if they had thought about it for a moment. Wolfgang Kubicki included.

So Maybrit Illner asked Lindner why Kubicki would rather not clarify his questions of understanding in dialogue with science before he struck such a conspiratorial tone. Lindner believes that his party friend only wanted to criticize the institute’s strange communication strategy, which he did not always understand.

The scientist in the group, the virologist Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit from the University of Hamburg, has to explain the basics again: Science is on new territory. Accordingly, she must constantly question and improve the research, and simply keep learning. This is a scientific matter of course, which, in this program too, clashes with the widespread attitude in politics that a change of opinion can only be explained with fickleness, breach of principles or betrayal of the voters.

The topic of the program should actually be a different one: “Politics is opening up – uncertainty remains?” In addition to Lindner and Schmidt-Chanasit, SPD family minister Franziska Giffey and pedagogue Katharina Saalfrank are in the group.

Later, the former federal constitutional judge Udo di Fabio will be added. He quotes another weird sentence from the past few days: If someone with statements a la “Because people die who have to die anyway” (he means the green Mayor of Tübingen Boris Palmer) is a “precarious tone of the constitution”, says di Fabio. After all, an old person has the same right to live as a young one.

However, di Fabio agrees with a statement such as that made by Wolfgang Schäuble, President of the Bundestag, that the protection of life in the current crisis cannot be subordinated to anything else. At the beginning of the pandemic, there was a “fundamental legal obligation to protect”. In such situations, the state should not only act with intensive interference with fundamental rights, it even had to. However, this phase is now at an end, and it is now necessary to consider which freedoms are possible again – even if one hundred percent virus protection would suffer. Di Fabio compares the situation to the 3000 traffic fatalities each year, which would also be tolerated so that mobility remains possible.

Pedagogue Saalfrank draws attention to everyday life in families. They are finished. Of course you understand the Corona measures. Politicians must perceive that it is simply impossible to bring home office and children’s education into line. “The families can no longer hold out for long,” she warns.

Lindner is not afraid of the second wave

Lindner nods violently here. He wants to give children the freedom they need to play and learn as soon as possible. After all, they were losing great “development opportunities”. Previously, he had announced that nobody could “scare him with a second wave”. The hospitals are now prepared, the citizens have got used to the hygiene measures.

Berlin school director Robert Giese, who was briefly brought in, then explains that it may not be that easy. He reports on students who behaved in an exemplary manner in the classrooms, but who immediately stood in groups in front of the school entrance and hugged each other to say goodbye . He wants more responsibility for the schools so that he can decide on suitable measures and openings. Giffey also pleads for the local practitioners. Not everything can be regulated nationwide. But it also points out that young people are young people and that life is sometimes “life-threatening”. In which she even agrees with Lindner.

However, he also wants to focus once again on the supposed fickleness of science when it comes to children have contradicted.

On Thursday, Drosten explained in the NDR Corona podcast the results of a study of its own, according to which children may have a similar risk of infection as adults. In the same podcast, he then cited a recent study in the science magazine “Science”, carried out in China, which in turn leads to the suspicion that the risk in children is lower by a third. Lindner now complains that these are two opposite statements within 24 hours. He would like virologists to come together and “agree”.

Virologist Schmidt-Chanasit tries again: Drosten has now cited different insights. Politicians would have to learn to deal with it. “We know that we know very little,” he explains patiently. An insight that others still lack.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here