Icon: enlarge
Berlin's Governing Mayor Michael Müller, Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder in the Chancellery in October
Photo: Fabrizio Bensch / dpa
The prevention paradox was often mentioned in this pandemic.
Christian Drosten spoke of it in an interview with the British Guardian in April.
The situation at the time: After the first corona shutdown, the number of new infections in Germany fell, including the R value, which shows how many people on average are infected with the virus by an infectious person.
The wave was broken, the intensive care units were less busy than expected.
The whole world looked at Germany with admiration, while in Italy military trucks carried away coffins.
And yet many asked: Was all this necessary?
The contact blocks, the closure of shops and restaurants, the border controls, the shutdown of a country?
Wasn't that an exaggeration given the low numbers?
It is the tragedy of forward-looking politics: because it prevents what was feared as the worst at a very early stage, it is denied legitimation because in the end nothing bad happened.
It is the paradox that Drosten speaks of.
In fact, in retrospect it is hardly possible to clarify whether less harsh measures would have been sufficient, whether every step was actually necessary, but these questions are pointless, because in the end the result counts: fewer sick people, fewer dead people.
It helps to keep the spring situation in mind when the Prime Ministers confer with the Chancellor this evening.
The situation is similar: something must be prevented that is still abstract.
The rapid spread of a mutant of the virus that is more contagious than the original form.
If the coffins from Bergamo were the fear scenario in spring, it is now the overcrowded clinics in Great Britain, where the mutant B.1.1.7.
already raging.
It's the negative scenario: we don't want to end like this.
The lessons from Great Britain are simple and clear: the British government waited too long with a hard lockdown, the mutant spread like a wildfire, now the hydrants are no longer sufficient to extinguish them.
If you want to prevent this wildfire in Germany, you have to start extinguishing it early and you need a lot of water.
From a preventive point of view, there is no alternative to extending the shutdown and tightening the measures.
The willingness of the Germans is decreasing
But there is a second lesson from Great Britain: the shutdown not only came late, it also didn't work because many didn't go along with it.
They lost confidence in their government, maybe they were just corona tired.
The Germans, too, are tired, and their willingness to blindly follow the Chancellor's recommendations is also declining.
That was different in the spring.
The virus was new and there was not yet broad knowledge about it.
Now there is a lot of knowledge, well-founded and less well-founded, people feel informed and mature, suddenly there are a lot of experts.
Icon: enlarge
Corona transport in the UK
Photo: Yui Mok / dpa
In the spring, the lack of knowledge ensured great trust in politics and the science that advises them, now the supposedly greater knowledge leads some to skepticism and reluctance.
"The current measures must compensate for what additional voluntary measures were taken in the first lockdown and what is now lacking for effective containment," writes Cornelia Betsch, professor of health communication who advised the country chiefs in an expert hearing yesterday.
First, transparency helps against tiredness.
It is no longer enough for the Chancellor to read out the joint decision in the evening and answer three questions from journalists.
Politicians must explain the basis on which their decisions are based.
Which findings are secured, which are just assumptions.
She has to describe the scenarios she sees and fears.
And justify the action it takes.
She also has to admit her own doubts, for example in relation to the question of what exactly was responsible for the high number of infections in Ireland, the mutant or too early easing?
It has to come back to the awareness of why Germany was so successful in the spring.
It must resolve the prevention paradox - and celebrate early prevention as a means of success.
It takes constructs of hope
Second, politicians have to set up solid scenarios and review what is reasonable.
Can classroom teaching begin in schools despite the shutdown if significantly more people are sent to the home office?
And if that doesn't work, what are the prospects for the students who have been hit so hard by the pandemic?
It needs constructs of hope if the citizens are to continue to participate in the next few months.
Third, unanimity in politics helps.
The more differently the federal states act, the less credible their measures seem: Why should I follow the rule in my federal state if another does not consider it necessary?
It can't be so urgent then.
In the great chaos of rules, many no longer see through, which also increases the likelihood that these rules will no longer be followed.
If the heads of government agree that they must act early and preventively again, then they should also agree on how they want to act.
Once you have reached an agreement, you must not hesitate and start the measures immediately.
The last time in October and November the countries hesitated too long.
They could not accept the proposals of the Chancellery, also for reasons of power politics.
The high numbers of the past few weeks were also the result of this hesitation.
At that time federalism was at its lowest point.
It should remain its only one in this pandemic.
Icon: The mirror