Icon: enlarge
Greens boss Habeck calls for alternatives to the shutdown - but still pleads for caution
Photo: Kay Nietfeld / dpa
The chairman of the Greens, Robert Habeck, and Janosch Dahmen, a member of the Bundestag for the party and a doctor, have presented a strategy paper that explores alternatives to the corona shutdown.
The paper is available to SPIEGEL.
In it they call for an "inclusive strategy" that should be "a way beyond lockdown and opening up".
The discussion about openings on the one hand or a prolonged shutdown on the other hand is "fatally superficial", suggesting that "society and politics have to decide between two bad options".
»There are alternatives«, write the authors and criticize the lack of these as »failure of the federal government«.
However, the Green politicians urge caution - conditions would have to be created for these alternatives, without which “broad-based openings” in the “current phase of the pandemic” would be wrong.
Because of the spread of virus mutations, the Federal Government and the Conference of Prime Ministers should "take their own decisions seriously and only decide on openings locally and very carefully".
The prime ministers want to meet on March 3 to discuss how to further combat the corona crisis.
Habeck and Dahmen essentially see six points to enable gradual openings.
In the paper they demand "ALL positive tests to be examined for the mutations" and to provide the sequencing information.
They no longer feel it is necessary "that every other dose be withheld" because of the surge in vaccine production.
It is a "scandal" that more than a million cans of AstraZeneca are not inoculated.
In doing so, they also hold citizens accountable: "Anyone who refuses to be vaccinated with AstraZeneca loses the vaccination date and then has to wait in line again," they write.
The Standing Vaccination Commission has announced that it will reconsider its recommendation to only vaccinate people under 65 years of age with AstraZeneca.
They call on the government to create “federal policy guidelines” so that in future “general practitioners, resident specialists and also company doctors can administer vaccinations”.
All kindergartens and schools are to be equipped with rapid tests.
Not only that: "The aim must be that, for the foreseeable future, all citizens can test themselves at least twice a week for the duration of the pandemic," it says in the paper.
According to Habeck and Dahmen, the tests should be inexpensive and free for people who receive social benefits.
They are demanding that the Corona warning app either be equipped with contact tracking options or that it be replaced by the “Luca” app, which, according to its website, promises “fast and seamless contact tracking in exchange with the health authorities”.
The penultimate point noted by Habeck and Dahmen is particularly interesting.
In it, they demand a uniform system that will be used to prove negative tests in the future and combine this with a specific opening perspective.
"Anyone who can prove a negative test result can resume certain activities, events, visits, entry can be possible again," they write.
They want to discuss the Corona vaccination pass in the »interaction with the expansion of tests«, because this would enable a »fair solution for the use of a digital vaccination certificate«.
Habeck and Dahmen's idea: "Digital evidence of a current negative test, evidence of current immunity from illness (current antibody titer) and vaccinations are then to be treated equally."
According to the authors, this would "avoid legal unequal treatment of vaccinated and non-vaccinated" people.
In this way, “freedoms should be made possible again as quickly and as comprehensively as possible”.
The EU is already planning to introduce a digital vaccination record.
According to Chancellor Angela Merkel, the technical prerequisites for this should be created within the next few months.
The last demand from Habeck and Dahmen is like an appeal.
"If restrictions are no longer helping to contain the infection, they must not be upheld," they write.
"The state has a duty to create the conditions so that rights are not restricted for longer than absolutely necessary," it continues.
The authors fear major social conflicts if the courts make a decision about "who can visit whom again".
"This must be prevented," they write.
Icon: The mirror