The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

An opinion, zero knowledge? Lauterbach takes it easy on "Lanz" - until the name "Klaus Stöhr" comes up

2022-07-06T14:35:20.285Z


An opinion, zero knowledge? Lauterbach takes it easy on "Lanz" - until the name "Klaus Stöhr" comes up Created: 07/06/2022, 16:27 The guests at “Markus Lanz” (ZDF) on July 5th, 2022. © Cornelia Lehmann/ZDF Two topics with Markus Lanz on ZDF, but the dilemma is the same: Germany is not making any progress, neither with the corona evaluation nor with the Ukraine war. Hamburg – Markus Lanz himsel


An opinion, zero knowledge?

Lauterbach takes it easy on "Lanz" - until the name "Klaus Stöhr" comes up

Created: 07/06/2022, 16:27

The guests at “Markus Lanz” (ZDF) on July 5th, 2022.

© Cornelia Lehmann/ZDF

Two topics with Markus Lanz on ZDF, but the dilemma is the same: Germany is not making any progress, neither with the corona evaluation nor with the Ukraine war.

Hamburg – Markus Lanz himself promises a “very opinionated round” and “challenging show” on Tuesday evening.

But anyone who expects an exchange of blows between Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) and the virologist Hendrik Streeck will be disappointed: Streeck, who with his much-noticed Heinsberg study came to different results than the federal government early on, appears cautious that evening.

Like Lauterbach, he reports almost impassively what the report has brought: namely almost nothing.

It was only the philosopher Svenja Flaßpöhler who called the resulting misery by name: This major corona evaluation is not one at all.

“The measures were not empirically researched.

This means that it is impossible to control the judiciary.

I see that as a glaring problem.” Lanz quotes what he thinks is a “remarkable sentence” from the report: “An expert committee should evaluate more closely any indications of the effectiveness and undesirable effects of the school closures.”

These guests discussed with Markus Lanz:

  • Karl Lauterbach -

    Federal Health Minister, SPD

  • Hendrik Streeck

    - virologist

  • Svenja Flasspöhler -

    Journalist of the

    philosophy magazine

  • Roderich Kiesewetter -

    CDU defense expert

"That means," says Lanz, "they evaluated and found out that we need to continue evaluating.

Who is supposed to understand that?” Streeck replies calmly, but with a heavy content, that the report contains a completely different, much more decisive sentence: “Overall, there is no recognizable connection between the level of incidence and the strength of the measures.” It goes even further, as Streeck explains in detail explains: "We see a large proportion of serious, adverse effects in schoolchildren."

Streeck sees the fact that the government only commissioned an honorary commission to deal with the important issue, which was supposed to do the whole thing on the side and free of charge, so that even Christian Drosten, according to Lanz, “the world’s best virologist” did not feel like working on it, as a fundamental problem on which the all the work was offended: The other experts on the committee would have continued anyway and "said: It is also our responsibility to carry out an evaluation here despite the adverse circumstances".

Lanz: "Did you realize which communication disaster we were heading for in the end?"

Lanz is stunned: "As a citizen of the country, I can't keep up.

Actually, we don't have any data to seriously evaluate what we actually have to evaluate here." He asks Lauterbach, who was connected via video, directly: "Did you realize which communication disaster we were heading for again?"

Lauterbach is too striking.

"Communication meltdown, I'd be careful there.

But it was also clear that the commission was poorly staffed.

You can't do that with two virologists.

You need large commissions for that.” The question as to why no large commission was set up remains an open question, as Lanz summarizes: “There are 83 million people waiting out there and they would like to understand which of the measures were good and which were bad.

It's quite simple." Flaßpöhler warns of the consequences of the uncertainty: This gives politicians the freedom for new tough restrictions.

Lauterbach: "This report must not be a brake pad"

Lauterbach has nothing to oppose and admits: "In preparing for the autumn, we are using the scientific literature available worldwide." is.

It must not be a brake pad either.”

also read

NATO counters Putin's nuclear threat: Agreed in Elmau, nervous in the Kremlin

Ukraine diplomacy: Turkey stops Russian grain ship – Putin affront to Biden

That's exactly where Lanz gets involved: "You were obviously very annoyed about it, Mr. Streeck," he says, alluding to a guest contribution by the virologist.

He makes it clear that the politicians have given the order and "then of course we can expect that this evaluation will be taken seriously".

Lauterbach watches emotionlessly from the screen in the background.

CDU politician Roderich Kiesewetter, previously a silent observer, summarizes the declaration of bankruptcy in clear words: "The advice can only be that we set up the commission again with a view to the seventh wave." As a citizen of this country, you are "amazed and understood I don't know how things like this happen," Lanz complains.

But Lauterbach sticks to it: “There are also studies.

You can't hide behind an expert's report."

Lanz quotes the virologist Klaus Stöhr: "The man speaks of panic mode"

Lanz brings the virologist Klaus Stöhr into play, who was also on the commission and might have been an exciting counterpart to Lauterbach that evening.

Lanz summarizes how Stöhr sees the situation: "The man speaks of panic mode." Even the mention of the name Stöhr upsets the minister: "That doesn't fit here at all," says Lauterbach.

The question is: What would have happened if Stöhr had been invited to the show.

However, Lauterbach picked up the keyword “panic” immediately.

“Imagine a variant that is particularly dangerous for children.

We have to be prepared for such a case as well.” The probability tends towards zero, but he wants to have it mentioned at least once.

Lauterbach also confidently brushes aside the fact that FDP Vice President Wolfgang Kubicki is calling for the RKI boss to be fired: “We don’t necessarily need Wolfgang Kubicki’s clarification for these indications.

Mr. Wieler enjoys my trust, and that's it. We'll continue."

Lauterbach: "I'm working on the report now and I'll finish the fall."

Flasspöhler immediately embarrasses Lauterbach again: “If you always assume the worst case, then all empirical research is for naught anyway.

Then we would have to take the instrument box very far.” While she is saying the sentences, Lauterbach keeps interjecting excitedly from the off.

"I don't do that.

no

I don't do that." Flasspöhler replies dryly: "But that's what you just said." Lauterbach tries to counter, but ultimately has to agree: "Exactly.

But I have said that I do NOT assume so.

Otherwise you'll immediately start scaremongering."

Flasspöhler continues to turn the wheel: "Have you looked at France, where the schools have largely remained open?" It remains a rhetorical question.

"Do we need a fourth vaccination?" Lanz wants to know.

“How long does an immunization last?

At what point might we no longer have antibodies at all?

When is the immune system completely down?

When will it just be dangerous again?”

Streeck falters at "Lanz": "We have the wrong data in many areas"

Questions that even Streeck cannot answer.

"We have an incredible amount of data, but we have the wrong data in many areas." The virologist mentions incidences, "sampling" and "case incidences", which are actually meant.

Apparently nobody in the group can really follow him, especially since he stutters and falters.

Lanz tries again at Lauterbach: "What did you learn from this report.

What was too much?” Lauterbach: “Oh, it's very difficult to say.

We closed playgrounds, that didn't help.

We wore masks outside where it was hardly necessary, except at wine or beer stands.” But he refuses to admit “that it was fundamentally wrong to close the schools.

I stick to the wisdom expressed in the report that we cannot assess it".

Streeck specifies: "Many of the measures that were used outside - these are things where it was already clear at the time that they would have little influence on the infection process."

Lanz: Sweden's practical experience against Germany's models?

Lanz wants to confront Lauterbach: "Would you say that we didn't allow enough other opinions?" Flasspöhler also got involved: "One shouldn't have hastily excluded other opinions from the discourse by accusing them of being lateral thinkers or conspiracy theories .” She mentions a 2020 essay that called for a greater focus on protecting at-risk groups, rather than blaming society at large.

“This essay was immediately discredited.

But now we are exactly at the point where people say we have to concentrate on the risk groups. ”She calls on Lauterbach to “look as broadly as possible, especially in these uncertain situations”.

"But that's what we did," counters Lauterbach.

"That was also implemented in Sweden." But while it was successful in Sweden, in Germany "the model calculations showed that it is not a promising strategy".

Theory beats practice.

Colonel against philosopher on ZDF: Constructive discussion about the war in Ukraine

The second major topic of the evening continues with theory and mind games: the war in Ukraine.

This is where the opinions of ex-Colonel Kiesewetter and Flaßpöhler collide.

However, the two always discuss calmly and respectfully, even if Lanz tries to torpedo the constructive debate with a nasty clip.

He has a tweet shown in which Kiesewetter criticizes an appeal signed by Flasspöhler.

She had argued against arms sales, which he called "Germany's intellectual incompetence".

Now, in conversation, he admits: "I take the appeal very seriously." But the demand for a ceasefire is pure hubris for him.

Flasspöhler jumps on it and fires a salvo towards Lanz: "You can also have a conversation on a polite level without pouring oil on the fire." The display of the tweet was not necessary.

Lanz feels touched in his journalistic honor.

But the debate between the two continues constructively without him.

Flasspöhler emphasizes that a brigadier general also signed the appeal.

And a professor of international politics.

"These aren't just laypeople who come up with something funny." Flaßpöhler sees "a moral responsibility on the part of those who supply weapons for the consequences of war".

She urges caution: "Just allow yourself to think: What if it simply doesn't work because the Russians always have the escalation dominance?

Because they are much better positioned logistically.

They just don't know.”

Lanz interrupts Flaßpöhler again and again: “Are you in favor of arms deliveries?

- What does this mean?

– I have a simple question.

– Are you now in favor of arms deliveries?” Only to then suddenly emphasize: “You don’t have to justify yourself for that.

You get into a justifying attitude.” Flaßpöhler takes it easy.

"Nope," she replies curtly.

Lanz now demands what he just didn't want to allow her himself: "Let me formulate my thoughts."

Lanz purified after ZDF criticism?

Rather not

And she lets him.

"We regularly try to get people on the show who see it critically," says Lanz.

He alludes to the political scientist Ulrike Guerot.

When she pleaded for diplomacy instead of arms deliveries in Lanz's talk, there was a closed opposition from the moderator and guests.

Guerot hardly got a word in.

Lanz indicates that he learned from the much-criticized incident.

"What I find interesting, also in this discourse, is that those who doubt current practice always have to justify themselves," answers Flasspöhler.

Lanz interrupts her.

"That's what I think, they don't have to." Flaßpöhler continues: "You have to put pressure on the negotiating partners to sit down at the negotiating table," she says.

"There has not yet been any concerted action by the Western community to actually bring both sides to the table." "Yes, yes," Lanz interrupts, but Flaßpöhler remains undeterred: "And as long as they keep fueling the war, that won't happen either .”

Kiesewetter sums up the dilemma.

Diplomacy instead of weapons is not a viable option for him: "Then support Russia.

Guns are the language Russia understands right now.

The aim is also that we don't lose Zelenskyj, because then we'll have the problem of the old oligarchs again";

Volodymyr Zelenskyj is the hope.

But before the possible oligarch status of the beacon of hope, the allegedly or supposedly quickly grown private fortune to 850 million euros, can be discussed further, Lanz has to end the program with few words.

"Otherwise I'll get in trouble.

I almost said: friendly fire.”

Conclusion of the ZDF talk with Markus Lanz:

Lanz talks about the sobering news.

When it comes to corona measures, experts and politicians know next to nothing, that quickly became clear.

The fact that those involved, whether ministers or virologists, were not worried was a rather ambivalent realization of the evening.

On the other hand, the discussion about the war was beneficial in a certain sense: Kiesewetter and Flasspöhler discussed it very politely and appreciatively, even though they had fundamentally different opinions.

Lanz himself fell into old patterns.

He constantly torpedoed Flaßpöhler with heckling, only to then demand the opposite for himself and "please formulate this thought."

Hendrik Streeck was unable to report much in terms of content in the first half of the program and only sat there as a brooding observer when it came to the subject of war.

Lauterbach had it better there.

When it was no longer needed, it was simply switched off.

(Michael Goermann)

Source: merkur

All news articles on 2022-07-06

You may like

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-27T16:45:54.081Z
News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.