The title might be misleading. In a period of various tensions, made even more glaring by the Coronavirus crisis, speaking of a “defence” of the Germans might seem a paradox to many Italians. However, my “defence” of the German people does not directly concern the strictly international political or economic aspects, on which those who follow me know full well how critical I am (at least as much as I am regarding the identical issues, for different reasons, faced in our own Country), but rather the way in which the whole affair linked to the Covid-19 “pandemic” was tackled, both at a governmental level and by the German population. It is certainly no coincidence that “Criticism”, as a philosophical movement, was born in this Country, to which humanity owes so much over the last three centuries in this field, as well as in the scientific, literary and musical ones. Obviously, the Germans do not need any “defence” from me: they are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. Nevertheless, I feel the need to expound, out of a sense of civic duty and for the love of truth (a rare commodity in confusing times like these, especially back home in Italy), the way in which Germany tackled the emergency caused by the Coronavirus. I will leave the chronicle, albeit important, of the various steps that followed one another in these months of “pandemic emergency” to the box you will find at the bottom of the article, and prefer to dwell on another aspect of the matter: what were the methodological and substantial differences adopted in the two Countries in tackling all the various problems caused by Covid-19.
Politics
The first confirmed case of infection by the virus was officially registered on the 27th of January, in the Bavarian district of Starnberg. We also spoke about it at the end of February, when by then in Italy we had moved from the aperitifs amongst the so-called Milanese movida (on the 27th of January itself) and the brotherly embrace of Chinese citizens present on Italian soil, to the outbreak of the “patient zero” case in Codogno (to be exact on the 20th of February). The line taken by the German Minister of Health, the Christian Democrat Jens Spahn, was one of prudence. “Wenn man mir in zwei Wochen vorwirft, übertrieben vorsichtig gewesen zu sein, bin ich zufrieden – denn dann hat sich alles gut entwickelt” (If in two weeks I am accused of having been overly cautious, I will be satisfied – because then everything will have turned out well). The difference speaks for itself. On the 13th of February the Bundestag, for the first time in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, debated a law in its first, second and third reading in a single session, passing it unanimously on the same day with no abstentions. It was the one authorising the Federal Government to adopt certain immediate measures (short-time working allowance, essentially our cassa integrazione) via a legislative decree. On the 26th of February the Minister of Health officially declared “the start of an epidemic in Germany” and from the following day measures began to be taken, such as the setting up of a crisis unit between the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Health. The main scientific reference points for the Government were the Robert Koch Institute and the Leopoldina Academy of Sciences. On the 17th of March the Foreign Minister, the Social Democrat Heiko Maas, announced a massive repatriation plan (costing 50 million euros) for German citizens (and others) who found themselves abroad.
On the 18th of March Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU), in a message to the nation, declared: “Es ist ernst. Seit der Deutschen Einheit, nein, seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg gab es keine Herausforderung an unser Land mehr, bei der es so sehr auf unser gemeinsames solidarisches Handeln ankommt”, meaning: “It is serious. Since German reunification, no, since the Second World War, there has not been a challenge to our Country that depends so much on our joint solidarity.” Thus the first “restrictive” measures to limit the contagion were announced and the Chancellor appealed to everyone’s responsibility to limit its spread. But, very importantly, she specified: “Es geht darum, das Virus auf seinem Weg durch Deutschland zu verlangsamen. Und dabei müssen wir, das ist existentiell, auf eines setzen: das öffentliche Leben soweit es geht herunterzufahren. Natürlich mit Vernunft und Augenmaß, denn der Staat wird weiter funktionieren, die Versorgung wird selbstverständlich weiter gesichert sein und wir wollen so viel wirtschaftliche Tätigkeit wie möglich bewahren. Aber alles, was Menschen gefährden könnte, alles, was dem Einzelnen, aber auch der Gemeinschaft schaden könnte, das müssen wir jetzt reduzieren”, “It is a matter of slowing down the virus on its path through Germany. And in doing so, we must rely on one thing, which is existential: shutting down public life as much as possible. Naturally with reason and a sense of proportion, because the State will continue to function, the supply will of course continue to be guaranteed and we want to preserve as much economic activity as possible. But everything that could endanger people, everything that could harm the individual, but also the community, we must now reduce”. She then continued: “Lassen Sie mich versichern: Für jemandem wie mich, für die Reise- und Bewegungsfreiheit ein schwer erkämpftes Recht waren, sind solche Einschränkungen nur in der absoluten Notwendigkeit zu rechtfertigen. Sie sollten in einer Demokratie nie leichtfertig und nur temporär beschlossen werden – aber sie sind im Moment unverzichtbar, um Leben zu retten”, that is: “Let me assure you: For someone like me, for whom freedom of travel and movement was a hard-won right, such restrictions can only be justified in absolute necessity. In a democracy, they should never be decided lightly and only temporarily – but they are indispensable at the moment if lives are to be saved”. I limit myself in this case to underlining the sense of State, regardless of political affiliation, expressed by the German leader who never denied the role of Parliament and the opposition in making such important decisions for her Country.
In this regard, what I am keen to point out is the predominant role of Politics in Germany in this enormous affair, which saw the whole world involved. Science and the “experts” were indeed consulted, as is right in such cases, but the ultimate decisions were exquisitely political in nature. No media announcements, but concrete decisions and clear communications to citizens, seeking the active involvement of the latter through an exhortation to the responsibility of individuals. In other words, German Politics considered the German citizen as an active and not a passive party, forced to undergo decisions taken from above as if they were a child to be given restrictive rules because they are “irresponsible” by nature. And this despite the fact that numerous protests and demonstrations of dissent took place in Germany against the nonetheless reasonable and decidedly not excessive restrictions put in place to try and stem the potential negative effects of the contagion as much as possible. Freedom of dissent remains an essential cornerstone in any democracy. Otherwise the latter would not be such, but would rather assume the grim characteristics of a dictatorship.
The Press
Generally, I do not feel I can continuously praise the German Press, but I must say that in this case it managed to maintain an essentially public-service attitude. The national news broadcasts, unlike ours, devoted the “right” amount of space to news related to Covid-19, where by right I mean the time necessary and sufficient to inform citizens on the multiple aspects of the epidemic, but without dedicating entire news bulletins to a daily morbid tally of deaths, infected people and “human interest stories” as, alas, were seen on our television channels. There were indeed in-depth analyses, even in the print media, but always with unsensational tones or ones that did not tend to instil the terror of contagion in readers and listeners. The task of our profession should be to act as a vehicle for useful and varied news, placing the widest spectrum of information at the population’s disposal without preventive censorship. As in the case of political action, the task of information cannot be to treat the citizen as a child to be preventively protected from possible false news, or fake news as they like to call it nowadays. The reader (or listener) must be free to form a picture of the situation and an opinion for themselves, being sufficiently “adult” to be able to understand and discern the messages communicated to them.
The Population
Another praise I feel like giving goes to the German people. Honestly, I have never seen authentic scenes of hysterical panic (with the exception of the hoarding of food and toilet paper in the early period) or read comments in German newspapers or blogs launching alarms and invectives against potentially “risky” behaviour. On the contrary, I happened to read them on blogs and Facebook groups of Italians residing in Germany, criticising the “recklessness” of the “libertine” behaviour of the Germans, guilty in their eyes of continuing to lead an almost normal social life, at least until they were explicitly requested by politicians to limit interpersonal contacts. Obviously, such comments from our fellow countrymen changed radically, becoming so to speak more “accommodating”, at the first signs of spring when, with due precautions, people poured into parks and the outdoors to enjoy the fresh air and the pleasant warmth of the Sun. In that case the “irresponsible” Germans displayed, conversely, the irreproachable Teutonic qualities of respecting rules, without the need to be treated like idiotic children. But as we know, changing one’s mind is a synonym for maturity and intelligence, albeit in alternating phases, and the warm season brings with it a more optimistic vision of things. This, evidently, contributes to debunking the myth that the pessimistic people are the Germans.
Obviously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the most appropriate methods to combat a threat like the Coronavirus, but it still remains an indisputable fact that, aside from the undoubtedly better conditions of its healthcare system (it is worth noting that the numerous intensive care units were never filled), Germany emerged decidedly better than our Country from the peak period of the epidemic, both from a healthcare, social and economic point of view. Putting it to the test, even considering only the first two of these aspects (the third would require a separate article), in a Country of roughly 83 million inhabitants (23 million more than Italy), the total number of infected and deceased is respectively, at the time this article was written, 184,193 and 8,674. In Italy, alas, 234,119 and 32,354. And this despite over two months of an almost total lockdown of the Country, during which the lives of Italians were regulated by a series of decisions taken by groups of “experts” (task forces) to whom Politics delegated the task of “directing” the entire nation.
Now it must be one of two things: either the decisions taken were not the most adequate, or one must necessarily assume that the Germans are a people endowed with a superior immune system (something I have also read on the Web), practically Übermenschen of Nietzschean memory, or perhaps, simply, extremely lucky. All this, obviously, irrespective of the fact that the virus might have presented itself in a more virulent form here than elsewhere. Or perhaps the method adopted by the Country system was more effective, not letting panic take the upper hand, with a political class that knew how to guide the nation, without abdicating decisions to others, while nonetheless availing itself of Science’s indications. Yes, Reason, Die Vernunft, proper to that Criticism I mentioned at the beginning, has not abandoned Germany, despite the Coronavirus.
The main measures taken in Germany during the Covid-19 epidemic
The first confirmed case of infection by the virus was officially registered on the 27th of January, in the Bavarian district of Starnberg. We also spoke about it at the end of February, when by then in Italy we had moved from the aperitifs amongst the so-called Milanese movida (on the 27th of January itself) and the brotherly embrace of Chinese citizens present on the territory, to the outbreak of the “patient zero” case in Codogno (to be exact on the 20th of February). The line taken by the German Minister of Health, the Christian Democrat Jens Spahn, was one of prudence. “Wenn man mir in zwei Wochen vorwirft, übertrieben vorsichtig gewesen zu sein, bin ich zufrieden – denn dann hat sich alles gut entwickelt” (If in two weeks I am accused of having been overly cautious, I will be satisfied – because then everything will have turned out well). At the end of February, during the carnival celebrations, numerous people contracted the infection in the Heinsberg district, in North Rhine-Westphalia, causing alarm and leading to the cancellation of the first major events, starting with the largest tourism trade fair in the world, the ITB in Berlin (on the 29th). Also at the end of February, Coronavirus infections were confirmed in Baden-Württemberg too. Both States set up a crisis management group, supported by the Robert Koch Institute and the Federal Ministry of Health. Other cases were registered in Rhineland-Palatinate, Hamburg and Hesse. All this led Minister Spahn to declare: “…die Epidemie jetzt Deutschland erreicht hat”, meaning “the epidemic has now reached Germany”. On the 10th of March it was decided to ban gatherings with more than a thousand participants and immediately afterwards German and non-German citizens, present on the national territory and who had returned from Italy, Austria or Switzerland, were invited to voluntarily place themselves in quarantine for two weeks before circulating freely. On the 18th of March there was Chancellor Angela Merkel’s address to the nation. On the 20th of March Bavaria and Saarland were the first two federal States to impose movement restrictions, followed later by others, and on the 22nd the Chancellor herself went into quarantine having been in contact with a doctor who had tested positive for the virus. Between the 23rd and 27th of March, substantial funding was decided for the German economy (over one trillion euros in total) and the following day the Chancellor, through her weekly podcast, thanked citizens for having respected the rules, asking for further patience, and on the 3rd of April her quarantine period ended. Meanwhile, Parliament had decided to extend the restrictions on public life and the limitation of personal contacts until after Easter. On the 11th of April the President of the Republic, Frank-Walter Steinmaier, delivered a speech on German TV addressed to his fellow countrymen emphasising: “Ich bin tief beeindruckt von dem Kraftakt, den unser Land in den vergangenen Wochen vollbracht hat” (I am deeply impressed by the feat of strength our Country has achieved in the past weeks). Two days later the Leopoldina Academy of Sciences (the oldest scientific and medical society in the German-speaking world and the oldest continuously existing natural science academy in the world) presented a statement formulating the conditions for a gradual normalisation of public life. The statement would be included in the consultations between the Federal Government and the Länder on the subsequent 15th of April. Between the 17th and 29th of April the reopening (albeit with the obligation to use masks) of public functions was decided and on the 30th of April the Chancellor and the heads of the various Länder decided to reopen playgrounds and cultural institutions, such as museums, zoos and commemorative monuments, albeit under certain conditions. Not everything, however, took place without protests. And it is here that the German critical spirit, however one thinks about both the virus and the measures taken to contain its contagion, emerged clearly compared to other Countries, including ours. On the 1st of May, this year more than other years, there were protests and riots in Berlin, especially in the historic Kreuzberg district, followed the very next day, for the first time, by hundreds of people in central Germany demonstrating simultaneously in several places, precisely against the restrictions and regulations to contain the virus. In Saxony the protest, according to the police bodies, had been organised by various right-wing groups. There were numerous violations of social distancing rules and other regulations. Between the 4th and 6th of May further relaxations were applied compared to the initial prohibitions (which were more advice than anything else), but already by the 9th in several German cities thousands of people demonstrated against the interpersonal contact restrictions and against the hygiene regulations put into force, a matter which alerted the criminal police services and aroused the concern of the Interior Ministers of the individual Länder. On the 16th of May thousands of people demonstrate against the restrictions in various cities. The Prime Minister of Saxony, Michael Kretschmer (CDU), causes a national sensation because in Dresden he tries to speak without a mask to the demonstrators who were insulting him. From the 18th of May restaurants reopened, albeit with severe rules regarding the distancing between tables and strict hygiene regulations. On the 24th the Prime Minister of Thuringia, Bodo Ramelow (Linke) sparks nationwide criticism with his plan to abolish general restrictions against the Coronavirus starting from the 6th of June, albeit without abolishing minimum interpersonal distances and the use of masks in indoor public places. On the 3rd of June the Government decided on a further economic aid package of another 130 billion euros (in total it is well over a trillion euros), in addition to a VAT reduction from 19 to 16 per cent. Twenty-five billion will be dedicated to the tourism and entertainment sector in the period between June and August. Furthermore, every family with dependent children will receive 300 euros for each child. “Germany must emerge from the crisis as quickly as possible and strengthened. We are taking care of this with the most comprehensive economic stimulus programme for citizens and the economy in the history of Germany”, stated the Minister for Economic Affairs Peter Altmaier (CDU). So much for the chronicle.
