Pandemic Archivi - Invisibilia: appunti postumi di una vita qualunque

The best of all possible worlds

Posted on 14/05/202102/04/2026 by Nemulisse

The “pandemic”, vaccines, masks… all the main topics one hears about from morning to night everywhere, on TV, on social media, on the streets. By now we have become accustomed to these themes and practically take them for granted. A bit like talking about the weather when you don’t really know what else to converse about. By now it is taken for granted that freedom is represented by being able to get vaccinated (or branded, like cattle, depending on one’s point of view) with the method deemed most suitable for oneself and as quickly as possible, and not by the fact that one might not want to get vaccinated. The latter, on the contrary, is viewed and singled out as the most heinous of sins in the social and even moral sphere (I dealt with this in this article). Anyone who harbours doubts about wanting to have the saving liquid inoculated into them is blacklisted and considered a pariah and a plague-spreader. This “branding” operation is put into effect starting with the various camel-mounted troops of “information”. At every hour of the day and night the usual faces of “experts”, pundits and politicians endlessly repeat the sung mass they have been told to propagate, regardless of their own competence and ability to understand what they are repeating ad nauseam. And this happens everywhere, in every Country, more in some, less in others, and with methods that change depending on the type of culture of the Country itself. Here at home, in Italialand, other accompanying diversions are added to this uninterrupted hammering, partly because they are typical of our culture, and partly because, as I have stressed at other times, we are a perfect people for conducting large-scale social experiments on. The latest in chronological order is the discussion on the so-called “Zan” law (a bill to be precise), passed in the Chamber of Deputies and now under discussion in the Senate. Of this specific legislative measure, Article 4 would need to be examined and investigated in depth, as it provides the means (were the law to pass as it is) to accuse anyone of crimes of opinion should they express thoughts not conforming to those of the “politically correct”, which might “offend” whoever on topics of a sexual and “inclusive” nature (a term so dear to a certain political side, and which deliberately means nothing concrete in itself). But I will not dwell on discussing it here now. There will be other occasions. However, there is an aspect of this whole “surreal” situation which in my opinion has not yet been highlighted well enough. It concerns the tight connection that actually exists between the “pandemic”, the restrictions implemented to “control” it, vaccines and… the “ecological transition” and so-called “digitisation”. Apparently these topics would be unrelated, but upon closer analysis the threads can be joined together. Let’s start with the last two.

Climate, ecology and bits aplenty

In the month of April, the European Union (Council and Parliament) reached a political agreement (confirmed a few days ago) that introduces into legislation the objective of climate neutrality (namely the Earth’s ability to absorb the greenhouse gas emissions produced) of the EU itself by 2050, and a collective goal of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 per cent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. Following this decision, or rather afterwards, the German Constitutional Court issued a ruling defined by all media as “historic”: “…The provisions of the Federal Climate Change Act of 12 December 2019… are incompatible with fundamental rights insofar as they lack sufficient specifications for further emission reductions from 2031 onwards. The Climate Change Act obliges the Federal Government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55 per cent by the year 2030 compared to 1990… the complainants, some of whom are still very young, have had their fundamental rights violated by the challenged provisions”. Indeed, “the young”, because many of the complainants were precisely those youth movements that identify with Greta Thunberg’s “Fridays for Future”. What a coincidence. And the German Government, so sensitive to the demands of the young (or perhaps of its entrepreneurial class?), promptly upped the ante, increasing Germany’s emission reduction target for 2030 from 55 to 65 per cent. The federal cabinet intends to pass a corresponding amendment to the Climate Change Act in the near future. The alternative energy to coal and lignite to keep German industries running in the future will most likely be hydrogen and dual-fluid nuclear power (to be clear, the reactors fitted on submarines), but for the moment gas remains the most viable energy source for replacing coal. Hence the agreement with the “big bad” Putin for the construction of the doubling of the Baltic Sea pipeline, the so-called “Nord Stream 2”, so fiercely opposed by the other big bad Trump first, and by the good Biden now. Opposed clearly not because anyone believes the joke about the wickedness of the Russian “enemy”, but because the United States must export their shale gas to Europe. Therefore Germany runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds, so as to displease no one. A masterpiece of economic diplomacy to get what it needs: exporting galore is the goal that cannot be compromised on, therefore… Therefore German industry, the true Panzer of the “locomotive of Europe”, is getting ready, in every sense. It needs to reconvert its means of production, also through digitisation (which as we shall see is not only for this purpose), but to do so it must invest substantial capital. So what better thing than to make all the “customers” themselves pay for this “transition”, namely European citizens through the (fake) funding of the Recovery Fund (which actually, in words, should serve for the damages deriving from the “pandemic”)? But how to do it? Simple! First of all you must find an ally that has the same need for industrial reconversion (read France), then you push at a political level so that the decision to adopt them is taken by all the other Countries (there must be an absolute majority). After that, you rap the knuckles of the most rebellious to make them accept this “little suppository”, consisting mostly of loans that will have to be repaid with interest (Italy is earmarked for about 191.5 billion, of which 68.9 in grants and 122.6 in loans. In addition, another 31 billion are envisaged from the so-called Complementary Fund and 13.5 from the “React EU” programme) with (fake) threats not to grant the aid itself. This is for a portion of the funds necessary for this transition. Then there is the political aspect. You must push those parties and movements that in the common imagination are most linked to “green”, “ecology”, “safeguarding the environment”. Namely the Grünen, the German Greens. And how to garnish this choice on the international wave of the “politically correct”? Why, it’s obvious! With a female candidate for the chancellorship for the upcoming September elections: Annalena Baerbock, 40 years of pure inexperience and lack of substance. The ideal candidate to drag along that young, or youthful, electorate so beloved by the people who matter. Everything “green”, spiritual, innovative and, why not?, digital. Yes, because the future passes through bytes, or rather through the Yobibytes (2^80) of data that circulate and will increasingly circulate on the Web. A mountain of data, worth as much gold as its immense mass. And to do this, Germany wants to catch up with the times, like its American and Chinese economic competitors, through the construction of quantum super-computers (capable of performing calculations, which the fastest computers in the world would take 10 thousand years to solve, in about 3 minutes and twenty seconds). Such computing power can be applied to infinite sectors, from the strictly commercial to the military, from the financial to pure research. In particular, the medical sector will benefit from it.

Resist, or rather no! Be Resilient!

Of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (a term used so much lately, and not by chance) which is divided into 6 “missions”, i.e. compartments to put it the Italian way, the chapter reserved for Healthcare or Health (here too the change is not accidental) is the one which has been allocated the smallest slice of resources (a mere 15.6 billion from the NRRP + 1.71 from React EU + 2.89 bn from the complementary fund) out of those that will “arrive” from Europe. But how? Are we not in a global pandemic emergency? Seeing as there have been so many (justified) complaints about the lack of intensive care beds in our hospitals, how come no steps have been taken in over a year to increase them? Oh, right! We bought the desks on wheels, those were the real necessity! Furthermore, for those who don’t know, our Governments (Conte first and Draghi now) have to this day not allocated a single euro to research in our Country on Covid-19, the “greatest pandemic the history of humanity remembers”… And yet from morning to night, as we were saying, we are bombarded by constant messages reminding us how dangerous the “virus” is, how important it is that we continue to maintain “social” distancing, that we must be “responsible” so as not to ruin those two crumbs of freedom we have been granted. A quick parenthesis: in case you didn’t know, the WHO has suggested to Countries that are profusely applying the vaccination campaign to lower the number of cycles (that’s what they are called) carried out to verify if a swab is positive or negative (below twenty, because beyond that you can find just about anything). Therefore, the result of the drop in infections is not due to the lesser spread of the virus by virtue of the vaccines’ efficacy, but simply because the analyses (in any case unsuited for diagnosing this type of positivity) are being carried out more correctly. Returning to the NRRP, the most substantial funding chapters, guess what, are assigned to: digitisation, innovation, competitiveness and culture (40.32 billion from the NRRP + 0.8 billion from React-EU + 8.74 from the complementary fund); green revolution and ecological transition (59.47 billion from the NRRP + 1.31 from React-EU + 9.16 from the complementary fund); infrastructures for sustainable mobility (25.4 bn from NRRP + 6.06 from the complementary fund); education and research (30.88 billion from the NRRP + 1.93 bn from React-EU + 1 billion from the complementary fund); inclusion and cohesion (19.81 bn from the NRRP + 7.25 from React-EU + 2.77 from the complementary fund). Thus, just like in Germany, “digitisation”, “green revolution” and “ecological transition” take the top spots. A coincidence? I should think not. What I think, on the contrary, is that it is exactly what the economically hegemonic class, the so-called “powers that be”, had in mind right from the beginning of this whole immense pantomime. The virus, obviously, is a means to radically change the economy and society. Once one Covid is over, you make another, to adapt an old Roman proverb about Popes. The “pandemic” is a method for achieving the desired change, and therefore can be used at will. At least as long as people continue to give credence to the current narrative, even if the latter is blatantly leaking from all sides. The fear of losing one’s life is the engine of this entire narrative, and out of fear of losing it, one fails to realise that, effectively, one is no longer living.

Your robot doctor

I conclude this long article with a final consideration. One of the main components of “digitisation” is precisely the one linked to Health. The latter, or rather Healthcare (a much broader concept than the one used in these last few years, I repeat, not by chance), is an exceedingly powerful means of controlling the masses. And this not only because illness is inherent to human nature, but also because through medicine one can determine the destiny of an individual, both in a positive and negative sense. The masses can also be steered towards certain types of behaviour, both with reflex reactions and with methodologies of a physical nature interacting with the human being. In this framework, so-called “telemedicine” will increasingly gain ground in the now imminent future. Telematic hubs will be created that will constantly monitor patients in their own homes, and the interaction with smartphones will be increasingly evident. In practice, there will be a total computerisation of our state of health and our life in general, where your doctor will be a computer programme or a robot doctor. Millions of data, as I mentioned earlier, which will be genuine gold both for the elites who hold the technological and financial means to do all this, and for their companies on which the whole of humanity now depends. So, besides control, profit too. The “Internet of Things”, for which 5G is necessary (they are already talking about 6G and beyond) is not a “cool thing”, it is the end of self-determination. You will be connected to the Web 24 hours a day and these billions of data will be precisely controlled via quantum computers. With digitisation, forget privacy, forget freedom of decision and movement, forget life as you have known it to this day. Welcome to the new, ecological, sustainable and digital world. The best of all possible worlds.

He goes seeking freedom…

Posted on 10/04/202101/04/2026 by Nemulisse

Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis was a proud and bitter enemy of Gaius Julius Caesar. A defining characteristic of the man, even according to his enemies, was that he was an upright, inconvenient, impartial, and consistent individual. He was so much so that he preferred to take his own life rather than accept a pardon from the advancing “homo novus”, namely Caesar himself, his political adversary. For him, freedom mattered more than his own life. It is precisely for this characteristic that Father Dante places him in Purgatory, and immortalises him with the famous tercet: …libertà va cercando, ch’è sì cara, come sa chi per lei vita rifiuta. (Purg. I, 71). (…he goes seeking freedom, which is so dear, as he knows who refuses life for her sake.) The concept of “freedom” has always been hotly debated throughout history, and contemporary philosophy in particular has dealt with it extensively. For Kant, freedom concerned a universal and abstract subject, but one that was de-socialised and de-historicised, whose imperatives were totally abstract. Fichte, a contemporary of Kant, understood that Kantian freedom, by presupposing the dogmatic existence of the “thing in itself”, represented a dogmatic premise for the unmodifiability of the world. He, conversely, believed that freedom is always relatable to individual situations, meaning it is a concept that is always determined. For instance, for someone dying of hunger, it means being able to eat and drink, and not “freedom of speech”. At the centre of philosophical analysis is the good, the truth, not freedom. Hegel speaks profusely of the latter in various works and particularly in his “Elements of the Philosophy of Right” clarifies the concept well, retrieving that of Plato and Aristotle and inserting the individual into concrete public life. Civil society is not the arena for the competitiveness of individuals who have the freedom to drive each other to ruin, because for Hegel the community must bring into play those ethical roots (such as public schools that must give equal opportunities to everyone to evolve). Freedom is a relationship between equally free individuals, but to be equally free it is not enough to have the liberal possibility of not harming each other; rather, there must also be the rights of everyone (materielle Rechte), first and foremost the right to existence, then others such as healthcare, education, work (the latter being a right-duty), and not least the right to sustenance. Individuals, therefore, are free to the extent that they realise themselves within the framework of the community.

The virus and the fear of dying

Coming to our present day, the oft-heard maxim according to which “my freedom ends where yours begins” is nothing but an empty axiom. If anything, it is your fear that must end where my freedom begins. The concept of “freedom” is today framed as the right not to be infected, as the right to “health” and not as the right to choose. Health is posited as a universal and necessary good, mistaking an individual’s value, or their psychological need, for an obligation of the entire community. Which is a false principle. And this is aside from the downright hysteria we are witnessing during this period, in which we are seeing scenes that until a couple of years ago anyone would have judged senseless (people attacking someone walking alone outdoors without a mask, drones chasing people on the beach, abuses of all kinds by “law enforcement”, etc.). I merely point out that in the name of freedom, hundreds of millions of people in history have sacrificed their lives, placing it above their own safety or health. And despite this, one cannot equally elevate freedom to a universal and necessary good. Do you feel free to wear a useless mask outdoors (the most terrible virus history remembers, according to the mainstream media, is practically stopped by a pair of underpants), when you are distant from others? Go ahead and do so if it makes you feel “safe”, but this does not mean that I necessarily have to do it too, because I am not harming you in any way. If you want to get vaccinated, believing this protects you from the virus, go ahead. This does not mean that I compulsorily have to do it too, since the “vaccine” (more correctly, an experimental drug) does not prevent a vaccinated person from transmitting the virus to others; rather, “side effects” apart, it is supposed to trigger an antibody reaction in the individual’s body (via the famous spike protein) such as to protect them from the virus. All this with a probability of it happening that varies from individual to individual and which, at most (depending on the “vaccine”), can reach just over 90 per cent of cases. This is without taking into account the fact that many illustrious scientists believe that the data provided in this regard by the pharmaceutical companies is heavily skewed.

The vaccine as a miraculous panacea

The vaccine, this modern panacea against the ills afflicting humanity (not just against Covid-19), has recently been at the centre of international media attention. The pharmaceutical multinationals, in a burst of “generosity” the likes of which had never been seen before, threw themselves headlong into finding the saving magic potion. And, what has been praised the most, they found it in just a few months. A pity, though, that they apparently did not have the foresight to test this “doomsday weapon”. A vaccine (and these ones found are not vaccines in the strict sense, because they are actually full-fledged drugs) requires a variable testing period, up to ten years. But never less than three. Just to give an example, AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), resulting from HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), has to this day seen no definitive cure. And this is since way back in 1981, when it came to the fore due to the suspicious deaths of five homosexuals in Los Angeles (the virus had actually chosen man as its “host” many years earlier). In practice, there is still no vaccine capable of defeating this virus. So how one can claim that the remedy for Covid-19 was found in just a few months remains a mystery, so much so that the pharmaceutical companies themselves do not allow us to know exactly the contents of the vaccines, and have demanded immunity in the event of “adverse side effects”. But are these vaccines useful? According to many scholars, no. Among the many homegrown experts arguing this are Dr Stefano Montanari, a pharmacy graduate with a thesis in Microchemistry, and his wife Antonietta M. Gatti, a physicist and microbiologist who has been dealing with nanopathologies for years. But besides them there are Dr Loretta Bolgan, a graduate in Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Technologies, with a PhD in Pharmaceutical Sciences, and Dr Francesco Oliverio, a psychiatrist and pulmonologist. On the other hand, it doesn’t take a genius in the medical field to understand that each individual reacts to viruses, as well as to vaccines or medicines, in a completely different way. What can be good for you, to be clear, can be bad for me. For this reason, it would be important, before injecting any vaccine, to carry out specific analyses to see if our body might be adversely affected by the contents we are about to inject into it.

Miracle vaccine vs aspirin

In this regard, consider the argument of those who state: “Well, they take any medicine whose leaflet has an endless list of possible side effects, including death, even in the common aspirin, and then they don’t trust a (supposedly saving) vaccine”. Or: “But there’s no comparison! In percentage terms, what are the chances that the vaccine could harm you compared to those where this doesn’t happen? There’s no comparison!”. Yes, minor detail, however, that even if there were only one adverse case, it would already be enough. And this is based on that precautionary principle that suddenly seems to have gone out of fashion. Even a single death must be enough. Not least because that dead person could be us. Regarding the first “boutade”, one can simply point out that whereas when you sign a consent form to, for example, be injected with contrast dye for a CT scan, you know full well what is in the fluid, and it has been extensively tested. Conversely, here, you haven’t the slightest idea what you are injecting into your veins and, above all, the possible medium-to-long-term reactions are unknown. Furthermore, compulsory vaccination is looming here, whilst simultaneously demanding immunity for those who have to inject the vaccine. Why on earth? One would only need to ask oneself this simple question to understand that something is wrong. Moreover, since according to the WHO itself, the vaccine would serve to protect us, but not others from the danger that we might infect them, then why compulsory vaccines? Why should I inject into my veins something whose contents cannot be known (a contract to this effect was signed between the pharmaceutical companies and the EU and other countries) if this does not allow me to return to my former life? And what if I preferred to die of Covid, why wouldn’t I be free to do so? Perhaps because I would set a “bad example” to others? I won’t even mention the famous “variants”, which are produced precisely because people are being vaccinated. That one should not vaccinate during an epidemic is stated by all virologists. This is because with the vaccine, the virus, feeling attacked by the antibodies, mutates to survive, generating precisely the variants (not covered by the vaccine that has been put into circulation worldwide during this period. On this subject, watch Dr Bolgan’s video linked above). But the even more dangerous thing following the ongoing vaccinations is the possibility of the appearance of the so-called “chimeras”, i.e. new viruses that have nothing to do with the original one and which, therefore, are unknown, with all the ensuing consequences. A separate chapter should be devoted to home treatments, which exist and work if the disease is caught in the early stages, but which are demonised and pilloried. As in the case of Dr Mariano Amici. Or hospital therapies like the hyperimmune plasma used by Dr De Donno.

Ah, but in Israel…

Israel, like Chile and, now, Great Britain, are held up as successful examples of the global vaccination campaign. I will dwell briefly only on the first case, so as not to further lengthen this long piece. Israel, with about 9 million inhabitants in all, saw the number of deaths skyrocket precisely after the start of mass vaccination, jumping from 5,000 Coronavirus deaths in the entire previous year, to around 6,200, in a single month, due to vaccine side effects by the end of January. But why did this country decide to vaccinate everyone in such a short time? Perhaps because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed a contract with Pfizer which envisages almost the entire population being vaccinated in a very short time? And this is because the country has the unique characteristic of being a rare case indeed, since the population is catalogued from a health point of view, thanks to a gigantic centralised database. In practice, every citizen’s health data is recorded. What better opportunity to test an experimental drug, than in a gigantic laboratory with 9 million guinea pigs? Not even during Nazism. History sometimes uses the law of retaliation (Dante’s contrappasso).

The virus to destroy small and medium-sized enterprises

That the virus has an artificial origin is no longer in any doubt. This had been stated by the Nobel laureate in Medicine Luc Montagnier, discoverer of HIV. And for this statement he had been pilloried by the media in half the world (a photo of him was shown during an interview, where a bottle of wine could be seen resting on a mantelpiece behind him. Obviously implying he was a drunkard) and by “illustrious” scientists (or presumed such, simply by virtue of appearing every day on our media) holding the opposite view. Only for them to “change their minds” when the matter became evident. Obviously it is said that the virus, in any case, had probably slipped out of the hands of some “distracted” scientist. Naturally, not even a primary school child would believe an “oversight”. And indeed… But then what is the virus for? Well, the lords of the global elite, who gathered in Davos last January, say so without even hiding anymore. We must move on to a New World Order. Which means the transformation of traditional industry in favour of digitalisation and fake “green”. I say fake because, in reality, “green” industries do not exist, and their owners are the same people who own the “traditional” and “polluting” ones. The electricity used to charge (where?) electric cars, what do you think it is produced by? “Well, by wind and solar power,” you might say. Actually no! In the vast majority of cases, it is produced precisely by the old coal or lignite (even more polluting) power stations, or by nuclear power stations in those countries that also produce energy that way (like France, to stay close to home). To give an example of how far away the “mirage” of electricity produced by wind and solar power still is, just think that Germany, a country that has made wind power in particular an absolute flagship after the so-called Energiewende (the energy transition with the phasing out of nuclear power) decided in 2011 after the Fukushima disaster in Japan, produces only about 25 per cent of its energy needs from this sector. And yet the “locomotive of Europe” is dotted with wind turbines. Not to mention the fact that batteries capable of storing the energy produced for a long time, before it is used, do not yet exist. Every year the bar for achieving the self-set targets (in words) of limiting harmful emissions into the air is moved further and further away, because they are never met. And now they are thinking of returning to nuclear power with dual-fluid reactors, namely those fitted on nuclear-powered submarines. Worldwide, the chemical energy products of coal, oil and gas still provide more than four-fifths of humanity’s energy (81.1 per cent). However, the virus serves to favour a shift towards large-scale production. Small and medium-sized enterprises will have to disappear from the face of the earth, except for some very small niches of excellence which the economic elites of the planet also wish to use because it would be impossible to overhaul their production without affecting their quality. All the others will either have to adapt, allowing themselves to be swallowed up by the multinationals, or they will be strangled and then bought up for peanuts. Only the large conglomerates must remain. Everything has been carefully calculated, at least since 2015, but in my opinion from well before. In the end, the people, exhausted by the non-accidental accordion-style closures, or lockdowns to use a “modern” term, which serve no other purpose than precisely to bankrupt small and medium-sized businesses (and not for the health protection of the population. Here at about minute 2:47), will initially be forced to sell off what they have saved in order to survive. Then, once the money runs out, to avoid inevitable rebellions, the elites will grant an obolus, or universal basic income as you may wish to call it, to survive and with which to buy the products that the elites themselves produce. Private property, another thing they aim at, must no longer exist and everything will have to be rented from the large conglomerates. For this reason, the mainstream media are continuously propagating the fairy tale (moreover false and quickly debunked by the Web) that the old professions made individuals “unhappy”, who are now instead, with the pandemic, forced to do part-time jobs like high school students for a pittance, but obviously “happy”. Like the serfs of yore. All this was clarified very well by the monetarist Nicoletta Forcheri.

The virus as an educational method

One must get “used” to the idea of the virus. And to do so, in addition to vaccines, we need those fetishes that are masks, as well as “social distancing” (not random words, used instead of physical distancing). Individuals who “work remotely” (those who are able to) are isolated and weaker, precisely because they are divided. They are also controllable, even with specific software, as the historian and philosophy teacher Pietro Ratto clearly points out. Furthermore, censorship falls like an axe on anyone attempting to break the wall of silence that has been built around the Covid narrative or who simply questions mainstream thinking. I myself, in my own small way, have been censored several times by Facebook, with threats to close my account for “violation of community standards” (unspecified, of course). It is precisely for this reason that I decided to purchase independent web space, or rather independent for as long as the servers hosting me allow it. If you are a nuisance, in any capacity whatsoever, in the digital world it takes just one click to make you disappear. Exemplary are the closures first of Donald Trump’s Twitter and Facebook accounts, when he was still President, or the deletion (later withdrawn) of RadioRadio’s YouTube channel, or the more recent one of Byoblu’s channel (seemingly permanent). Google, the most powerful search engine used in the world, could make you disappear from search results or conceal from you the information you are seeking. Think about it, tomorrow you could be the next victim with no voice left to express your thoughts. It is always a matter of… freedom.

In defence of the Germans

Posted on 12/06/202002/04/2026 by Nemulisse

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

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.