Now is the Time to Discuss Exit Strategies

Many of the restrictions that impede our societies and economies these days are not necessary. We are subject to a whole series of new rules: curfews, notification obligations, entry and exit bans, as well as bans to work, worship, exercise and meet other people, to name but the most common restrictions. The virus and the measures against it have taken us hostage. Never has there be so extensive an interference into our civil liberties since the enactment of our constitution. 

To be clear: The forceful intervention of the State aims at limiting the risk of infection, protect the healthcare system from collapsing and thus save many lives. Considering the explosion of the infections in mid-March, the strict, radical interventions were justified emergency measures. However: the fundamental rights and the democratic control of the executive apply always, also in times of crisis.

We therefore need to discuss the measures taken publically, all the more as it is becoming apparent that – though the dangers are yet to be eliminated – the available data show that the extreme emergency is coming to an end. Earliest on April 20 we could expect a partial relaxation of the current restrictions.  

What should the new regiment look like? Our Constitution must prescribe how we move on: Any interference with fundamental rights must be proportionate; it needs to be necessary and also appropriate. These criteria need to guide us. This means that current blanket bans may be suitable in many areas to ensure the containment of the virus, but in many cases, they are neither required nor necessary. 

We need to differentiate. Take sports for an example: banning golf and tennis is totally disproportionate; both sports can take place without the players risking infection with just a few additional precautions. In such games, the players stand far apart from each other. The same applies for popular sports like fishing and athletics. It’s a different matter with football, handball and basketball, where physical contact of the players is unavoidable. 

Similar differentiations apply if we look at the various ways people assemble. Religious services in a small church may well remain prohibited. But why should this apply to “drive-in” worships services? These could be held in large empty spaces on the outskirts of our cities with the help of powerful sound systems and disinfected sanitary facilities. There are no limits to our imagination, certainly not if it comes to organized community events.

We also need to return to an active business life. As a rule of thumb, all shops should be allowed to reopen. This should happen under the condition that only a limited number of customers with protective masks may enter the stores. Eateries, restaurants and, above all, beer gardens should open again – as long as the necessary distance between the tables is guaranteed and only a limited number of guests are allowed in. In short: a significant thinning out of business compared to the time before the crisis.

And finally, the operations of the companies also need to return to normal. In most of all areas, this is possible without significant risks: Mobile partition walls can divide open-plan offices into smaller units, where the employees (wearing protective masks) work behind their computer screens. Wherever work from home is feasible, this option should continue. It is up to the business associations and the trade unions to come up with reasonable solutions and discuss these with the authorities in charge for public health and the government. 

This also applies to ​​education. In this crucial area, differentiated solutions are needed – starting with how to deal with daycare centers and ending at how to proceed at schools and universities. Probably, only universities will be in the position to conduct their teaching relying mainly on digital platforms. Daycare centers and schools will need much flexibility regarding schedules and allocation of spaces before returning to any sort of "normal” operating mode.

Of course, such an intelligent opening in the sense of "smart safety" can only work if the necessary healthcare infrastructure is available. Apart from protective masks and suits, this includes a mobile capacity of test-kits that allow us to locate new "hotspots" of infections as fast as possible and to carry out the necessary tests in a short time. If needed, appropriate quarantine measures would be mandatory. In any case, the maximum capacity of tests must be available.

Conclusion:  Much is feasible to restart social and economic life – with limited risks of infection. As to risk assessment, we should not forget the economic and social risks of a standstill. People in quarantine suffer from isolation and some become depressed and aggressive. The sense of social deprivation increases as the weather gets better in spring and summer, when we are barred from joining outdoor sports activities or going to the beer garden when the sun is shining.

We do not live in an authoritarian state

As we understand it, “Smart Safety” has nothing in common with a surveillance state, as it has become reality in a totalitarian manner in China. In Germany, compulsory collection and usage of personal data to establish movement profiles and location connections would be unconstitutional. Neither could it be justified by identifying contact persons.

Following the experience of the past few weeks, such measures are not needed: the people are well aware of the danger the virus poses. They have adjusted their behaviour. The state must give them the chance to prove their maturity as free citizens. Of course, this is a sort of a probation. Should the crisis flare up again, a temporary return to a state of emergency would be in the books. But at the moment, it does not look like that.

We therefore call on the Federal Government to declare the end of the bans as an immediate priority. We do not live in an authoritarian state. Now is the time to discuss exit strategies.

This article appeared first in German in “Die Welt” on April 8 and is available here.

Translation: Laura Kunzendorf and Ronald Meinardus