What we know is the number of people who tested positive. The number of infected people is definitely much higher, but no one can say by what factor. To answer this,
we would need a representative sample from the population.
Let’s play with the thought. What happens if in a year or two if the statisticians come to the conclusion that the situation had been assessed too negatively and that the draconian measures were actually not necessary? Wouldn’t this be the worst-case scenario for science? Could a politician then stand in front of his people and call for unpopular measures in climate protection, for example, with reference to scientific forecasts?
Nationally and internationally, we will discover a lot after the crisis, including the economic and social problems caused by today’s decisions.
Our health care system must not be geared entirely towards profit. There must be enough reserves, even if it is uneconomical in normal times. Intensive care units, which are already 80% full in normal times, are not sufficient. Even if this costs money, it is urgent to invest here. And if private corporations cannot or do not want to do so, then they have to be nationalized again. Health is just not a commodity, as
attac stated long ago.
My second conclusion is that we should make sure that the media does not use the power of images to create emotions that affect our judgment. If you get pictures of coffins and end-of-life units from Italy or pictures of completely empty shelves, then their effects exceed the facts.
In Great Britain there was a debate about whether the country should pursue a strategy of herd immunity.
This model was then rejected based on a single study from Imperial College. Politicians today rely randomly on believing the assumptions of individual scientists. Science should have replaced belief since the Enlightenment. Do you see a problem here?
For urgent questions, scientists who have proven themselves in the past should actually be consulted.
However, that is exactly where I want to express criticism. One often asks advice exactly from those who have been wrong in the past and some you also know have ulterior interests. At that time, the Robert Koch Institute was already noticed negatively. In other policy areas, such as the pension debate,
even highly discredited people who have been proven to have made massive mistakes and to have ulterior interests, can appear again as so-called experts.
Here I almost feel sick when I think of the negative social consequences.