Release the vaccines and put an end to the lockdown
By Jens Berger
[This article published on Feb 24, 2021 is translated from the German on the Internet, Gebt die Impfstoffe frei und macht dem Lockdown ein Ende (nachdenkseiten.de).]
Germany has – who is surprised – once again a vaccination problem and it is once again about the vaccine from AstraZeneca. It is now available, but it is hardly available. Apparently, the people’s willingness to vaccinate is not as great as the government had hoped. But that is not a problem. Quite the opposite. For if we were to discard the rigid vaccination plan, which is divided into priority groups, and simply release the vaccines to all interested parties, this would be a golden way out of the whole nightmare. Because if every concerned citizen gets their vaccination offer, the justification for measures and lockdowns is eliminated. And as paradoxical as it may sound, the fewer people want to get vaccinated, the faster this goal could be achieved. A contribution to the debate by Jens Berger.
According to SPIEGEL, only about 25,000 doses of AstraZeneca's vaccine were vaccinated in Germany on Monday. It's not about the offer. The countries currently sit on more than 1.1 million cans and the next large delivery of 650,000 cans arrives at the weekend. However, there is a lack of demand. In the vaccination center in Cologne alone, cans are now left, because the citizens who have been contacted cancel or cancel their vaccination appointments.
At present, it is mainly employees from the health professions, doctors, nurses and nurses who are offered vaccination. If this group does not take advantage of the vaccination offer, this will catch the eye. Apparently, the willingness to vaccinate is much lower than we are told on a daily basis. Recent polls suggest that around a third are more "impfunfun." However, there could also be much more.
And if you are not willing, I need violence. You don't have to be a prophet to know where this journey is going. The stated goal of the Federal Government is, after all, to achieve a far-reaching immunization of the population with the vaccination. Then – as it is projected as a distant light at the end of the tunnel – one can also return to normality and leave this nightmare behind.
The objective of far-reaching immunization is, in principle, correct; only that a return to normality is of course possible even without mass vaccination. Because immunity will come anyway – for some through vaccination and for others by an infection that has gone through, which from a purely immunological point of view is also "only" a vaccination with often serious side effects. This is currently being observed in India, where, despite the ongoing easing of measures, the number of infections is falling sharply. Apparently, the country hit particularly hard by Corona in the spring and summer of last year is already on its way to a naturally acquired herd immunity. However, this is not about the pros and cons of a herd immunity strategy. These are debates that epidemiologists can have among themselves.
Let us move on to the basics: why does a state impose lockdown measures with massive direct and indirect collateral damage in the event of a pandemic? The answer: to protect people who don't want to get Covid-19. In return, it is accepted that, on the other hand, people will be harmed by the measures. This is a balancing issue, the orientation of which is also viewed critically on the post-thinking pages. However, what is the justification for this justification if every citizen who wants to do so can be protected from Covid-19 in other ways?
If every citizen is offered a vaccination, the justification for the measures is not necessary. Those who are protected by vaccination no longer need to be protected by measures that cause massive collateral damage and harm other people. The measures "must" not then be maintained at various stages until all citizens are vaccinated, as the government is currently doing. On the contrary, they "should" only be an option until every citizen who wants to do so has received a vaccination offer. And those who do not accept this offer cannot demand that other people be massively harmed for their own sense of security. That would be unsolidarity.
ants to take. And if, despite the media drumfire, a large part of the population does not want to be protected by vaccination, then this is perfectly fine. The popular argument that those who do not abdiplace the measures would endanger others would then be obsolete. Anyone who accepts the vaccination offer is protected. And those who refuse to do so voluntarily take the risk of infection and do not need to be protected by measures.
Now, as a supporter of the lockdown policy, one could of course argue that it is also the task of politics to protect citizens from their own "unreasonableness" in case of doubt. But this argument does not draw here, as it is not just an individual decision about one's own health. Eventually, the lockdown will massively harm others without their consent. The "protection from covid" vs. "collateral damage" balance is completely different when there is a vaccine offer. The bottleneck is more the vaccine offer. There is not enough available – and apparently also because people are being offered who do not want to take advantage of this offer.
The goal of making an offer to every person who wants to vaccinate is to achieve it faster the fewer people who want to be vaccinated voluntarily. So where is the problem? Let us simply offer an offer to anyone who wants to be vaccinated, leave the rest of the population alone and end this nightmare. The sooner, the better. The availability of vaccines should not fail, at least in the medium term: Germany has currently ordered more than 318 million doses of vaccines! This would allow the whole country to be vaccinated twice.