Before Christmas, the SPD Chancellor Olaf Scholz promised us that she would come as soon as possible. In late February, early March, he promised. But then the energy fizzled out noticeably in this regard. Why is not entirely clear. Neither does a coherent schedule. Unfortunately.
The fact that the coalition is not really shining when it comes to introducing mandatory vaccination is still not an argument to be dispensed with. On the contrary. We need the compulsory vaccination, because it is the chance to straighten out some of the things that have gotten into trouble in the long two years of the pandemic.
It is not at the discretion of each individual how we in Germany find out from the pandemic.
This view has prevailed among many because the then Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Minister of Health Jens Spahn declared very quickly and without any need that there would be no compulsory vaccination. That happened at a time when the vaccine was still scarce and all questions were actually about where to get the spades administered as quickly as possible. Angela Merkel and her cabinet, to which the current Chancellor belonged, simply thought that there would be no need for a duty. It was one of the many mistakes made in pandemic management. It arose from the sympathetic but erroneous assumption that there are enough people in this country who, out of solidarity with their fellow citizens, do not refuse to take measures to cope with the pandemic. The vaccination rate shows that a third of them do not see it that way, at least when they are vaccinated. The reasons are varied, but – apart from medical ones – secondary.
That sounds harsh, but that’s exactly how it is meant. The reasons of people who refuse a vaccine due to personal sensitivities in a pandemic are literally secondary. This means that these people may have good reasons, but there are bigger reasons for their individual right to refuse being restricted.
It is a fact that vaccination alone shows a foreseeable way out of the pandemic. Should masks, distance rules and hygiene measures also lead to this goal, as is often suggested, then we would be further, or not?
It must be the message to everyone: You are obliged to help if you can. And vaccination is not an unreasonable imposition in this situation.
The third of unvaccinated people in Germany is very heterogeneous. There are the stubborn deniers from the esoteric corner, the indifferent first-time waiters and the people who generally have a problem with government intervention, although the boundaries may be fluid. But the message to everyone must be the same as it was for those who have long since received the spades: You are obliged to help if you can. And vaccination is not an unreasonable imposition in this situation. The unreasonable imposition is the disease itself.
There is a lot of discussion these days that when vaccinating, coercion is the wrong way to convince people. They shouldn’t be excluded, that means. And then another 2G or 2G-plus regulation will be decided. People who have not been vaccinated are increasingly excluded from public life. Those affected are annoyed about it and denounce the regulations as mandatory vaccination through the back door. They are not so wrong about that, as many politicians admit. One would like to increase the pressure on people to allow themselves to be immunized after all.
How about a more honest vaccination through the front door?
.