The Corona rules are becoming more and more complicated. Young people in particular suffer from the fact that they have not been able to lead a normal life for almost two years. If we don’t find our way to freedom now, the consequences will be terrible, says Gunnar Schupelius.
This week I asked the Senate why, with all the complicated rules, antibody detection doesn’t matter. Shouldn’t those who can prove sufficient antibodies against Covid-19 be put on an equal footing with those who have recovered and those who have been vaccinated?
In the answer, the health senator referred to the Robert Koch Institute and the Paul Ehrlich Institute and their statements on the status of those who have recovered.
The policy is based on these two institutes and the institutes are based on the “current state of medical knowledge”, I was told. All other questions were answered with reference to the first answer: “see above”.
Now there is a lot of medical evidence that suggests that antibody status should be taken into account. Apparently, the Senate does not follow them. So who determines the status?
My impression is that something is going terribly wrong here. I have questions.
Based on what medical findings is my ten-year-old son (recovered) classified as so dangerous that he has to be constantly tested at school, while those who have been boosted (possibly with Corona) are allowed to go to any facility untested?
► Read all of Gunnar Schupelius’ columns here
Who proved that my 23-year-old son (boosted) saved any life by studying online for two years, without contact with people, without even having a coffee with classmates?
On what findings is the regulation based that prohibits my 25-year-old daughter (vaccinated and recovered) from having a cup of coffee at the station bakery?
What medical findings led to my 84-year-old acquaintance (boosted) not daring to leave the house for a year and a half, only to die in the hospital after a stroke – alone and with Corona?
Does it correspond to the current state of medical knowledge that my 19-year-old nephew (vaccinated), whose risk of a severe course is approaching zero, could “overload the health system” if he were not forced to complete his dual studies alone in his children’s room?
What role does my 66-year-old neighbor (boosted), who has lost her extra income due to the Corona measures and has to give up her apartment, play in the classification of the medical findings?
I don’t think it has much to do with medical knowledge. Everyone knows how to protect themselves. Everyone knows who is obviously particularly at risk and needs our caution.
Nevertheless, there is no such thing as absolute security, neither with nor without the absurd jungle of rules.
According to the current state of common sense: stop with the sophistry. Stop the scaremongering and the pressure. Leave it to the people themselves to “protect themselves and others”. And for everything else: see above.
Is Gunnar Schupelius right? Call: 030/2591 73153 or email: [email protected]