Germany: RKI Papers show how the government lied about Covid
After a legal defeat against the online magazine Multipolar, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) has released more than 1,000 pages of internal meeting minutes, which have since been published by the magazine. This is about the political handling of the corona pandemic. The protocols suggest that the RKI's Corona crisis team knew more about the virus than was told to the public at the time.
On March 17, 2020, those responsible upgraded the health risk for the population from “moderate” to “high”. A day earlier, the papers said the assessment would be “scaled up this week. The risk assessment will become public as soon as (personal name redacted) gives a signal.” Between March 9th and 15th, 2020, six percent of those examined in Germany tested positive for the coronavirus. A week later – i.e. at the time the risk was assessed as “high” instead of “moderate” – it was only one percent more.
Crucial passages of text are blacked out and yet the protocols are already an important document for the madness that took place in Germany during the pandemic years. The Robert Koch Institute (RKI), which is subordinate to the Ministry of Health, apparently intentionally kept scientific findings secret. On December 16th, at the beginning of the second lockdown, the following was noted: “Lockdowns sometimes have more serious consequences than Covid itself.” However, the RKI publicly took the view that mass closures were THE way to stop the virus.
RKI protocols consider FFP2 masks to be unsuitable
The Corona crisis team is also critically discussing FFP2 masks internally. “FFP2 masks are an occupational safety measure. If people are not trained/qualified personnel, FFP2 masks have no added value if they are not fitted and used correctly.” And: “There is no evidence for the use of FFP2 masks outside of occupational safety, this could also be made available to the public .” Shortly afterwards, in October 2020, the nationwide mask requirement was tightened and FFP2 masks were introduced in some cases.
NZZ author Susanne Gaschke said in the news talk “Stimmt!”: “It’s interesting to see how much this has been controlled and obviously always in the direction of panic.” It is normal for a government to calm a panicked population. The fact that a government and its authorities always assume the worst is questionable. “The toughest measure was always chosen,” says Gaschke. “Looking back, I think that’s a big problem.”
“Measures continued to escalate”
At the beginning of the pandemic, caution was advised. However, when it became clear that the situation was less dramatic than expected, a change of course should have been made. “But the measures continued to escalate. The lockdowns became longer, the rhetoric became harder, the parliaments, both the Bundestag and the state parliaments, have, in my opinion, permanently refused a reasonable discussion about the epidemic situation on a national scale,” the NZZ journalist states.
This has massively damaged trust in democracy. Now it's not about apportioning blame, but about coming to terms with it. “I think you can ask, who was the driving force, who was particularly stubborn?” After all, the pandemic is a negative template for politicians to once again ignore basic rights. “Politics was made with fear on the part of the government.” And that's not okay, says Gaschke. “And you have to be able to name those responsible.”
Lauterbach: Corona debate benefits the wrong person
He not only rejects a committee of inquiry, as the AfD and BSW are calling for, but even a study commission to examine Corona policy. According to the health minister, a political debate about this would not be productive.
This would only benefit “a small group of politicians, but also people who perhaps also represent radical ideas in other areas”. Because they wanted to abuse the Corona measures “to make politics against the state”. President of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution Thomas Haldenwang (CDU) had already introduced the new category “delegitimization of the state” in 2021 to address criticism of the restrictions on fundamental rights.
Criticism of the Corona policy also comes from virologist Hendrik Streeck, who was appointed to the RKI expert council late: "I'm very surprised that entire pages about vaccinations, for example, were blacked out," he told "Welt-TV" . “And I wonder what’s in there, why the public shouldn’t see it.” That doesn’t help build trust.
RKI protocols consider FFP2 masks to be unsuitable
The Corona crisis team is also critically discussing FFP2 masks internally. “FFP2 masks are an occupational safety measure. If people are not trained/qualified personnel, FFP2 masks have no added value if they are not fitted and used correctly.” And: “There is no evidence for the use of FFP2 masks outside of occupational safety, this could also be made available to the public .” Shortly afterwards, in October 2020, the nationwide mask requirement was tightened and FFP2 masks were introduced in some cases.
NZZ author Susanne Gaschke said in the news talk “Stimmt!”: “It’s interesting to see how much this has been controlled and obviously always in the direction of panic.” It is normal for a government to calm a panicked population. The fact that a government and its authorities always assume the worst is questionable. “The toughest measure was always chosen,” says Gaschke. “Looking back, I think that’s a big problem.”
“Measures continued to escalate”
At the beginning of the pandemic, caution was advised. However, when it became clear that the situation was less dramatic than expected, a change of course should have been made. “But the measures continued to escalate. The lockdowns became longer, the rhetoric became harder, the parliaments, both the Bundestag and the state parliaments, have, in my opinion, permanently refused a reasonable discussion about the epidemic situation on a national scale,” the NZZ journalist states.
This has massively damaged trust in democracy. Now it's not about apportioning blame, but about coming to terms with it. “I think you can ask, who was the driving force, who was particularly stubborn?” After all, the pandemic is a negative template for politicians to once again ignore basic rights. “Politics was made with fear on the part of the government.” And that's not okay, says Gaschke. “And you have to be able to name those responsible.”
Lauterbach: Corona debate benefits the wrong person
He not only rejects a committee of inquiry, as the AfD and BSW are calling for, but even a study commission to examine Corona policy. According to the health minister, a political debate about this would not be productive.
This would only benefit “a small group of politicians, but also people who perhaps also represent radical ideas in other areas”. Because they wanted to abuse the Corona measures “to make politics against the state”. President of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution Thomas Haldenwang (CDU) had already introduced the new category “delegitimization of the state” in 2021 to address criticism of the restrictions on fundamental rights.
Criticism of the Corona policy also comes from virologist Hendrik Streeck, who was appointed to the RKI expert council late: "I'm very surprised that entire pages about vaccinations, for example, were blacked out," he told "Welt-TV" . “And I wonder what’s in there, why the public shouldn’t see it.” That doesn’t help build trust.
AfD calls for a committee of inquiry
“The public has a right to know what really happened back then,” said the health policy spokesman for the AfD parliamentary group, Martin Sichert, about the redactions. He appealed to the other parliamentary groups: “Look at the minutes of the RKI crisis team and set up a Corona investigation committee together with us.”
In view of the numerous redactions, FDP vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki announced that he would “work to ensure that all the basis for decision-making at this time becomes public”. It is also becoming increasingly clear “that the Robert Koch Institute for Health Policy served as a scientific façade for former minister Jens Spahn and probably also Karl Lauterbach.”
In view of the numerous redactions, FDP vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki announced that he would “work to ensure that all the basis for decision-making at this time becomes public”. It is also becoming increasingly clear “that the Robert Koch Institute for Health Policy served as a scientific façade for former minister Jens Spahn and probably also Karl Lauterbach.”
Sources:
Posts
