display
Vaccination disaster, test fiasco, yo-yo waves between loosening and lockdown: why is so much going so wrong in the fight against pandemics in Germany - the economy that is considered a role model for an exemplary organization around the world?
If neither "Vorsprung durch Technik", "Made in Germany" or German precision work manage to get an effective warning app up and running across the board, to provide a well-proven and well-organized family doctor system with enough vaccines or tests as quickly as possible answered the question quickly.
In the land of engineers and engineering, fundamental structural deficiencies are all too obvious.
The problems are not accidental, but a system.
Some are likely to blame (all) of the political failure on the Merkel government.
The imploding approval ratings for health and economics ministers are self-evident.
At the latest when the eternal Federal Chancellor will be history, but her successors in Berlin will find it just as difficult in the next crisis, it should become clear that there is a system failure that is less about people than something much more fundamental.
display
When fighting a pandemic, it becomes clear, like under a magnifying glass, how old democracies and constitutional states are.
They are children of industrialization.
In the age of digitization and data economy, they seem like old people who hesitate for a long time, hesitate and - above all - plan back and forth until they can please everyone.
Authoritarian regimes have advantages in the pandemic
The result is a warning app that protects data, not viruses.
Valuable time is wasted in order to differentiate legally secure, fair vaccination strategies in the last detail on paper, instead of simply starting vaccinations at maximum speed in general practitioners' practices.
After night-long deliberations, logical "if-then" incidence strategies that can be represented on a single page are proudly presented, which, however, turn out to be an impractical mess on the following day.
There are certainly many reasons why democracy and the rule of law find it so much more difficult during the pandemic fight than dirigistic authoritarian regimes, who fish for the data of the population regardless of individual basic rights, force entire neighborhoods into full quarantine and, if necessary, use vaccines approved by exception rules with force .
display
It is part of the irony of Corona politics that even in democratic constitutional states, individual basic rights are shredded by emergency law.
But what is even more certain is that many ZeroCovid successes celebrated by unitary parties or autocrats were achieved with methods that contradict pretty much everything that is sacred to liberal, enlightened, democratic constitutional states in Europe.
Everything is extremely fast in the digital data economy
Despite all the complexity of the Covid 19 problem, a pattern can be seen under the magnifying glass that calls for reflection and probably also for correction.
It shows that the thinking of an industrial society is characterized by an absolutely clear edge.
There is “right” and “wrong” and nothing else.
Either the Volkswagen runs and runs and runs - or it stops.
Either the engine starts, the machine works, the current flows or the bridge carries.
If that is not the case, nothing works.
display
Half measures or partial solutions do not keep the industrial wheel running smoothly.
The industrial DIN standard defines the rule of mass production.
There are unit phones, Volkswagen and standard products.
Deviations are more the exception for outsiders, eccentrics, colorful or weird birds who just don't know what is right or wrong and what is (not) proper.
In the case of services, however, it becomes more difficult with “right” or “wrong”.
Situation and circumstances, perception and appreciation, fashion and taste are becoming more important.
With globalization, diversity and differences became more apparent.
Norm and standard became less important.
Telephones became mobile, colorful, small, flat and rectangular, the cars first Japanese, then Korean, now electric and soon self-driving.
In the digital data economy, everything is very fast, principles are losing their anchor and no longer apply today, which was a self-evident norm or rule years ago.
There are only preliminary statements for a large number of issues.
In times of crisis, the time comes for the theory of the second best
Democracies and constitutional states have difficulties with this.
What does normal mean, what is right or wrong when everything is in a state of flux?
Why do everything today if it is out of date tomorrow and needs to be renewed?
While perfection was the measure of all things in the industrial age, it is now temporarily used as the new benchmark.
This is even more true in times of crisis than it already is.
This is where the “theory of the second best” comes in.
It does not strive for perfection, but for proportionality.
The motto is: useful, on time instead of perfect, but too late.
Anyone who chooses the second best as a compass for orientation does not want to finally clarify everything once and for all, but rather to quickly implement pragmatic but nevertheless appropriate solutions.
Perhaps the simple rule of thumb “it's better to have a sparrow in hand than a pigeon on the roof” provides a good illustration of what is meant.
Not always, but very often, people are satisfied with an imperfect, practicable solution, although they know that theoretically there are much better options, which in real life are beyond their own possibilities.
Foregoing perfection enables huge cost savings
The theory of second best becomes the mother of the 20/80 principle in practice.
It recognizes that in times of imperfection there can be no one hundred percent correct “eternal” decisions for most problems.
It does not devise perfect strategies on the drawing board of politics and science, which would be perfect but take too long to take effect in practical implementation.
Rather, one is content with decisions that mostly apply (namely in about four out of five cases), but not always.
display
The renunciation of perfection enables huge cost savings.
With (around!) Twenty percent of the effort that would be necessary for perfect solutions, it is already possible to achieve (around!) Eighty percent of the return on a perfect solution - hence the name 20/80 principle.
The 20/80 principle is based on an insight that is central to economics.
Namely the regularity of decreasing marginal yields or increasing marginal costs.
This means that for most things everything is easy in the beginning and becomes more and more difficult in the end.
At the beginning the progress is enormous, at the end little.
Basic knowledge can be learned with relatively little effort - for example, languages, piano playing or sports.
In order to become a really good or even flawless interpreter, pianist or Olympic champion, however, it is then necessary to “practice”, “practice”, “practice” over many years of hard labor.
The cost of bringing something to the end increases more and more towards the end.
Yields are just as reduced if lemons are squeezed to the last drop.
Then everyone is no longer equal before the law
The 20/80 rule of thumb advocates a constant weighing of expenses and income, costs and benefits.
And this is exactly where you can see why democracies and the rule of law are finding it so difficult.
The 20/80 principle doesn't always treat everyone equally.
It is pragmatic and allows for exceptions and deviations.
This means that everyone is no longer the same per se before the law.
In itself a no-go for democracy and the rule of law.
But in hectic times, pragmatism lacks the composure to clarify when equal or unequal treatment would be appropriate.
If general practitioners soon start vaccinating across the board, it is very likely that sophisticated vaccination schedules that seem to meet all fairness claims will not be adhered to.
One would rather expect that coincidence would lead to younger people being vaccinated in one practice, although in other places older people still have to wait.
Or that someone has to be content with one vaccine when another would have been better.
Many may see this as unjust and a disregard for individual legal claims.
Nevertheless, an “unjust” sequence can lead to faster vaccination successes, fewer infections and fewer deaths and, overall, a quicker end to the pandemic.
Wouldn't all of this be “justice” and justification enough to refrain from perfect solutions?
Shouldn't the theory of second best or the 20/80 principle become the new vaccination strategy?
“Everything on stocks” is the daily stock market shot from the WELT business editorial team. Every morning from 7 a.m. with WELT financial journalists. For stock market experts and beginners.
Subscribe to the podcast on
Spotify
,
Apple Podcast
,
Amazon Music
and
Deezer
.
Or directly via
RSS feed
.