Bridge lockdown: fighting corona is also a personal responsibility

display

“Reduction of complexity” sounds cumbersome.

Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to get involved with the topic.

Because this is what science can do and what it should do in terms of policy advice.

A consideration that has become more important than ever, especially in the pandemic (fighting).

In scientific practice, all theory begins with an observation of reality.

Perhaps the most famous example of this is provided by a story attributed to Isaac Newton, one of the greatest polymaths of all time.

During a break from work, the great thinker observed a ripe apple falling from a tree in the garden.

This gave him the idea of ​​systematically investigating gravity in order to be able to derive certain laws.

It was the hour of birth of Newton's law of gravitation, one of the most fundamental laws of classical physics.

display

All researchers should do the same as Newton did.

First observe everyday life, look for connections and finally find a theory to explain it.

With their help it should be possible to derive more or less generally valid laws.

In turn, these should make it possible to better understand what is going on in specific individual cases.

The interplay of complexity and simplification is the essence of the scientific witch's uniqueness.

The point is to first simplify something complex in order to understand it.

Then the simple is generalized in order to be able to explain and understand more than just a specific individual case.

With each generalization, however, the complexity increases again.

Why should what is valid here and now also apply elsewhere or at other times?

If all of this has become too complex for you, you can find practical object lessons in the current Corona times in the daily rhythm.

Cases of infection are observed and incidence figures are calculated.

There are theories that use incidence figures to extrapolate the occupancy of intensive care beds, overloads in the healthcare system, deaths and much more.

No absolute standard for "right" and "wrong"

display

Certainly everything made scientifically clean to the best of our knowledge and belief.

Nevertheless, in the place of the practice hammer, it hits hard even for the best theory.

What can be proven hundreds of thousands of times without exception in test tubes and in the laboratory is therefore by no means applicable everywhere in everyday life.

The restriction already limits scientific theories.

Of course, masks and distance protect against infection.

But not always and everywhere.

Infection is certainly no trivial matter, but not all are equally at risk, affected or damaged.

The practicability of theories is already becoming more questionable when it comes to the humanities and social sciences.

As soon as humans come into play, it becomes much more difficult to generalize theoretical principles.

Behavior varies greatly from person to person.

Some adapt quickly and radically to new circumstances in unpredictable ways.

Some even break with the past completely.

Others, however, would like to turn back the wheel or at least leave everything as it was.

Not everyone is willing or able to deal with all risks equally.

Some fear this, others fear that, and some are not afraid or worried about anything.

display

At the latest when it comes to practical evaluations of causal relationships and corrective mechanisms, the general validity of theoretical knowledge is definitely over.

There is no absolute standard that measures reliably, impartially and incorruptibly for everyone what is “right” or “wrong”.

In everyday life, over time from society to society and from culture to culture, assessments and convictions differ enormously as to what is accepted or rejected.

How should the dangers in road traffic be dealt with, who should be protected from whom?

How should the long-term consequences of today's actions be dealt with, for example when it comes to biodiversity or climate change?

Science can only explain and point out, but not generally assess and judge.

This now reveals the squaring of the circle for the corona policy of the present.

In an extremely complex situation, politicians have to make simple decisions that have to be universal.

The rule of law requires that.

He calls for equal treatment for the same and unequal treatment for different issues.

To punish young people who stand together in the evening with mask and distance, but thousands of people crowded together protesting mask-free and allowing them to run without sanctions, comes close to a rule of law surrender.

Their long-term consequences are likely to be costly.

The mother of all questions

But where does equality begin and where does inequality begin in cases of infection and incidence rates?

The question simply cannot be answered universally.

All science doesn't help.

Undoubtedly, corona deniers shoot far beyond the target.

They also wrongly disregard those areas of science that guarantee a high degree of generality, which clearly speaks in favor of their acceptance.

In the same way, however, the zero-covid movement has to put up with the criticism that it has inevitably left the hard soil of science with its concrete policy recommendations.

It is nothing more than an ideology that one may or may not believe in.

In the broad spectrum between “lateral thinkers” and no or zero Covid demands, politics must make generally applicable decisions - regardless of complexity.

Lockdown or relaxation is the mother of all questions.

For a society that has been worn down, divided and, accordingly, exhausted by previous pandemic waves, the measure of all things has long since shifted.

At the beginning, more than a year ago, each illness was considered one too many, but the pendulum has now swung far in the direction of weighing up.

It was too obvious that taking no risk of infection posed the greatest danger to society as a whole - also to life and limb.

display

But as if politics were caught in an endless loop, alternatives will be rolled back and forth for the umpteenth time in night-long prime ministerial meetings.

Reference will be made to the advice of experts, although their insights are no longer helpful because complex findings are difficult to generalize.

Instead of making it clear to the population that such a complex situation can only be decided by political leaders, they will hide behind scientific advisors, although they cannot cut the Gordian knot either.

It does not take great prognostic skills to predict how the final compromise will be evaluated by the public.

It will be torn before the ink on the final document has dried.

For some, the lockdown, for others, the easing will go too far.

How can the political damage be minimized in this politically hopeless situation?

Quite simply in such a way that you let people do, even (and especially!) In difficult pandemic times, which has proven to be very effective in coping with complexity in enlightened societies: through everyday experiences from below and not through coercion from above.

Politics should provide information and education, protective measures, test capacities, vaccines, drugs and infrastructure.

How people then deal with it could safely be left to individuals.

Even without legal regulations, you can keep your distance, wear a mask, ventilate rooms, systematically test children and staff, get vaccinated and do a lot of other things that ultimately help you learn to live with viruses.

Complexity cannot be eliminated by further political endless loops.

Whatever politics will decide now should change little or nothing about it.

The situation has become too confused and confused.

In a democratic constitutional state, politics cannot be effectively enforced against, but only with society.

It is therefore high time to admit that less coercion from above contributes more to problem-solving.

Less regulations and more personal responsibility are the best strategies for reducing complexity from below.