display
Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke of "transparency" after the health ministers' deliberations on the AstraZeneca vaccine.
About the fact that the "path to the greatest possible trust" will be taken if only people over 60 years of age receive this vaccine as a precaution.
But the decision to use AstraZeneca only for older people because of dangerous side effects in younger people does not create trust, but rather insecurity.
What was left of trust in the federal government's corona policy has fizzled out.
There is only one thing left to do to limit the damage: take AstraZeneca out of the program and stop vaccinating with it.
AstraZeneca has been analyzed, checked and talked into B-goods - whether rightly or wrongly.
Confidence in this vaccine is gone.
Vaccines must not have different levels of safety, they have to be equivalent - after all, so are humans.
Nobody has to be satisfied with an active ingredient declared as secondary, especially not when the weapon is against a deadly pandemic.
display
It is cynical when Bavaria's Prime Minister Markus Söder says that anyone who dares should be happy to continue injecting AstraZeneca.
Because whoever does that could pay for it with their life.
The probability is very small.
The probability of dying from Corona is extremely much higher.
But the same politicians stick frightening photos on cigarette packs or have “Attention, hot drink” printed on coffee mugs to protect us.
In the case of vaccines, on the other hand, risks seem irrelevant.
"First little respite" - The current Corona numbers explained for you
Every day we hear the new Corona case numbers.
But what do they mean, where are we in the pandemic?
And what is the trend?
Olaf Gersemann explains and evaluates the numbers briefly and compactly every morning.
Everything you need to know on March 31st.
Source: WORLD / Olaf Gersemann
The decision to only vaccinate AstraZeneca to the age group in which the comparatively minor problems occurred may be scientifically justified.
Nevertheless, it is strongly reminiscent of Merkel's basic style of government: We don't make clear decisions, we find a compromise.
We're not taking AstraZeneca out of the game entirely, we're limiting the vaccine.
What should sound sensible leaves crucial questions unanswered.
How can it be explained that the vaccine should not be inoculated to old people at first, then to nobody for a short time, then to all adults and now only to older people?
Is that always due to new knowledge?
The evil motto from the economy, according to which the product matures at the customer, now apparently also applies to vaccines.
display
And why are the German authorities now smarter than the European Medicines Agency that AstraZeneca had approved?
Must and will all decisions made at EU level be questioned by the member states and, if necessary, revised?
Who will then ultimately clarify what is safe in Europe in the future?
When it came to procuring the vaccines, the Chancellor was keen to join forces across Europe.
But when it comes to partially phasing out a vaccine, it acts on its own nationally.
How does that fit together?
The Chancellor's need must be great if she sticks to a vaccine despite these open points and inconsistencies.
The reason is obvious.
She wants to keep her promise that everyone will have a vaccination offer by the end of summer.
Then there is a general election.
And an unvaccinated people is a bad-tempered people that will show it at the ballot box and above all punish the Union.
But we should not be guided by election calendars when it comes to mass vaccination, where we are already far behind in international comparison.
It is about what can be injected into people with a clear conscience.