The members of the German Bundestag decided on Friday to reform the Infection Protection Act.

Against the background of new highs in infections - the Robert Koch Institute reported the highest corona incidence of all time at 1706 on Friday morning - most protective measures are to be eliminated.

Some measures should only continue to apply in so-called hotspots.

Kim Bjorn Becker

Editor in Politics.

  • Follow I follow

388 MPs voted in favor of the traffic light coalition's draft law, while 277 voted against.

Two deputies abstained.

Federal Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach (SPD) said the new Infection Protection Act was a “serious compromise” by the traffic light coalition.

However, the new regulation still allows targeted action to be taken against the pandemic.

The opposition sharply criticized the reform.

The health politician of the CDU, Tino Sorgen, spoke of a "muddle" of rules.

"The minister talks as if he were opposed to the application," said Erwin Rüddel (CDU).

Without the new law, all previous corona restrictions would have expired on Saturday.

They are replaced by basic protection, which stipulates that masks must be worn on public transport and for certain facilities.

They include nursing homes, clinics and doctor's offices, but not schools and businesses.

The countries may only order stricter measures for hotspots.

In addition, 3-G and 2-G proof obligations, extended mask requirements as well as distance and hygiene rules apply.

However, there are no longer any contact restrictions.

A hotspot can also be an entire federal state.

Many countries make use of a transitional arrangement

A transitional regulation allows the countries to leave the existing rules in force until April 2nd;

a number of countries have made use of this regulation.

Even in the traffic light factions, the reform met with criticism.

The health expert of the Greens, Kirsten Kappert-Gonther, said that “for good protection against infection, it probably takes more than what is available today with this law”. A nationwide mask requirement would have been good. “But no law would have been much worse than this Law."