Johannes Pantel studied medicine, philosophy and psychology in Münster, Heidelberg and London.

As a doctor, he worked in the university hospitals in Essen and Heidelberg.

In 2003 he took over an endowed professorship for geriatric psychiatry at the University of Frankfurt.

Since 2011 he has held the chair for geriatric medicine with a focus on psychogeriatrics and clinical gerontology.

He is also deputy board spokesman of the Frankfurt Forum for Interdisciplinary Aging Research.

Sasha Zoske

Sheet maker in the Rhein-Main-Zeitung.

  • Follow I follow

Mr. Pantel, three years after the pandemic began, many believe it is over.

Would you agree with that?

Yes, we are already in the endemic phase.

The virus will never leave us, and there could always be waves of infection that can be easily controlled.

The question is how to live with it in an appropriate way.

But this also applies to many other potentially life-threatening germs.

You should be relaxed about it and consider pragmatically which protective measures make sense.

Most Corona rules have already been lifted or will soon be lifted.

The President of the German Medical Association has even put the general obligation to wear masks in medical facilities up for discussion.

It should only apply where high-risk patients need to be protected.

As a geriatrician, what do you think of that?

In the current situation, I no longer consider a general obligation to wear masks in practices and clinics to be proportionate.

Those responsible on site should decide whether it is still necessary in certain cases.

The virus variants currently circulating are less dangerous and immunity in the population is high.

You will soon be 60 years old.

Then you also belong to the group of older people, who are considered to be particularly vulnerable.

Are you still afraid of the virus?

I don't count myself among the vulnerable group of people, if only because I don't think it makes sense to draw the line at 60 years of age.

Age plays a certain role as a risk factor, the risk increases a little with each year of life, without a strict age limit.

Ultimately, however, this applies to many infectious diseases.

There are other factors that are far more significant.

Multimorbidity, for example, obesity or the need for care.

The decisive factor is the individual risk constellation.

Assessing this is complex – it roughly corresponds to an occupational medical assessment.

The setting of age limits with a view to the corona risk has rather encouraged age discrimination.

In what way?

Just think of the debate three years ago when, in all seriousness, calls were made for age-specific restrictions on freedom to be imposed from the age of 65.

Fortunately, this has never been put into practice in Germany.

In the discussion about compulsory vaccination, age played a role again.

The vaccination rate was among the highest in people over 60 years of age.

Before Corona, we placed much more emphasis on the self-determination of older people when dealing with illnesses.

We should return to this attitude.

The virus has raged mainly in old people's homes.

The risk of death was highest there.

How could this happen?

In the homes, the technological possibilities for effective protection were not used enough.

Complete isolation has been relied upon in the first place, although this entails significant additional health risks for the elderly.

Human rights and human dignity were violated.

Think, for example, of the dying who were no longer allowed to receive visitors.

These restrictions were not even particularly effective, as we saw in winter 2020/21.

What exactly do you mean by "technological possibilities"?