An internal paper from the Federal Ministry of the interior (BMI) was leaked to the media after it had been blocked within the Ministry. The statements made public in this way by an official of the unit “KM 4: protection of critical infrastructures – Federal Ministry of the interior” are clear and disturbing. In addition, the external scientists involved in the more than 80-page risk analysis have now commented in a joint statement, more on this will follow later in the Text. First of all, the risk analysis of the BMI official, who according to media reports is said to have held the position of head of Unit (Head of government). On the information policy of the federal government:
“The state has proven to be one of the biggest fake news producers in the corona crisis.”
The classification of the hazard potential of Corona is referred to as a “false alarm” :
“The observable effects and effects of COVID 19 do not reveal sufficient evidence that it is more than a false alarm in terms of health effects on society as a whole. ( … ) In all likelihood, we are dealing with a global false alarm that has remained unrecognized for a long time.”
Another serious accusation in the paper is that “in the past (unfortunately against better institutional knowledge) no adequate instruments for Hazard Analysis and assessment have been built up”. An appropriate analysis and assessment must be carried out immediately: “otherwise, the state could be liable for any damages incurred.”
Huge Collateral Damage
From now on, our society lives with increased vulnerability and with higher risk of failure of vital infrastructures, the document says. The collateral damage is now higher than the apparent benefit:
“The (completely purpose-free) collateral damage of the corona crisis is meanwhile gigantic. Much of this damage will only manifest itself in the near and far future. This can no longer be prevented, but only limited.”
The analysis calls for official recognition of the” futility " of the Corona measures:
“The state-ordered protective measures, as well as the diverse social activities and initiatives that cause collateral damage as initial protective measures, but have now lost all meaning, are still largely in force. It is strongly recommended to completely eliminate them in the short term in order to prevent harm from the population.”
Once again, the document deals with the (Des) information policy:
“The deficits and failures in crisis management have consequently led to the provision of unsubstantiated information and thus triggered disinformation among the population.”
Politics of disinformation
Part of this disinformation is caused by the Robert Koch Institute. The analysis of the BMI-employee says:
“The data provided by the RKI cannot be used as a basis for decision-making. The evaluations of the RKI are not covered by the data provided. The valuations are often speculative, sometimes implausible. Unfortunately, the management report of the crisis unit consists solely of a processing of this data.”
The potential danger of the Virus – the central orientation for all Corona measures-can be read:
“The new Virus probably did not present a danger to the population beyond the normal level at any time (comparison is the usual death event in DEU). (…) The danger of Covid-19 was overestimated.”
Although every day could claim fatalities, on which despite this (alleged) harmlessness of the Virus the Lockdown persisted, an insight was hardly to be expected:
“While there can no longer be any reasonable doubt on closer inspection that the Coronawarning was a false alarm, that the crisis management suboptimally carried out the work of security and made mistakes that caused great damage and continue to cause every day (including fatalities) when the measures are not cancelled without compensation. Since the crisis unit and the entire crisis management, including the policy, have acted as far as possible in accordance with the legal, organizational and other framework specifications, there seems to be little reason for them to make changes at first.”
Potential hazard doubtful
Since the officially announced medical basis for the Corona measures is dubious and their consequences are not adequately taken into account, the entire legal assessment based on it is in a state of disarray:
“The proportionality of encroachments on the rights of Citizens, for example, is currently not given, since the state has not carried out an appropriate assessment of the consequences.”
Continuing the measures without a comprehensible basis would endanger confidence in the state and be socially dangerous:
“In view of the factual findings of the present analysis and the contrasting policy decisions, injured outsiders may be concerned that the decisive protection objective of national crisis management is no longer the safety and health of the population.”
Scientists criticize the Ministry of
The external scientists involved in the risk analysis have now also drawn up a joint statement on the ministry’s behaviour towards its staff. The signatories include Peter Schirmacher (professor of pathology, Heidelberg, member of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina), Sucharit Bhakdi (University professor of medical microbiology, retired/University of Mainz) and Andreas Sönnichsen (deputy curriculum director of the Medical University of Vienna).
The authors strongly contradict the official presentation of the ministry on the report and its creation, according to which an employee had disregarded many internal rules. According to the scientists, the now on leave author sent his analysis to a small internal distributor on March 25, according to his own information. His request to present the analysis to Interior Minister Horst Seehofer was rejected without examining the content. Only then did the employee pass them on to the crisis unit as well as to the specialist BMI Working Groups at federal and state level. In the further course the analysis was then transferred to the online Portal “Tichys insight”.
The scientists assess the analysis, which they describe as the” beginning of an even more extensive examination", as follows::
“Renowned colleagues, all outstanding representatives of their field, took a factual position on specific questions based on the requested Expertise. This resulted in a first comprehensive assessment of the already occurred and the impending medical damage, including expected deaths. ( … ) In our opinion, on the basis of this paper, The addressed specialists would have to initiate an immediate re-evaluation of the protective measures.”
BMI employees cold-exposed
However, the ministry initially initiated additional protective measures-namely against the leaked report. According to" Tichy’s insight", the BMI has sent the following letter to all recipients of the analysis:
“Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to point out that this is a paper written by a single employee. The employee was not involved in the crisis unit, nor was he commissioned or authorised to create or publish such an analysis. It reflects his private view, not that of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, building and Homeland.”
In their statement, the scientists react with great incomprehension to this principled defence of the ministry against an acutely necessary analysis. According to the scientists, the rejection cannot be due to the intellectual or political constitution of the author: he is described as a “committed” and “courageous” employee of the BMI. This does not seem to protect him: the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” reports that the ministry has now “ensured” that the author of the letter can no longer “give the impression that he is acting for or on behalf of the ministry”. According to a report by the “Spiegel”, the man was released from his duties.
The paper must be meticulously checked – but it must not be dismissed
The paper should not be shielded from criticism and meticulous review by this Text. This shielding also happens rather by the fact that it is dismissed by the ministry as an individual opinion of a confused individual offender, and is thus designated as not worthy of examination. However, the analysis could be accepted as a challenge: by the politicians and journalists who are responsible for the current irrationally justified course and who do not want to correct it. In the critical analysis, they would have a steep template to defend their measures argumentatively-as far as this is possible.
The paper is certainly a challenge for the Sewerage of public opinion: after all, given its origin and authorship, the document cannot automatically be dismissed as a far-right spinster. One would have to ask oneself (actually, finally) the serious questions raised therein: in this process, statements of analysis could also be credibly invalidated. It is not a question of confirming a preconceived opinion. It is about the fact that central questions are not even discussed, because already the asking of the questions is dismissed as" right-wing radical".
Therefore, the publication of the analysis in the sense of a clarifying debate is to be welcomed. If serious content-related criticism of the analysis should be formulated from the scientific side in the next few days, the reflection pages will also transport it.
So far, however, it is – apart from the defamations of the author-strikingly quiet in the Leaf Forest.