The Hitler regime and its consequences

Some voices are demanding from unvaccinated citizens that they should refrain from treatment in the hospital – this is reprehensible. In response, lists are drawn up about who should then "likewise" lose their right to an intensive care bed: smokers, speeders, overweight people, alcoholics, extreme athletes. This reaction is understandable. But on the one hand, one should not descend to the level of the corona campaign. On the other hand, the vicious circle of mutual offsetting of "unauthorized" intensive treatments has what it takes to damage the foundations of the idea of a halfway solidary health system – it should be interrupted. An appeal for moderation.

In the meantime, people are quite used to questionable advances on the subject of Corona. But the "high escalation" in attacks on important principles of coexistence can still be pushed further. A negative high point in recent months has been, for example, the demands of actors in the vaccination campaign for non-vaccinated people to refrain from intensive treatment.

Dangerous experimental balloons

In my opinion, this attack on a health system understood in solidarity stands out once again from the dangerous attempts at division of recent times. Some of the voices are relativizing again and have so far come from the second or third row, but the experience of the past months shows that such experimental balloons can very quickly become a reality. So said some time ago Wolfram Henn, human geneticist and member of the Ethics Council of the Federal Government:

"If you absolutely want to refuse vaccination, you should, please, always carry a document with you with the inscription: ‘I do not want to be vaccinated. I want to leave the protection from the disease to others. When I get sick, I want to leave my intensive care bed and my ventilator to others'"

On the portal "" how unvaccinated people can at least help society":

"Higher health insurance contributions, participation in treatment costs, waiver of treatment, mandatory vaccination."

Zurich Health Director Natalie Rickli said recently:

"And anyone who is opposed to vaccination would actually have to fill out a living will, in which he confirms that he does not want hospital and intensive treatment in the event of a Covid disease. That would be real personal responsibility."

Irresponsible taboo breaking

As the Swiss economics professor Marius Brülhart said, a Geneva health director demanded:

"The unvaccinated should bear their own hospital costs."

The following proposal on the costs (but also for extreme athletes, etc.) has been made by Jürgen Zastrow:

"You also have to discuss whether the costs that you incur by unnecessarily infecting yourself are burdened by the one who triggers them – instead of the general public."

Insurers are happy to take up such attempts to soften a system that is still in solidarity, at least in parts: R+V insurance is according to the media with the idea of "possibly differentiating tariffs according to vaccination status." Singapore is one step further: According to the media citizens who have not been vaccinated will have to pay the treatment costs for a Covid disease themselves in the future.

The "Standard" finds the proposal of the bioethicist Peter Moeschl to demand a living will from vaccination opponents, with which they dispense with intensive medical treatment in the event of a Covid disease, "convincing in terms of content". "Satirical" forms for such "waivers" circulate on the Internet.

There are other examples in the media and politics of demands in this direction. These statements reveal not only individual coldness. They also reveal irresponsibility: no one knows how such harsh taboo breaks in social communication will have a long–term effect - here we are sawing at the foundations of our coexistence.

Who is responsible for hospital bottlenecks?

The designation of vaccination as "protection for others" is significantly weakened by the partial failure of vaccines in the field of infection prevention. Regarding the argument that "the unvaccinated" would trigger a health emergency for nun, it should be said: 1. So far, the scenarios of clinic overload have not materialized. 2. The combat concept of the "pandemic of the unvaccinated" is not serious. 3. The health care system was already overloaded long before Corona, mainly because of wrong policy decisions and the consequences of privatizations. 4. In view of the virus, these already existing shortcomings were not remedied – on the contrary: even during the "pandemic", the loss of thousands of intensive care beds was allowed, while the risk groups were not protected.

And those responsible for this act are lulling citizens to the distraction of dying against the scapegoat of "unvaccinated". In addition to all this, all official figures on the "infected", on the "case numbers", on the "incidences" and on the "co-or one" Corona deceased are suspected of manipulation.

Scapegoat strategy

But the scapegoat strategy is successful: many citizens are frightened by the subsidies cited here. Tactics also effectively distract from political failure. In this respect, the statements are quite in line with the tactics of fear already set out in the paper of the Ministry of the Interior.

However, vaccinated citizens should also feel at least some discomfort, after all, this unequal treatment would not be the last: if principles are allowed to be so damaged now, in the future they will not even be able to protect those citizens who currently feel on the "safe side".

In addition to these (healthy) "selfish" motives for outrage over parts of the vaccination campaign, there should also be concern about the state of society in general. After all, the escalation is progressing incessantly: while the unconstitutional "lockdowns for the unvaccinated" are already being implemented, the experimental balloons cited here are rising in order to push the limit of what can be said and thus the limit of what is feasible ever further.

Have smokers and speeders also "forfeited" their right to treatment?

And because these attacks on fundamental ideas of our community are so serious, they evoke understandable but questionable reactions (in forums or conversations) – for example in the form of lists of citizens who "also" would have "forfeited" their right to appropriate treatment: for example, smokers, speeders, overweight people, alcoholics, extreme athletes.

This counter-polemic is effective, it seems – even if the comparisons may sometimes lag – appropriate and justified at the first moment. In the long term, however, descending to the level of the "attackers" can damage important principles: citizens could feel confirmed, who may have been against the grain even before Corona, that they have to "keep themselves healthy" with great difficulty and then still have to pay for the treatment of heroin addicts or extremely overweight people. If all citizens were to demand mutual good behavior in certain areas of behavior as a "ticket" to the hospital, it would be destructive for society.

Already the debate about selective treatments is having a destructive effect

These tendencies should therefore also be rejected among "vaccine-critical" citizens. On the one hand, these lines of thought threaten the consensus of a health organization that is still in the process of solidarity, in which every patient is treated almost without preconditions. The fact that this ideal is often violated anyway in an increasingly privatized health care system is no reason to completely bury it now.

On the other hand, these thoughts are hypocritical, because perhaps one day that same health apostle will be responsible for an accident and then, in turn, will also be provided for by the contributions of the overweight. Also there is the folk wisdom: "Smokers do not retire" – so, the bottom line is that non-smokers are more expensive for society?

Therefore, because demands in this direction are unsustainable in terms of content and the debate about them can already have a destructive effect, one should not offer a steep template. One can indignantly reject the demands for the renunciation of treatment – but perhaps without using equally unsolidary arguments.

Vaccine debate as a distraction?

In my opinion, one must react to the advances cited here. On the other hand, like the entire vaccination debate, they have a strong potential for distraction: the vaccine controversies are currently obscuring, among other things, that a determining motive behind the corona excitement is probably the installation of long-term monitoring practices, that the traffic light coalition is currently planning an anti-social tax policy, and that there are disturbing signals for geopolitical tensions.