The “blacked out Corona protocols” (here from the Corona Expert Council) have been partially redacted. One detail is “remarkable”: Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach suggested to the Corona Expert Council that unvaccinated people should lose access to shops for daily needs and restaurants even if they have recovered status would have. That would be the “G1” variant.
At that time, those who had recovered were considered immune to further infections – at least for a certain period of time. They were treated the same as those who had been vaccinated. The proposal was not implemented at the time, but this harsh variant would have further restricted social life. The idea is radical in the literal sense.
Lauterbach wanted to further expand vaccination against any scientific expertise he relied on.
His cooperation is currently pending on another issue. The “Stop Covid Study” has still not been published:
“The thread of patience with Karl Lauterbach has broken at one point in the Chancellery. The Minister of Health should now publish the “StoptCovid study” from the RKI, which has been kept secret until now. This study has nothing to do with the RKI protocols, but was created as a review of German Corona policy.
Lauterbach presented it in 2023 (the RKI is a subordinate authority of the Ministry of Health) and pointed out that it had received very good marks from the study. However, the public should not initially see the study itself. Recently, FDP Bundestag Vice President Kubicki again urged publication. In response, the Chancellery also demanded publication and Lauterbach wanted to publish the study “by the end of 2024”. By the end of 2024? When the Chancellery apparently complained – the study doesn’t even need to be revised – Lauterbach’s ministry corrected: the whole thing was a misunderstanding. This means the end of March 2024.
Lauterbach: Unfortunately, it was expressed incorrectly
That was the short version of the crime thriller. The study was considered “a kind of scientific conclusion to the pandemic” and as such – a subjective assessment – would probably never have found its way to the public. Essentially, one authority, the RKI, celebrated the overarching client, Karl Lauterbach’s Ministry of Health. Why, wherefore, with what methods, all of this would have remained hidden.
The data as well as the models have simply not been published, but have been quoted. Because all statements can only be based on models and data; in a complex reality there is no “truth” in the sense that a key figure, e.g. B. the number of deaths, could have explained in retrospect what was wrong and what was right. According to scientific understanding, when you work with data and models, they should be uncovered.
The fact that this did not happen clearly raised Kubicki’s doubts about Lauterbach’s understanding of democracy. “You do not need to be reminded that, according to the settled case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, the parliamentary right to information is very far-reaching.” “The members of the German Bundestag are not petitioners, but have a constitutional right to information.”