Public health authorities in Germany during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic – a constructive-critical reflection

TL;DR

This paper reflects on the actions of German public health authorities during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and suggests ways to improve future responses.

Contribution

The paper offers a critical analysis of how public health authorities in Germany handled the pandemic, emphasizing the need for evidence-based decision-making.

Findings

German public health authorities imposed restrictions without following the pandemic plan or legal principles.

Collective fear during the pandemic led to a focus on virus control at the expense of societal consequences.

Sweden's approach, based on proportionality, is presented as a potential model for future pandemic responses.

Abstract

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, a retrospective evaluation of the measures is still pending in Germany. This article will attempt to draw constructive and critical lessons from this pandemic for the actions of the public health authorities (PHA) in similar situations in the future.

First, the legal and professional basis of the public health authorities in Germany to deal with a pandemic is presented. However, the analysis of the work of the PHA during the pandemic shows that the health authorities imposed extensive restrictions on freedom due to political and administrative law requirements without implementing the pandemic plan, the technical evidence and the principles of administrative law. The lessons of history were also ignored.

The non-compliance with professional und legal requirements may be explained by mass phenomena that occurred during the pandemic. Simplified messages and narratives led to uncertainty and fear, blurring individual boundaries in favor of collective reactions. Within a very short time in spring 2020, a collective threat scenario had gripped the whole of society – including the public health services. Combating the virus became the only goal, which supposedly unconditionally required maximum measures and restrictions on freedom and did not sufficiently take into account the considerable consequences for society as a whole.

The question arises as to how, even in times of a pandemic, evidence and experience can continue to guide decisions instead of threat scenarios, as was possible in Sweden. There, the Swedish pandemic plan was implemented in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

With our contribution to the discussion, we would like to encourage the PHA to take up this discussion and reappraisal – in responsibility for itself, for society and, in particular, for the people whose freedoms have been significantly restricted.

Figures