The call for #ZeroCovid received an enormous response within a few days. Well over 45,000 people have signed it and it has been mentioned many times in the media. Many of my friends have also signed. In preparation for the call, there were a number of exciting discussions in the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation or in Attac's scientific advisory board.
In the end, I couldn't decide whether to sign the appeal. It is with a certain concern that I see the distortions that different assessments of the pandemic can lead to, even within the left. But the appeal cannot be viewed pragmatically either, although it is "only" an appeal that also establishes some correct connections and makes correct demands. I want to record some of my criticisms here:
1. A European lockdown is not realistic
The appeal criticizes the prevailing strategy of "flatten the curve" as having failed and demands - following a statement by scientists in the Lancet - that contacts should now be reduced as far as possible in a simultaneous strategy to be pursued across Europe so that the virus can escape as soon as possible is completely displaced from our lives. An end to the pandemic is called for - as if the state could order it and as if the pandemic only existed because politically wrong actions were taken. Comparisons with China, Taiwan, South Korea or Cuba suggest something like this. But the virus also circulates there and the pandemic is not over, but can break out again and again.
It would not be possible for Germany alone to isolate itself in this way. Accordingly, a Europe-wide decision for a radical lockdown is called for. That is full of prerequisites. The decision would have to be made at EU level and then implemented through national decisions. Such a process is protracted and unlikely in view of the politically very different governments.
A radical lockdown would mean closing borders, ports, airports and subjecting all arrivals to tests and quarantine measures.
It would also mean rigorously closing borders, ports and airports and subjecting all arrivals to tests and quarantine measures. The consequence of this would be strict travel and migration controls. This didn't work in the summer and turned out to be a bureaucratic power fantasy. If one wanted to change this, an enormous expansion of the relevant authorities and an intensive control regime would be necessary.
2. An end to the pandemic is not possible
The appeal aims to »end«, against »controlled continuation« of the pandemic - which in fact amounts to eradicating the virus. Based on the current state of knowledge, it seems unlikely that this could succeed. Everything indicates that global society will have to live with the virus. Especially when a significant number of people will not be vaccinated.
But the call is not so radical either, because when the incidences are significantly reduced and the chains of infection can be traced again by the health authorities, it should be relaxed again. Even if this is rejected in the appeal, it is roughly the policy of the "controlled pandemic" that the governments in Germany, Austria, France or Switzerland - unlike the USA, Sweden or Brazil - have pursued. However, this means that the virus will spread again as soon as it is loosened.
Not only is ZeroCovid's demand inconsistent, it also ignores the non-simultaneity that arises. Because in some regions of Germany or Europe the numbers can be very high, in others very low. So there are reasons to act unevenly regionally and to open and close at the same time. The yo-yo and ping-pong effects against which the appeal takes a stand cannot be avoided. It would be better to orient solidarity action towards this.
3. A hard lockdown can only be enforced by the police
Staying at home, avoiding contacts, wearing masks, using tracing apps - these are roughly the recommended recipes for the call. None of this is new. The problem of how to implement this in everyday practice, how to achieve the appropriate discipline, is not addressed. But that's a key question. Because in everyday life many have not adhered to the measures in the past few months and circumvented them; or they have deliberately ignored them because they consider the measures to be excessive and in any case do not believe in the existence of the virus as a pathogen.
The consequence that the state would have to take stronger police measures is not expressed. Should the police and security services be strengthened? Should there be internment in quarantine camps? The appeal is obviously aimed at the state. But this state should not be strengthened in its authoritarian tendency.
4. The required solidarity is ambivalent
The call is for solidarity. That is good, because it makes it clear that it is not about an order from the state, but about measures that are desired and carried out by citizens in order to contain the spread of the virus. But that should actually also be said: the »solidarity break« just means to forego contacts, to stay at home, not to see family members, friends, colleagues.
So the appeal boils down to continuing to radically restrict "life" until the numbers drop. Angela Merkel pointed out the paradox of the situation months ago: Solidarity means isolating yourself and keeping your distance. But that is exactly what not only creates a lot of suffering, but also anger, despair, protest. Actionism, noise, shock, illegal parties, conquering the street - this comes from right-wing and irrational contexts. The left offers science, reason, isolation (cf. Widmer in the WOZ, January 14, 2021). Since it is a call from left-wing contexts, the problem of how to deal with the contradiction arises not only in that the left turns so emphatically to the state, but also assumes a role of order with regard to the protest.
5. The interests of capital are more complex than the appeal claims
The radical gesture of appeal fizzled out. It consists in getting the government to finally enforce the protection of employees against companies. If anything, the focus was more on offices and home offices. But that changed even before the appeal was published, and precisely this topic was negotiated in the media and on talk shows.
The alignment of governments with business and profit is certainly a crucial consideration. But this one itself is complex. For profit, it can make sense to continue working in the company - as long as supply chains or sales markets are functioning. But even if many (older) people fall ill or die, it can be good for business: for example that of the pharmaceutical industry, medical device manufacturers, pension insurance companies, logistics or InfoCom companies.
Capital interests are conflicting. The state does not stand up for the interests of capital in general, because that does not exist.
From a profit point of view, however, it can also be risky to keep economic transactions going. Members of the management and many wage earners can become ill or die (sometimes seriously and in the long term) (even if the risks are unevenly distributed). For profit, it can make sense to close the companies: the market is adjusted, costs can be avoided in the face of low demand, government support can be collected and at the same time wage earners, tied to the companies with short-time working allowance, protect their health in order to then, if the Economy picks up again, to get back into production immediately. It's a contradicting movement: when are the losses greater or lesser, when the immediate costs are higher? What long-term competitive advantages or costs can be expected? Capital interests are different and quite conflicting. The state does not stand up for the interests of capital in general, because that does not exist.
From this point of view, too, the call for a »solidarity break« promises more than can be kept. Many businesses cannot be closed. There is the material side to consider, i.e. the food industry and the corresponding retail trade, logistics, the production of spare parts, public transport, old people's and nursing homes, pharmaceutical and medical care. Parliaments, administration and the media should also continue to function. The appeal also wants to ensure care for children. At most, part of the economy can pause. From a material point of view, other measures would be conceivable as an alternative to the closure: renouncing performance compression and overtime, employing more employees, ensuring distances, protective clothing, shorter working hours.