May 14, 2020 - Issue 21 - The readers' blog Bookmark ZEIT ONLINE Menu Close Bookmark Login Z+ ZEIT ONLINE

Letters to the editor about "The Great Conspiracy" by Sebastian Kempkens

I just received the topics of this week's "Zeit" by e-mail. You chose "the hour of conspiracy theories" as the title. I expect independent reporting from a newspaper like Die Zeit, but this is no longer the case with this title. Where are the journalists who weigh and judge the pros and cons of opinions. It horrifies me more and more how conformist and ignorant the German press reacts to other opinions. We have freedom of expression here in Germany and I always thought that this fundamental right was lived. But to put all critical voices on the subject of Corona in the "drawer" of conspiracy theories is too easy and not appropriate for a newspaper like "Die Zeit". – Andrea Brandt

In our studies we were taught that "theories are systems of legal statements built up from confirmed hypotheses...." So one should better speak and write of conspiracy hypotheses. As students we would have blasphemed about "conspiracy hypotee Susen". Let's hopefully await the "resilient debunking of the most successful conspiracy hypothesists". – Diether Sieghart

Here is a 'message' to the frustrated fractions of our 'Bundestag' and the ZEIT: The global change in consciousness The dignity of mankind is inviolable Everything wants and can - and therefore may and will change. If you can think, you can also feel and act with good reason! Transformation means: change - out of free will. And whoever hears the call keeps the heart's joy far away today. Compulsion is an old (!) world structure, lies and war. Man and woman suffered for a long time on the steep, dark ascent. It is now aging from day to day, and finally hour by hour, what no one wants to hear any more on false lying mouths. Humans have been fighting for rights and justice for a long time.

Since he lacked both, he wanted to steal them for sale. Justitia Galactica shudders at the wrong joke, so she pops in every now and then, always reviving the Veritas. In humorous terms one could say that these days morality undermines the new importance of humor. Anyone who seriously commits himself to seriousness will respect joie de vivre before he is driven by evil deception that "others" thought out. It all sounds quite childish, slightly naive to seriously crazy - for too long responsibility has failed the human child. But if the human soul would soon stand on its feet with dignity, it would take the hurdle and welcome the relief today. It rhymes with dignity hurdle - oh man, get up, unburden yourself. – Michael Schauer-Villanueva

In a democracy, protected by the constitution, you can also be crazy. – Jurgen Dressler

Don't sin! Do you know how we will look back on this crazy time 10 years from now? Nobody knows. It's not about looking for a conspirator for a big thing like the Corona Lock Down. Not at all. It's about looking at society as Mr. Ramelow does, who admits he was insecure about the schools closing, uncomfortable about how many people have died alone. As Mr Schäuble does, as many do. We cannot go on like this, with or without the virus. This goes wrong. With or without conspiracy theories. We have to adjust to the virus. Do you talk to your colleagues? the musicians? the theater people? Will our cultural establishment survive this? How important is exchange for us in modern times? We cannot fill up all the holes with money, as Mr Schäuble warns. What happens to us when we lock ourselves in with social distancing. What if analogue echo chambers are added to the digital echo chambers? Because we no longer bump into each other on all the occasions and start talking. The formation of opinion is severely disturbed. What about the educational mission?

What happens to the students? It's the teachers and educators who better not see their students anymore - out of fear! But young people are left behind? Because of 3 months school absence. Yes, because of 3 months of school failure, the young people are left behind. you lose a lot. What is the recession about? The global impact, the hunger, the locust plague that is forgotten - oh and and and. You know all that. Politicians are allowed to say it, but not too loudly - then they will be attacked, like Mr. Laschet. Well! Please don't join us. What has Mr. Bhakti done to you? Read the comments below your article. It creeps me out. The professor didn't deserve that. Ken Jebsen has his own agenda. He should. But a scientist is denied any competence where he has borne responsibility for years. What kind of modern denunciation is this. horror. horror. I'm a skeptic too and I'm worried about where our life together is going. Naturally. How not to do that? And believe me, I'm not an anti-Semite - I adore Mr. Soros and am using the Microsoft Office suite right now. And of course I want life to be preserved. Man, young man - life is complex. Keep calm, don't throw dirt! This is unworthy of a journalist! – Renate Wegener

Your dossier often talks about “conspiracy theories” and “things like that”. In order to influence the "susceptibility" at least of those who do not suffer from "narcissistic self-aggrandizement" in the desired sense, I would ask you to analyze in more detail what these theories have in common. For example, you could use the following "conspiracy theories": - the earth is flat or hollow and is inhabited by lizard creatures who determine world politics, - in connection with 9/11 there are many oddities that deal with the official statements cannot be reconciled (see e.g. the books by David Ray Griffin), - the USA monitors the telephone and email traffic of the whole world and even Angela Merkel's mobile phone (the nutcase who claims this has even fled to Russia, because he seriously believes that he would be taken to court for this outrageous nonsense in the USA - the corona virus may not be as dangerous as originally thought. Thank you! - Manfred Marggraf

It has struck me lately that almost all the papers have an apparent amalgamation and consensus in reporting on criticism. Especially when citizens or scientific experts report contrary to the mainstream, they are put down in the media and immediately placed in the corner of the right, left or in the conspiracy corner. Here lies the task of the 4th power of journalists to report in a differentiated manner and also to show all opinions. By the way, what does conspiracy against whom and what mean? The truth is not absolute and who will ultimately be right in the case of Corona remains to be seen. There will still be a lot of judges and lawyers busy and we - the citizens - will, as always, suffer and foot the bill. At this point, I would like to doubt whether proportionality was maintained. The Spanish flu can be used as a benchmark for the pandemic.

As a free citizen, I don't want to be forced to have a vaccination, do you? Can you rule out vaccination damage, especially if such activism currently prevails and a lot of money can be made from it in the background? As is well known, in the case of flu, adjustments have to be made again and again, since the virus is constantly changing. So, as always, there is no such thing as absolute certainty. A possible immunity card will divide our society. If we choose not to, do we get a flag? That reminds me of very dark times in our German history... I currently see a great danger that we will be disenfranchised and have to live with more and more restrictions on our freedom. That can not be! I therefore ask you to report more critically and broadly in the interest of our democracy. – Horst Peter

My family and I are very happy that we canceled DIE ZEIT. After reading the dossier of May 14, 2020, it is clear that the newspaper is dependent on Bill Gates. (Transparency note confirms this.) We are now members of Bodo Schiffmann's party and support everyone who has long known the NWO as a major threat. The whole corona story is a well-done test of frightening people, making them sick and vulnerable to manipulation. But not with us! – Christa Warzecha

Then I want to try again as a "confused spirit" to launch a "conspiracy theory" in the ZEIT. Although I'm actually outraged to be labeled a "confused ghost". Do you actually notice the anger it triggers in large circles of the population when the leading German weekly newspaper simply labels them as "confused spirits" - and thus as unimportant, stupid and not worth noting. This brings us to the crucial sentence of the "Dossier" on p. 13, 3 columns, where it is about "questioning-yourself". That's exactly what you don't do in this issue either!

The “confused spirits” are typeset – this time with an image. If the mainstream opinion of the Drostens, Wielers, Brinkmanns & Co is so absolutely irrefutable, why are millions opposed to it? All confused?? Could it be that the ZEIT also has to “apologize to many” in a few weeks? Prof. Veit's letter to the editor puts it in a nutshell: "You are currently losing a not inconsiderable part of the elite of this country!!" Not the confused one! They might be in the editorial offices of TV talk shows and newspapers... But of course I have to "question" that every day!!! - dr Peter Michael

Unfortunately, you don't even begin to answer how it can be that ordinary citizens no longer trust politics. Instead, you lump people who ask legitimate questions, exercise their right to demonstrate, or criticize government actions with conspiracy theorists and ridicule them. This is exactly how the established media, which has so far hardly questioned anything about the lockdown, is driving people onto the streets. The quasi-synchronized media are primarily responsible for the fact that conspiracy theories are gaining traction. In addition to politics, of course, where there was no opposition for weeks. And the established media should have questioned that, too. Until the completely disproportionate lockdown, I always defended these media as a kind of fourth estate. Today I see them with different eyes and I'm glad that there are still alternative media on the internet. The question is how much longer. - dr Gerlinde Volland

Why do you lump Mr. Bhakdi in your article "The Great Conspiracy" with people who spread blatant nonsense? From my point of view, it still belongs under the category "differing opinion". He didn't invent any facts, he just interpreted them differently than, for example, the federal government. And yet it is undisputed that the existing data was sparse and a lot of interpretation was necessary in order to be able to draw conclusions from it. Therefore, I find it unfair (and not worthy of ZEIT) how your article counts him among the conspiracy theorists. In addition, there are irrelevant depictions such as "a harsh white backlight shines through the living room, which gives the scene something unreal".

This is pure sentimentalism that doesn't contribute anything factual to the debate. On the contrary, it is grist to the mill of those who claim that one should no longer express one's opinion without being pilloried afterwards. When asked about Bill Gates, he said he didn't want to believe that (interview on Servus TV). In conclusion, I think that he was not entirely wrong either: In view of the many empty intensive care beds, Germany seems to have overshot the goal it had set itself. Nobody should be blamed for that, but in retrospect, less stringent measures would apparently have been enough not to overload the healthcare system. – Gerhard Buchman

Thank you for your research and article. Instead of working on the theories, they show the people behind them and that we can all tend to be susceptible to them. In the case of facts that we cannot check ourselves and are dependent on other opinions, we build on trust in the respective sources (public law, newspapers, friends, acquaintances). Many media, however, have caused confidence to falter due to opinions and topics that are too uniform, as well as political turnnecks such as Seehofer and Söder or the federal policy with no alternative. And now reporting and politics, in turn, hardly allow other than the official interpretations. It's only natural that people look for alternatives. It also shows how thin our private and public opinions are and how dependent we are on an open, diverse and diverse discussion. Please actively deal with the arguments of the doubters. Only transparency helps. – Robert Englmeier

An example of fake news related to the coronavirus is the absurd claim that philanthropist Bill Gates wants to enforce compulsory vaccination of the entire world population. I can provide useful information on the origin of this crude conspiracy theory: On Easter Sunday, a deceptively real double of this selfless benefactor of mankind appeared on the ARD television program "Tagesthemen", who announced precisely this demand for vaccination of all mankind. My recommendation to Bill Gates: sue this TV station! You might get a ban on broadcasting, which would be extremely helpful in containing fake news. - dr Karl Ulrich Gutschke

In the past few weeks it has become increasingly normal for people who are critical of corona measures to be defamed or ridiculed as conspiracy theorists or aluminum hat wearers - also in articles in your newspaper. Of course you have to critically assess and examine new political movements, but the current coverage is more like a witch hunt: if you're not with us, you're against us. First of all, I think it would be important and interesting to investigate how many people who normally do not appear politically in public are now expressing themselves or even illegally demonstrating. The next step would be to ask why are they doing this? Are they all confused and not well informed enough? Why have the media completely lost their trust in us, what could we do differently? What could you do differently? From my point of view, trust in the media is disturbed above all by the fact that reports that do not fit the official (government/RKI) point of view are no longer reported on or are reported in a way that presents the report negatively. This conformity causes distrust - rightly so.

Examples: When the Heinsberg study was preliminary, no one wanted to look at its results, now it is completed and its results are still ignored or attempts are made to put the results into perspective or to doubt them, even though the facts are not give away Or the famous example of Sweden. First media action: We can't compare ourselves to Sweden (after weeks of comparing ourselves to Italy, whose healthcare system is as related to ours as a Mercedes S-Class is to a Fiat 500), then Sweden was reduced to that there are more dead there. That's true, and the Swedes have also admitted serious mistakes in the area of ​​protecting risk groups, but the Swedish population still supports the overall concept.

Another example - statistics: Since the beginning of the crisis, the graphics with accumulated cases have been used almost exclusively, adopted 1:1 from the RKI. These look frightening and cause fear and anxiety - the number of new infections every day is and was undramatic (so not newsworthy?). The same applies to the topic of “the comparison with the flu” – even the Federal Statistical Office shows that the flu epidemic in 2018 caused around 4 times as many deaths as the Corona crisis. Interesting: Even some CDU politicians have warned the media (probably with regard to their voters) to report more balanced in the last few days.

I believe that when journalists are asked by CDU politicians to report in a balanced manner, then something has gone terribly wrong... Their newspaper has also been part of my politics class for over 20 years, and I try to encourage schoolchildren to read the newspaper to inspire. At the moment I can no longer take responsibility for this, so little are different opinions on government thinking taken seriously or even mentioned. Get back to the balance you're famous for and most conspiracy theories will vanish into thin air. – Markos Pavlidis

As always with fact-based processes in the democratic public sphere, there are three channels of information: 1) the official statements, 2) the fact-based scientific data and 3) unofficial opinions and reactions of the citizens. All three are required, even if they differ more or less from each other. Federal President Steinmeier pointed out only yesterday (May 14, 2020): "There must always be inquiring criticism." Not only the media, but all citizens are entitled and even obliged to do so. Of course, everyone should be guided by reality and be willing to learn from each other. Sucharit Bhakdi, German specialist in microbiology and infection epidemiology and professor emeritus at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene there from 1991 to 2012, poses very relevant scientific questions in his videos.

These, along with many other relevant questions, are addressed in thorough studies such as those by world-renowned researchers Prof. Dr. Hendrik Streeck and Prof. Dr. John Ioannidis, scientifically clarified by Hamburg forensic pathologists and many others. Since the measures against Corona are intended to provide optimal protection for the risk groups, but must not restrict society and the economy a bit more than necessary in order not to cause greater economic, social and psychological damage, which then even complicates the situation of millions of people in further crises , this precise knowledge is life-saving for many. Now the last ones should notice that we are in a collapsing global economy, the so-called Corona Crash 2020. Therefore, Professor Bhakdi deserves respect and gratitude for his critical questions to Ms. Merkel in the spirit of Federal President Steinmeier, also in his well-deserved retirement to contribute to the well-being of his fellow human beings. One should certainly apologize to him if, instead of inviting him to the public scientific discourse in good time, one uses insulting terms that have no justification whatsoever.

One should not insult official spokespersons, who, as studies have shown, are often massively mistaken, but rather urge them to do so and look forward to them carrying out data-based revisions of their decisions as quickly as possible. Truth can only be measured against objective reality. Something cannot be true just because it contradicts the program of the AfD (or X or Y), for example. And something cannot be wrong just because it corresponds to the program of the AfD. Findings of “truth” like this often take place in Germany. But with that we raise the AfD (X or Y) to an indirect measure of truth. This is arguably as helpful as acknowledging them as the direct measure of truth. Truth can only be measured against objective reality. – Gerhard Jahnke

“Conspiracy “theorists” should really be called conspiracy “ideologues”, including their female counterparts. A theory is there to be proved or disproved. An ideology wants to be right, not questioned. In this sense, conspiracy ideologues are the people with the undoubted and irrefutable views (such as Karl Lauterbach in the column "Streit" of the ZEIT from May 14th), not the doubters who are denigrated in bulk! Anyone who sees Bill Gates only as a philanthropist and the WHO as a sacrosanct organization is just as ideologically blind as the people who see Bill Gates + WHO as the axis of evil. "Conventional medicine" and "alternative medicine" are also terms that are easy to embellish ideologically. Philosophy and science are also often seen in opposition. Personalities known as natural scientists such as Hans-Peter Dürr or Albert Einstein never saw their findings as the ultimate wisdom. Socrates left us a legacy and a duty to know and not to know, to keep asking. PS One of my opinion on the topic – see below! – and a guest article that goes with your journal is by Peter Selg in https://anthroblog.anthroweb.info/2020/eine-medikalisiert-gesellschaft-zum-geistigen-klima-der-corona-katzen/#post-7424-footnote-ref -3 – Giorgio Zankl

In your new issue of May 14th, you headline: Confused spirits are coming up with abstruse theses about the corona virus. You mention, among other things, the retired Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, a renowned and award-winning virologist. So far I have not been able to read anything that casts even the slightest doubt on these anti-corona measures and their unforeseeable consequences. Also not a word about the report from the Ministry of the Interior, which gives a disastrous testimony to the work of the government and the RKI (the private opinion of an individual). Professor Bhakdi was one of the ten external consultants, all high profile people, who were brought in to draft this report. His mind can't be that confused. Also, so far you have not mentioned anywhere the study by Professor Ioannidis from Stanford University, who, after a comprehensive study, came to the same conclusion as Professor Bhakdi. Probably a confused mind too. Honestly, do you call that journalism? Devaluing people with different opinions like that? I canceled my subscription. My money is too good for such journalism, so I prefer to turn to the right-wing conspiracy propagandist Jebsen. That's more interesting. You threw away a lot of principles for Bill Gates' money. – Joseph Völker

Up until now, I have greatly appreciated the reporting and the articles of the ZEIT on Corona, as they have bravely stood out from the mass of an unreflected, panic and hysteria-triggering and increasingly one-sided official information policy. In the cover story of the current issue, however, you seem to subsume all voices critical of Corona under the sensational topic of "conspiracy theories". They do not use the method of enlightenment that you rightly demanded, the "questioning oneself" and are therefore in good company, since any criticism of official corona views has been nipped in the bud for weeks. In my opinion, that is the actual virus: the fear of many governments or the WHO to admit mistakes in handling and in assessing the danger of COVID-19, the fear of each individual of vulnerability, yes also the fear of our own inevitable mortality, which we everyone is becoming so aware now.

It would have been an opportunity to critically question the dialogue about the proportionality of the measures, the reliability of the statistics, the credibility of the latest scientific studies and their motivations and backgrounds in ZEIT. Both Dr. Bhakdi as Dr. Wodarg, like the Swiss doctor Dr. In their video contributions or on their own websites, Vernazza (St. Gallen) and many others present research and perspectives that should first of all be carefully noted before they are simply thrown into the field on the basis of an alleged "fact check" by science journalists on the public broadcasters deported from conspiracy theories or easy prey to wikipedia censorship.

It would be courageous for ZEIT to address the contradictions within the research approaches and interpretations of virologists, immunologists and epidemiologists, to allow critical questions about our belief in science, to question who governments are currently seeking advice from, and last but not least, e.g. Dr. To offer Bhakdi a platform and a critical interlocutor. However, it would also be courageous to place our dealings with influenza viruses and other viruses in a larger historical, epistemological and social context and to ask what could strengthen people and their immune systems today. – Jörg-Andreas Bötticher

I've just read your article "Back on the Streets" when my daughter tells me that Volksdorf is full of demonstrators who, without masks, are protesting tightly against the government's measures. I myself belong to the age group that is particularly at risk from Corona, and I am grateful that the guidelines our government has taken so far seem to be having an effect. Of course, everyone is free to express their own opinion on this, but I have absolutely no understanding that the part of the population that does not join the protest, and even rejects it, is endangered by the selfish, irresponsible behavior of some citizens. - In the meantime, extensive easing has come into force.

We can be grateful for that and should not take the risk of triggering a new wave of the disease through unreasonable behavior. I know from my daughters how difficult it is for them to reconcile working from home, lively children and helping them with their homework. Although they groan, they know that this is the lesser evil compared to the spread of the disease. May this view prevail! I welcome your objective reporting and ask you to continue to warn of the dangers of escalating demonstrations used by conspiracy supporters, right-wing extremists, critics of capitalism, anti-Semites, Reich citizens and opponents of vaccination as a platform for their interests. – Marianne Klimek

No wonder that conspiracy theories are blooming again in the corona crisis. Instead of investigative journalism, we are only experiencing system journalism (cf. O.Jarren), just a kind of court reporting. Foresight, critical analysis and control - none. The media reports superficially, one-dimensionally and opportunely, getting lost in personalizations, individual stories that are supposed to trigger dismay. So instead of enlightenment and distance, sensationalization and dramatization. No hour of investigative journalism. All knitted with a hot needle, designed for quotas and circulation numbers. Is that quality journalism? A journalism that is causing a whole country to panic, spreading fear among the population and triggering a state of shock. Always the same images: Bergamo, hospitals in Italy, military trucks transporting corpses, corpses in refrigerated containers in New York, etc. Always the same questions to experts and politicians who wander from one talk show to the next. The public figures are a complete disaster and say little about reality. Where are the critical questions from journalists about the so-called collateral damage of the protective measures? How many deaths will we have as a result of the lockdown? How many existences destroyed? How many social problems? In the corona crisis, the media failed in a grotesque way. Many people do not feel properly informed. Feeling taken for a fool, they turn to other sources of information, unfortunately they often come across dubious ones. – Herbert Freyaldenhoven

You have now realized that your readership wants a really critical examination of the Corona measures: Why not like that! It was very difficult for me to endure hearing the same basic tone of fear everywhere. Where are we living? I am very pleased that you print letters to the editor in the original sound, that I can gradually believe that people with different opinions on the ban on contact and other measures imposed on us and on the widespread selection of numbers by the RKI are no longer generally dismissed as conspiracy theorists. It bothers me all the more that Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi runs in your large article from page 11 under “conspiracy theories”. I mean, he should be taken seriously with his theses, even though he's already retired.

As he repeatedly emphasizes in his videos, he doesn't believe in evil intentions, neither from Bill Gates, nor from Angela Merkel or anyone else, but he wants to put a stop to an oversized fear that has spread in our society . She is the reason for the lockdown. No conspiracy, no evil person pulling the strings in the background, only excessive fear is what he warns against. That's why he's not a conspiracy theorist, but a scientist who works for democracy and freedom and fights against false reports. I hope that Die Zeit remains a readable sheet that does not manipulate the reader, but enlightens it.I expect a public apology from you to Professor Bhakdi for this classification under the topic "Conspiracy Theories" in the next issue and furthermore a critical presentation of the RKI and the corona measures decreed by the government and their consequences: finally a really balanced presentation with pros and cons. – Maria v. bar

This is the first letter to the editor of my life and I assume that you are currently receiving a great many letters to the editor. Your article "Cover topic: conspiracy theories" or the caption "Sucharit Bhakdi thinks Covid-19 is a spook" encourages me to clarify. The occasion is emotional, I'm angry. So I try – recognizing the danger – to objectify, to withdraw. I am a fan of your newspaper and especially love the discourse. Articles that try to show that the world is not black and white but colourful. The danger of conspiracy theories based on YouTube and digital algorithms prompted me to write a children's book. A fairy tale and non-fiction book for the whole family. I would like to invite everyone to think about the effects of digitization. On page 13, after the transparency reference to the article criticized above, you mention the award of one of your reports. Theme: Seduction of a child.

Similar mechanisms are adopted by the marketing experts who want to sell their products to us and our children. Sebastian Kempkens obviously also wants to sell something to the readers, his opinion or the opinion of the editors. But he uses propagandistic means. His caption on Sucharit Bhakdi is doubly mean. First, he uses the quotation marks for the word "spook", which first makes the reader think of Bhakdi's literal speech and indirectly defames him as a weirdo. Second, it's probably a legal trick, because the author is now fine. Bhakdi has never denied the coronavirus, but has criticized the phenomenon of Covid-19 as "so-called spook" in a figurative sense. So the caption that made me angry is probably not legally contestable. But that's my accusation. Journalists are increasingly operating like shrewd marketing experts, printing misleading or even false promises on their products in order to lure customers into buying inferior food, for example. Does it have to be that way?

Isn't it more of a journalistic task to objectify the discussion? And that brings me to my second interjection. Why isn't the dossier “The Great Conspiracy” really getting to the bottom of the causes? It's like an illness. Do we just want to suppress the symptoms or really heal the body by tackling the causes? In the whole Corona situation, there is no talk about strengthening your own immune system. What must and can every citizen do to get through every winter healthy? When do I not have to be afraid of swine flu, common influenza or corona? How do we reduce the terrible pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma and many others? We agree that all the conspiracy theories are nonsense. We also know that social media and YouTube with their algorithms inspire one-sided worldviews. Digitization amplifies everything, the good as well as the bad! (See my book "Alice im Neuland"). How do we escape the permanent manipulation trap that fights like with like and thus makes everything even worse?Please, please dear ZEIT editors - I believe in you and in democracy - accept Professor Bkakdi's criticism etc. serious, tries to answer questions and renounces populist methods. The government and politics is not infallible! Decisions made at the beginning of March can and must 1. be presented transparently (Corona investigation committee) and 2. be reassessed and decided today.

As a citizen, I have a right to know how many tests have been carried out in order to assess whether more tests have been carried out or whether more people infected with corona have been detected. At the same time, a number of infected people must not be published, but it must also be stated how many of these cases are symptom-free, with flu-like symptoms and with severe symptoms. In my opinion, the school closures were exaggerated and unnecessary from the start (as Dr. Drosten himself argued in his podcast at the beginning of March). The transmission of the virus from children to adults is a potential isolated case and not a driver of the pandemic (this was also an assessment by the WHO). The same applies to the obligation to wear masks in public spaces. Doesn't bring anything and still doesn't bring anything today. As long as there is more testing, the number of infections will continue to increase. Please also provide an honest and fact-based explanation. We must not turn extreme individual cases into a claim to omnipotence through digital amplification. Anyone who is ill, and this applies to Covid-19 as well as to the flu, should stay in bed at home and recover. Anyone who still has to go public should put on a mask to protect others and avoid close contact.

It has always been like this and should be part of the basic understanding of every human being - voluntarily! If you want to strengthen your immune system, you can take a lot of cheaper and easier measures with your family doctor. This starts with a healthy wholefood diet and extends to enough sleep, fresh air and exercise, to vitamin supplements. In the case of influenza, vaccination is also welcome in certain cases. Everything voluntarily. But if you want to live unhealthily yourself, you shouldn't hold your fellow human beings liable!I'm not (yet) talking about the financial consequences, because up until now I've been happy to pay my health insurance premiums and know that diabetics, blood pressure patients and others are supposed to be helped. Of course, it would be even better if the symptoms were not suppressed in these people, but really the causes were treated. In the end, there could be a whole new, "fairer" healthcare system: Doctors only get money for their healthy patients. But now we are moving into the space of utopia. Or is it just another conspiracy theory? – Paul Andersson

" On a day in May, Hildmann is sitting in his restaurant, in sweatpants and a hoodie, a blue gem dangling from a long chain. On the walls …..” “On the shelf against the wall: the collection of classical records many copies are signed by musicians. Through the window you can see a field and a paddock, behind it shimmers...” “He sits at home a lot now and takes care of “the little one”, three years ago he became a father again, his seventh child.” The information content of these statements and many others in the text is zero against the background of the title topic: conspiracy theories. At a time when analysis could provide orientation, the article sinks into bombastic mood pictures. The article (title topic?) does not meet the minimum requirements of an internationally and nationally renowned weekly newspaper in terms of form and content. It's a pity about the wasted opportunity to deal with a very contradictory topic in an appropriately critical and analytical way. – Dirk Fahle

With growing reluctance, I take the "time" out of the mailbox week after week and wait for you to deal objectively and critically with developments in this country. Instead, I am overwhelmed with things that range from trivial to embarrassing. "Highlights" were the magazine with the recipes and the article in the penultimate issue about the new national debt, which is not so bad. The list could be continued with various social kitsch and the really important controversial question: should the shops open on Sundays?. Not a single article deals with the premises of the official opinion of the government and its court astrologers (RKI). There is no lack of voices that have something different to say about it. No interview, no argument page, nothing. Instead, perseverance slogans, like in a war report. They blossom into the "central organ of GroKo" and gamble away your reputation. Much of what I see and describe here reminds me of GDR times:

You didn't have to constantly enforce a standard opinion, every editor was already familiar with it as a pair of scissors in their heads. The common cause (construction of socialism, today fight against corona) was so important to the convinced socialists (today Corona believers) that one was willing to tolerate collateral damage of any kind and not to name it. The question for me is, at the end of the day, if the virus turns out to be relatively harmless, will you also name it? Will you admit your role in hysterizing the public? If it turns out that the damage caused by the Corona measures goes far beyond exorbitant public debt, and there are more victims from the measures than from Corona, will you address all of this? So far I don't think so. Convince me by becoming the "4th power" in the state again - until now you have only been a bourgeois "New Germany" on better paper. – Hartmut Grätz

I am now 57 years old and female. I've been reading DIE ZEIT on and off for years. Today, for the first time, I am writing my thoughts about a newspaper and also about DIE ZEIT. (I'm sharing this because I have no experience of doing this and I don't usually consider my opinion important enough that I want and need to make it known to journalists or other readers. I also never read all of the articles in, by the way of the ZEIT and before I buy the ZEIT, I always look at the table of contents to see if something appeals to me. This time it was the topic "conspiracy theorists" that appealed to me. In fact, over the past few months I've looked at a few of Looked at and listened to people in the media who are classified as “conspiracy theorists” (Mr. Bhakdi, Bodo Schiffmann, etc.) I haven’t dealt with Mr. Hildmann, so I’m inclined to trust what the time journalists are publishing.

I am appalled that Mr. Hildmann, Mr. Bhakdi as well as Manuela Pietza and Kristian Marklin are given the same classification label "conspiracy theorist" in the ZEIT as in the mainstream. I wonder whether journalists or editors, especially the last three people mentioned, even met them on an equal footing. I would never classify Mr. Bhakdi as a conspiracy theorist based on my own dealings with him. With Ms. Pietza and Mr. Marklin, I only let the Zeit article work on me and I see them as people who analyze and search differently than is usual in the mainstream. I feel the label "conspiracy theorist" against them as little appreciative. In fact, only Franziska Schubert's attitude in the argument with Karl Lauterbach could "comfort" me a little. For Franziska Schubert, these all too seldom practiced encounters at eye level seem to be a matter of course. In all other articles I miss exactly this eye level in the presentation of the "conspiracy theorist appearances".

Bodo Schiffmann is also one of the conspiracy theorists and is considered the founder of the RESISTANCE party. When he registers RESISTANCE against the frequently practiced method of expressing opinions and reducing opinions in everyday politics and suggests the method of the "talking stick" from the Indian culture as a way out, I also perceive a potential that is worth being presented and disclosed. The sociologist Armin Nassehi “Kissing is the end of talking” announces: “I believe that when two clever people come together, something third arises that no one would have thought of alone.

A clever politician must be able to find a scientist whose sentences are irritating and vice versa.” So far so good. And what are two "smart" people? What is a smart politician and a scientist who can irritate him and vice versa? Could coming together with a "conspiracy theorist" result in something third that has such potential as to be worth exploring and disclosing? Or can our current and future problems really be solved by politics, science and mainstream journalism alone? I believe that there is also inherent potential in what is “sorted in” and “judged” by the mainstream. And I hope and wish that journalists and editors of ZEIT will also take this into account, as otherwise potential could be lost that may urgently need to be developed. - Ines Severin

Time turns out to be more and more the mouthpiece of the government. What was initially only questionable has become more and more of a nuisance for many Zeit readers. For weeks, dissenters in the corona crisis have been described as conspiracy theorists, right-wingers (always a clear enemy), opponents of vaccination (why not) and now as "confused spirits". That is the worst defamation and not worthy of a democratic weekly newspaper. You should be familiar with this rhetoric from totalitarian systems. All those who raise their voices, ask questions about the proportionality of the "measures", see fundamental rights in danger are denigrated. Actually, I would have expected this criticism from you. The list of the mentally disturbed keeps growing.

And what role does it play whether Ralf Ludwig was first in Juso and then in the Junge Union. Oh yes, mentally confused. Just like Bodo Schiffmann, Kubicki, Schäuble, Streeck, Püschel, Jens Jessen, Prof. Schirmacher and maybe even Armin Laschet. The number is constantly growing. Take a good look. Or is it not rather the case that virologists and leading politicians in our country no longer know what they are doing and did not know what they were doing. And now attention (right thoughts) . I quote from Ernst Jiinger's resistance novel (in analogy): A mistake only becomes a mistake if you insist on it. The government, but also your newspaper, should take this to heart. Otherwise you will continue to lose readers and subscribers. PS I've been a leftist all my life. – Thomas Jacob Birgel

I am appalled by your reporting on people who express an opinion on the subject of Corona that differs from the official opinion. There are 2 ways to proceed: keep quiet about it or put it in the conspiratorial corner from the start. That's handy if you don't want to deal with it. However, this is not objective reporting. I would have expected more from "Zeit", for example a report on the analysis from the BMI and how it is dealt with. Instead, you label scientists with an informed opinion as "confused minds" (Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi). Are you serious? – Nadja Griesbach

The ZEIT dossier, which has so far been characterized by careful research, balanced language and critical analysis, has now completely succumbed to the jargon and level of the largest German daily newspaper: Sensational and defamatory, but with little information content, the language of the author is used the very clichés she's trying to debunk. If a renowned, excellent scientist who is also working as a guest professor after his retirement makes calculations, the author finds it too “dull”. Maybe too complicated for simply structured black and white young journalists? It is therefore better to mix a bit of Wikipedia knowledge with humorous descriptions of the atmosphere. It was obviously clear from the outset what the outcome should be. The "self-questioning" also applies to journalists. As a long-time ZEIT subscriber, I am appalled, give myself 4 more weeks to think about it and will cancel my subscription if this trend continues. – Betty Langhoff

It's good that they are in the current issue no. 21 set this focus. This is contemporary and does justice to the responsibility they have set themselves. But why "theory"?! That just pretends a scientific coating that is not covered by any reality. To quote just one dissenting voice from several, Katharina Nocun in an interview with rbb24: "In our book* we don't talk about conspiracy theories, but about conspiracy stories, conspiracy myths or conspiracy ideologies. Because what is circulating there does not meet the requirements of a scientific theory.”

*Note from me: The book in question is called Fake Facts. How conspiracy theories shape our thinking (together with Pia Lamberty). Wow, the author falls into this trap herself with her book title... I'd guess that a main title "conspiracy myths" (that's Hümmler's, Holm Gero's book title) would have contained too much value. Why not just "conspiracies" or, for that matter, "thinking about conspiracies"?! In any case, this is not about theories. – Martin Wiener

I'm canceling my subscription after all: the quality has dropped significantly in the last few months. Too little knowledge and balance, too much gossip, too little criticism. And more and more a weak, scholastic, well-behaved style of writing. In the sense of a "fourth estate", ZEIT hardly has any relevant function. And: superfluous rubbish (currently: "slurry" in the literal sense; issue 21-2020, page 16), and no (see the previous pages in the DOSSIER; 11ff) research, and no scientific discussion and sovereign moderation that is so urgent at the moment( !). How could this have happened in the last 12 months?! That's exactly the reason: A scientist and a weirdo in one pot (No. 21, p. 11). So the discussion has to polarize more and more. Why don't you conduct interviews with the SACH argumentators: Ms. Mölling, Mr. Schiffmann, Mr. Bhakti, etc.. Then they can be misinterpreted much less! And the factual arguments will (have to) prove themselves. - Reiner Mosetter

After reading your post I am now completely confused. Instead of bringing order to the various groups of "conspiracy theorists", Mr. Kempens flies like a bee from one flower to another, with no recognizable system and no clear goal, flying back and forth, collecting completely irrelevant details about the portrayed, where and how they live, what car they drive, what else they do... and doesn't really answer any of the possible important questions. I would have expected from the article a presentation of the various groups divided into individual sections, their respective theses and – as a result – their fundamentally very different motivations, each with fact-saturated replies, arguments (not general references to the lack of self-criticism of the “errant” ). Your author's attempt, which can be seen in places, to explain the phenomenon psychologically as something that is both human and timeless, is completely justified and makes sense - but with a few sentences of "kitchen psychology" it didn't succeed in the slightest. A very weak article - what a pity! The topic is actually too important for mediocre contributions at best, which are likely to reinforce the skepticism of the supporters of the conspiracy theories towards the mainstream media. - dr Jutta Eckle

For some time now, it has struck me that the nonsense that is circulating is referred to as conspiracy theories and those who spread it are called conspiracy theorists. A theory is a scientifically based and verifiable statement. That can certainly not be the case with the statements that dark forces want to destroy our country, that 5 G mobile phone masts would trigger Covid 19 or that Bill Gates wants to introduce a new world order by destroying billions of people. This humbug is only unnecessarily valued if one calls them theories and their authors theorists. It would be more accurate to speak of conspiracy lunatics/...nuts or conspiracy paranoia/...paranoiacs. But I'm afraid it's already too late for that. – Robert Höpfner

The last issue of Zeit is devoted in detail to the people who are taking to the streets in increasing numbers out of concern for basic democratic rights. Unfortunately, an objective examination of their motives and motivations falls completely by the wayside. Instead, the impression is given that these people are mostly mentally unstable, misled by evil extremists, i.e. mentally impaired. The dossier mentioned above in particular suggests this conclusion. I, too, belong to those who are so defamed. The blatant discrepancies associated with the Corona crisis, which should give every person with an alert free spirit something to think about, prompted me to deal more and more with the background of what is happening beyond the "mainstream" media. I also came across an interview with Dr. Bhakti and experienced a subtle, clever gentleman who struggled to regain his composure in the face of the drastic nature of the measures imposed and at the same time was able to justify his completely different assessment of the situation in a very well-founded manner.

He's not alone in that. A large number of doctors are extremely alarmed. All of these courageous people take the trouble to do extensive research and to support their positions in a comprehensible way. It is usually possible to immediately verify the relevant claims. Rarely, if ever, do I find disparagement or denigration of those who hold a different point of view. The TIME is completely different. Instead of giving the reader the opportunity to make up his own mind, Mr. Kempkens takes facts out of context and randomly intersperses them with the obvious intention of belittling the interlocutors – as mentally disturbed, caught up in Nazism and paranoia. Serious journalism committed to a professional ethic looks different. Time and again, the ZEIT criticizes the brutalization of the culture of discussion.

After reading the current issue, I find these litanies to be hypocritical. How serious are you about promoting an open, respectful culture of discussion with your concern, which you have expressed elsewhere? Where is the respect for those who think differently? That's not new. Especially in the field of health, there can be no talk of balanced reporting in the ZEIT, homeopathy is often literally dragged through the mud, the need for vaccinations for or against whatever is downright drummed into the readers. What image of man is behind it? Whose interests are served? Responsible people who dare to think for themselves will not allow themselves to be manipulated in this transparent way. I very much hope that an independent spirit will move into your editorial team! – Monica Widmer

I just canceled my subscription because you prof. Degrading Sucharit Bhakdi so much. I wouldn't have expected that from "my time". – Sabina Ramonat

Unfortunately, most of the media and politicians react just as black and white as they accuse the conspiracy theorists. To make conspiracy theories shake, in my opinion there is no point in denigrating everyone who spreads them as exaggerated and not to be taken seriously and ridiculing all disseminated content. Instead, one should take the underlying fears seriously and only criticize the abstruse conclusions, because (almost) every conspiracy theory is based on a logical core that is usually also disseminated in the publicly recognized media: - The question "Where does the corona virus come from" is based on the recognized fact that China initially responded to the spread of the virus with cover-ups and false statements. – The hatred of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is based on intolerable events, such as the infertility of many women in Kenya as a side effect of a WHO vaccination campaign or deaths during vaccine tests in India, which are also reported in the "mainstream media". became.

- There was also serious criticism from politicians, physicians and statisticians about the introduction of compulsory measles vaccination, who pointed out, among other things, sufficiently high vaccination rates and (already proven in other countries) the threat of vaccination refusal after coercive measures. Contradictory information on herd immunity does the rest: Why, for example, do experts in the case of Covid-19 already speak of herd immunity for 70% of cases, but for measles a vaccination rate (and the associated immunity) of over 90% should not be sufficient and an intervention in the justify self-determination? – It is undisputed that the increasing amount of radiation, e.g. from the massive expansion of mobile communications, also has negative effects, and that serious investigations by corporations are also hindered.

The fact that 5G radiation causes corona is nonsense, but one should not pursue the thesis of well-known experts that excessive environmental pollution (including radiation) at least influences the course of a Covid disease instead of discarding it, because the rest does conspiracy theory and therefore nonsense? Unfortunately, these legitimate points of criticism are ignored when conspiracy theories are described as complete nonsense that a serious person should not have to deal with. Don't reputable media like Die Zeit get the same exaggerated reactions as conspiracy theorists when they present the theories as nonsense as a whole instead of criticizing individual arguments? – Holger Nightingale

On the anatomy of a conspiracy theory The corona crisis not only shows us how unprepared we were for a global pandemic. It also shows us the fundamental differences between the people in our population. It demonstrates and tests our democratic constitutional state in a hitherto unknown and extraordinary way. It shows us strengths – but it also shows us weaknesses. This comment is about the latter. In order to present my theses and to try to understand what drives a so-called "conspiracy theorist", a previous theoretical basis is required, which I will try to explain briefly and without claiming to be exhaustive.

As a human being, each of our actions has a "good and bad" side - in the following, however, we will speak of "selfish and altruistic" purposes, with the altruistic reflecting good, the egoistic reflecting evil. We have an integrated "recognition system" in our brain, which is permanently active and controls the actions of us and our environment on just these elements. What is egoistic about Action X, what is altruistic? Simpler: Action X = Motive A (altruistic) + Motive B (selfish), where Motive A and Motive B are imperative and both must exist.

If we recognize an action and cannot assign motive A and motive B to ours, a feeling arises which, for lack of a correct expression, I would most likely describe as "distrust" or "uncomfortable feeling". The partner we let in, who tells us they love us but behaves strangely, doesn't let us see their cell phone, and always comes home later than usual at night. His statement (as such, action X) does not match his communicated motive A (altruistic; he/she loves us) because motive B (selfish; he/she thinks of himself and his satisfaction) is not presented and openly stated. We distrust.

This detection system is incredibly valuable! How else should we "sense" whether we are being duped. We stand with Vodafone and are promised a contract that is “too good to be true”. Ignoring the feeling of distrust is exactly the wrong strategy. A motive B is also absolutely necessary and available for the mobile phone seller and it is important for us to find out what it is. It's much more important to find out why he's not telling us. Only after considering and knowing both motives can we make a decision that we can stand by. In everyday life it is often easier. The altruistic aspect of every action is often presented openly and clearly. The cell phone salesman wants to sell us a great cell phone to make us happier. Seeing us happy and content is its sole purpose. Or the partner who loves us and would never do anything to harm us. The mere formulation of these two statements shows their incompleteness. Of course, the cell phone seller also sees his own profit in the sale of the cell phone, and of course not every relationship consists of pure, self-sacrificing love, for which a single look at the statistics of romantic scams is sufficient proof. Let's come to the corona skeptics, and derived from this, there are also possibilities for a solution and for gradually building trust.

Concerned citizens are observing previously unknown measures and restrictions on their individual freedom and fundamental rights. All in the course of a global pandemic, and certainly justified to a certain extent, but concerned citizens no longer see this. In the above equation Action X = Motive A + Motive B, there is an imbalance in favor of the communicated motive A. Citizens with a highly sensitive "recognition system" suspect an intrigue and react with distrust. The only correct way to deal with this is to deal openly with Motive B. The government wants what is best for its citizens. But what do they want for themselves? What are goals that they achieve themselves. What would Jens Spahn want to get out of this crisis for his own benefit.

And these are questions that can be asked entirely without charge. Each of us has an ego and therefore selfish purposes. The question is and remains how openly we should present them. Of course, we expect our politicians to take actions that are more in the direction of motive A, but completely ignoring motive B only creates one thing: even more distrust. And with even more distrust, other theories develop. Because motive B is not openly communicated, the concerned citizen now searches for motive B and comes across ominous sites with questionable sources and lines of action (the so-called “conspiracy theories”). The status of imbalance makes him receptive to these very theories, which give him what he is looking for: a motive B. Suddenly he can interpret action X, his world makes sense again and he is convinced: the politicians are planning something evil, there is an imbalance towards motif B.

What politicians, the media and the general public are doing is completely the wrong way to meet such a person. The problem is an imbalance towards subject B! This arose from the initial hiding of motif B; the politician should have reported and clarified openly about his egoistic (“evil”) motives, so that the citizen has the chance to recognize that a politician is just a human being like him and that one cannot deny his egoism. Under such circumstances, it would be easier for citizens to build up trust, their "detection system" remains calm and no longer signals danger. The following defamation of the citizen as a "conspiracy theorist" only strengthens the worldview that has emerged: politicians and the media want something bad for them. This sad development could have been prevented by dealing openly with selfish motives. “Yes, we are currently implementing tough restrictions and measures, but we are also doing this because we want to set an example for other countries.

In turn, we do this to achieve subsequent economic and global benefits. And of course it is up to all of us to protect you, our people, in the event that a dangerous virus is involved". “We fundamentally stand for freedom of expression, but we have to prevent this in the current crisis situation. We would very much like to discuss the skepticism about the corona pandemic with other renowned doctors and scientists, but we cannot take responsibility for this at the moment because we want our line to be followed straight away. We can't afford to keep arguing forever, we want to go the safer path.

That's why we actively prevent the opposite opinion. We are not doing this out of malice, but for reasons of crisis management and to reassure the population". Such an open discussion about a clear presentation of Motive A and Motive B would help many people get a complete picture of the current situation, and bring certain skeptics and opponents back on the right side. A media denunciation of the insurgents (and labeling them as right-wingers, conspiracy theorists, crackpots) does exactly the opposite and is a completely misguided strategy. – M.M. Saleh

"The Germans have a fatal tendency to join lunatics. One of these maniacs, Nietzsche, had devised the rules, and another maniac, Adolf Hitler, found ways to put them into practice with the help of drug addict Hermann Goering and the insane Rudolf Hess. It's a shame that the Germans attach so much importance to crazy people." George Mikes wrote this in 1953 in "Germany Explored". His ethnological diagnosis is as relevant today as it was then. Names like Attila Hildmann, Sucharit Bhakdi, Xavier Naidoo, rapper Sido and Ken Jebsen stand for it. Even the down-to-earth sport was not spared from the madness:

Alexandra Wester and Joshiko Saibou would have been better off sticking to their athletics than explaining the world. The Swiss psychiatrist C.G. Jung has described the virulent disorder of these patients as "mental inflation". This roughly corresponds to today's concept of "narcissistic self-aggrandizement" with the cardinal symptoms of incurable know-it-alls and notorious troublemakers. These lunatics are immune to the voice of reason, have lost their way, have simply gone insane. However, to describe them as “conspiracy theorists” is “misleading”, because the sick people do not announce debatable and refutable theories, but uncorrectable delusions. - Prof. Dr. multi. Kurt Guss

In your dossier you write at one point: "This is a method of enlightenment that you do not use: questioning yourself." However, this is not a unique selling point of conspiracy theorists, but a behavior I also find this in many politicians, doctors, commentators and journalists. In the weeks between my mother's heart surgery and her death, my father became convinced that the doctors were lying to him. Because they changed their forecasts, but without ever admitting that they had been wrong before. Instead, each new prognosis was announced with conviction. The fact that ZEIT commentators give their statements in a similar tone (e.g. Messrs. Jessen and Wefing recently) does not exactly testify to self-questioning.

It's not clear to me whether these people really think they are infallible or "just" don't trust the patients, readers and citizens to deal with such doubts appropriately. In both cases it suggests a hubris that does not want to fit in with the ideals of the Enlightenment. I find it much more helpful if I am told in uncertain and/or unclear situations that there are uncertainties and doubts. Because otherwise I feel like I'm being taken for a fool by doctors, politicians and journalists when making changes that contradict previous statements without responding to them. And for some people, the search for explanations for such behavior then leads to conspiracy theories. – Sabine Moehler

Quality media such as "Die Zeit" have failed for months to critically question the existence and lack of meaningfulness of the corona numbers published daily. They have thus left the field to the conspiracy theorists and radicals, who now claim to be the only ones to denounce the obvious contradictions in the official statements. Very unfortunate, very momentous. – Joerg Roth

The fact that Die Zeit names Prof Sucharidt Bhakdi as a conspiracy theorist in the same breath as Attila Hildmann in the dossier of May 14 is unacceptable. A look at the scientific life work of the renowned scientist, Aronson Prize winner and retired professor at the Mainz Institute for Microbiology should lead even the journalists who are not technically versed to consider him at least capable of discourse. The fact that he evaluates the existing numbers of the pandemic differently and that he would like to comment publicly does not make him a conspiracy theorist.

He expressly does not participate in speculation. He is not alone with his standpoints in the international scientific community either. The fact that he is placed next to Mr. Hildmann's crude theories in the dossier further discredits him. Prof. Bhakdi is not a native German speaker, the fact that he speaks "choppy" and "awkwardly" should not be an argument against the content. Nor that he is not invited to the usual talk rounds. It would have been good for the public discourse to include him. This article affects me. It would be good for "time" to correct the impression that was made. - people rich

With all this madness, all that is missing is an IS statement claiming that they brought the corona virus into the world so that the face veil could finally catch on here too. That's just the right thing to do. – Manfred Mengewein

Will Corona split society? Yes, arrived in reality and they, the media, do the rest for it! (No, I'm not on the right - no drawer, please! ) Situation report: People in upscale situations, houses, penthouses, lofts etc do not seem to have a problem with the current government measures. No, they are finally finding peace and enjoying the deceleration that they themselves could not achieve in their lives. How ideal! That the hitherto civilized society paid for it brutally and dearly, given .... A person who, in my view, shows true humanity and gives a voice to people who are now even more disadvantaged is simply called a conspiracy theorist. Prof. Bhakdi obviously lives a sheltered life, he might not care, but he doesn't. He feels the suffering of the people who are locked up at home, in perhaps unimaginable narrowness and violence.

The people who are lonely and can no longer experience any closeness, yes, for whom no touch is allowed, whether young or old or dying. He feels the suffering of people who are deprived of the exercise of their vocation. The suffering of the poor who no longer get food from the table. He feels the powerlessness of the forgotten! He asks if Sweden hasn't actually made the more humane decision and speaks to the heart of many people. Prof. Bhakdi expresses the absolute one-sidedness of this corona virus fear decision. For the sake of simplicity, he is also called a conspiracy theorist. That's how simple politics is at the moment, and so are the media. THAT is the most shocking thing about it for me! Even the TIME !! – Doris Braeschke

Praise to ZEIT: at least in the letters to the editor, a differentiated opinion is given a say! On the other hand, to reply to the unbearable original tone of your article on the main topic of “conspiracy theories”: The opinions in Germany do not represent a binary system: 1= Linientreu Team Drosten, 0= all other “confused spirits” (conspiracy theorists, right-wing extremists, opponents of vaccination, aluminum hat wearers and many more. ). To throw all dissenters into one pot is defamatory and deeply undemocratic! It should probably be allowed to question the so-called facts, whoever spreads them, to weigh them up and thus form an enlightened opinion - this requires different perspectives. That this does not seem to be the intention of ZEIT shows, pars pro toto, the naughty disrespect that the renowned Prof. Bhakdi (for 21 years head of the Institute for Microbiology and Hygiene at the University of Mainz) in the same breath with some really difficult to understand " Opinion leaders”, all of whom (quote) would hear “the trees rustling to a certain extent all the time”. This represents a humiliation for opinion leaders who are to be taken seriously. Finally, integrate qualified dissidents into the decision-making process, and politicians too, and you will no longer be afraid of us “confused spirits” in addition to a broader corona consensus among the population. – Heinrich Schulte-Baukloh

Thank you for the illuminating article and this important cover story! You feel like you're in a madhouse these days. I myself have already been scolded by an acquaintance on Facebook for daring to post the Daily Issues COVID19 commentary by science journalist Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim. (Which was very moderate, but the issues of the day have not really stood out in the last few decades by posts inciting the masses either). Here, too, it's always the same: you're an uncritical, authoritarian sheep who's lazy and just doesn't want to bother researching the facts on youtube! Since everything would be explained in detail…. Such comments come from well-educated, well-travelled people you thought you knew well. Until now.

What we absolutely don't need in these challenging times are: itinerant preachers, inciters and people who have lost themselves for a long time and now believe that their hour has now come. I would like to say to all these angry conspiracy supporters: no, the majority of people in Germany are not a flock of sheep obedient to authority. Everywhere I experience people who are seriously thinking, but at the same time remain very reasonable and calm and deal with the situation in a very constructive and creative way. And give very critical feedback to the government/decision-makers when measures are half-baked or were simply wrongly addressed. But why immediately withdraw all trust from the government, on what basis? The crisis in Germany is taking a comparatively moderate course. I feel safe and in good hands here.

This has to be acknowledged, because it could have turned out very differently without the measures taken so far. The government decides things and at the same time depends on feedback from all directions. Not every detail can be considered in advance of this extraordinary situation. This is a tightrope act, an improvisation, a constant learning by doing. Of course it is unsettling when the feeling arises that the government does not have everything completely under control - but in the end overcoming this crisis is simply nothing more than huge teamwork - we all have to help, show solidarity, point out the wrong measures to politicians, new creative ones Suggesting solutions - it's a give and take, we all have a role to play. No more and no less. – Tanya Bishop

What is spread are not theories, because as such they would be verifiable, but myths. Calling these theories unnecessarily values ​​them. – Ruediger Weigel

Cobbler stick to your last! Sociologist, don't talk about viruses! You really managed to write a super-ridiculous article and of all things over the half-page great self-righteous advertisement of the ZEIT: Great ideas need space. That takes a lot of luck! Congratulations! "Self-praise stinks," the saying goes, and of course it's right. We sorely miss the big thoughts in the ZEIT. I only refer to the section on bhakti in the following in your article. Have you read Bhakti's Wikipedia entry? He has received 13 honorary awards, including international ones, and from 1990 to 2012 he was Editor in Chief: Medical Microbiology and Immunology (a scientific journal founded by Robert Koch, compare the awards from Wiehler and yourself and see for yourself clear who has the greatest reputation and who has none at all.).

Do you think you can hold a candle to a man like Bhakti? Big laughs! What do Bhakti's statements have to do with conspiracy theories? Nothing! Did you catch “Missing the subject” in the German work earlier in school? I can understand. I would like to remind you of a few well-known facts from other conspiracy theorists: I found the internal working paper from the Ministry of the Interior, where the authorities were instructed to convey fear and emotional terror when it comes to Covid, to be great as an introduction to Corona. Do you remember? Unfortunately, that still works and people actually go into paranoia, have serious mental problems, sad! When Seehofer was asked about the paper, he replied that the paper was not intended for the public. I don't think you can be more honest and stupid about your decidedly shameful misinformation. I miss the name Seehofer in your article as a conspiracy theorist. Streeck's (also a conspiracy theorist and small talker about Covid) first statement from his investigations in Heinsberg was:

Doorknobs in homes of multiple infected residents did not carry virus! Today all handles on shopping trolleys are sprayed and disinfected. That's science, hooray! He later said that in a four-person household with one person carrying the virus, the probability of becoming infected is as high as that of the general public, and the number of unreported cases is 10 times higher than previously thought, he says of the mystery of the asymptomatic infected. This could all come from the forecasts of Bhakti! As a pro, Bhakti could have known that from the start. And Bhakti wasn't the only one, apparently he was just on the wrong side. But why is he a conspiracy theorist?

Continue with good science. It should be fun! Bill Gates wants to vaccinate all achievable 7 billion people. He held the evening prayer on our television on Easter Sunday. Our Minister of Science, a trained hotel clerk and a virus professional like you, believes that a safe point in time will only be reached when everyone has been vaccinated. She thinks she is on the right side of argument. Some time ago it was in the news that there should be no ID cards for people who have gone through Covid 19 disease as not at risk of infection, because it is not known whether they could be infected with Covid again. (Again the question: why is it vaccinated?) Lots of laughter! In one of his interviews, Drosten said that in some years the flu vaccination would fail completely because the flu virus would change genetically so quickly, he also named the years 2015, 2017 or something similar? (Vaccinate 7 billion people with an ineffective vaxin - for whom would that be particularly lucrative?

An authentic topic for your conspiracy theories, all best comments from our best science. Big, happy laughter! But let's just catch our breath, because we are expecting the second and third corona wave again with millions of deaths! What if she doesn't come? The honest and clear answer would be: Because we misjudged Corona. And since that's really embarrassing for those responsible, it's turned around to: No, she didn't come because we took good care of it. As a sociologist, you probably know this crooked psychology, pardon me - real evidence-based prognosis from behind! Our hospitals will have to be empty again, the hospital staff will be on short-time work benefits. The biggest scream joke of the Corona epidemic. Our hospital system, shattered not by an influx of patients but by bad decisions and misinformation, is going bankrupt, this fear has also materialized.

Congratulations to the state conspiracy theorists. One more word about bhakti. I want to explain to you how science works today: Someone, a luminary e.g. Bhakti, argues convincingly and argumentatively deadly for an hour. You, Mr. Kempkens, a loser but data fox are on the other side and, as the saying goes, look old. What do you do? You, representing all your like-minded comrades, fumble out some small marginal note of this luminary and complain about it, e.g. that an arbitrary value would not be 10.0 but only 9.7. In fact, you're probably right about any minimalism you discover. With that they go off to defend your reputation, which nobody cares about anyway. Awesome and ridiculous, even embarrassing!

Unfortunately your style, because what does the fact that Bhakti shoots his youtube from home and later has children have anything to do with conspiracy theories? Be ashamed of this kind of belittling of bhakti. In general: You are unable to identify the actual conspiracy theorists! Where is your sociology? Nowhere! Two weeks ago Mike Wappler was introduced in the dossier. You could learn a lot from him, not a graduate sociologist like you but a sociology professional and ingenious. When he stands in front of the judge, he knows that he is also a professional and that you cannot lie to a professional judge. Too bad you can't tell who is lying and who isn't. Just ask Wappler if Wieler is a liar. Wappler knows his way around and will be able to tell you straight away. Wieler, these are lies in front of the camera. For example, with his bullying of the children, the alleged super spreaders who can't wash their hands and can't keep their distance. Only: Children are so difficult to infect. They put the viruses away immediately and therefore do not pass them on.

No PCA test measures the titer of the virus in children. They have a few sitting somewhere that a PCA test can find but they don't get passed on because the kids aren't to the head with the virus. And if you aren't full to your head with the virus, you don't have any symptoms either. Wait a while, then our good German science will have figured that out with all the money allocated. Study the tests from Iceland and Switzerland, you already know that. Mr. Kempkens, be sure to give future articles to someone from a department for contextual correction beforehand, you're ruining the already rather shaky status of ZEIT.

If you don't find a colleague, give him to me. I make the effort! Mr. Kempkens, you do not need to reply to this letter. I would like Mr. di Lorenzo's reply. Mr. di Lorenzo, the editors are not responsible for the editors' contributions, we read that. That's fine. But then choose articles that are critical of CORONIA. Where is an elaborate article by / about Prof. Püschel / UKE Hamburg??? I pointed this out a few weeks ago. I have already written to Mr. Sentker that the current CORONIA issue is a state and culturally sanctioned fundamental fear of death and that we try to avoid death at the cost of cutting off life. This is our best solution. The idea behind it is:

If we don't appear to be doing something for the old voters, we'll lose the elections and with them the elections. Therefore all parties agree. Self-preservation of ailing ways of thinking at the expense of the world economy and young sections of the population, an old, well-known story. Big thoughts need a place! Do you know that? The time is different! Make this claim come true! As editor-in-chief, check whether the full-bodied promises on the front page “The hour of conspiracy theories” go together with pathetic contributions in the dossier. A free (?) newspaper, freedom of the press is ridiculous if the newspaper represents and permits nothing other than the official line of the government. Big thoughts need space. TIME is different. This is The Best ZEIT Joke of the Year.

Greetings from Dr J Heinlein, written from home, now more understandably called home office. You see I have time. PS Everyone is now saying: Stay healthy. I wish rather: Get sick! Do as I do, go to your dentist as often as possible during these times. That's the only way to get infected. I wanted to get sick and actually got sick. You will laugh, the deadly, all-destroying pandemic will cost you a light cough, a day of elevated temperatures in bed. That's it, highest realization and unexpected liberation included! Congratulations! The other insight: how amazingly easy it is to ruin the global economy. - dr Joern Heinlein

For someone like me who is not interested in conspiracy theories, it is interesting to see what kind of strange ideas are floating around the world. The meaning of it all remains unclear. It cannot be enlightenment: If meaningful questions, such as those of Mr. Bhakdi after studies on the danger of the corona virus, are in the center without comment next to the thesis of a world conspiracy with Bill Gates, then you are exactly promoting the uncritical attitude (every opinion counts) , which you sometimes criticize elsewhere. Otherwise, Die Zeit swims well with the stream of media, discusses the numbers that are currently en vogue (new infections here or there, intensive care beds, etc.). However, there is no fundamental criticism. Examples: 1. On the inconsistency: Since the beginning of the pandemic, it has been said that corona is about as dangerous as flu. Is that correct?

If so, why was the country only closed now and not during the last flu wave 2 or 3 years ago? If not, how dangerous is Corona really? 2. About the risk group: Rumor has it that the average age of the deceased with corona infection is around 80 years. Is that correct? If so, why not focus protection on this risk group? 3. Regarding the danger: You could plot the monthly total number of deaths over time, e.g. since last autumn until today. I suspect that you would hardly notice an increase during the Corona period as long as you don't reach into the graphic box of tricks (zero line shift). 4. To determine the usefulness of the German measures, a comparable country should be consulted which, however, does not take any or very much weaker measures, such as Sweden.

So far I have only heard of a much stronger increase in the number of infections. This initially supports German politics and is also the trivially expected consequence, but the expected TOTAL NUMBER of corona deaths AFTER the crisis would be interesting, i.e. in Sweden in a few months, here in 1-2 years. As long as such fundamental issues are not addressed anywhere, one need not be surprised when conspiracy theories take hold. – Frank Hrebabetzky

IT'S deeply disturbing THAT a well-known newspaper like ZEIT is now getting carried away into including a photo of a scientifically recognized professor (Sucharit Bhakdi) with a photo under the title topic of the dossier "Conspiracy Theories". She should better ask why Prof Bhakdi, like many of his colleagues, is not given the chance to engage in an official, public debate with e.g. B. to deal with Prof. Drosten and Kekulé. This could help to give citizens a little more clarity on the complicated subject and would take the wind out of the sails of the growing resistance to government measures that are driving citizens into the arms of right-wing populists.

If Prof. Bhakdi had the attitude he is now being accused of, then one must at least ask oneself why he was allowed to teach students and treat patients unmolested by official supervision?? – Uta Riemerschmid-v.Rheinbaben

“The eyes of the philosopher and the man of the world are fixed expectantly on the political arena, where it is believed that the great destiny of mankind is being negotiated. Doesn't it betray a reprehensible indifference to the good of society not to share in this general conversation? As close as this great legal transaction, because of its content and its consequences, affects everyone who calls themselves human, it must be of particular interest to every self-thinker because of the way it is negotiated. A question, which otherwise was only answered by the blind right of the stronger, is now, it seems, brought to the jury's seat of pure reason, and whoever is only able to put himself in the center of the whole, and his individual to Raising the species may regard oneself as an assessor of that court of reason, just as one is a party at the same time as a human being and a citizen of the world, and sees oneself more or less involved in the success.”

Friedrich Schiller. By the standards of the author Sebastian Kempkens, he too would certainly be a confused spirit who puts abstruse ideas into the world. If you were to look at the great poets and thinkers with your arguments, they would all be conspiracy theorists because they not only demand your own thinking, but also promote it. Is there a campaign against the ghost now? – Andreas Voigt

That's enough!!! For weeks I have been waiting for critical voices to have their say about the Corona measures in the ZEIT. Vain. And now this. This article is really bottom drawer. I can't think of a more serious voice for critical consideration than Prof. Bhakdi, and you lump him in with conspiracy theorists and the crude thoughts of Attila Hildmann. What is his private situation doing in such an article? Does being retired detract from his scientific expertise? And and and. ZEIT has launched the 'Streit' page, but no dispute is allowed on the subject of Corona. There is definitely reason to do so, beyond all conspiracy theories. The 2017/2018 winter flu season claimed 25,000 lives (figures from the RKI).

When the lockdown was decided, the death toll from Corona was well under 1,000. And that doesn't raise any questions for you? Prof. Bhakdi, together with 4 other professors, sent an inquiry to the Bundestag, which I fully agree with. A core statement is: The damage caused by a therapy (lockdown measures) must not exceed the damage caused by the disease. Your article has absolutely nothing to do with the serious, informative and balanced journalism that I expect from ZEIT. That's why I'm saying goodbye to ZEIT now, angry and disappointed. – U. Nölle

I found one passage particularly enlightening. Conspiracy theorists "feel special - psychology speaks of "narcissistic self-aggrandizement." Then they passed in review in front of my inner eye. Luckily, not all are stubborn "insiders". I'm amazed at how often it's worth discussing. Conspiracy theorists are infected by the virus of scientific reasoning, even if their theories are "absurd distortions of our own reasoning ... Made in Criticalland"*. We dock onto the argument virus with our discursive antibodies! *Bruno Latour, "Misery of Criticism" — quoted in: Nils Markwardt, www.republik.ch/2020/05/07/was-issen-schafft. I also really like what Markwardt writes. – Almut Stribeck

Conspiracy theories are the concentration of contradictions in a world that is increasingly geared towards rationality, objectivity and science. In doing so, we come up against the limits of dualistic systems of thought. Those who claim sole truth quickly get caught up in projections and self-deception. Recognizing this will fundamentally change human coexistence and value systems. – Walter Moritz

Here is a side note, outside the core topic, which I welcome and fully share in terms of content. Prof. Bhakdi is also a doctor and not a doctor (p. 2, column 1, paragraph 6). Just like all the other virologists, microbiologists, hygienists and epidemiologists that have now become popular – as long as they come from medicine and not from basic scientific subjects. Since the above-mentioned address by representatives of my profession is objectively incorrect, but widely used in media jargon and has become a sure-fire success, I sent Deutschlandfunk a suggestion for correction within their new program "Sagen und Meinen". One of my valued academic (medical) teachers once coined the phrase: "That's not only not right, it's wrong!" - Prof.Dr.med.Ulrich Krause

I have been reading Die ZEIT regularly for over 30 years and I have to tell you that I will no longer continue to do so. Your dossier "The Great Conspiracy" in the ZEIT from May 14th, 2020 left me stunned. The way the author deals with people who have their democratic duty to think critically lacks any journalistic quality for me. In these times I would have wished for a critical, differentiated and balanced argument - especially with a dossier that is announced very impressively on the front page. Why do you denigrate and ridicule people who seek real discourse? Why do they only repeat like a mantra the arguments that are uttered again and again by the rulers in simple simplicity?

If it is the case that "conspiracy theories" are based on simple causalities, then the frighteningly simple argumentation of Messrs. Spahn, Lauterbach and Drosten is by far the greatest conspiracy theory. To regard health as the highest and most important value in our society denies a more than 2000-year-old western culture. It is neither compatible with Christian values ​​nor with differentiated ethical arguments. The fact that the "greeting": "Stay healthy" was able to spread epidemically is also a fatal indication of how little people think about what is really important and what can bring our society into a good future.

Unfortunately, I can't shake the impression that you - like so many other media - allow yourself to be pulled in front of a cart that you are dragging faster and faster into a chaos that is already visible in many places in our society: in the education system , in health care, in the everyday interaction of totally frightened people who have been expected to receive the same undifferentiated and often out of context "information" for weeks. Are you still aware of your enormous responsibility? Do you have any idea what they do with articles like this? I wished for a ZEIT that is determined by the ethos of independent, discursive, uncomfortable and educated journalism. Those TIMES seem to be over. – Thomas Thiel

It is with great regret that I, a Zeit reader for almost 20 years, note that your newspaper does not succeed in critically questioning, doing high-quality research and providing information as independently as possible in times of Corona. In particular, my criticism relates to the topic of the dossier. There are a lot of inconsistencies these days: Why did the RKI advise pathologists against autopsies at the beginning, why no mouthguard at first and then etc.pp.

Because there is a lot of ambiguity! And given the alarming numbers and images from northern Italy, quick decisions had to be made. Questioning whether these were always correct and also openly discussing different scientific opinions is part of democracy and distinguishes responsible citizens. It's nice that you pointed out that your newspaper also received money from Bill Gates. You might do some research on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So completely independent and comprehensive. Or how the WHO finances itself. Or why there is compulsory vaccination for measles, but for years there has been no single vaccine, no double and - due to supply bottlenecks - often no triple vaccine either. But the expensive quadruple vaccine. Instead, all critics are summarized as conspiracy theorists - not only in time!

Or write an article about how important a good immune system is and what you can do for it. This protects our life - not only from Corona! Questioning critical measures that massively restrict us all is not a conspiracy theory, it is democracy, for which I demonstrated in Leipzig in 1989. But oh, I'm an alternative practitioner, a classical homeopath, my daughter isn't vaccinated, of course I belong right in the corner that you all push into in your article. What doesn't quite fit: I'm also a PTA and in the last few weeks in the pharmacy, like many of my colleagues, have asked customers to keep their distance, put on the mouthguard, listened to worries and needs and just did my "systemically relevant" job .I tried to form an opinion from a lot of different information, just like I used to in the GDR. Your dossier sucks and I find it extremely disappointing. My subscription has been cancelled. – Claudia Vollmer

A quote from the latest book by J. Habermas "What the stupid bunch don't realize is the relevance between TRUE and FALSE - A.G.Riedel

A successful article with a differentiated view of conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, I would like you to work through the conspiracy theories surrounding Corona in a graphic/clear representation and list the respective arguments for and against. Personally, I am observing more and more people in my environment who are/are becoming attached to conspiracy theories - if you, the vast majority of you as a serious, objective, independent and high-quality newspaper, would work through the theories and create clarity in the jungle of fake news etc and thus move one or the other to rethink. I would also like to see the same approach for the arguments of the opponents/proponents of the corona measures (which do not represent conspiracy theories: e.g. weighing up the proportionality of the measures; fact that the measures only represent legal regulations and therefore lose their legitimacy over time, etc.) Perhaps you could also print “Corona” articles bundled in the following issues. – Timo Ammann

Regarding your article 'conspiracy theories' I want to express my disappointment with this letter. To place a well-deserved man like Prof. Bhakdi, who is concerned about accuracy and objectivity in the matter, next to a chef who may have gotten a little out of the ordinary, and a couple that is certainly likeable, but 'insignificant' for an appropriate assessment of the matter, and to add the title 'The big one Choosing 'Kompott' does neither you nor the life's work and the critical contribution of Prof. Bhakdi justice. In addition, the content of the article, which quotes general statements on the psychological mechanisms of people who get caught up in conspiracy theories, in order to direct attention to Prof. Bhakdi, who “enjoys his new job as a YouTuber”. A cheap, transparent way of disavowing someone. It is journalistic impertinence to disparage a specialist in infection epidemiology (!), who was a professor at the U Mainz and headed the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene there for twenty-two years. I am bitterly disappointed, also with the reporting on the subject of Corona, which has been coming from your company for weeks and which can only be described as tendentious. – Marlies Pennekamp

The character of a society is proven in a crisis. In view of the corona pandemic, doomsday prophets and conspiracy theorists are shaking hands. Others, on the other hand, would like to beam themselves back from the supposedly fragile present to the "good old days". But the "good old days" are often glorified in the memory with longing. Against the background of a bad global economic situation in the 1970s, punk emerged as a youth culture somewhere between protest and provocation. With the musical pioneers of this movement, the "Sex Pistols", one could not help but get the impression that their singer Johnny Rotten only had to memorize a single line of text: "There is no future!". Fear of the future and the mood for the end of the world flowed together in punk, which was spreading around the world. Before their concert tours, the band members had their manager Malcolm McLaren dress them up in New York's chicest fashion boutiques.

Profit maximization was also at the top of the agenda for the managers of this alternative scene. Nowadays it is the many clicks on the internet that the doomsday prophets make money from. At the time, there really was no future for the Sex Pistols bassist, Sid Vicious, who was heavily addicted to drugs and who, on suspicion of murdering his girlfriend, took the “golden heroin shot” at the age of just 21. The cult punk band "The Stranglers" already complained more than 40 years ago that there would be "No more Heroes anymore". In retrospect today, however, the main protagonists from politics and society at the time are posthumously given high recognition. A photo shoot by the newcomer band "Joy Division" for a record cover symbolized like no other scene the widespread lack of prospects at that time, especially among young people. The four band members had to complete the recordings in the freezing cold with disproportionately thin clothes because they literally didn't have much more than their shirts on their backs.

Their charismatic frontman Ian Curtis died tragically shortly afterwards. After overcoming the grief over the sudden death of their bandmate, the other musicians gave themselves a "New Order" in memory of their friend and developed into one of the most popular and successful pop groups of the 1980s. Throughout history, people have always been accompanied by crises. With an anxious and negative attitude you cannot and will not achieve anything positive. Long before the corona crisis, “Mikado” was already dominating top-level political events in this country. A “kickback speech” like that given by former Federal President Roman Herzog in 1997 would be long overdue. Should it turn out that the federal government initially underestimated this pandemic, despite early warnings, and therefore had to react late with even more drastic measures, the political leaders at the top of the federal government need not fear any personal political consequences, in contrast to earlier times.

In this respect, some things used to be better. "Hans and Lieschen Müller", who do not go to demonstrations but spend Saturdays in their garden and who are not allowed to make any gross blunders in their profession, encounter this lack of sense of responsibility on the part of some top politicians with increasing incomprehension. Within the past 20 years, Gerhard Schröder was one of the few politicians who drew personal consequences for their political actions. This pandemic does not only bring disadvantages. The political cabaret, which was a little watered down recently, is clearly gaining in quality again without a constantly giggling studio audience. The “ghost games” in the Bundesliga are also far less frightening than feared. Nobody wants to see the hate banners of the so-called "Ultras" anymore anyway. Nobody can currently predict how long the pandemic will last. The corona shutdown has already caused a great deal of economic damage.

Many industries, the self-employed and employees are facing an existential crisis through no fault of their own. They must not be left alone in their distress. On the other hand, there are people or sectors of the economy that are hardly affected by the crisis or are even benefiting financially. Since the outbreak of the financial crisis, the federal government has had to spend around 450 billion euros less in interest due to the ECB's low interest rate policy. This interest saving was largely at the expense of savers. The state could also demonstrate its solidarity in this severe crisis by issuing a longer-term "Corona Solidarity Bond" with an interest rate well above the current market yield. In these interest-free times, the high liquidity reserves of savers and above all institutional investors are desperately looking for a few percent interest with a good credit rating of the issuer. The funds would have to be earmarked for victims of the pandemic who were in economic need.

The advantage over general tax increases to finance the follow-up costs of Corona is that the purchasing power of the broader section of the population would not be further reduced and that those who fortunately were largely spared the economic impact of Corona could show solidarity. In better fiscal times, the federal government could repay the bond. In times of crisis like these, a politically faint-hearted and far-sighted incrementalism is of no help. "Time is running out" sang Peter Heppner from "Wolfsheim" in 2002. A year later, the then Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder set the course for a long-lasting economic upswing with a major reform, the last one by a federal government since then. – Alfred Kastner

Now the conspiracy theories – or, as Anselm Neft correctly writes in his essay in Zeit-Online, the belief in conspiracies – have reached the front page of the ZEIT. It is certainly right that the media deal with what is also being discussed in public. In the articles that were written about this and in particular in Sebastian Kempkens' dossier, not all cases listed there belong to this category. There are legitimate inquiries about the restrictions on private and public life imposed by the federal government and the federal states. However, I do not believe that these requests could not or cannot be articulated or have not and will not be articulated. On the contrary, television and the press always kept you up to date, also with regard to all the uncertainties associated with the decisions.

Critical statements soon emerged in the public debate. However, these rarely provided real alternatives. In fact, at the beginning of March, hardly anyone in Germany knew what was in store for the country, and one could already ask why the corona virus could not be treated like flu. But in her first speech, Chancellor Merkel made it very clear what the differences were. These differences still exist today, not much has actually changed. The measures taken by the federal government and the states then meant that things have been relatively easy in Germany so far. The fact that many people behaved cautiously themselves, stayed at home or only met other people at a distance, also made a significant contribution to this before official measures were taken.

It is certainly true that the measures could have been differentiated regionally and socially very soon, so that not everyone was affected in the same way and the economic damage could have been less. But you're always smarter afterwards! There can be no question of a dictatorship of opinion at all. Everyone is allowed to trumpet anything that comes to their mind. It's sometimes hard to believe what's sloshing at you on social media. That need not be repeated here. Dealing with realities is not required. However, it would be important not only to look at everything through German eyes, but also to take note of the international situation. China can be left aside for the time being because the government there has not proven to be very reliable in the international discussion.

The figures published are also only comparable to a very limited extent, as the press has made clear again and again. Nevertheless, they give enough references for comparison. Italy, Spain and also France were taken by surprise to a certain extent and then had regional hotspots where things got very violent. That way you could see in Germany what you had to prepare for. In Great Britain, it was initially thought that the virus could be left to run in order to achieve immunity. But it quickly became clear - also due to the reactions of the population - that the deaths to be expected would not be acceptable and then the situation changed. The government of the USA acted in a similar way, there still with a president who only cares about himself. Now you have both in both countries: constantly increasing numbers of infected people and deaths and an economy on the brink.

Brazil is on a similar path with President Bolsonaro, as is Russia. There, too, the virus was declared unproblematic until reality caught up with it. There are only a few countries from which hardly anything has been heard about the virus. These include Belarus, North Korea and Kazakhstan, all countries in whose governments one must have little trust. Otherwise, almost everywhere in the world, people are moving in a similar direction and trying to slow down and reduce the fatal effects of the virus. There are certainly differences in the countries and there are also differences between the countries. It is quite obvious and also easy to explain that large countries with small populations are less affected. The hotspots are large urban centers or places with local characteristics (carnival, strong beer festivals, etc.).

These things were easily recognized by a reasonably attentive newspaper reader. I am therefore of the opinion that those in Germany who are now talking about dictatorship of opinion and spreading belief in conspiracies should not be offered a large forum. I can in no way share or understand the positions put forward in the demonstrations in Stuttgart, Berlin or Munich. For me it is understandable that those who have to suffer serious economic disadvantages are pushing for changes. The politicians responsible must be brought into constructively critical debates. However, we should not again anticipate, as we did in 2015, the behavior of a small but noisy minority who are on the wrong track, for fear of irrational reactions. -Eckehard Fricke

First of all, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories! But what strikes me in this whole Corona discussion is how quickly critical opinions are immediately put in the 'conspiracy theory' corner. I can't say that, even the experts, we really know exactly what we're dealing with, much less the government. For a democracy that thrives on the conflict of opinions, it seems to me quite strange when critical opinions are immediately categorized in this way. It is even more strange when the free press, i.e. a regulation of democracy, unconditionally subordinates itself to the government doctrine(?). Even the fact that some representatives of the fascists want to take advantage of the resentment of part of the population does not discredit those who report criticism. So please put freedom of expression as a valuable asset in the foreground again. Unconditional obedience has had fatal consequences before! – Lutz Toennis

I am so pleased that Prof. Dr. Sucharit Bhakti, who was deliberately hushed up during the corona crisis - finally - gets a voice and that in ZEIT. Disillusionment set in immediately. As part of a strange mixture consisting of a well-known chef and a couple of therapists, he is even brought close to conspiracy theories. Prof. Bhakdi is a Buddhist and does not read the riot act, as your journalist puts it - that's not his style. His very legitimate questions to Ms. Merkel have remained unanswered to this day. Anyone who has seen his videos and has just a little knowledge of human nature will feel that when searching for the truth about Corona, you cannot ignore this not only cultivated person, but also an extremely competent expert. One wonders to whom the title "The Great Conspiracy" fits better. We will definitely find answers to this in the book on Corona that Prof. Bhakti is now planning. One more fact and question at the end: In the flu wave 2017/18 with 25,000! dead in Germany there was no lockdown, anywhere. Why not? – Fritz Junghans

On p. 13 you write that on March 23, H. Hildmann saw a video in which, on the streets of "the country", this can only be about Germany, citizens were talking over loudspeakers, among other things. heard the request “Wear masks!” Where in Germany was this request heard on March 23? In connection with "Keep your distance!" That can hardly have been an old request. – Manfred Bauer

I have been a subscriber to your newspaper for twenty years, which I read with excitement and interest every week. The article in your last issue, "The Big Conspiracy," irritated me a lot and I can't let it stand for me. Many media are now talking about a senseless trench war for the free opinions of scientists and citizens. The dialectic of public debate is poisoned by the unequivocal positioning of the media. Ms. Dönhoff once said: Most of us take two things for granted: that there is a newspaper on the breakfast table every morning and, secondly, that it is an independent paper.” And as a responsible reader, I wish for that, even in difficult, economic times times of "time". – Lieselotte Stiegler

You are writing an article on conspiracy theories and as one of the three examples of conspiracy theorists you feature Professor Sucharit Bhakdi. Ironically, the man who refused to make assumptions in every video and interview that anyone was behind the whole thing. He thought he saw mistakes and wanted to draw attention to them. The only thing you really accuse him of is that he's "celebrated in the conspiracy theory scene." As Andreas Voßkuhle aptly remarked in the same issue, “one is never immune to applause from the wrong side”. – Janet Cunningham-Kricke

The fear of and the desire for a strong stateWhat makes people so insecure that they seek refuge in a simple "other reality": In my view, it is the current high level of approval among the population for the Government. Is this a question of trust in authority by a stupid, easily seduced mass? No. Something quite rare is happening in the corona crisis: a democratic government shows - despite some serious mistakes - prudence, strength and the ability to act, and a thoroughly critical population appreciates this. This extraordinary phenomenon can have an irritating effect on some contemporaries. It is about the fear of and the desire for a strong state, a contradiction that can be found in our democracy and perhaps also in every single citizen. – Klaus Botzenhardt

Thanks for the article "The Great Conspiracy, Conspiracy Theories". If you yourself have doubts about how our society is reacting to the pandemic, you have to be careful not to believe the wrong people. My concerns are, why does humanity count so little in our society, why do we give up democratic rights so easily? I have a lot of experience with narcissistic people. It suits them so much to spread nonsense and other people believe them too! It suits them very well to set people against each other. I believe there is only one way to control the pandemic: to destroy the environment, to eradicate other life. However, there is a side effect: we eradicate ourselves too! There will certainly be no more pandemics...... - Eva Klein

I was amazed to read who Mr. Kempkens sorted into the drawer of the so-called conspiracy theorists: including people like Mr. Bhakdi, who thoughtfully dared to question the prevailing and all-dominant opinion for weeks - with that he does nothing other than exercising his right to freedom of speech in a liberal democracy! I was very relieved that in these (Corona) weeks of largely uncritical media reporting, which appeared to be fairly uncritical, it might also be possible to think differently. Thank you Mr. Bhakdi! I was also surprised by the title page of the article, on which the alleged "conspiracy theorists" are connected to a "plot". That's really picture newspaper level - does ZEIT need that? – Waltraud Huizing

I have never written a letter to the editor of Die Zeit, but now I have to! Last Thursday there was a headline, “A country crashes”, a completely different topic, but the thought immediately occurred to me that the level at that time unfortunately also totally collapsed with your article “The Great Conspiracy”! To name a professor who has worked his entire professional life on the subject of viruses with a mad chef and a couple of consultants in the field of hypnosis and Tai Chi in the same breath if the topic of Corona is to be discussed seriously is, in my opinion, the level of the Bildzeitung, at its best! Fortunately, the article by Ms. Maja Göpel and Ms. Petra Pinzler was also included in this issue of Die Zeit, which lifted me up a bit. – Christine Burmeister

The thoughts are "free"???? I heard the interview with Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor of Microbiology Emeritus, on YouTube and found his questions and answers very interesting. I find it highly inappropriate and not serving mutual respect that it is now appearing in ZEIT under the title “The Great Conspiracy” and being put in the corner of conspiracy theorists. M.E. was his inner impulse to ask questions based on his field of science, to stimulate thought and not to want to spread universally valid answers. Are thoughts no longer free??? Do journalists have the right (and with a newspaper like ZEIT) to devalue scientists and put them in drawers??? With my perception, I find this development worrying. – Dagmar Textor-Müller

I was horrified when I saw and read the dossier in the current issue of ZEIT. Hence this letter with the request for a correction and apologies for this document, especially from Professor Sucharit Bhakdi. Why are you defaming Mr Bhakdi and putting him in a corner with "conspiracy theorists"? In addition to him, there are many other distinguished scientists who argue similarly and can now also prove this with figures (mortality, for example, in the study by Mr. Streeck at 0.36% or in the study by Mr. Ioannidis at 0.1 - 0.2 %). There may also be figures from the Munich study soon. I really hope that you or – if you don't want that from Mr. Kempkens – will apologize to Mr. Bhakdi from the ZEIT editorial team for this unspeakable slip.

Actually, I wanted to cancel my ZEIT subscription after this defamatory and defamatory article, but my wife stopped me again. The one-sided scaremongering about Covid-19 and the disproportionality in the reporting of ZEIT made me doubt my subscription beforehand. On the other hand, since my student days, I have come to appreciate ZEIT as a cosmopolitan and liberal newspaper. I hope that in the future you will revert to the virtues of journalism and return to more critical and fact-based articles. – Rainer Schlötterer

To be honest, I had hoped for something different from a newspaper like Die Zeit with a certain standard. Unfortunately I was disappointed because you don't do much different from the mainstream. They lump a respected professor and expert like Sucharit Bhakdi, who is emeritus but not calcified, with a television chef and a couple therapists – that alone is disappointing. Even more disappointing is the structure of her 10-column article. In order to support their thesis, he inevitably builds on Mr. Hildmann, who is obviously in a personal crisis and delivers his qualification with the statement: "I have understood what dark forces want to destroy our country". By the time you even start dealing with Prof. Bkahdi, you have already dedicated almost 5 whole columns to your bestselling author. One column is then enough to label the microbiologist, who has been retired since 2012, as a senile crank and as justification you cite other media such as the Süddeutsche or fact checkers of the public media!

Would you have bothered to question ZDF's fact checker, Mr. Nils Metzger - who in his first life as a war correspondent also wrote for Zeit online and thus obviously has sufficient qualifications to "dequalify" a multiple award-winning microbiologist – then maybe I would take what you said seriously. Then quickly spice up your conspiracy theory soup with a pinch of Xavier Naidoo, Ken Jebsen and forward it to the therapist couple - but then it's high time to return to your starting point so that the inclined reader finally knows what all this is for confused people are. Sorry, but as already mentioned - very disappointing. – Rainer Leymann

I am very concerned about our human rights as free and self-determined citizens of a free republic! What distinguishes us from Putin's Russia, Erdogan's Türkiye or Orban's Hungary. The federal government has managed, with democratic means, to bring the media into line, to dub dissenting opinions as conspiracy theories, to put free, concerned citizens into right-wing or left-wing camps. The media doesn't say a word about the fact that there are also normal citizens at the demonstrations, citizens who are concerned. It is only reported of subversion. What worries me even more is the mood of fear that is being stoked on and on with consistent messages of people denouncing and pillorying others when they do not behave in a pandemic compliant manner. At least from the time I would have expected that critical voices are presented earlier! – Reiner von Kamen

I was an enthusiastic ZEIT reader for years - with interruptions from time to time... until the time of the Corona crisis! With each issue, my astonishment at your reporting increased, which reached its climax with yesterday's (May 14). Critical voices, outside the mainstream, are immediately dismissed as conspiracy theories, competent, professional experts who disagree with the RKI and Mr. Drosten are denigrated. The only transparency report is for your very questionable justification as far as the Bill Gates Foundation grant is concerned! I am deeply disappointed and stunned!! I hereby expressly point out that you should refrain from applying for a subscription by telephone or e-mail in the future. You are in no way living up to your special responsibility (see Article 5 of our Basic Law) for the preservation of our democracy! PS About me: I am 68 years old, have three adult children, still teach a few hours at a middle school and move far away from any conspiracy theories. – Inge Braconnier

Show a broader range of opinions, that's my request to "Die Zeit". If Die Zeit puts renowned scientists like Prof. Bhakdi in the weird corner, Die Zeit has devalued itself and exposed itself. For a conspiracy theory, you need a conspiracy theory and not, like Prof. Bhakdi, named facts against fear. On the contrary, he even defended Bill Gates and accused his foundation of good intentions. Being able to distinguish between different levels of virus risk in connection - with air pollution - with the expansion of the health system - with the slums of the Bronx or in Prato with tens of thousands of Chinese textile workers are necessary indicators so that grievances can be improved and inappropriate fears avoided.

Because of sheer fear of the one Covid tree, no longer perceiving the forest of life risks is the fault of our state media and unfortunately also of Die Zeit. I'm curious to see when the approximately 23,000 deaths a year from coal-fired power plants in the EU (DW, July 5th, 2016), the approximately 15,000 deaths from multi-resistant clinical germs in Germany (RKI, Eurosurveillance, November 14th, 2019) etc. etc. by our governments be saved in connection with media such as Die Zeit. Our society needs less fear and narrowed thinking, but more courage and a spirit of optimism.

Addendum: Exactly your journalistic behavior, not dealing with dissenting opinions, only accepting the mainstream, is the reason why more and more people outside of ZEIT are looking for information from well-known newspapers, among others, and why journalists with minority opinions have to switch to lower-ranking media. In the meantime, Prof. Bhakdi’s initial theses – that the virus, which he takes seriously, is more dangerous than severe influenza only in connection with additional risks (air pollution, poor health system, etc.) (a dangerous disease but so far without lockdown reactions!) – in Germany the Covid19 lethality is at the level of Influenza lethality is (1/5 of the lethality initially mentioned by the RKI!) - it is generally recognized to distinguish between deaths with and deaths from Covid19.

I'm curious to see whether his other theses such as - there will be no further severe Covid19 wave of infections in Germany or - vaccinations with corona viruses (among other things because they often mutate) will apply. An erratum in "Die Zeit" would therefore certainly be appropriate and an apology to Prof. Bhakdi for having publicly put him in the crackpot corner. To be clear, I share the government's cautious stance, but as soon as broader knowledge becomes available, fears, and even panic for too many, need to be minimized and not fueled further by the media. Don't you and your colleagues drive even more fellow citizens to secondary media, please publish a broader range of opinions, as "Die Zeit" itself often wrote "...democracy thrives on discussion". – Johannes Reintjes

I would like to cancel my time subscription as of the next possible date. Her last article, which was also the motto of the front page, is decisive: The hour of conspiracy theories. I knew the time from before, when critical background articles were published well researched. I can't find anything about it at the moment, the official government policy is being rehearsed, the inconsistencies are not worked out, but downplayed with understanding with reference to the changing situation or perspective. As if not every politician has his very own future in mind when making decisions. Who gets re-elected when the media blames them for deaths? Even a stupid saying like Boris Palmer's already causes incredible excitement. The authors don't ask any questions, that's what the conspiracy theorists should do, they just know everything, denigrate everyone who doesn't suit them, just like the public service media.

Especially Prof. Bhakdi, who published an easy-to-read book in 2016, in which the media hype and the hysteria surrounding MERS, Ebola,EHEC, BSE, SARS etc. are already being critically discussed, is being disqualified in a way (apparently as a pensioner still potent, but somehow senile) that is utterly unworthy. It's not about the air pollution in Italy, but about questions. Why is not asked. The authors already know everything without having investigated anything, of course because we Germans have so few deaths, we did everything right. Quick, prayed-after reasons are supposed to explain everything, although we really don't know anything. Of course, Trump, Bolsonaro and Johnson are out of the question, no wonder there are so many deaths there. Also Sweden. who have also taken measures, but have tested a certain alternative scenario, simply accept more deaths. Italy, Spain and France with their more drastic measures have so many dead because ??? The eternal comparison with the plague is unbearable, I would like to see this country when 1/3 of the population dies, so it can be assumed that things will be different.

People stopped going to work there because they took the neighbor's belongings. But there are many unanswered questions that need to be clarified: Why did the WHO extend the definition of a pandemic? Is it even possible to determine whether a pathogen is dangerous? Is an overall social shutdown necessary when 1, 10, 100 or only when 1000 die? Is the 2012 printed matter, the RKI pandemic scenario, with the 3 waves and millions of deaths, still the hypothetical blueprint for government action? Johns Hopkins University's October 2019 pandemic scenario with top business executives and politicians would also be interesting. Millions of deaths were also assumed there, but the question was also asked how the economy could still survive.

The article "Hammer und Tanz", which recommended the lockdown, clearly meant that the period of delay should be used to create programs or scenarios for how to proceed afterwards. Why weren't we allowed to discuss this during this time? Why was the initial discussion "flatten the curve" suddenly no longer an issue? And so you could go on and on, instead of pointing to others, denigrating them or blaming them, after all everyone without a mask is almost a murderer, it would be more interesting for me to get to know the psychological motivation of their authors. I am extremely disappointed - Dr. Jurgen Reiss

Perhaps we should consider that the "conspiracy theories" are no longer theories but reality. Perhaps neoliberal capitalism is the very phantom that, while we seek it, has long gripped the parties and ourselves. It would be the new feudal rule of the super-rich, whose fortunes and global corporations are the real power, economically and politically. Political parties would then be a kind of riot police to protect the office towers of the corporations from human access. But at least it is conceivable that I do the parties and ministers an injustice. So sorry if I misunderstood your recurring prostration and forehead banging before the big bucks. – Klaus Landahl

I am dismayed that even "Zeit" journalists do not remain level-headed and fact-based in an atmosphere pregnant with general fear and (latent) aggression, in which tendencies towards defamation and denunciation that were thought to have been dead long ago have become all too common again. Prof. Bhakdi is included in the list of conspiracy theorists and thus denigrated, although he expressly distances himself from all speculation in his interviews. He is also accused of "disinformation". As evidence of this, the authors consider his view that air pollution plays a role in the well-known high number of deaths from Covid-19 in northern Italy to be scientifically refuted. Disregarding serious regional differences, they point out that, according to the OECD, air pollution in Italy as a whole is no higher than in Germany.

Satellite images, however, identify the Po Valley as the largest NO2 polluter in Europe - on the Internet under 'Images': "Sentinel-5P" and "Air Pollution". In addition, a very enlightening scientific study from April 2020 shows that in Europe, the most intense hotspots for smog are in northern Italy and the Madrid region - on the internet: "Sciencedirect" and "NO2". According to this, 83% (!) of the 4443 Covid-19-related deaths examined occurred in regions with high NO2 pollution (over 100 μmol/m²) and only 1.5% in regions with a low NO2 concentration below (50 μmol/m²). Considering the above scientific knowledge, Covid-19 seems like the last straw that broke the camel’s back. And governments should allocate far more resources to environmental measures, such as air pollution control, than to vaccine development. - dr medical Hartmut Miter

I read with interest your various articles in the last issue about demonstrations, virology and conspiracy theories in relation to Corna. I thought it was very good that they took up the subject. I would have wished that you would not only write about Professor Bhakti, but also conduct an interview with him. Also, for example, Professor Püschel from Hamburg would be a good choice. Having shown the diversity of opinions of different doctors and virologists on the subject of corona at the time would help against conspiracy theories. I would also find an interview with Mr. Kohn, member of the SPD, suspended staff council in the Federal Ministry of the Interior, very interesting in relation to his assessment of the situation. I think that the corona measures must be in the context of the possible bankruptcy of small companies, the threat of loneliness, development space for children. The intensive care bed capacity for severe corona cases is available. – Janani P. Herbst

The Corona crisis has caused a small shift in mental belonging from societal to communal consciousness. This is – generally speaking – a positive effect, because communities cannot be decreed, they arise from insights and the will to take the consequences derived from them, i.e. commitment open to all social groups. But this development does not suit everyone, because the individual attention, which of course everyone is still entitled to, is losing its celebrated crowning importance due to community feelings. In the context of society as a whole, individual attention is based on differentiation from others; if it is overvalued, mutually delimiting exclusivities arise, i.e. the opposite of communalities.

When conspiracy theorists ignore these connections, one should ask them: If only every millionth encounter of people in public leads to transmission of the corona virus, would you want to be that one millionth? And of course you can also dismiss this question with a reductionist thought juggling by claiming that this virus does not exist at all or is harmless. This is then a self-affirmation without arguments. Keyword echo chamber, no matter how tiny it is. – Christoph Müller-Luckwald

The word conspiracy alone is now enough to lump all critics of Corona together and silence them. Politicians from the Federal President to courageous mayors call at regular intervals not to become stuck in the mainstream, but to seek discourse for the sake of democracy. But alas, you do it! What, if you please, are you accusing Prof. Bhakdi of in your conspiracy article? That he lives bourgeois? That he has many children? That his first video about Corona was technically not good? That he mixes "partly valid numbers and arguments" with "speculation and disinformation"? The fact checks by the public broadcasters were "none of them particularly good for Bhaddi," it said. Can you be a little more specific? Just one example is given: figures from the OECD on air pollution, that seems pretty meagre. On the other hand, what should I think of the Robert Koch Institute creating a second reproduction number, as happened recently, in addition to the “normal” there is now also a “smoothed” one, one much lower than the other. Isn't that speculation, disinformation? Conspiracy? With that you put Prof. Bhakdi in a row with people like Hildmann and Jebsen and others. No, discourse is not allowed, is not desired, is nipped in the bud: all conspiracy theories. It's that simple. – Hedwig Brengmann-Domogalla

Die ZEIT is massively disappointing with this dossier. Before the first critical tones about the handling of the Corona crisis were allowed to appear in the daily press, they were already legible in the ZEIT and I thought at the time: "Finally someone dares". Now all opinions that deviate from the given, yes, apparently prescribed line between Merkel and Drosten are lumped together as conspiracy theories. This is irresponsible. Even if you don't agree with all parts of Sucharit Bhagdi, he dared to name the side effects of this therapy, which was prescribed for the whole country. To name the different "viruses" of fear and panic mongering, as well as to point out that we are still alive and have not yet completely become zombies, are constantly colonized by some viruses, which are less pathogenic the stronger the immune system of the individual is . Our immune systems, and especially those of the children for whom this is particularly important, have been ruthlessly shut down. If children now become seriously ill, which is again cited as proof of the danger of Covid 19, it could also be that an immune deficiency has already developed, together with childhood depression due to prescribed loneliness. Old people in the homes die at most with Covid 19, but above all from their desperation, loneliness and senselessness. And who, with all the existing tutelage and the constant danger of being denounced when the distance is only 1.40 meters, is afraid of our democratic and civil rights, should also be a conspiracy theorist? Rest in peace, democracy! - dr Suzanne Wetzel

In your last issue, under the heading "Conspiracy Theories", you reported on some people with confused views, but you also interviewed Prof. Bhakdi. In my view they do Mr Bhakdi a bitter injustice by putting him in the conspiracy corner. Bhakdi is an eminent microbiologist with an excellent reputation and his contributions are factual. Perhaps he initially underestimated the coronavirus somewhat, just as many epidemiologists have apparently vastly overestimated it (with known consequences), but ridiculing it in this way is unjustified and bad journalism. – Univ.-Prof. dr John Klein

Especially the sentence "Even normal people get sucked into it" prompted me to write something about the conspiracy topic. By coincidence, I saw an interview with Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi on the private broadcaster Servus TV on April 29, 2020 in the program Talk Spezial, entitled "Corona madness without end?". My first impression was positive. In contrast to our public broadcasters, who, pardon me, mostly represent the mainstream, the private broadcaster Servus TV is more open. After this interview, Bhakdi definitely does not belong in a conspiracy drawer for me. The "plot" writers describe him quite aptly as a long-retired "grandfather" who takes care of his children at home. "You can well imagine that he was an understanding but strict professor at the Institute for Microbiology and Hygiene in Mainz." The "foundation" for a discrediting description of a person is hereby laid. Was and is it recognized and were there any awards? That doesn't fit the picture.

His original concern, the proportionality between state coercive measures and the danger posed by the corona virus, is not even remotely communicated. The Süddeutsche Zeitung, for example, is quoted with its article “Corona false reports reach millions”. And then there are the mainstream press fact checks where Bhakdi doesn't fare well. Incidentally, according to the OECD, the air pollution figures in northern Italy are not normal as described, but demonstrably high. (My fact check) In a TV interview, Bhakdi described insufficient hospital capacities and poor hygiene standards for the countries Italy, Spain, France and Great Britain. I also find the open letter from Thomas Brunner to the SZ of April 15, 2020, in which Bhakdi and 18 well-known scientists and doctors are critical of the assessments and figures of the RKI and the adviser to the federal government, Prof. Dorsten, worth mentioning. “Critical minds have always had and still have a difficult time in this country. You can quickly become a racist, a climate denier or currently a conspirator. - Dipl. - Ing. Walter Schroiff

Unfortunately, this otherwise interestingly written article is an example of "bad journalism" and therefore not worthy of ZEIT. How come? Because exactly what is being done here is what critics have been accusing the media of for weeks: that they do not deal with criticism objectively, but stop at prejudice and assign people more or less directly to the conspiracy scene who really do not belong there! Showing the picture of Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi on the first page above the bold letters THE GREAT COMPLOT and linking it to the term “conspiracy theories” is already bordering on public defamation. The fact that this friendly scientist is tough as nails in his statements and attacks the federal government is not just his right.

It is the duty of all people of rank and name to oppose obvious wrong decisions of such scope as in the current Corona policy, if they have recognized this for themselves. Unfortunately, the question of why politicians and scientists seem to shy away from dealing with people like Bhakdi remains unanswered in this dossier! The principle of scientific debate has been the basis of our scientific culture for a long time and has often led to new syntheses and valuable insights. Science (and also politics) must always be open to being questioned. Only factual arguments should count here - not the assignment to attitudes that are labeled as right or wrong by politics and the mainstream. – Theo Wohlenberg

I've just come from shopping and, as so often lately, I'm very disappointed. It is now obvious, even to me, that I cannot expect balanced reporting from certain media formats. From the past, I was used to well-researched articles from your newspaper, which regularly shed light on the background. But I also see them now on the “campaign” against the conspiracy theorists. From my perspective, this describes a person who critically questions false or falsified information. I can live with that description. More generally, our constitutional rights protect that very right, and with good reason. Journalism in particular assumed it was also committed to this critical questioning. Obviously a misjudgment. – Tobias Radeck

“Big thoughts need space” and “DIE ZEIT is different” says the self-advertisement on page 12. May I use the ample space provided for the title story – just a whole printed page for the photos of the conspiracy theorist ’ – conclude that ‘great thoughts’ are being expressed there? I find it more than unfortunate that a press product of your reputation gives these crazy people such space. Even subsuming the crude body of thought under the term "theory" should not follow an Enlightenment-oriented paper, but be "different". Theories, if they obey the claim of scientific knowledge, must be justified and open up the possibility of failure, of refutation. In which point is this the case with the storytellers of your article or other comparable persons?

Every counter-argument is taken as a confirmation of one's own world of ideas, if there is no other choice. I have absolutely nothing against confronting statements from this area with reality, for example in a small commentary; but what you've done is give reputation to the blatant nonsense. Have the journalists learned nothing at all from the consequences of the Pegida/AFD reporting or, even worse, are there even clandestine sympathizers? How pleasantly “different” does your colleague Heribert Prantl stand out: “They are flanked by all sorts of crazy people who are labeled “conspiracy theorists”, although their views are not theories, not theses that gained from thinking views, but about phantasms that arise in the opaque fog of prejudices, lies, half-truths, fears and resentments. They all try to ennoble their idiocies by masquerading as defenders of the constitution.” I'm increasingly doubting whether I should let the current trial subscription become a permanent one. – Udo Kroschewski

Corona as a means to an end? Well, the grand conspiracy to create a pandemic sure doesn't exist. But what about the "petty conspiracies" to exploit the existence and consequences of the pandemic? In my opinion, the dossier does not work out the difference between these two sides of the same coin sufficiently sharply. Without the serious disadvantages of the pandemic, which often threaten the existence of smaller companies in particular, and the – justified! – Downplaying measures to contain it: Is it not conceivable that one or the other larger company will use the sacrifice and understanding of its employees in the face of the crisis to carry out restructuring measures that are due for other reasons? And is it not even conceivable that one or the other government, regardless of the level from state to municipality, will also use the willingness of citizens to accept restrictions, which has grown as a result of Corona, as long as it serves a “good cause” to some performance that has become displeasing to her, or freedom to curtail her citizens permanently?

Since we - having been fed up and spoiled in 75 years of peace - are now realizing in the crisis that we can confidently do without some extras, many of these cuts will not bother us much. We will even be grateful to Corona and her tamers for opening our eyes. It will be all the more difficult for us to raise our voice in cases where we believe that companies and governments have gone too far with the "corona cure". And it doesn't help that the claim that Corona served as a pretext for the introduction of a restriction is stamped "conspiracy theory". Unfortunately, the dossier encourages such a hasty misclassification. – A. Kaede

The range of so-called "conspiracy theories" is probably huge and always somehow a matter of point of view. Before "God" created the earth, there was nothing. But he didn't want it to be just him. In only seven days he is said to have created this huge world, mind you, in only seven days! The seventh day was now over, and the earth was finished. If God didn't exist, none of us would be here. That left two questions for me: 1. "Where does God come from?" 2. "Where do conspiracy theories come from?" - Klaus P. Jaworek

The mental limitations of one of the conspiracy theorists described in the article is shown by the fact that on the one hand he blows up the dangerous mobile phone masts, which he, on the other hand, depends on to spread his crude message. – Dieter Lanz

I am very glad that you are taking up this topic, the conspiracy theorists worry me more than the corona virus - which should really be enough of a challenge. I have been completely vegan for over 10 years. It is not the first time that Mr. Hildmann has attracted negative attention. Now, of course, there are those who always knew- vegans are not normal! I therefore ask you to be a little more careful in your descriptions instead of using further prejudices here. I read in your text e.g. "the shutdown has politicized the vegan...". But I don't read "Bhakdi, the meat eater has long since retired." Or "the former radio presenter who eats animal products" etc. Wouldn't it have been enough to simply give Mr. Hildmann a job title (the well-known vegan chef) once to name? By the way, there have been heartrending videos about animal fates in Asia (and everywhere else in the world) not only since Corona, I would be very surprised if he actually only noticed it now. In any case, I really hope that these people will come to their senses and question the absurd theories. - I.Duffy

"It's dangerous to wake the lion, the tiger's tooth is fatal, but the most terrible of terrors is man in his madness." (Schiller, Das Lied von der Belle) That was the comment of my 91-year-old Mother to the media reports about conspiracy theories. The journalistic research of ZEIT, with which it tries to create an overview in the jungle of conspiracy theories in its issue of May 14, 2020, is very meritorious. Nevertheless, the question of what drives rational, i.e. (actually) capable of reason, enlightened people to increasingly follow these abstruse, inherently illogical and strange explanations for the measures taken by the governments of many countries in connection with the corona pandemic remains unanswered. While many participants in the so-called hygiene demos give the impression that people are taking to the streets for their freedom rights who have never heard of it before and cannot even come close to quoting the wording or even naming the source , the ZEIT dossier introduces people who have an academic education and should therefore be capable of approximately differentiated and reflective thinking.

Whether it is the vegan chef Hildmann, who dropped out of his physics studies but has the economic talent to build up a high-revenue food company, the microbiology professor and long-time head of a university institute Bhakdi, or the psychotherapists Pietza and Marklin, the question remains , which drives these people to ally themselves with supporters of the crudest conspiracy theories such as the QAnon movement, opponents of mobile phone masts and vaccination, Bill Gates haters and aluminum hat wearers, and also not to shy away from the proximity of right-wing, racist and anti-Semitic agitators. Schiller could still speak of "madness" in the 18th century. Today, the terms "lunatic", "insane" or "possessed" are rarely found in serious media, instead one looks for explanations in psychological studies and has to state that "no clear answers can be found", but there is one thing in common: "the narcissistic self-aggrandizement". (Time from May 14th, 2020, dossier p. 13)

This thought could be taken further: self-aggrandizement or overconfidence, combined with a worrying loss of reality, gives rise to self-empowerment, which includes the use of violence and methods of manipulation. That is what we experience when the big spokesmen (there are hardly any female spokesmen) and self-proclaimed preachers appear on YouTube or in the squares nationwide. Anyone who follows them on the digital platforms or applauds them at the demonstrations must be aware of the mix of conspiracy ideologues, right-wing extremists and anti-Semites they are supporting and promoting their striving for influence and power. The scary thing is that this doesn't seem to deter most. – Helmi Karst

I'm speechless at the audacity with which you put your conflicts of interest with the Gates Foundation under your cover story "Conspiracy Theories: The Great Conspiracy" as a transparency note. At best, I can take it as a psychological projection: you're projecting your Gates Foundation plot onto "ordinary people." You cleverly insert passages intended to intimidate "Corona demonstrators": "Police officers take A. Hildmann away".... "Crowley was found dead with his family"... And then this cheap excuse: "a standard practice in the industry: many publishers organize events that are supported by foundations or companies." But not all foundations are the same! The Gates Foundation gives money where it makes even more money. And it contributes to time, because time ensures that it positions appropriate "transparency notices" at crucial points that give the Gates Foundation a cloak to do good works.

I quote from Kathrin Hartmann's book: From Controlled Overexploitation 2015: “Never in history has a single so-called charity had as much global power as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Its influence is growing like a cancer in all socially relevant areas and is increasingly claiming sovereignty and control over health, education, climate, agriculture and world food.« Also SWR 2 Knowledge: »The WHO on the begging stick. Bill Gates decides what the WHO does«. As long as you remain silent about these facts, your so-called transparency claims have lost their credibility. Incidentally, psychological transmissions offer the chance to realize something repressed. A little hope. – Christiane Steigerwald

In my opinion, the term “conspiracy theory” was the most frequently used noun in the last issue of ZEIT. It's true that a lot of madness can accumulate in human heads. but one could perhaps also ask what “conspiracy theories” are fed with: perhaps with an incalculable number of actual conspiracies? Are the well-known "whistle-blowers" also "conspiracy theorists"? Is Julian Assange rightly being slowly executed? Another example: After the NSU murders, the police, as is well known, developed “conspiracy theories”. Were there criminal gangs at work killing each other? You can be wrong - but for nine years? There are no real clarifications, least of all in court. Then you can – you have to – assume a “conspiracy”: that government agencies didn’t think the murders were all that wrong… It is a fact that diesel fraud was semi-officially capped for years – which can only be explained by “conspiracy theory”. In general, statements made by politicians are only true and honest in rare cases. I cannot believe that saving lives was a main reason for the lockdown.

It's also not about the risk that the health system could be overwhelmed by the pandemic, but about the public impact that such an overburdening could have. Because in other cases, human lives are of little interest. The many children who are killed when trucks turn... One here, one there, today in this city, tomorrow in that city, but just not an accumulation that attracts the attention of the media. Turning assistants for trucks? Has time until 1922…. Or factory farming, animals full of antibiotics, fast-growing cheap meat with the result that the number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is increasing. The people who have to die because of this are a constant flow, they don't accumulate in the media either, so it doesn't matter. The examples could go on. Conclusion: One gets the impression that more lies are told on the political stage than the truth is told. Yes, and who is surprised that we live in a heyday of "conspiracy theories"? – Roland Exner

All I can say about your reports on conspiracy theories is that they are all nonsense! I just say China, China, China! In 2021, the Chinese Communist Party will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of its founding, and I am curious to see what other happenings the opaque gentlemen in Beijing will come up with after Corona to duly celebrate this anniversary in order to demonstrate their dominance to the West. – Gert Besner

Anyone who is too stupid to confuse the Reichstag building with the "Reichstag" is certainly too stupid to uncover "the Great Conspiracy"! The "cover story" is a statement of fact and prejudice, and what a, the full front page! shame on you! Sebastian Kempkens and the responsible editor. – Reinhard Scherer

The distortion of reality is not only to be found on the part of the producers of conspiracy ideas and hate comments (“You can probably still say that”), but also on the part of some of their critics (“You shouldn’t discuss with people like that”). Both sides often have one thing in common: They like to resort to rapid methods of warding off negative emotions such as insecurity, weakness, pain and fear, which are often due to a lack of tolerance for complexity. In addition, complainants often confuse “having the right to say” with “getting consent,” and some of their critics confuse political correctness with the power of judgment and moral responsibility when they push the boundaries of what not to say or who not to debate may, overstretch. The reference to freedom of speech in our democratic society then conceals the actual causes of the mutual barriers to understanding.”

Pathological escalations of "conspiracy theories" can be found not only in narcissistic, but in all externalizing personality disorders ("the others are to blame"): Paranoid, antisocial and negativistic styles also see the causes of threatening events in foreign powers. People with an affinity for conspiracies tend to adopt an externalizing attitude (“the others are to blame”) in order to seek out negative affects such as insecurity, weakness, pain, fear and complexity through a hasty activation of the psychological system responsible for serene foresight (the “self”). We call this system the integrated self, which brings together all personally relevant life experiences in an extensive network. However, if self-access is sought in such a "fleeing" manner, self-development flattens out because too few new, often painful experiences are looked at. - Prof. Dr. Julius Kuhl

Since the outbreak of the Corona Pandemic, many basic rights have been massively restricted in Germany and the right to life has been made absolute. In the initial phase, this was accepted without reflection. Even the reputable media have voluntarily given up their critically investigative function. The numbers that were prayed down in the daily situation report by the RKI were sacrosanct and were not questioned. Even the phrase “died in connection with Corona” is repeated verbatim by all news anchors today. It would finally be time to distinguish whether someone died of or with Corona. And there are plenty of other starting points for critical questions. How dangerous/contagious is Corona compared to a flu epidemic, which claimed over 20,000 lives in Germany in 2017/18 without any special measures being taken? What is the relationship between the number of tests and reported new infections? (according to the actual infection date and not according to the notification date of the health authorities)

How many people tested are actually ill, i.e. need intensive treatment? How many direct corona deaths are there? For better comparability, all figures should also be given per 100,000 inhabitants. Questioning the above information would show that new infections are already declining from March 22nd, i.e. before the lock down measures could take effect! In addition, one could see that the "exponential" increase in new infections in March was an "artificial" effect caused by the large increase in the number of tests. A critical examination of the RKI figures alone would show that the "scientifically" justified lack of alternatives to the measures to contain the crisis is on very shaky ground.

Isn't it a matter of course that in a liberal democracy, after initial shock, people begin to put their finger in the wound of contradictions and express their doubts via the Internet or at public rallies! This would actually have been the task of the media, but unfortunately voluntary conformity prevailed instead of critical reporting. And now that the public displeasure can no longer be ignored, the critics are being labeled as conspiracy theorists or drawn close to them. This is a good practice for not getting serious about the critical issues. Of course, conspiracy theorists, Reich citizens, right-wing extremists, etc. appear at such rallies to cook their respective soup. But it does the great majority of critics an injustice if they are lumped together with these marginal phenomena instead of finally taking their questions and doubts seriously. – Hans Martin Fink

Conspiracy theories about Corona appear very cranky and outrageous, including 5G mobile communications as a direct cause, which has even led to criminal attacks on transmission masts. However, there are also justified concerns that high-intensity mobile communications could damage health, including the immune system, and thus promote infections [1, 2]. More than 2000 scientific studies on the effects of mobile communications in general are listed in the world's largest database on the subject of mobile communications, the "EMF Portal" of the RWTH Aachen University. However, the participating scientists from all over the world seem to be deeply divided over the evaluation of the results [3, 4]. The mobile phone operators should actually provide proof of safety with side effects for their products, just like the pharmaceutical industry in lengthy studies for their medicines! In essence, only the thermal and not the non-thermal effects, which can be much more critical, are considered when setting the limit values.

With the new 5G technology, which works with even higher frequencies, it is made even more difficult by the fact that the radio mast density is increasing considerably, as is the intensity to be able to penetrate the very well shielding masonry [5]. Even if the Federal Office for Radiation Protection claims that there is no evidence that 5G is harmful, more than 400 doctors and scientists warn in an international appeal against the hasty expansion of 5G technology, including the physicist and biologist Dr. Ernst-Ulrich von Weizsäcker, and demand that the health risks have to be investigated prior to widespread use before we expose the entire population to ever higher levels of electromagnetic fields (EMF) from this technology [3, 5, 6]! Even Vodafone informed its shareholders about the possible health risks of mobile communications in their 2017 annual report [3].

[1] https://www.all-in.de/bad-hindelang/c-lokales/gesundheit-wer-haette-das-dacht-corona-mobilfunk-und-das-immunsystem_a5060541 [2] https: //klaus-buchner.eu/5g-schwaecht-das-immunsystem-in-zeiten-der-corona- CRISS/ [3] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/mobilfunk-wie-gesundheitsschaedlich-ist-5g -real/23852384.html [4] https://www.zeit.de/news/2019-11/18/macht-uns-5g-krank [5] https://www.handelsblatt.com/technik/it -internet/5g-netz-die-risks-und-opportunities-des-neuen-mobilfunkstandards-5g/25348376.html?ticket=ST-1599151- 3n9AKvke1ByBRLqP0JE1-ap4 [6] ZEIT No. 4/2019 https://www .zeit.de/2019/04/mobilfunknetz-5g-datenübertragung-gesundheitshazard-radiation exposure – Dr. re. of course Rudolph Lauck

With the article 'The Great Conspiracy' you have lost a decades-long subscriber - how can you list a personality like Professor Dr. Bhakdi in your article as a representative of 'conspiracy theories'? Someone who sent an open letter to the chancellor with 5 clever questions? In this context, I refer to an article in the independent information sheet 'Der Arzneimittelbrief' (editor: Prof. Dr. Ludwig) from April 2020, in which he is quoted as a recognized expert (see there). Before you publish articles like this the next time, your journalists should make the effort to either do better research or you no longer have to deal with the question, 'What is it that drives even normal people that they get caught up in this maelstrom?' . Incidentally, the definition of 'conspiracy theory' (see Duden): 'idea, assumption that a conspiracy, a conspiratorial enterprise is the starting point of something'. I beg you, how can one put a Mr.Prof.Dr.Bhakdi in such a light? – Ulrike Hoffmeister

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but anyone who has seen the Arte film "Profiteure der Angst" and thus also H. Drosten, who spoke of millions of people being identified and millions of deaths in connection with the swine flu in 2009, now has these numbers repeated with Corona. The swine flu was harmless and even with the current Corona wave, according to the figures on the number of deaths, which can be downloaded as a graphic from the RKI, the number of deaths is no higher than in other years. Sure, every death is one too many. At the beginning of the Corona crisis, everything was denied in order to scare and panic the population afterwards. It is therefore not uncommon for politics to be viewed very critically in relation to this crisis. – K. Lamm

In your article "The Great Conspiracy" you can read that Thomas Mann was convinced in 1918 that the international Illuminati might be to blame for the unleashing of the First World War. As far as I know, the order of the Illuminati only existed from 1876 to 1885. For this reason alone I have great doubts that a highly educated person like Thomas Mann thought it possible that this organization 30 years after its short existence was responsible for the outbreak of the First World War could be responsible. - dr Walter Meyer

Oh, I'm a conspiracy theorist: According to your article, you can tell them by asking questions, trying to use their own reasoning, and denying that they are. Then I'm definitely one of them. A conspiracy theory is a theory that suspects a conspiracy behind difficult circumstances. There is only one such theory in the three examples in your article: Prof. Bhakdi, on the other hand, is looking for valid data and the therapist couple is characterized by opposition to vaccination and participation in a demonstration - where is the theory here? Your article gives the impression that the reader should be brought into line. Where is the usual differentiation of ZEIT? General suspicion and defamation are the opposite of this. Incidentally, that's your kind of conspiracy theory, Mr. Kempkens: to pack all currently open and difficult questions and questioners under an undifferentiated collective term. I stick to it: I want to ask questions and use my common sense. And I thought that was also part of the professional ethics of journalism. – Tanja Hübschmann-Randebrock

In the article mentioned above, I would have wished for a more differentiated distinction between justified criticism and ideologically justified rejection of power structures and opinions. In medicine, knowledge has a half-life of less than 5 years, today's knowledge is in fact tomorrow's mistake. In this sense, in a crisis situation like this, in which there is a massive curtailment of fundamental rights and freedoms, it is more than justified to repeatedly question the correctness, appropriateness and topicality of the measures taken. It is a must in science to critically question dominant knowledge and subject it to a falsification process in order to get as close as possible to the truth. It is also a must in a democracy to enable such processes and to promote the broadest possible discourse. Any criticism, especially that which is put forward by experts with well-founded knowledge, is devalued as a conspiracy theory and endangers democracy! – Karin Hochreiter

I found the text very defamatory. Technical justifications on your part, e.g. Mr. Bhagdi's arguments I missed here completely. (It is also beyond me why mentions of the place of residence, living situation and even the picture of the house of the Pietza couple were used in the article.) It is a pity that your newspaper, which I have valued so much up to now, is focusing on such a narrow-gauge and bad journalistic level condescends. In my opinion, their article constantly confused “apples with oranges”, which the so-called “conspiracy theorists and cranks” (as all critics of the legitimacy of the severely restrictive corona measures are now probably called in general) are otherwise often accused of. Why don't you just let different expert opinions apply in the public media: In addition to Hr. Prof. Bhagdi many other expert opinions, such as that of Dr. Wodak, Dr. Püschel (see the still unsatisfactory basic question of whether he died “from” or “with” Corona), etc., etc. The statement by Helmut Schmidt, which you quote on page 9 of the same issue: “A democracy in which there is no dispute is not," sounds like sheer mockery. And as for all the weirdos and conspiracy theorists:

The emotional reaction of many people to the lockdown and the daily count of deaths (in connection with Corona) in the media is a frightening situation and therefore completely understandable. Incidentally, the historian and bestselling author Yuval Noah Harari already noted in a Stern interview in March 2020: "The epidemic is the perfect cover for a coup d'etat." The author Daniel Kehlmann also said in an interview that the measurements of the Robert Koch Institute were not comprehensible for him (see interview in the Süddeutsche 06.05.2020, p.9:..."Of course I'm a layman, but I'm interested I am definitely interested in mathematics - and yet I have not even been able to understand how this R number comes about.". Briefly about my living environment: I work in the social service of an old people's home and of course I comply with the guidelines of the government. At first I also considered this to be necessary and sensible. However, I quickly had questions about the lack of Plan B. There was no coping strategy or perspective whatsoever. Except, of course, for waiting for the vaccine that would save the day. Until then, however, the Most residents have already died from loneliness, lack of variety and exercise.

(At this point, I was pleased about Wolfgang Schäuble's objection to "human dignity". The right to self-determination also initially remains unresolved due to the complexity of the situation in such an institution.. Incidentally, it is also particularly important for The nursing staff is faced with a really stressful situation with the threat of quarantine (apart from the risk to their own health). It means for them (after contact with a person (residents or staff) who has tested positive), even with a initially negative test to go into quarantine privately and otherwise continue to work with the particularly vulnerable "risk group“. Here, of course, with an FFP2 mask and that is also difficult. There is also a lack of any replacement staff (the nursing shortage was already drastic beforehand.) And of course every employee, no matter how careful, can be ill themselves unnoticed and bring the virus into the institution.

I find the EUR 1000.00 premium per geriatric nurse and nurse a ridiculous amount. Where is the incentive to work in such an area? In our facility there are nurses who, after several negative tests, have had to keep in private quarantine for over four weeks because of contact with a resident who has tested positive, with strict monitoring by the health department and under threat of punishment, but otherwise have to continue to do their job.) I want to be here not to be too long-winded, but I would like to see a more respectful approach, also with people who doubt the sense of the measures ordered by the government. In any case, I can understand it well and have been heavily burdened in the last few weeks.

I don't want to go any further into the content of the article here, but I would like to hear your comments that an exchange seems very important at the moment. As described in my letter to the editor under (my living environment), I work as a social worker in a retirement home. I can hardly bear what is happening there with the residents and the staff due to the current laws (pandemic law because of the C virus). My point here is not to deny that the C virus can have fatal consequences in some cases. However, I find the current measures to combat the virus, all other life risks and quality of life (such as the right to self-determination, freedom of movement, right of visitation (that was already hard won under strict measures, but was immediately lifted again as a resident tested positive, although the entire living area concerned/by the way has now been in quarantine for 4 weeks.)

It's really terrible what kind of measures are being taken there. That's why I get upset about the media coverage. (In addition to Dr. Bhakdi, Dr. Wodarg, etc., who have other connections to the virus, there are also many other doctors who are critical of the necessity of the measures. In my opinion, they are heard far too little.. ) Apart from that, there are also practitioners like me, who send out a cry for help and wish that we take a closer look at what is happening to people in the old people's homes and to what extent the measures are really useful and appropriate. Please take a closer look there. It is a socio-ethical catastrophe that happened here. (A C-virus infection can never be ruled out 100%. Not even with total isolation of the residents, even if we do everything possible to avoid it.) - A reader

Have you dealt with the arguments of the couple and especially of Bhakdi in more detail? That doesn't make the impression in your lurid article. Not very ZEIT-appropriate. Instead, you pounce on A.Hildmann. It's easier.. Isn't differentiated reporting worthy of ZEIT and the job of the 4th power in the state? Or are you following a different mandate? With your propaganda, aren't you promoting a desired unified opinion, as is usual in a totalitarian state? – D.Sandknight

Letters to the editor about "Away with these sculptures!" by Peter Strieder

It's amazing how "God-gifted artists" are "allowed" to present themselves in Germany even 75 years after the end of the war! The sculptures on the Olympic site are one thing, street names of painters, writers and other Nazi artists, which one often still finds, whether out of convenience or ignorance, are another. One cannot imagine any worse reasons for this. - George Jahn

Just get rid of the sculptures. And preferably the whole Maifeld. Why not level Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen at the same time? Certain circles would be grateful. But can you really just throw away certain pasts? I have yet to see them! - Prof. Dr. Cord Meckseper

There has to be something obvious for man to set his brain in motion. And the sculptures from the Nazi era are definitely eye-catching. They are part of German identity like a harelip, although not beautiful, is part of a person's identity. Would we still be aware of the barbaric conditions in ancient Rome if the Colosseum had been demolished? Far too many Nazi artifacts have already been disposed of in Germany under the pretext of coming to terms with the past. This prepares for forgetting and ensures that the AFD's image of "fly shit" is perceived as correct. Nevertheless, I am grateful to Mr. Strieder for his request, because it provokes urgently needed resistance. - dr Ing. Dirk Stahlmann

The topic in the article "Away with these sculptures!" by Peter Strieder (DIE ZEIT from May 14, feuilleton, page 43) is certainly worth discussing. But his conclusion, "Ultimately, politics has to decide whether something is to be valued as a monument" is spooky, because after all, "politics" of the Nazi era had decided in favor of these sculptures and their appreciation. And also: Arno Breker, for example, was apostrophized by Auguste Rodin as "Michelangelo of the Germans". I don't speak for these pseudo-Germanic musclemen, but a domineering "Away with these sculptures" is not a democratic and therefore not an acceptable solution for me - not even for these unsympathetic contemporary witnesses. – Bernd Hielscher

What kind of forum are you preparing for the author - he can spread his thesis and demand for the dismantling of the "Nazi sculptures" on the Berlin Olympic grounds on a whole huge page of the ZEIT feuilleton - and provide a visual example of what what I personally would call "ideological, culture-contemptuous thinking", even "fascism of mind". It is the spirit of modern iconoclasm, of censorship, that wafts from these lines… which has led, for example, to a harmless poem by Eugen Gomringer being painted over on the facade of a Berlin university in the last few years, that painting from the 18th century , which show the “male objectifying view” of the female sex, were removed from museums, that classic children’s books, for example by Ottfried Preussler or Astrid Lindgren, were “cleaned” and rewritten…. what (illiberal, intolerant) times we live in we actually, for God's sake?

The monument protection (still) sets limits to the author's intentions, but with public campaigns (I include this article in the ZEIT), modern forms of action such as shitstorms etc. on the Internet, one tries everything to assert one's own convictions against others . But wait - who is actually "man"? Well, the "political correctness" clearly comes from the left, as is well known, and the biographical/professional background of the author leaves no doubt about it. Curious side effect: Is the author actually aware that he would have to plead for the demolition of the Soviet victory "memorial" in Berlin Treptow with the same argument?

"Had to" - yes, if he was concerned with the matter at all and not with a political-ideological decision! Because that "monument" is at least as much a glorification of the anti-democratic and inhuman Soviet system as the art objects from the Nazi era that he is looking at! But of course there is no question of that - it only exposes the author in his ideological "blinders" position and rhetoric. What an "oath of revelation"! One might shake one's head at so much ignorance on the part of a "contemporary", but unfortunately such people actively shape politics (as he did) or still do today. A horror! – Karl-Heinz Grau

Your contribution, with all due respect, naive to stupid! My urgent recommendation for postgraduate training for you: Erich Fried, The Measures. – Gernot Henseler

I had the privilege of starting my art studies during the student revolts of 1967/68. The rector of the art academy was a former NSDAP member; the Federal Chancellor was a former NSDAP member; a “terrible judge” who, as a convinced Nazi, still pronounced death sentences at the end of the war, was Prime Minister of the state of Baden-Württemberg. The students dealt with nothing more intensively than with the years 33 to 45, their history and aftermath. Anyone who wanted to know also knew that Emil Nolde became a member of the NSDAP early on. What was recently presented as a surprise had long been known to art historians. But what none of us knew was real Nazi art. To this day it slumbers in the poison cupboards of museums. In order to get to know something of the thousand-year-old aesthetics, we had to go to Nuremberg or Berlin.

The radio tower site, Fehrbelliner Platz, Tempelhof, lots of discoveries that made it possible to understand the role form played back then. And of course the Olympic site. Deep impressions of martial thinking. Especially the sculptures! There was nothing like it anywhere else. How big thought, how dull in effect. Next door, Corbusier's only unité d'habitation on German soil. Around the corner is the Kolbe Museum, which, as exciting as ever, hints at the proximity of the modern to the heroic. Anyone who wants to clean here because they think such an ensemble would not be appropriate for democracy is still afraid of empty pathos. The desire to erase the sculptures is despondent and unemancipated. – Rene Straub

We certainly have to agree with the former senator when he spoke out against restoring and preserving large parts of the Olympic site for reasons of monument protection. There are certainly better things than using tax money to save Arno Breker's monumental sculptures from decay. In his critical view of our history, however, he made a mistake elsewhere when he wrote about the Battle of Langemarck in Belgium with reference to the Langemarckhalle, by which point the First World War had already been lost.

The mentioned battle took place on November 10, 1914. One can certainly argue about the point at which the continuation of the war became hopeless for Germany, but in 1914 it had only just begun. And about the Langemarck military cemetery: During a holiday in Belgium in the 1970s, I visited this site, among other things, and was shocked and angry about the saying by the "poet" Heinrich Lersch in the entrance area, which reads: Germany must live, and if we have to die. In the style of the senator: Away with this saying! – Klaus Buchenau

Not gone: paint! (Also comes cheaper) – Astrid Raimann

Out of sight, out of mind? Does the author seriously believe that he can counteract right-wing extremism by clearing away the stony legacies of National Socialism? After all, the Berlin Olympic site in particular makes it possible to vividly examine the bombastic aesthetics and the underlying ideology of the Nazis. Therefore: Enlightenment instead of iconoclasm! - dr Christopher Bergwitz

I feel patronized by an article like this. For years I have lived next to the Olympic grounds in Berlin and I think it is a very sensitive and carefully restored monument that has been adapted to our times and conditions of use. There you can really breathe history and see how the different layers of time overlap and yes, I think it's important that historical places are preserved in their original state as much as possible, only then can you get an authentic impression and form your own opinion. Also, I'm sure that such places attract people who are not very interested in history because of their great charisma and that can be a starting point for the desire to deal with it more.

The Olympic site has a special charisma, I can only recommend a visit to everyone, especially on the day of the open monument you can visit places that are otherwise hidden from the public. Mr. Strieder's approach is re-education with a mallet, when the site is to be "denazified" and streets, buildings and training grounds are to be renamed after victims of right-wing terror. In my eyes, that seems cramped and almost ridiculous, you can trust the citizen more! Security and museum educators can ensure that the site does not become a place of pilgrimage for Nazis. The demolition of the Palace of the Republic takes the same line – out of sight, out of mind, which by the way doesn't work in most cases.

A well thought-out transformation into a museum and modern venue could have been a great attraction in the capital of Germany. Nothing is as impressive as original locations! And now, be careful, I would also have liked to have looked at Hermann Göring's private residence "Karin Hall" in Schorfheide and I am therefore NOT a Nazi and I would not have become one by visiting the building. I am sure that there one could have traced the megalomania and the unscrupulousness with which the Nazis enriched themselves. – Katrin Krampe

Do you really think that by removing buildings from that period, you can erase the bad Nazi era from history? Which structural contemporary witnesses belong next on the agenda: - Is it the Colosseum in Rome, the symbol for the inhuman gladiator fights, the symbol of the slave-owning society?, - Is it the Greek temples as a symbol of idolatry, - the remains of those destroyed by fundamentalist Muslims historical buildings in Syria, - the remains of monumental sculptures in Afghanistan, - the l'Arc de Triomphe in Paris as a sign of the beginning of colonialism? If fundamentalist Islam were to prevail in Europe, some structural witnesses to history would be gradually destroyed anyway. I can't resist the impression of iconoclasm. - Pouting

"A critical comment does not go far enough." I agree with you. A bad German essay does not become high literature due to the corrections by Mr. OStR. But "The sculptures ... have to go." doesn't convince me: if we remove the traces of the past in this way, we also remove the traces of the culture of remembrance of the post-war period. The horse leader and his ilk embody an image of man, the image of the white superman, which, according to the post-colonial social scientists, is based on the enemy image of the inferior "Negro" among other things. Just as the Europeans chopped off the heads of these people or, like the Belgians in the Congo, the kingdom of evil, their hands (documented e.g. in "King Leopold's Ghost"), one could proceed with Rossefuhrer, This could be done on a higher level - on the level of empathy - create awareness. – Klaus E. Margraf

Away with those sculptures! Why? The Olympic Stadium in Berlin with all its buildings, sculptures and open-air sports areas must be preserved for the future. Why should this remind me of Hitler and the Nazis? The Nazis are the dark history of Germany and we are all called upon to do everything we can to banish this thought from the minds of mankind. In a democracy this is not so easy and takes more time. Germany did a lot and achieved a lot in dealing with these Nazis in their Third Reich. I remember my constant arguments 60 years ago as a student with my stepfather, who didn't want to admit the harm that National Socialism had done to humanity. It helped. Also with the Nazi art at the Olympic Stadium. In fairness, if we were to do what the author of your report is proposing, we would have to go back in time and start destroying some, if not all, of the ancient structures in Egypt and Italy, including the Vatican. To me, these tragedies that have happened in the world are not history's bird shit. I have to live with that in my life and deal with it. The statue of the boxer on the Olympic grounds by the sculptor Josef Thorak, who was able to win our only German heavyweight world champion Max Schmeling as a model, doesn't bother me. But on the contrary. Shall we now discuss whether Schmeling or Thorak were Nazis? – Hans-Jürgen Grüttner

I have just read your article "Away with the sculptures" in the ZEIT with great interest. At least two old memories emerge: Firstly, you as a labor judge, with whom I, as a representative of the employers' camp (AVBM), had a certain tension. You made it clear to me so often back then that the social trips made by the works council members to Sprockhövel (why not Spandau?) were indispensable for the joint evening work after the seminars during the day. Until my boss at the time, Dr. Hartmann Kleiner, warned me to exercise restraint "before such incorrect case law becomes permanent".

In addition, I once mocked your socio-political position in writing and was therefore dismissed by the director of the AGB. Mohaupt (?) summoned. On the other hand, during my time in Berlin (since 1986 in Wilhelmshaven) I was a regular visitor to the Olympia-Bad and walked through the trellis of sculptures with amazement and astonishment, which you want to tear down today. Back then, the characters seemed a little “out of date”, as they say today. But today, I'm 75, I see it differently, also differently than you. At least I give a slightly different perspective to consider. Can bad times that have existed since time immemorial be made to be forgotten by eliminating the various contemporary testimonies? Isn't it more "grown-up" when you face these sometimes terrible, monstrous, ridiculous, but also authentic eyewitnesses?

Isn't our republic "grown up" and strong enough to tolerate and see through this heroic nonsense? In my opinion, erasing history is not the right way to understand and evaluate history. This – excuse me – “iconoclasm” is in turn loaded with ideology, but it is also tied to the zeitgeist. Why always these constant, somewhat cramped world improvements, admonitions, conversions? Why this new, the only correct re-education of the people over and over again? The strenght is to be found in serenity! I'll let it be with this somewhat flat final remark. – Lutz Bauermeister

Away with these sculptures!A clear distinction between Nazi art, degenerate or modern art is not always possible. This applies to Emil Nolde as well as to Josef Wackerle. The political attitude, the contamination that Senator Strieder speaks of, is not so easy to identify in the pictures and sculptures of the Nazi era, which is why these works are withheld from the population. With the demolition of the last buildings and sculptures from the Third Reich, you can't get rid of the AFD. The fascist ideology left behind architectural monuments such as the Berlin Olympic site, where we later-born can experience the "fascist aestheticization" of Walter Benjamin. Enough has been destroyed. What is worth protecting as a monument should by no means be decided by politicians. When will the pictures and sculptures from the Nazi era, which the Americans returned, be juxtaposed with the "degenerate" in a representative exhibition? Faced with images of clods, pubic hair and trenches, we democrats can then decide for ourselves whether this is art that appeals to us. – Sinda Dimroth

Why should the heavy sculptures around the Olympic Stadium be cleared away? Like the stadium itself, they provide a good visual lesson on the tacky monumentalism of the Nazis. A dialectical way of dealing with this overwhelming art would be to take up the suggestion made by actor Daniel Craig to former Governing Mayor Wowereit and officially and prominently rename the Olympic Stadium Jesse Owens Stadium! In my book Berlin is too big for Berlin (2013), I repeated this suggestion and illustrated it graphically. – Hanns Zischler

Frightening to see the totalitarianism largely untouched with the Berlin Olympic site under monument protection. For which purpose? The tour that Peter Strieder takes us on shows how monument protection creates continuity and can lead to a nod to Nazi rule. Is it possible to let peaceful life pulsate freely in the Nazi dominion today? In buildings and rooms that always remain connected to the inhuman horror that the Nazis brought into the world. In dominions that stage the interplay of the cult of the leader, the exaltation of a “master race”, mass loyalty, total validity and the complete dissolution of the individual and freedom. Is that the Olympic idea? – The rooms so empty in the corona crisis: what are they waiting for? – Reinhard Koine

The Berlin monument protection does not need a world view that, according to the author, he, when he was still a senator, but also other politicians, obviously did not question sufficiently. The protection of monuments is only obligated to the Berlin Monument Protection Act of April 24th, 1995 and not to any world view of any kind. The author claims that Nazi propaganda is being continued on the Olympic site with the support of monument protection and criticizes the characterization of the monument authority that the Olympic site was “as a monumental sports facility from the first half of the 20th century, outstanding testimony to the Olympic idea. At the same time, it stands as a warning symbol of building and art politics in the National Socialist era.” The Maifeld is also “a historical testimony of outstanding historical, artistic, scientific and urban planning importance.”

There is nothing to add to the quote, because it cannot be expressed more precisely. Things get downright adventurous when Strieder sees a causal connection between the spirit of right-wing extremism and nationalism, as manifested throughout the Olympic grounds, and Gauland, Höcke, the electoral successes of the AfD and finally the NSU murders and the murders in Hanau and Hall manufactures. The self-proclaimed iconoclast demands that the sculptures etc. have to go and, to top it all off, that what is valued as a monument ultimately has to be decided by politics. One can only hope that the preservation of historical monuments in Berlin does not allow itself to be influenced too much by the prevailing zeitgeist – regardless of the political colouring. – Norbert Kiessling

"The summer fairy tale is (is) over," writes Peter Strieder and, in a direct connection, complains that "nationalism and right-wing extremism ... have regained strength". In doing so, he constructs a contradiction that cannot be maintained. The summer fairy tale of 2006 was not the antithesis to growing nationalism, on the contrary: the Berlin author Max Czollek sees “a connection between the 2006 World Cup and the AfD entry into the Bundestag in 2017” with good reason. The “normalization of nationalism and national symbols” (Czollek) during the 2006 World Cup paved the way for radical right-wing movements and individuals. One could once again freely wave German flags through the cities.

Strieder's attempt to counter the murderous right-wing radicalism of the NSU and the agitators of the AfD with the purified, supposedly cosmopolitan love of homeland of the "summer fairy tale" stems from well-meaning but naive wishful thinking. Strieder also falls short with his demand for the removal of the sculptures, murals and reliefs from the Berlin Olympic grounds. "All the sculptures arose from the ideology of the Nazis," he claims, ignoring the fact that the art committee, which decided on the selection of the works at the time, acted "still largely independently" of the Nazi government's art-political ideas, as the art historian Ursel Berger has noted.

As evidence for his thesis, Strieder cites the Nazi artists Breker, Thorak and Wackerle shown on the "Reichssportfeld" - and "forgets" to mention artists such as Georg Kolbe, Ludwig Gies, Waldemar Raemisch or Adolf Strübe, who all produced works for the "Reichssportfeld" created. None of the sculptures by these artists on the Olympic grounds, not Kolbe's "Reclining Athlete", not even Strübe's animal sculptures can be understood as typical NS art, none of these artists were close to the NS regime. After the Nazis came to power, Kolbe was seen as a representative artist of the hated Weimar Republic and suspected of being a "KPD sympathizer" (U. Berger). He apparently refused to create a bust of Hitler and Goebbels had prevented him from taking over the management of the to take over master studios for sculpture at the Academy of Arts; Gies' expressionist figure of Christ, which caused one of the greatest art scandals of the Weimar Republic as early as 1922, was prominently displayed in the 1937 exhibition "Degenerate Art"; Raemisch, who was married to a “full Jew”, had to emigrate to the USA in 1939; As chairman of the Berlin Secession, which was dissolved in 1937, Strübe organized exhibitions in 1935 and 1936 with ostracized artists such as Klee, Beckmann, Dix, Feininger, Großmann and Rohlfs.

The fact that Kolbe also exhibited at the "German Art Exhibitions" organized by the National Socialists in Munich, and that Strübe was briefly a member of the National Socialist Association of Lecturers, shows that biographies of artists living in a totalitarian dictatorship are rarely presented in pure black and white tones like Strieder does in his assessment of the artists and their work on the Olympic site. The fact that in 1935/36 the selection of artists was surprising at first glance and that some works deviating from the National Socialist concept of art were accepted can also be explained by the fact that the regime presented itself to foreign countries as cosmopolitan and modern on the occasion of the Olympic Games wanted to disguise the true nature of the terror regime. “When the Olympic grounds were furnished with sculptures in 1936, there was a continuing plurality of artistic working methods,” judged the Berlin art historian Wolfgang Ruppert in 2015.

Strieder's description is not only superficial and – at least – incomplete, his demand for the removal of the sculptures is not only questionable. The presentation and demands also do not serve his goal of stopping the rise of right-wing extremist, ethnic, anti-Semitic forces. Does the former senator seriously believe that right-wing extremism can be combated by removing sculptures from the Olympic site? Instead, why not announce a competition in which today's artists deal with the works from 1936 and then contrast the results with the – actual or supposed – Nazi works? In addition, a historically based classification of the sculptures and better, verifiably correct information in schools and the media, the open and courageous confrontation with right-wing extremists and, where possible and necessary, their consistent criminal prosecution would serve the stated goal more than the one-sided presentation of historical events and a purely symbolic politics – nothing else would be the removal of the sculptures in Berlin. – Joerg Bernauer

As a history teacher, now retired, I have a copy of Mein Kampf that sits on the bookshelf in my study. For many years I suffered from a mysterious illness: whenever I was working at my desk, my right arm would periodically shoot up. No orthopedist, no physiotherapist knew what to do. Now finally - thanks to Peter Strieder - the riddle is solved: it was the magical, magnetic, hypnotic forces that emanated from Hitler's "Mein Kampf" that forced my right arm up. Since I shredded the book, burned it and dumped the ashes in the Spree, I've been healed. – Juergen Strassburg

Sanding sculptures, wanting to clear the Maifeld is just blind dealing with history: according to the motto, gone is gone - and then everything is fine. But far from it... as a consequence, the Goldelse should be blown up, the Polish soldiers regretted not having done so in retrospect, or at least rebuild it. The question then is, however, which raison d'être the entire Olympic Stadium or even the Brandenburg Gate still has. From Berlin to the Königsplatz in Munich (which has been largely denazified), there is still the Führerbau and the House of German Art, and overall from north to south in the republic there is a lot to "clean up". We would also have a beautiful imperial eagle at the head of finance, which should probably go away too. In addition, you shouldn't just start with buildings: if that's the case, art and culture should also be "cleared away", cleaned up and denazified.

Mrs. Merkel had to ban two paintings by the "degenerate artist" Nolde under massive pressure - excellent works of art, but of a "degenerate" anti-Semite, which it has been proven is probably better to burn at the main fire station in Kreuzberg. But she shouldn't show up in Bayreuth to listen to Wagner, an integrator of anti-Semitism in German society. Actually, no one has anything to look for there anymore and the scores also belong in the embers of the main fire station. We would also have more than 50 Hindenburgstrasse in this country of ours, it can't stay like this, can it? In order not to go beyond the scope myself, I will save myself further examples.

No, this is definitely the wrong way to deal with our past, you have to face the legacy, not reject it and above all you have to put it in the right context. Just because someone misuses any of it for their own purposes doesn't mean it should be razed to the ground or even reduced to ashes. Likewise, Nazi murals should be accessible, they too are quite helpful in “understanding” this madness of our past. Dear Mr. Strider, fortunately during your time as a senator you missed the “fundamental examination of the legacy of fascism – including the structural one. You may now feel like the Polish soldiers. The Goldelse survived, but so should the Maifeld and the other “artefacts” of our history. It can stay that way. – Prof. Rudolf Hipp

It honors the former senator for urban development in Berlin, which he later self-critically states "that we didn't look closely enough" and "whether it's not time for a critical revision of the entire site and the monument protection and denazify the site…” but his demand “Away with these sculptures !” is, in my opinion, the wrong conclusion. Simply removing the sculptures is not enough. Rather, an active confrontation with the racist, fascist Nazi art should take place today, in the form of a rededication or an aesthetic, artistic counterposition to these works of art. And for that you need Nazi art, so that artists of today and tomorrow can use it to make it clear what that is: racism.

What that is: fascism. What this is: fascist art. Artists would certainly make constructive suggestions. Precisely because we sometimes failed to do so, it is necessary – in view of the revival of National Socialism, which we have not wanted to admit for far too long – to unmask its creeping effect in the field of art as well. Surely the sculptures should be taken down from their high plinths and their bombastic architectural background negated, but not removed and destroyed, and replaced with something else as if nothing had happened. – Friedhelm Welge

No iconoclasm In his plea for the demolition of the Berlin Olympic site, the former SPD senator for urban development claims that politics decides whether a monument should be valued. But that is a mistake in reasoning and a call for iconoclasm, depending on one's political taste. No, monuments remind and admonish. Even in dark, totalitarian times. They are living testimonies of history. It should stay that way. Criticism yes, gladly also with more information, demolition no. - dr Thomas Cieslik

Historians complain about barbaric measures, e.g. Egyptian pharaohs had the names of their predecessors removed when they took over the throne, and statues were smashed. Recently, there has been an increasing frantic search for evidence of National Socialist mischief that might have survived. However, this overlooks the fact that clients, art and artists have to be viewed differently. Caravaggio was a murderer, Althofer led the pogroms against the Jews in Regensburg, Goethe was a lustful old man, Nolde is associated with anti-Semitism; but are their works no longer worth anything? If the sculptures from the 1930s and 1940s, which are largely reminiscent of Roman works, are now to fall victim to censorship, this is a repeat of the "degenerate art 2.0" measure. Who decides what is good art and what is bad? Iconoclasm and book burning have never erased the past. The mystical belief that when the name is erased, the person behind it also disappears belongs to earlier centuries. Likewise, the wish that the soul would then find no peace and would have to wander around until the Last Judgment corresponds to the superstition of earlier epochs. – Wolf Beier

Another politician who is driven by the AfD. Everyone can interpret monuments as they wish, but why should I let the fantasies of the right dictate my action? Do we really need to protect the ignorant few who might jump to the wrong conclusions? Shouldn't we then also blow up the pyramids because they were built by an autocratic regime with the help of slaves? How about the Colosseum, where thousands of Christians (the good ones!) were thrown to the lions? - Dr. Salvatore Algieri

What happens when you remove this art? No big public outcry, hopefully we're not that far despite diligent right-wing agitation. But in some minds, the victim attitude will literally fill up on welcome new material: "Artistic freedom in the Merkel dictatorship!" And at some point it will come back anyway: Be it that other works of art are destroyed, be it that artists who are located in the right spectrum, draw from much worse heroic mush and create new, acclaimed works of art from it. (The term "hero's porridge" comes from Freya Klier, in her book "Tear-off Calendar" from 1988) My idea: leave it as it is. And an invitation to all artists (for once a fair one, in order to offer neglected forces a platform alongside well-known greats) creates counter-images. Funny, ironic, serious, full of life, deeply sad. And places the new works in precise dialogue with those created on behalf of the Nazis. Sprayer (Don't give in to the temptation to paint over one of the old ones, leave it completely untouched, that's important!) Female street artists. painters, sculptors. poets, musicians. Anything goes. Mobilize Germany's art scene against the right. – Simone Schultz

With Senator Peter Strieder, who in the 1990s as a lobbyist for Hertha BSC wanted to build a new football stadium (also a lucrative major order for a broad clientele) and after all pushed through the Hertha blue tartan track, we as monument conservators at the time worked intensively for preservation and further construction of the Olympic Stadium and the entire facility - and fortunately won. Incidentally, hand in hand with numerous world sports associations, which I, as chairman of the State Monument Council, had asked for support against the Berlin administration. As is well known, the history of the Olympic site goes back well before National Socialism and beyond the post-war period to the magnificent redesign by Gerkan, Marg and Partners inaugurated in 2004, which is characterized, among other things, by a swinging roof and a new curvature of the spectator tiers. This outstanding overall monument of world sports history, which is so intimately connected to the history of Berlin for better and for worse, can thus be read in its historical development:

This not only includes the monumental design and ideological appropriation of the Olympic Games by National Socialism, but also its overcoming in the form of democratic appropriation. The modernized ensemble is recognized worldwide as exemplary, not least in terms of sustainability. The fact that historical commentary unfortunately has to be louder today than it was twenty years ago is worthy of discussion. Completely intolerable, however, is Strieder's unspeakable and anti-democratic attack on the protection of monuments and politics of remembrance, which he would once again like to entrust to the governing authorities (as once in the Imperial and Third Reichs)! His attack, allegedly motivated by political concerns about the power of the "Word made of Stone" (Adolf Hitler), is - as the first sentence already reveals - only poorly concealed: after all, Hertha BSC and SPD have been working intensively on the project of a new "pure “ Soccer arena (by the way, a lucrative major contract for a broad clientele). – Prof. Emeritus dr Adrian von Buttlar

Your article begins with an unjustifiable insinuation: "After the right-wing extremists have gained strength, we look at the architectural heritage of the Hitler era differently..." I wonder where you came up with "we"? Do you refer to yourself in the respect plural? My democratic friends and I, including the editor-in-chief of ZEIT, Josef Joffe, see the legacy of the Nazi era differently than you do. We are not interested in a radical attitude like yours, namely: "Away with it!". In contrast to you, "we" are interested in a pedagogical-historical component. It is precisely the confrontation with the “values” of the time, which knew how to inspire almost the entire population, that is an everlasting commandment so that it does not happen again. They criticize that, among other things, the information boards on the history of its origin are not given enough attention.

Instead of thinking about it and improving it, you want to "...denazify the entire site..." and your motto is: "Drop it!...". Years ago, Josef Joffe wrote on the subject (excerpt): “..Statues can be flattened. History remains, dumbing down increases. How can the destruction of history, a subsequent censorship, strengthen historical awareness? E.g. Napoleon or Bismarck: Their statues symbolize the good and the bad in the life of a nation. They "talk" to us; they raise questions; they fuel a never-ending moral debate. Exorcism, on the other hand, is a sham solution, because the historical facts cannot be surgically removed.

Moreover, the ancient Romans asked: Quem ad finem – where does this end? Olympiastadion Berlin, Haus der Kunst in Munich, today Lee, tomorrow Jefferson and Washington? Or Helmut Schmidt? His picture in the Bundeswehr University had to go because his uniform had a swastika. Picture gone, Nazism gone? No, just Helmut Schmidt, who gave the university its name. The atrocities of the Wehrmacht remain. The photo has since been re-hung with an attached statement. That's how it should be: history in context that sharpens reflection...” Does the renaming of Sansibarstrasse in Berlin's African Quarter undo Wilhelmine imperialism? The question answers itself. There's no point in hiding from your story by flattening statues. It must be rediscovered, dissected and debated from generation to generation.”

The danger of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is due to the spirit of the times. Examples of this are also the "iconoclasts" in the course of the Reformation, the destruction of irreplaceable cultural assets in the course of secularization and the renaming of streets and squares during the phase of real existing socialism. So much history is always to be processed and by "us" together. Historical oblivion, on the other hand, plays into the hands of the new right, like the AfD. – Klaus Zieglmeier

Does Mr. Strieder really think he can tame and stop the "spirit of right-wing extremism and nationalism" by grinding down some sculptures at the Olympic Stadium? Where is the trust in the spiritual and moral development of society when he thinks that stone testimonies need to be made invisible in order to win the hearts, but above all the critical thinking, of future generations for the preservation of our democratic social order? In this context, I am thinking of the oversized Lenin monument that stood in Berlin-Friedrichshain until the fall of the Wall. At the time, the Berlin Senate couldn't move quickly enough to dismantle it into transportable pieces, which were shamefacedly buried in the Köpenick Forest.

What a lack of sovereignty and self-confidence! The huge head, which fortunately was not broken, has now been dug up again and now attracts visitors to the Spandau Citadel. Leave the Olympic site as it is. Or do you now also want to raze churches and cathedrals in the face of the huge, really huge wrongs that the Catholic Church has been guilty of over the centuries (e.g. through the Inquisition)? "Ultimately, politics has to decide," writes Mr. Strieder. We wish her the necessary foresight for this. – Edmund Kohn

The demon that created Nazi art doesn't automatically go away when you get rid of the objects in Berlin and elsewhere. You may have practice in it, such as dealing with the Wall and the Palace of the Republic, but the way in which those responsible show a rather limited thinking. All the more so when the castle is being reconstructed in Legoland style at the same time. After all, there is a direct path from him and his Hohenzollerns to Nazi art, the remains of which one now wants to dispose of. Yes, museum display boards in the Olympic area and elsewhere are not enough; such monuments should also provoke us to a "Denk-Mal!" My suggestion is to let the sculptures disappear under coarse fabric for the time being or to cover them with wooden planks – Christo has already shown at the Reichstag how effective coverings can be. Other relics can be dealt with in a comparative manner, with only sparse text explanations, but links to modern media directly on site. - dr medical Leo Voss

They don't ask the simple question "Is that art, or can it go away?", but want to ban the sculptures of Breker, Thorak and Wackerles from public space due to political considerations. It is certainly difficult to prove that a work is a work of art. However, it seems comparatively easy to show that a work is not a work of art: In case of doubt, two questions bring down a work of art: Is it kitsch? Then it can't be art! (Except perhaps in ironic exceptional cases) Did the artist serve a criminal ideology in and with his creation? Then also: Away with it! According to these criteria, the sculptures mentioned fall through; because if they should perhaps - and only with difficulty - still pass the kitsch test, question 2 here clearly falls through the cracks. Nolde's paintings in the Chancellery, on the other hand, remain works of art: the fact that anti-Semitism has now been shown to the artist does not call these works into question. Because they are neither kitschy nor were they dedicated to National Socialism. At best they were not placed in the right institution in the Chancellery. – Karl Ulrich Würz

Against the damnatio memoriae! A reply to Peter Strieder's demand to clean the Berlin Olympic site of relics of Nazi art The former Berlin Senator for Urban Development in Berlin, Peter Strieder, apparently inspired by the spirit of "extinction rebellion", demands the former "Reichssportfeld “ in Berlin to “cleanse” names, pictures and sculptures from the Nazi era. He justified his claim by saying that the Berlin Senate's recognition of the monument worthiness of the entire complex would encourage the current right-wing populist and neo-Nazi tendencies in our country. So he pleads for a damnatio memoriae of the relics of a criminal dictatorship and thus has the applause of a relevantly oriented public. The removal of works of art and buildings that “no longer fit the times” or are considered evidence of incriminated political systems has a long tradition. Even Pharaoh Ramses II had the names of hated predecessors carved out of temple inscriptions; Early Christian fanatics destroyed "pagan" sculptures and temples, and Berlin in particular offers a prime example of this precarious political practice:

In the fall of 1950, the communist leadership of the newly founded GDR forced the Berlin City Palace to be blown up with an eliminatory impetus – not dissimilar to Strieder's appeal – against violent international protests. Names for marking public spaces are undoubtedly temporarily effective, but à la longue "sound and smoke". That is why an “Adolf-Hitler-Platz” or an “Ernst-Thälmann-Strasse” can easily become an “Adenauerplatz” or a simple “Marktstrasse” after the festival without having to change their function in the urban space. It is questionable whether people today take offense at the Langemar(c)k myth (November 1914!) instrumentalized by National Socialism or at the naming of a street after the fraternity forefather Friedrich Friesen. It is more likely that these names mean nothing to anyone today, except for historians. However, Strieder is not concerned here with the architectural concept of individual buildings or the entire complex of the former Reichssportfeld. Rather, he resents the unaltered adoption of names, murals and sculptures from the Nazi era, which means he has the symbol level in mind.

There is no question that the leading cadres of the Nazi dictatorship used (architectural) sculpture as an instrument to propagate their racial ideal and the image of humanity inherent in it. Admittedly, this shows how backward-looking the official party Nazi aesthetics are. Since time immemorial, sculptures have served as a symbolic self-portrayal of a political system and its protagonists in public space. Be it, pars pro toto, only Marc Aurel's iconic equestrian statue on the Roman Capitol or the monumental statue fragment of Constantine the Greater. (in the courtyard of the Conservator's Palace there). Monumental sculptures and intimidating architecture with their “overwhelming aesthetics” are not a Nazi invention. A classic example is the Roman St. Peter's Basilica as an expression of the "ecclesia militans" in the age of the Counter-Reformation.

The traditionalism of the state-official NS aesthetics and their recourse to traditionally ennobled art models from antiquity, the Renaissance and the late 19th century have been described as an expression of a "modernization crisis" (Peter Reichel), as expressed in the rejection of the " new building" by the state architect Albert Speer or in the banning of "degenerate" art from museums. On the other hand, the multimedia staging of state power was modern, for example through the gigantic scenery architecture of the Nuremberg Nazi Party Rally Grounds, the sea of ​​flags, the squares of the Wehrmacht, the labor service, the Hitler Youth or the "Light Dome" frozen into mass ornaments as propaganda media suitable for the masses. The so-called Reichssportfeld is also a, in the literal sense, “plastic” expression of the propagandistic “aestheticization of social conditions” (P. Reichel), like the stage curtain that was supposed to hide the repressive terror of the system from the eyes of the world. The fact that Strieder chose one of Josef Wackerle's two horse tamers as an example of “Nazi art” does not speak for his aesthetic competence. Wackerle, an established sculptor long before the beginning of the Nazi dictatorship, created one of his weakest monuments by resorting to the antique horse tamer motif.

With its block-like statuary, it is more reminiscent of archaic Kuroi or New Objectivity. The sculptures of the "God-gifted" state artists Arno Breker and Josef Thorak, who embody the NS ideology undisguised in their physicality schooled on Michelangelo, but especially through their militant-aggressive gesture, are completely different. The in the III. I don't see the richly created sculptural decoration of the Berlin Olympic sites as a "memorial of shame", but as an open-air museum for the misuse of art. Like its role models, it was designed to have an effect in open space and should not be banished to museum depots and evidence rooms. "Historical places must also be experienced" (Frank Reuter). As early as 1989, Magdalena Bushart showed strikingly how the transfer of Breker figures to another spatial context, namely to a sports facility of the Soviet armed forces in the GDR, quite independently of their gesture as an example of “Mens-sana-in-corpore-sano “- Ideals could be reinterpreted. – It should not apply: “Tabula rasa, causa finita”. That's why I demand: Leave it alone! Show instead of suppress! Explain! And - if you're lucky - understand! - dr Hans Ulrich Kolb

In my opinion, it's not just about the architectural heritage from the Hitler era, but also about the relics of the two world wars. These can also be found in our region. As an example, I would like to mention the war memorial on the Luisenfelsen in Laufenburg/Baden. The eagle's line of sight to the south towards Switzerland is particularly striking. In the municipality of Murg/Baden there is an abstruse war memorial - not far from the primary school - which shows two soldiers in full gear (it was to be renovated for around €45,000) as part of the renovation of the village centre. And finally the war memorial on the Brandfelsen in Todtnau. I completely agree with Mr. Strieder that in connection with the strengthening of right-wing extremism, more intensive thought is being given to whether such relics - whether they are on the Olympic grounds, on the banks of the Rhine or in the southern Black Forest - are still justified. They should be "blown up" - but at least they have to face an intensive discussion, at the end of which the disappearance of these false "memorabilia" must stand. – Hans-Peter Cheret

Letters to the editor about "Already sick before" by Merlind Theile

The "greed is cool" mentality continues. The slave trade has long since been banned, and rightly so. In her article for the meat industry, Merlind Theile portrayed and denounced the intolerable, inhumane conditions for slaughterhouse workers, for harvest workers, especially when harvesting asparagus, and sometimes also for home care workers from Eastern Europe. It is sad and shameful that, despite many reports in newspapers and television reports about these horrible grievances, no real changes could be seen. The responsible offices of the affected towns and districts, customs as well as state and federal politics have known about these problems of the people working for us for many years. It took the Corona crisis and the contagion of these people to finally wake up those responsible who can remedy the situation. This shows how the weights are distributed among the authorities and in politics. – Felix Bicker

Short and very precise what you described there. These conditions may not have escaped the attentive contemporaries, that has been the case for decades. The slaughter and meat industry is therefore the most aggressive thing on the market. It even surpasses the construction industry because it includes the misery of animals. Politicians have completely failed in regulating the meat industry - grade 6 - because for decades the regulation of this has been left to the protagonists of the meat industry, here the aggressive meat moguls in conjunction with the "oligarch" farmers' associations / rural people's associations according to the motto of "self-commitment". There is no major fraud regarding the "self-commitment" at all, because nobody sticks to it, otherwise the circumstances would be different (apart from the handling of the animals), payment, housing and the treatment of cheap workers in the meat industry.

First and foremost, subcontractors etc. should be banned immediately. Only the employment offices would have to take care of the employment of the workers - from where ever - with spec. Fast procedures. The price of meat, just like the prices for agricultural products in general, would have to be doubled across the board in order to escape the miserable pressure of animal misery and working conditions. Exactly this would be the task of the above farmers' associations, who think they work for agriculture, but are nothing more than lobbyists for the meat industry. Thus, these farmers' associations have failed in their tasks for decades. – Rainer Rehfeldt

During my childhood, my father managed a branch of a small chain of butchers in Darmstadt. At the age of 12, exactly 50 years ago, I began to remember information about his job and especially meat prices. According to this, at that time (1969) 1kg meat sausage cost 12 D-Mark or 1 kg pork neck steaks also 12 D-Mark. My father earned 600 deutschmarks gross, our 3ZKT (there was no bathroom) apartment 65 deutschmarks/month cold, my parents' VW variant around 9,000 deutschmarks. Today, the income in a similar position would certainly be at least EUR 3,600, i.e. 12 times as much, a VW Passat would be EUR 45,000, 10 times as much, the rent would probably be at least EUR 780, 12 times as much. Of course, the quality of today's vehicles and housing is above the standard of 1969.

Nevertheless, one has to ask oneself how it is possible that the types of sausage and meat described above cost exactly the same today as they did 50 years ago. Unlike cars and homes, the only development in the past 50 years in supplying meat to the populace has been an ever-increasing pressure to cut costs. Regional slaughterhouses such as the former Darmstadt slaughterhouse on Frankfurter Landstraße have been replaced by a few huge slaughterhouses with the (actually long) known circumstances, which Ms. Theile emphasized again in her contribution. She rightly branded these circumstances as "already ill before". Sausage and meat for our consumption does not have to cost 10 times as much as it did in 1969 (i.e. EUR 60 for 1 kg of grilled steaks). But it should definitely cost so much that animals can be kept in a species-appropriate manner, in processing everyone involved can be given the same living conditions that we also strive for and, of course, high quality and hygiene standards throughout the entire production chain from the animal in the pasture to the grill can be complied with (as they are taken for granted in the automotive industry, for example). - dr Roland Pelzer

First of all, many thanks again to Merlind Theile. After "Death of a Harvester", another report on an area where it hurts and is gross! No, I don't want to become a vegetarian in order to be able to sleep at night again without pangs of conscience. I like to eat meat. But there is no butcher in our village, instead there are three (!!!) discounters. When we go on holiday to Inzell in Bavaria, as we have done for 30 years, I also look forward to good meat from my favorite butcher. It even says which cow/cattle the meat comes from, how and who processes it, I can see at/at the butcher. Of course, the meat is more expensive. I am not an idealist, but I pay the increased price not ONLY because of the quality, but also because of fair wages. I'm ashamed that we've all allowed slavery in the meat industry (just the combination of words "meat" and "industry" makes me sick) for years. The legislature must not only set a minimum wage, but also controllableaccommodation. And we all need to learn to appreciate food again. If individual entrepreneurs like Mr. Tönnies now complain, I could not eat as much meat as I would like to throw up (sorry for the word). – Peter Helbig

The article "Ill beforehand" in today's issue speaks of a "reverse conclusion". It is unfortunate that ZEIT is now joining the large group of those who use this term incorrectly and without any understanding of its meaning and logic (keyword "modus tolledo tollen"). It is even more regrettable that this renders void, at least from a logical point of view, all the theses of the text based on it on this important subject. – Tim Leffler

During my childhood, my father managed a branch of a small chain of butchers in Darmstadt. At the age of 12, i.e. a good 50 years ago, I began to remember information about his job and especially meat prices. According to this, at that time (1969) 1kg meat sausage cost 12 D-Mark or 1 kg pork neck steaks also 12 D-Mark. My father earned 600 deutschmarks gross, our 3ZKT (there was no bathroom) apartment 65 deutschmarks/month cold, my parents' VW variant around 9,000 deutschmarks. Today, the income in a similar position would certainly be at least EUR 3,600, i.e. 12 times as much, a VW Passat would be EUR 45,000, 10 times as much, the rent would probably be at least EUR 780, 12 times as much. Of course, the quality of today's vehicles and homes is above the standard of 1969. Still, one has to wonder how it is possible that the sausages and meats described above cost absolutely the same today as they did 50 years ago. Unlike cars and homes, the only development in the past 50 years in supplying meat to the populace has been an ever-increasing pressure to cut costs.

Regional slaughterhouses such as the former Darmstadt slaughterhouse on Frankfurter Landstraße have been replaced by a few huge slaughterhouses with the (actually long) known circumstances, which Ms. Theile emphasized again in her contribution. She rightly branded these circumstances as "already ill before". Sausage and meat for our consumption does not have to cost 10 times as much as it did in 1969 (i.e. EUR 60 for 1 kg of grilled steaks). But it should definitely cost so much that animals can be kept in a species-appropriate manner, in processing everyone involved can be given the same living conditions that we also strive for and, of course, high quality and hygiene standards throughout the entire production chain from the animal in the pasture to the grill can be complied with (as they are taken for granted in the automotive industry, for example). - dr Roland Pelzer

Excellent article that does a great job of depicting the "organized irresponsibility" that is far from new. If, with or despite the knowledge of the mostly critical animal husbandry and the workers in precarious working and living conditions, we come to the conclusion that meat (processing) is systemically relevant, that makes me more than thoughtful and sad. It would be desirable for Julia Klöckner to take her job seriously and become systemically relevant. – Vera Papadopoulos

“The meat industry in Germany and the production, trade and subsidy complexes associated with it are systemically relevant above all because they endanger our drinking water supply. Because we citizens allow such exorbitant amounts of meat to be produced in the relatively small area of ​​Germany, we risk permanent contamination of our groundwater supplies through over-fertilization and the use of pesticides. And we also allow ourselves the luxury of exporting the "bad" parts of the animals fattened by us and also importing "fine" parts, especially beef fillets. Here the thoughtlessness and decadence of our affluent society and the powerlessness of the political decision-makers associated with it become particularly visible.” – Erwin Engeßer

If I remember correctly, the usual working conditions in Germany are a major competitive advantage over, for example, the French meat industry, which (partially?) collapsed because of this, which the Le Pen Club used as an argument against Europe and especially Germany. In competition there are always losers and this shows again: the more asocial the production conditions, the better the competitiveness. Exactly this is, so to speak, the "agenda - problem" and exactly this is denied again and again. It shows how questionable the call on the poorer countries of Europe is to strengthen their competitiveness, by means of agenda politics (do your homework!), see Macron's politics, because that would then weaken German competitiveness and therefore require the next agenda, etc. etc. Conversely, the unsocial reforms in Germany, e.g. pensions from 67, cause trouble among workers because they do not understand why they should help finance the pensions of the French from 62 via Europe and then prefer to vote for AFD. So what may work well in a closed system (state), competition, causes a lot of division and trouble between different systems (states). – Probably too complex for a Swabian housewife? – Dieter Herrmann

...the industrial mass animal-murdering meat industry, which slaughters more than 50 million pigs per year in the Federal Republic of Germany (to name just this type of creature), professes itself according to the "Association of the Meat Industry": Systemically relevant! In the meaning and internalization of the word, this (unscrupulous) meaningfulness seems significant for the system - but what is the systematic behind it? 30,000 people slaughter in chords (around the clock) day after day (except on public holidays): our fellow creatures in terrible realities of a horror scenario: and it's hell on earth for those animals! The horror makes me a person of sadness and deep pity! My uncle was a veterinarian and later the dean of a university - during his prescribed volunteer time in the slaughterhouse he fainted with horror, he knew: animals have a soul and suffer! And he told me, as a participant in World War II, that his father had personally experienced such images as a lieutenant in World War I during bayonet attacks, when human soldiers slaughtered each other and tore each other apart until bloody! But there it is the human species: that kills other people so brutally and horribly, injures them badly - and we actually have a compassion within us, the emotion of integrity for ourselves and the other fellow human beings!?! How can something like that be trained? And what brings us to such bestial behavior that we murder, destroy, annihilate, slaughter unconditionally on command...? Is Corona perhaps the war of animals against humanity - representative of the self-defence of the smallest living beings, the viruses? Have we thought about it - and also recognized: how weak we are in the end!

I dare to assert that through the industrial slaughter of animals, our fellow creatures, the brutal disinhibition already begins here, taking hold of an inner coldness regardless of (soul) losses: all slaughtering has become commonplace can be - as then on the fronts of the war too! However, these "animals for slaughter" cannot defend themselves, they were actually trusting in people, had already been crammed together in a very small space in a bad preliminary phase and under often incomprehensible conditions: until they were picked up ready for slaughter for transport to the slaughterhouses on the different places in our country! And then you see in the butchers, supermarkets, meat suppliers or in front of it as advertising: happily laughing pigs and cattle are shown, the displays of the portioned meat are nicely garnished and the pure tartare is also offered as a delicacy... How can we humans knowing about these mass murders eat meat at all if we don't have to repress extremely to get a bite down into our insatiable stomach, into the digestion! And at the back, the part of the animal comes out as feces or shit - this is how the overall nature of the animal is then processed by us humans: 60 kilograms of meat per capita of the German population per year - baby animals and small children included! What a planet of horrific slaughter and mass murder...

As a vegetarian, I don't want to claim that I'm also a particularly sensitive person - but I know one thing with awareness and with my consciousness: there is really no reason for humans to eat our fellow creatures, even if we like them: to eat have! When the Chinese eat dogs, we are horrified and see it as inhuman - but when we ourselves eat (sucking) piglets, calves (knuckles), lambs (roasts): then that is apparently the most normal thing in the world. Let's actually think about it, that these little creatures are and were ultimately babies and toddlers of animal mothers, whom we separate from them, who raise a few months of life, only to drive them ready for slaughter into the slaughterhouses: and soon onto the table get it, digest it in us, without mentally and emotionally grieving us... "Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to you!" If we had to imagine that the pigs were the people and we were People are pigs... Well then: “Bon appetite!” The doctor, philosopher, theologian, musicologist and pacifist Albert Schweitzer recognized his fellow creatures: “In no way should we allow ourselves to be persuaded to silence the voice of humanity within us want. Compassion for all creatures is what really makes people human.” – Axel Manfred Rumpf von Mansfeld

What a hypocritical world we can now look into. Politicians have looked the other way for years when it comes to working and housing conditions in the meat industry. Not to mention how the animals are treated. The money machine has to roll. But oh my when it comes to protecting us all. Then the looking away stops. Now something has to be actively done against these conditions. That should have happened many years ago. But it was better to look the other way. – Miriam Lenz

Merlind Theile presented the essential aspects in a thankfully short and informative way. One point that goes beyond the systemic relevance of the German meat industry seems to me to be important: We are world champions in the export of pork - based on the total slaughtered quantity, the export share rose from 7 to 45% from 1996 to 2018 (2.4 million tons of pork in Export value of €4.5 billion, source Thünen Institute), other EU countries and China are supplied. Meat production in our highly developed country is only possible at the expense of personnel, animals and nature and is more profitable than directly in Bulgaria or Romania? - M. Linder

I am very pleased that the slaughterhouses are a topic on the front page - just as I was pleased that it was debated in the Bundestag. I expressly agree with fundamentally questioning the meat industry in its current system with the title "already ill beforehand" - however, I would like the animals to be dealt with more explicitly here - or in further reporting - (even if they mentioned briefly twice, I didn't miss that). The suffering that the animals have to experience there is limitless and is certainly intensified by the working conditions of the staff - having to kill animals in piecemeal work is psychologically more than challenging. Offenses range from insufficient or no sedation (required by law), unnecessary kicking, electric shocks and other forms of torture to propel the terrified animals.

In 2018, for example, several undercover investigations by the German Animal Welfare Office led to reports that the public prosecutor's office is still investigating in a case that has become "famous" in Oldenburg.https://www.tierschutzbuero.de/realitaet-schlachthof/Kürzlich the Lower Saxony Ministry of Agriculture announced in a press release that "abnormalities" in terms of animal welfare were found in 58 of 62 controls in slaughterhouses over the past year and a half, as well as serious deficiencies in company hygiene. http://www.animal-health-online.de/gross/2020/05/04/schlachthof-kontrollen-in-niedersachsen-viele-maengel-bei-tierschutz-und-hygiene- discovert/34049/The whole thing has a system . Controls take place too seldom and the few consequences of offenses are taken into account. Video surveillance in slaughterhouses, which was actually agreed, has now been canceled again. Animal protection has been enshrined in the German constitution since 2002. So far, this has not changed anything in industrial animal husbandry and killing. Our dealings with feeling, sometimes highly intelligent fellow beings or the social acceptance of it is unworthy and must finally come to an end. – Stefanie Aehnelt

The article shortens the necessary debate about meat prices to an almost unbearable level and completely ignores essential aspects. First of all, the problem is by no means new. Just remember the outcry that went through Germany when horse meat (instead of the alleged pork) was suddenly found in a cheap discounter in a prepackaged lasagne - the price of which was well under one euro. If you wanted to be cynical, you could almost have been happy about the discovery of horse meat in the said lasagne. After all, horse meat! In other words: What do consumers/politicians expect at such prices? If you consider who also earns money from such a product (manufacturer, freight forwarder, supermarket), it is actually surprising that there was meat in the product at all. This is where the article by Ms. Theile comes in, which calls for a "change of system" along the lines of: "Better wages, dignified housing and shorter shifts for the workers" (what about the animals?) and one would do that get the problem figured out.

Possible problems arising from this are seen, but dealt with succinctly with the conclusion that meat would then "probably become more expensive" and "one" might have to do without something. The whole thing ends with the instructive note that the average German eats too much meat anyway. So the direction is clear: price increases as a forced diet for greedy citizens for the benefit of humans and animals. This is how the article reads and thus follows the debates that have already taken place. I think that a discussion should start right here. Because on closer inspection, the model of fair meat purchases favored by Ms. Theile, in which the well-being of people (workers and farmers) and animals are in harmony, already exists. It can be found at any (independent) master butcher, in any good health food store and at many farmers markets. If you now ask yourself why not everyone makes the pilgrimage to the little butcher on the corner, to the health food store or to the farmer's market to buy "fair" meat, you come up against the limits of Mrs. Theile's article. While the well-educated, well-fed ZEIT reader can (and want) afford this luxury, this is certainly not the case for a large part of society in Germany (despite the high level of prosperity). The call for higher – and thus supposedly “fair” – meat prices is therefore an elite discussion.

Higher meat prices would help to calm the conscience of many people, but would not lead to “renunciation”, but to parts of society being unable to consume meat. In other words: The Eastern European migrant workers (who work in slaughterhouses under inhumane conditions) may still be able to afford a piece of the meat they produce today, but it is doubtful whether this is still possible after a corresponding "price adjustment". From my point of view, this is where the actually exciting part of this discourse begins, which I would have wished for and expected from a progressive newspaper like ZEIT. How do you create fair working conditions and animal welfare, on the one hand, and reconcile them with prices that are affordable for all sections of the population? Or to put it another way: the Sunday roast as a social issue. - Philip Gentili

What an important front page topic! Merlind Theile is right: We pay a high price for cheap meat. But not only because of the current situation with Corona and otherwise not only because of the exploitation of employees in the meat industry, the suffering of animals and if we eat more meat than would be healthy. We also accept high water consumption, pollution and, according to the FAO, use a third of our land area to feed animals while more than one in ten people go hungry. So we need different animal husbandry, and not only when multi-resistant germs have caused a new pandemic. I would like courageous contributions to this essential debate in the ZEIT. – Tom Diebel

Letters to the editor about “Of course it works” by Maja Göpel and Petra Pinzler

The post identified in the subject raises some valid questions. In my view, the basic problem is unfortunately left out. The economy is not a timeless state, but a cycle since the replacement of the barter economy with means of payment. If this cycle is interrupted for a longer period of time, the closed capacities no longer have a financial basis. Certainly economists have grappled with this question. However, their answers are not included in the public debate. To be on the safe side, politicians and the media keep to themselves when it comes to oracles and speculation. Their conclusions are therefore too "short-sighted". That is unfortunate. A debate about individual questions and ideas is useless if the economic and economic side is not included. I add the following thoughts to my opinion: You are asking questions that many thoughtful people ask themselves. However, they remain in the subjunctive. Who should answer these questions? Can our democracy find a realistic, workable answer to this? If the way out of the current situation of society is not found, dissatisfaction will become the breeding ground for crude ideas about solving current problems with unforeseeable consequences. - R Schmolling

Germany is steering a dangerous course. Preliminary remark.75 years after the end of the Second World War, Germany is again dominating Europe economically with deficits in humanity and responsibility. Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt called for sensitivity to the interests of our neighbors, which has again become rare in Germany.1 The British historians Simss and Zeeb2 see Europe "on the edge of the abyss". Love of truth is required now. 1st truth: Goals of the Federal President In 2016, while still Foreign Minister, Federal President Steinmeier published three main goals in his book “EUROPA IS THE SOLUTION” to make the EU fit for the future: “We have to give ourselves the instruments that are needed for a common foreign policy…. It is for countries going through difficult reform processes to show a light at the end of the tunnel .-. to offer a European perspective of confidence, especially to the younger generation. .-. At the end .-. a much more robust and weatherproof Eurozone must exist. .-. At the same time, those states that want more should not be prevented from moving forward .-.provided the door is left open to others”. It says so in the EU Treaty, Articles 326 to 334 TFEU. You just have to want it and do it.

Truth 2: a bang against EU law The Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) is bound by, but ignores, Article 130 TFEU of the EU treaties. This prohibits “national bodies from attempting to influence the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks in the performance of their tasks”. The ECB and the national central banks may not seek or take instructions from Union institutions, Member State governments or any other body. A lawsuit against decisions by the European Central Bank before a national court should therefore have been dismissed. The competent European Court of Justice (ECJ) sees the Karlsruhe judgment as endangering the EU legal system. Bundestag President Schäuble sees a danger in this

1 H.Schmidt, Germany and its neighbors, p.141 2 B.Simms+B.Zeeb, Europe on the brink, 2016 3 Steinmeier, Europe is the solution 2016, p.35 ff : Heinr.-Böll-Foundation, Europe, Solidarity+Strength, Vol.6, p.12f.+46 for the euro and therefore considers the political strengthening of Europe to be necessary. ECB President Ms. Lagarde says the ECB will go about its business undeterred. - What happened? On May 5, 2020, the BVerfG ruled on the basis of a lawsuit by AfD politicians that the ECB’s bond purchase program (PSPP) was “infringing competence” and decided that the federal government and the Bundestag were obliged to “the to oppose previous practice.” Excuse me? A non-competent German court is calling on the federal government to influence the ECB in violation of the treaty? An infringement procedure will have to clarify that. - Only if the Chancellor rethinks now and saves Italy and France's governments from falling can the euro survive the consequences of the corona virus. 3rd truth: Help is a community task

Article 125 AUEV prohibits liability for the debts of other EU member states, BUT allows "mutual financial guarantees for the joint implementation of a specific project". Corona emergency aid must be exactly that, with jointly financed innovative EU future investments4 that no state can master alone, as the first step towards the euro reform. The eternal final word "no transfer union" has neither dignity nor future. 4.Truth: Menacing export surplus German law: The German stability law on the goals of economic policy (the magic square) of 1967 obliges the German government, among other things, to adopt a policy for external economic balance. Germany regularly violates this law with high export surpluses and should have corrected this long ago through higher domestic demand, e.g. higher investments in schools and higher minimum wages. Main German customers: As usual, 69% of Germany’s exports went to the EU in 2018 (www.bmwi.de). If the EU stumbles, we stumble with it. If Italy or France falls, we fall with them. German export surplus is threatening: Germany's export surplus alone with Italy, France, Spain and Great Britain

-1- totaled €103.3 billion in 2018. (www.gtai.de). Because these export surpluses are import surpluses in the destination country, there is a lack of income of the same amount and unemployment arises, with the result of lower tax revenues and social security contributions while at the same time increasing social expenditure. Germany is therefore partly responsible for a constant double deficit in the trade balances and the state budgets of its most important partners. We are thus weakening the investment power and ability of our main customers to repay debts and, in our own interest, we have to compensate for their disadvantage. 5. Truth: Europe saves itself broken is the title of the book by Nobel Prize winner and former chief economist of the World Bank Joseph Stiglitz from 2016. Stiglitz states:5 1) serious design flaws in the eurozone and 2) how they must and can be corrected, 3 )that Germany harms everyone by blocking reform proposals by Macron, Piketty and Stiglitz 4)that Germany's failed European policy is justified with outdated 19th century theories and that 5)Germany's export surpluses due to a lack of fair compensation declassified the euro zone into proud creditors Debtors split, which, if Germany does not give in, will tear the euro zone apart.

J.Stiglitz explains two reform steps that are necessary to avert a collapse of the euro zone: regionally differentiated interest rate policy of the ECB and the empowerment of all EU states to secure full employment in all EU states through a democratic decisive and controlled fiscal policy, which is missing today. In 2017, Piketty and a team of experts drew up and published a “Treaty for the Democratization of the Eurozone”.6 Expert economists know that Stiglitz and Piketty are right, and so are the state secretaries in the responsible ministries, because Piketty and Stiglitz, as well-known experts, warn as well as Bofinger, Guérot, Habermas, Hüther, Lagarde, Lehndorff, Simms with Zeeb, Sinn and Varoufakis. – Olaf Specht (Prof. (FH) retired Economics and Business Administration)

Thank you very much for your clear words on the political lessons from the Corona pandemic "for the right way to deal with the climate crisis"! It doesn't seem so surprising to me "that supposed truths about economics have suddenly turned out to be great mistakes". Present the five central "arguments" as what they always were and are: pure ideology. However, you leave out one crucial question: the question of power. For decades, honest scientists have been showing us the fate that growth dogmas, consumer mania and market dominance are wreaking on our globe. Democratic media - like DIE ZEIT - help to spread and explain these insights. This ideology is “finally over after Corona”; this is the conviction of the authors Göpel/Pinzler. In the minds of enlightened people, this is probably not the case just now. But the stupid thing about the ideology is its anchoring in the consciousness of those who have been enculturated for generations in the understanding of reality and the image of man in the capitalist world.

The Enlightenment knowledge still applies that the dominant thoughts are largely the thoughts of the rulers. There is an agreement between the powerful in business and politics that is as mendacious as it is cleverly knitted. This unholy alliance of ownership power and political empowerment in the USA, in Brazil, in Russia or even in Hungary and Poland is blatantly and insolently puffing itself out. But it should also be noticeable in this country how politics follow science when doctors warn of the virus. Our civilian life is undermined in no time. Warnings from climate and poverty research, on the other hand, are dismissed, played down and ridiculed. So when it comes to maintaining the private appropriation of socially acquired wealth (while at the same time socializing the risks and losses), scientific knowledge no longer counts. The ideology may have run its course intellectually and morally, but not in the question of power. – Victor Rintelen

I really enjoyed reading your remarkable article in ZEIT. My friendly objection: you say what we no longer need. Approval! However, what I miss under point 5 is an overall energy management concept that would at least be convincing in terms of keywords. How, please, do you think, for example, about modern nuclear energy that fits in very well with your overall picture from very small, low-risk reactors that are also free of nuclear waste? Patented proposed solutions are in the drawer at Nuklearia e.V. – Gernot Henseler

Maja Göpel and Petra Pinzler refute five arguments that were put forward against climate protection before Corona. But even the counter-arguments are not sufficient for satisfactory solutions. It's just not "natural" that it works. Because there are conflicting goals. In order to clean them up, an overriding goal must be aimed for. The following statement is helpful here (applicable to all five arguments and counter-arguments): Every consumer creates work through his consumption, so he also has a right to work. If this right cannot be redeemed, he still has a right to maintenance. However, everyone also has a duty to contribute to ensuring that the above-mentioned cycle works. This results in the demand for demographic responsibility so that the necessary transfer payments do not hit a bottomless pit. Where necessary, the birth rate must be reduced.

On topic 1: people want to buy, and more and more.Labor input is needed for two reasons: meeting basic needs and distributing income and prospects. If there is not enough work, then there is a problem. The pharaohs already had solutions for this, such as building the pyramids. This created work and thus distributed income. Superfluous consumption has the same purpose. The more work is saved as a result of progress, the more must be consumed in order to distribute prospects and income. Incidentally, the more consumers there are, the more it pays to automate production and thus save work, which means that more consumption is needed to compensate. The solution would be transfer payments (e.g. basic income) to the more or less "voluntarily unemployed", which unfortunately tends to weaken demographic responsibility. This also requires conditions. By the way, the construction of the pyramids was hardly harmful to the environment because there were few people. The 3 percent share of aviation in Co2 emissions would also be more manageable if there were fewer people.

On topic 2: Without growth, everything is nothing.Population growth requires economic growth. This enables population growth, etc. In addition, the responsibility for both lies in different places. South Korea has a birth rate below 1 and high economic growth. Conversely, Nigeria has a fertility rate above 7 but cannot provide enough prospects through work, leading to the search for substitute prospects that increase the fertility rate. Above all, this mechanism leads to migration pressure and not so much to droughts, which incidentally are also caused by excessive population growth. States like Nigeria need transfer payments and this also makes conditions necessary.

On topic 3: Globalization is good. The authors write: "But the lowest price can no longer be the most important criterion for the production location." Unfortunately, the south is only competitive because of its low prices. Higher prices led to production surpluses and disadvantaged countries that can only enter with low prices. In principle, the high oil prices from which the South benefited were transfer payments, but they did not lead to a reduction in birth rates. Compared to today's problems in the Middle East (cause: dependence on oil prices and young people without prospects), the current problems in the north (interrupted supply chains) are minor.

Regarding topic 4: Some technology will save us.When building a bridge, technical and social requirements must be met (stability and benefit for everyone). Likewise when building a bridge to the future. Unfortunately, the main expectation of a successful engineer is that they make a profitable contribution to economic growth. Advice on showing the limits is undesirable (cf. the book "Technology is not enough. What is necessary for mankind to be able to continue to exist for a long time?", BoD 2016)

Regarding topic 5: The market will regulate everything.The market cannot regulate everything. But the planned economy cannot do this either: but neither can invoking human rights. Because there is a trade-off between the right to property and the right to subsistence (food, housing, education, etc.). The causes of many problems can be characterized with the keyword "tragedy of the commons". An antidote is the right to property. for property is seldom plundered. But “ownership obliges” also applies, also to transfer payments. Demographic responsibility is necessary to ensure that these do not hit a bottomless pit. Conclusion: The problems cannot be solved without addressing the topic of demographics. - Dr. tech Gernot Gwehenberger

Chapeau, Ms. Göbel, Ms. Pinzler! Driven by the slackers around Lindner and Laschet, a sinfully expensive, probably helpless policy exposes the "We have understood" slogans of the first Corona days ("After that, nothing will be the same as it was before.") as pure lip service. Instead of drawing lessons from the crisis, in the name of "responsible normality" it is actually pursuing a return as quickly as possible to suppressing long-known problems, which is irresponsible in many respects. However, it seems to me that the lessons you draw yourself in the end need to be supplemented - because you are too one-sidedly fixated on ecology.

Investments in health and care as well as in education and care seem just as urgent to me; the alms for the nursing staff and the mantra-like invoked digitization in the education system are not even a start. Just imagine if we had the class sizes in schools and caregiver-child ratios in day-care centers that generations of education experts have demanded - we would have been spared a large part of the fuss about closures and rolling reopenings! Sure, that costs - but putting the taxes of the present and future generations indiscriminately into the rescue of all possible sectors (including the leisure industry) could take bitter revenge in the next economic crisis. – Joseph Puetz

I read your post above with great interest and with full approval. "People want to buy, and they want to buy more and more." Obviously, they believe that this is the sine qua non of a good life, and they are generally supported in this belief by economists, business people, governments... A change would probably only be possible if the picture of what what constitutes a good, successful life could be modified in a direction that Hartmut Rose has so convincingly explained in his work "Resonance". My suggestion: ask Hartmut Rosa if he wants to write for "DIE ZEIT" about the corona pandemic, its consequences and the resulting opportunities. I am convinced that this would not only be appreciated by me, but also by a large number of readers. - dr Heinz Muckstein

Oh, sancta simplicitas (infiliciter). – Alois Teodoruk

One day after the ZEIT went to press, the Federal Ministry of Finance forecast a probable drop in tax revenue for the federal, state and local governments of almost 100 billion euros: a shocking news that could tempt you back into old growth habits?! What was not included are the saved costs of the massive reduction in CO2 emissions and the associated positive side effects. The Corona crisis calls for the economic effects on the environment or climate, whether negative or positive, to be included in the balance sheet! – Walter Moritz

Now is the right time to promote the circular economy (C2C) according to Prof. Baumgart. We need recycling and follow-up cost certificates for all products that are not biodegradable. In the case of fossil fuels, these would be almost identical to CO2 certificates; in the case of finished products from household appliances to cars to ships, it would be paper that is subject to a fee, the income from which covers the recycling costs and goes into a fund from which the recycling and follow-up costs are paid. Producers would then be very interested in constructing their products to be durable, modularly dismantable, easy to repair ("repair culture" according to Prof. Heckl) and more easily recyclable. And of course the producers would have a great deal of interest in offering their goods for reuse instead of for sale as a temporary service with taking them back into account, so that they could largely do without the certificates.

If nothing can then be offered without a concept for recycling and follow-up costs, the problems raised in your article on points 1-4 will be solved by planning specifications and constraints via the market: people can (1) buy more (everything is yes recyclable), we experience (2) growth in services WITHOUT additional production, globalization does not work (3) without recycling and thus more regional service providers and (4) the technology alone does not help, because nothing works without a recycling concept. The EU and governments would be well advised to make recycling concepts a prerequisite for economic stimulus. Perhaps you can present such approaches in one of your next articles? - dr Dirk Bade

1. to: Of course it works. by Maja Göpel and Petra Pinzler as well as 2. to: Climate: what does political action mean? by Jens Soentgen desired": "more time wealth" and "more leisure", but is that possible? "Of course it works"! And Jens Soentgen states: "Environmental policy becomes effective when it noticeably changes local life". So: get to the four-day week. An exciting, ecologically, ethically, economically, legally and politically founded concept is available in the book by Thilo Schäfer: "Freie Freitage für die Zukunft - concept for humane and immediately effective climate protection for the post-corona era" (ISBN 9789 4639 82993). Advantages for every human being, for increased quality of life, for all of our descendants, for the environment and our community, for reducing CO2 emissions, for compliance with the Paris Agreement (2015) by the Federal Republic, as a model for other countries in Europe and the world, global, for the ecosystem earth. So get to the discussions about the problems that the four-day week naturally brings with it, and get to the implementation of this concept - maybe with modifications, but get to it! – Hjalmar Thiel

I can emphasize the title of your article in three different ways and it always moves something else than the focus. First of all, thank you very much. Hopefully it triggers what you desire. I am 68 years old, have a large family including grandchildren, work on new concepts in natural medicine, am a respiratory therapist by profession and am in contact with some great teachers of humanity. These say beginning, present and end are also an aspect of Trinity. Today I read on the Internet that physicists warn that the solar winds, i.e. rhythmic energy ejections from the sun, can take mankind back to the Stone Age. In the NZZ I read "Technology and natural science are shaking the image of man". I find your title so well chosen because it only goes "NATURALLY", in dealing with each other, in dealing with the earth, which has given everything, the sun is happy , when we open our heart (our inner sun). The Incas, the Sumerians, the Indians, the Eskimos, the Indians all knew and still know who is behind the sun. We forgot. She's not vindictive, more warming and kind, but she doesn't allow humanity, or rather parts of her, to destroy the earth. We are at that turning point now. That's why I agree with your article a little more vehemence would have done him good. The younger ones set a strong impulse on Friday, your generation is one of those who are allowed to implement. The school of torment has uglier ways to make us learn, may we be spared. Your generation has to break new ground in relationships, partnerships and contracts. – Hans Joachim Chickens

I can only agree with your comments. Since I have also written something on the subject, albeit not as professionally, I would like to draw your attention to it: https://www.ulrich-willmes.de/borders-of-globalisation.html You might find it there for future articles one or the other suggestion. - dr Ulrich Willmes

I wholeheartedly agree with the authors Maja Göpel and Petra Pinzler! If only the government had the same determination for the climate as the decisions taken in connection with the corona pandemic! It has long been scientifically proven what measures can be taken to counteract the climate crisis in the medium and long term, beyond "simple omission" (as we are currently officially decreed or prompted to practice with less travel, produce less, buy less ...). From the very beginning, those committed to Fridays for Future have been demanding: Listen to science! Concrete proposals are on the table and there is plenty of competence for further specification. "A return to capitalist normality is out of the question" (see the appeal by Juliette Binoche, the astrophysicist Aurélien Barrau and many others) logically, also with a view to the climate crisis. Because the political will of those responsible is apparently lacking, there is a need for more commitment - and definitely more publicity - for positions that call for a departure from our previous way of doing business and life, such as the above-mentioned appeal or the open letter from 3,000 scientists* from all over the world world who call for making the world of work more sustainable and democratizing. – A. Wiese

Letters to the editor about "That's good news" by Tina Hildebrandt

What's good about a message that says politicians don't leave their peers unconcerned. Anyway, I can't be happy about it. And I doubt very much whether the employees of the authority are happy that their line has become a supply post. – K. Brandt

I myself belong to the dying reader target group, although neither a teacher nor a dentist's wife fleeing to the `Süddeutsche Zeitung` (`Streiflicht` from today), I ask myself: what did your article in the `Zeit`, `Das does good news deserve the subtitle: 'Andrea Nahles has a job again'? The term 'posten' (from the politicians' 'bashing' zone) in the electoral memory connotes the topos 'post haggling', literally before the official election result, is about careers instead of tasks, about ambitions instead of qualifications. Not infrequently from notoriously resuscitated incompetence. Evidence: the ancestry of transport and agriculture ministers. I have no idea whether it will be easier to resuscitate the 1,400 apparent deaths of Post and Telecommunications than those of the SPD. In the hands of Andrea Nahles, it would be more of a task than a post. Those in the government who let her go as a pawn at the time are only too happy today to throw a hard chunk of modernization onto the shoulders of a capable, objective politician. Tear fewer failed jokes in the future? gift. – Rupprecht v. Brown

More irony is not possible on the front page of Zeit Nr. 21. Or are Tina Hildebrand's lines about Andrea Nahles really meant seriously. Then these are just sheer cynicism in view of the people economically affected by the corona measures. The poor, oppressed Mrs. Nahles and her child can now look to the future again with 150,000 euros a year. We solo self-employed and cultural workers with children can look forward to a noble donation of 2000 euros and look forward to the future. The basic security already beckons. Quite apart from the workers in the meat industry. I expect politicians to care for the people and not just keep pushing jobs back and forth. And I expect more from a weekly newspaper than irony or cynicism. There are more important things to do at the moment. – Thomas J. Birgel

My wife and I have different opinions regarding your report on Andrea Nahles' new job. She doesn't think it's satire, but I do. Please tell me that what you wrote is not meant to be taken seriously. - dr Bernhard Jung

If an unbiased observer were responsible for the headline, he would have written "This is not good news". They consider the planned promotion of Andrea Nahles to the post of president of an authority with 1,400 employees to be a stroke of luck. I'm assuming that the well-paid position was advertised, that in principle every German citizen could apply for it and that a decision was then made "according to suitability, ability and performance". Ms. Nahles studied German (and political science) for 22 semesters, founded a local SPD association, was a Juso chairwoman, held party offices, became a minister, led the parliamentary group, was the first federal chairwoman of the SPD and resigned before she was voted out. She didn't fail, as you insinuate, because of a "joke" that went wrong, but rather because of her poor judgment in the Maassen case, probably because of bad election results, certainly because of her own inadequacy.

She was a master of intrigue; Contrary to your assumption, it could not be integrated. They try to give the impression that Ms. Nahles has become the victim of male arrogance, who is entitled to compensation. Is that enough of a recommendation? In the end, you expect us all to be happy because "we are governed by politicians who care about others." Aside from the fact that this is their job, for which they are elected and rewarded, your claim is false . You probably mean “about other politicians”. It's the old game: in politics, one person pushes the fat sinecure on the other. The fact that you comment approvingly proves how right our supreme judge is in his criticism of the interaction between politicians and (media) elites at the expense of “ordinary citizens”. - Johannes Kettlack

Under the headline "This is good news: Andrea Nahles has a job again", ZEIT (21/2020) reports on the front page that Federal Finance Minister Scholz has appointed former Labor Minister and SPD Chairwoman Andrea Nahles to head the "Federal Institute for Post and Telecommunications”. Normally, such – completely apolitical – federal institutions are run by experts. The literary scholar (M.A.) and ex-politician Nahles has so far had no professional connection to the tasks of the Federal Agency for Post and Telecommunications, founded in 1995, which handles the civil service and social-operational consequences resulting from the privatization of the Deutsche Bundespost. But what the heck, "the employees of the authority [will] get a capable boss", even more: "We can be happy about it [...] because we are governed by politicians who also think about others". I don't belong to this "we" and I'm not happy when Germany becomes corrupt. - Prof. Dr. habil. Helmut Berschin

Tina Hildebrandt praises Andrea Nahles' new post as head/president of the Federal Post and Telecommunications Agency in the highest tones. This one-sided praise by Ms. Hildebrandt for this appointment is incomprehensible and is hopefully due to her solidarity towards women. It is understandable and commendable that Herr Scholz would like to give his party member Andrea Nahles a good job. A well-paid position could certainly have been found in the large structure of the SPD party administration. This would have been honest and politically correct. The unauthorized allocation of a highly paid and very lucrative post amounting to EUR 150,000 a year as head of a public service agency is party clique in the highest degree. Yes, in my opinion this is already moving in the direction of corruption and is unworthy of Germany as a business location. - dr Roland Schnitzlein

You obviously don't seem to be very familiar with art.33(2) GG; here, a well-paid head of agency position is filled internally without any advertisements, based on party affiliation. As thanks for the silence after the resignation of party politician. embossed offices? As was often said at frontal 21: Great! – P. Roetzel

First of all I have to mention - and this is my good news - that due to the "Corona" deceleration I finally have the leisure to read DIE ZEIT again for years now, I had to break off previous attempts several times because it never really worked out resulted in reading, considering and also discussing your interesting articles. In particular, I miss the reflective reporting and commentary in the daily media, which appear almost blatantly, especially on the subject of Corona. For this reason I will probably extend the trial subscription!

Dear Ms. Hildebrandt, I would like to comment on your contribution: "That's good news": Regardless of the personal details, you describe in a downright naive way how nice it is that politicians (who "govern" us) also worry about others (politicians). In itself it is actually good news that our people's representatives care, but in this and in many other cases I recognize more well-known nepotism and job-pushing. In countless such cases, “taking care of other politicians” fill important and unimportant positions with party members and with horrendous salaries. It should first be remembered that the vast majority of such beautiful items have moderate to hardly any added value and are risk-free for the owner. In the so-called free economy, many of these posts would be paid much less, since the economic relevance is missing, just administrative activities. Responsibility for failure does not arise at all, since the state (federal, state, district or municipal and all the associated authorities, public institutes and associations) hardly demands accountability.

Second- and third-rate politicians help fourth- and fifth-rate “colleagues” to get compensation jobs without any ifs or buts, and that, by the way, is completely cross-party, self-service mentality. Please look at the large number of excessively overpaid savings bank board members, municipal utility bosses, regional airport managers, state road construction managers and other such jobs at federal and state authorities in general. In the majority of cases, the appointed caregivers have hardly any qualities but the vitamin B, unfortunately the result was and is that these highly subsidized activities are ends in themselves and, as mentioned, produce little added value but mostly frustration and additional costs. This type of care is particularly questionable in the cities and municipalities. Just use the example of Dortmund (every other city certainly reflects this) to research how many such items are allocated, what remuneration is paid, how they were distributed, what value they create and who pays them and the mostly subsidized organizations. The answer to the latter is open: fee and tax payers! Well, applauding slackers is easy when others are paying and there are no consequences for failures. Since it obviously remains with the suspicion of nepotism. – Reinhard Reinartz

A praise article for a politician who failed because of her own personality on the 1st page!!! This is not only embarrassing, but also the best fodder for the AfD and its accusation of biased journalism. Even if it is difficult to agree with the AfD. It's trend journalism! Of course, intrigues also played a role. The SPD doesn't work without it. Ms. Nahles was the most embarrassing SPD chairwoman (not only because of her "face" statement) that she had ever had, hardly surpassed by `Ms. Eskens. Instead of making another supply case a problem, Mrs. Merkel is also called for help, whether it is true or not. The reference to their profit is also embarrassing. I could name a number of politicians who were professionals and failed just as miserably. But I'm not doing it so as not to further discredit Ms. Nahles. I will no longer read the time. p.s.: By the way, I was a member of the SPD for 29 years and Ms. Nahles was a reason to leave the party in 2008. – Jürgen Kussatz

Andrea Nahles' sabbatical year is almost over and she's already back in "wage and bread". She will be the new head of the Federal Post and Telecommunications Agency. The "ex-SPD bosses" don't look very long for the right job, this right job comes naturally to the "ex-SPD bosses". As Mrs. Nahles' first job, a change of name from the Federal Institute to a "Federal Agency" could look pretty good on her! Something so “unique” that may stay with her good name (Nahles) for all eternity! – Riggi Schwarz

Management traineeshipThe beginning of the article sounds more like an ambitious young mother in a qualified work process. No, it is about the notorious Andrea Nahles, who could afford, organizationally and financially, to cherish the chaos she left behind eight weeks after the birth of her child. For Andrea Nahles, the actual world was always politics with its lucrative posts and almost endless career opportunities and networks. She may have given the impression of a pro - a doer - at times through luck and her awkward and at times gutteral extroversion. Ultimately, the professional "doer" type she displayed was exposed through countless mishaps.

Step by step, the sponsored and publicly supported professional of a "power woman" became a political dabbler - one of many from the political slippers knitted especially for this purpose. And Andrea Nahles slips into such a political slipper of the "ideal world". She then inhabits a secluded site of the political system with zero charisma and no discernible talent for affection towards her 1,400 employees. An extremely well-paid profile of requirements for a boss just described! The word achievement is rather misplaced in this prose if the political achievement rendered could not be described as a “negative achievement”. – Rolf Schlicht

Your downright euphoric welcoming of a new Pstenschacher to the advantage of a failed SPD_politician will further increase the annoyance of the actual or supposed state elites. What qualifications does Ms. Nahles actually have in order to be able to head a higher federal authority. Why is the selection of the best for the public service once again being ignored without criticism of the Basic Law? Why is there no public tender? If you or your editors had only a rudimentary idea of ​​how the public service works, your article would have turned out differently. But keep it up, then unfortunately there will be even more votes for those who reject and abolish the system. – Rainer Wilmer

Letters to the Editor on “Back on the Road” by Kai Biermann et al.

Neither the number of infections so far (0.2% of the population) nor the number of people who died from the virus (0.01% or one death per 10,000 inhabitants) bear any relation to the lockdown measures and their economic impact that is even remotely understandable Consequences. These can probably only be explained if there is a worst-case scenario that is much, much more threatening. Such a scenario with maybe 60%-70% infected (herd immunity) multiplied by a mortality rate between 1.3% and 1.9% would then probably lead to a number of COVID victims that everyone both the measures and the The consequences of a hasty easing would be clear. In my opinion, politics and the media (unfortunately also Die Zeit) have completely failed to place the measures to contain the Corona Pandemic in such a context. If "one" still assumes that such considerations have certainly also been discussed in the editorial offices, but no one expresses an opinion, this is a great breeding ground for conspiracy theories. All experts are asked for leniency with my technically unfounded rough estimate, I would like to hear something substantial about it. – Frank Meierhoff

If Saxony's Prime Minister, in anticipatory obedience, actually believes that there is no need for vaccination if a corona vaccine is available, then - I'm sorry - he is obviously not up to his task. Mr. Kretschmer should also be guided by reliable scientific knowledge, but such a cave-in to opponents of vaccination and conspiracy theorists shows more than clearly that it is the fear of the populists that determines his actions. A state government has to stand on the side of the 70-80% of rationally thinking and democratically minded citizens and finally stop with the helpless and headless drivel to understand the rest. Any dialogue with opponents of vaccination, neo-Nazis and conspiracy theorists is forbidden, especially in the east of the republic. – Priv.-Doz. Dr.-Ing. Dipl.-Inform. Andrew Zabel

I've been faced with many mysteries over the last few weeks. Starting with the riddle of a virus, which 5 months after it broke out in China, obviously still cannot be assessed in terms of its danger, which is difficult to catch up on due to the lack of representative studies; about the riddle of the politicians who have fallen into pure actionism, first and foremost Mr. Spahn and Mr. Söder, who have rolled over themselves with restrictive restrictions, but find it difficult to comply with the rules; down to the biggest mystery: that of the press reports and articles in our newspapers and other media, all of which publish the information from press conferences without critical questioning and extensive research in order to report factually and informatively instead of panic and fear in the population spread and lies.

I also stand up for demonstrations against the Corona measures, I'm neither a conspiracy theorist (they like to deny that, as I've read), nor a right-wing extremist, nor am I the anti-vaccination per se. Maybe someone can plausibly explain the regulation to me as to why the hair has to be washed before cutting in the hairdressing salon to protect against infection due to the corona virus? And will we be made up around the face mask by the beautician from Monday? And will we not only have to register and store data in the restaurant in order to contain the virus, but also in the toilet at the motorway rest area? Anyone who can also explain to me why our children are confronted with signs at playgrounds that explain in pictures that they should wear face masks and not touch each other while 22 young men chase a ball on a green field for more than 90 minutes, the at least call me a weirdo! – Marion Speckling

Conspiracy theories are the omnipotence fantasies of the victims or the supposedly powerless, who do not want to take responsibility for grievances themselves and need someone to blame; and these always have what the conspiracy theorists would like to have for themselves, but sorely lack: public reputation, influence, money, power – all en masse. Whatever is objectionable and doesn't fit into simple explanations, but definitely the envied rich & seems to benefit famous ones must have been secretly devised and implemented by them - or by the evil state, which is the enemy of the conspiracy theorist simply because it has to serve not only him but everyone: a thing that Impossibility and therefore an unparalleled arrogance! At best, the heroic deeds of a single, almighty, good opponent help, but there are none in reality - at most in Super/Spider/Batman & Woman films. Exactly such heroic omnipotence fantasizing connects Jebsen, Naidoo & Cons. with Bill Gates impaled by them: he claims to have invented the almighty Internet as one of the chosen garage inventors - although it was the evil state that developed the basis for it with its taxpayers' money; Private individuals only got involved when it was clear that this would mean a huge rip off in their own pockets. – Benjamin Kradolfer

Those protesting the restrictions today are the same who would have protested if the government (as initially in some countries) had not done anything to protect the population. It's really annoying... - Nathalie Meinecke

To: “Back on the road” (Kai Biermann et.al.) 9 authors and no one notices the mistake! – Herman Weigman

I would like to cancel my subscription to ZEIT as soon as possible. In the past few months I have really enjoyed reading Die ZEIT. I found the attempt not only to bring news, but also to bring stories and classifications of the current situation as a weekly magazine, which look beyond the weekly and also to see journalism as a contribution to improving life, I found fundamentally successful, definitely exciting. The tendency to mutate into the “explainer of the nation” and to earn money with a certain need from people who want to know it “exactly” or maybe even “better” – let’s say a clientele who tend to overestimate themselves – is probably not to prevent and remained in my eyes at a tolerable extent.

On the other hand, I am somewhat at a loss when it comes to the latest developments in view of the Corona crisis. The tone has intensified. While ZEIT always prided itself on its efforts to achieve balance, you can now read abuse and mockery weekly and almost daily on ZEIT online. The people who are reported on do not seem to be worth differentiating. This includes, among other things, reporting on the demos against the Corona measures: Thousands of people are classified as “right-wing and left-wing radicals, conspiracy theorists, opponents of vaccination”, later supporters of the “self-proclaimed Resistance 2020 party” and sometimes also “supporters of a Christian group”. an enumeration that seems to say the essentials. Critics' arguments are not worth mentioning and are not answered. But that would be the most effective approach if the outrage is to remain small, as described yesterday in the article "No power to the ruthless" on ZEIT online.

Critics such as Wolfgang Wodarg and Bodo Schiffmann, both of whom strive for objectivity in all criticism, are initially ignored for a long time and later dismissed as "conspirators" as impressively as possible and with little justification. The number of unchallenged objections and qualified critics continues to increase, so to speak unchecked. I am not a friend of this life in parallel worlds. I am by no means the only one who is no longer able to bring the size of the current measures into a reasonable proportion to the health threat that has actually been confirmed. I would certify that I and those around me have a high level of critical competence when it comes to recognizing conspiracy myths and the like; I intervened several times when I had to identify figures of thought such as "they up there" and "we down here". But I am perplexed when I see how critics of all kinds see themselves marginalized.

e.g. also those who point out the health consequences of the lockdown measures, which arise, among other things, for people whose surgeries have been postponed or who prefer to keep a heart attack or stroke a secret for fear of infection in the hospital. Where was the critical accompaniment of state action in this difficult time when so many fundamental rights were restricted? Where is the courage to face critical questions openly? Where is the trust in the discourse? When the demonstration itself was described as a threat to public safety in the said article yesterday, I had my doubts about the firmness of ZEIT's liberal-democratic ethos for the first time. Thinking differently and criticizing has been set parallel to the virus itself several times, by Giovianni di Lorenzo himself in “Another Virus” on April 29th.

This parallel suggests that I have to be wary of those who think differently - because I could become infected and thus endanger not only myself, but my environment and ultimately society as a whole. I am stunned - these are figures of thought that must be avoided and combated at all costs if we care about the continued existence of our free order. I have therefore decided to resign. Maybe the ZEIT editorial team will reconsider their current orientation, then please let me know. I also send my reasoning to selected friends and acquaintances - because I dare to trust not only in our immune system, but also in our critical reason. -Samuel Dobernecker

In the analog world, protesters walk the streets with painted signs and reach 500 people. It has long been allowed to spread nonsense anonymously on the Internet for 50,000 followers. You have the greatest influence as a Wikipedia administrator: You prevent the publication of alleged “fake news” by others: You prefer to write your own crap and thus reach 5 million! Stupid only when politicians fall for the crazy sayings. One reads, for example, the texts on the “energy transition” written without thorough expert knowledge, 85% of which were written by the wiki administrator AN¬DOL, in bourgeois life local politician “Der Grünen” Andreas L. from Bavaria. As a proven energy economist, I can only urgently advise against using Wikipedia for energy policy issues. This platform is totally contaminated on politically explosive topics! – Prof. Emeritus Dr. Wolfgang Stroebele

Reporting on the demonstrations for fundamental rights - what is happening in our country?On Saturday 09.05. we went to Stuttgart – to get our own impression of who is demonstrating for what and what is going on there. What we found - 99% harmless: a motley cross-section of our people, normal people, concerned or just interested citizens of all ages and backgrounds, and of course (as at any large gathering) a few weirdos. The majority were there to stand up for the observance of fundamental rights, you saw many basic laws in hand, many others who have a problem with the vaccination plans that our government finally discussed, and some who questioned the factual sense of the currently implemented rules and those accompanying them Operations & question procedures. People kept their distance, it was very quiet, and the police, dressed in riot gear, watched calmly, obviously not needing to intervene.

Then the reporting (ZDF, daily press, etc.), according to which there are only "right-wingers", "AFD" "conspiracy theorists" (whatever that is, and wherever they come from so suddenly, they are now right-wing or even left, or just evil?) and "rockers" cavorted - all dubious and even dangerous elements, a decent citizen should stay away, one must take decisive action against it, etc., etc. - I am appalled. Because I am not all that, and neither were the people I saw there. This is not serious journalism and it is not decent. If I hadn't been there I might have believed it. We didn’t find a single recognizable “rightist” there, let alone groups or organized participants from this camp, and actually not “conspiracy theorists” either (that Bill Gates, the WHO and the RKI are somehow connected is generally available knowledge). Now a central question arises (and I don't want to go into whether what is being initiated here in the name of the crisis is factually justified or not based on the data available today, more than 10 weeks after the beginning of the "crisis", or individual "measures “ – e.g. the acute mask mania – discuss):

If this is the "right" side, that a perceived one-party state from left to liberal, green (West Runway was yesterday...) to red to Christian social, euphoric about the power of unprecedented exceptional legislation, to fascist Patterns of behavior collapse when people who have a different opinion are marginalized, slandered and demonized, when "solidarity" means to obey unconditionally without questioning, when the police stage a kind of war against their own people in a sometimes incomprehensible manner (solidarity?), when people are kept in fear and terror to follow the instructions - and if it is the "wrong" side that are dubbed here as "right-wing conspiracy theorists" - where do we actually want to be in this upside-down world? Who can you still trust? The ones we chose? Society is being divided more than ever before. And that worries me. – Axel Zott

There is no doubt that this global crisis will be exploited politically, in the media and in society, and people in precarious living conditions in particular will suffer as a result. This is bad and mean. Conspiracy theorists, including clerical ones, have always wanted to exorcise the devil with Beelzebub, behind the fig leaf of (pastoral) care they have fueled people's fear and mischief; indeed there is nothing new in this. The great publicist and writer Karl Kraus (1874-1936) was right back then: "The true end of the world is the annihilation of the spirit!" you think Armageddon is open to all. It is frightening and worrying how little understanding, enlightenment and reflective trust have been able to bring about over millions of years of human history and, in particular, over 70 years of democracy and a social constitutional state, including the 1968 movement.

Unfortunately, this crisis once again reveals the almost apodictic realization that intelligence, academic training and cleverness are not nearly the same thing. And that the varnish of so-called civilization has remained thin everywhere. It will probably remain a mystery to me why a relatively large number of people are consciously and/or unconsciously prepared to reject their own intellect, i.e. the offer of a reason-based dialectic, to a not inconsiderable, often radical and lasting extent. The socio-psychological effects of this thoroughly justifiable systemic behavior must inevitably lead to people rationally and emotionally entering or remaining in a vicious cycle of fear, insecurity and self-abandonment of their own personality, especially if applied continuously. But when we can no longer or do not want to take ourselves and our achievements in education, information and interpretation seriously, we lay hands on our own self-esteem, our own human meaningfulness. The “basic democratic right” (and the duty) to think along was not restricted during this crisis either. The well-known German author and lawyer Dr. Heribert Prantl in his political weekly preview that conspiracy theories are not theories but idiocies. And it is precisely these that make (correlative) understanding, understanding and, last but not least, the required differentiation, extremely difficult.

In addition, we should fundamentally ask ourselves the question of who or what we have in common with, especially publicly, when we take a socio-political position, whether in the context of demonstrations or letters to the editor. A basic responsibility towards ourselves and the democratic society, which of course should not be without honesty, truth and reality. At the latest after this crisis (and definitely before the next) a survey of our “entire social world” will be indispensable; i.e. the implementation of valid evaluations in all relevant specialist areas from medicine to sociology to law, including the interferences. Unfortunately, it must be and remain clear that life is extremely fragile at all times, and that nothing and no one can promise a secure future. – Matthias Bartsch

Alu hat versus blinkers Arguing about the sense or nonsense of conspiracy theories is tedious. On the other hand, it is much easier to condemn honest citizens from a broad spectrum as conspiracy theorists as soon as they dare to demonstrate at odds with published opinion. Was the virus put into circulation by the Chinese or by Bill Gates? Unlikely. Or not? Did the Americans actually go to the moon? Probably. Or not? Where both are within the realm of possibility, it is also possible to think of both. All the more so the more perfidious and subtle the methods of deception become. Thus, whether with or without an aluminum hat, one can simply leave the question of the origin of the corona virus open and focus on established certainties. For example, the worldwide crisis mode is driving an old interplay of capital destruction and over-indebtedness, which we otherwise only know as a result of global wars. And one of the war profiteers is always the financial system, which previously stood hopelessly with its back to the wall.

Nobody can seriously deny that the latter is not only the case in the EURO zone, but worldwide. Blaming the inevitable collapse on an invisible virus is a welcome alibi for those responsible. Equally undisputed is the fact that the accelerated digitization of all areas will hardly protect anyone from rising unemployment. On the contrary. With a growing population, digitization will massively increase the problem of unemployment, and with it the social centrifugal forces. The blinkers of the responsible politicians and economists can't be so big that they don't see this. Or should a completely different goal be pursued here? Or not? By the way: years ago, those who referred to the existence of the secret "Bilderberger meetings" were given an aluminum hat. You shouldn't believe it. Today we know more. Perhaps in a few decades we will know more about this crisis as well. However, whether one is still allowed to say it remains an open question. – Martin Hartman

It's probably a sign of our current situation that she's calling out the biggest jerks that no one asked for. They think they have to make themselves heard. If everyone were a little more self-sufficient, they wouldn't have to. Where does this dissatisfaction come from, where does the urge to show yourself off, no matter how feeble-minded the theories are? I often think to myself: why not just ignore it? Unfortunately, the cat bites its own tail: Because journalism is, in its constitution, dependent on constantly delivering something new and effective. True to Karl Valentin: “Everything has already been said. Just not by everyone.” It's a shame that people who aren't even worth paying attention to are given a platform again and again. – Maximilian Knaup

Letters to the editor about "Because they knew what they don't do" by Anna Mayr

I would like to thank you and the editors for the open, unbiased reporting of the bare facts. The majority of your profession will not dare to have an honest debate on this. 600 accredited journalists at the SPD party conference show how it is easier and more convenient to make a living as a journalist without research. You have done a disservice to those newcomers to politics who consider themselves elite and pay themselves. In times when self-censorship has become a matter of course, it takes a lot of courage. That is why I would like to express my special thanks to you, Ms. Mayr. It is very likely that the Bundestag committees will not be able to reduce the number of its members to the level specified in the Basic Law. This is where human reason fails. Party interests dominate the relevant debates. The voters who pay the BT budget are not consulted. The mandate of the members of the BT does not cover this irresponsibility. Democracy is at a disadvantage here. - R Schmolling

The volcanic winter (the term can be looked up on Wikipedia) is a Class_C risk. The volcanic winter occurred in the last millennium after the following 5 volcanic eruptions: Tambora 1815, Laki 1783-1784, Huaynaputina 1600, Kuwae 1453 and Samalas 1257. The consequences of a volcanic winter are likely to be significantly worse than the effects of Corona. Due to the lack of solar radiation, there will probably be considerable problems with the global food and energy supply. I estimate that the risk of a volcanic winter in the next 25 years is at least 10 percent. It is therefore very astonishing that this problem has so far received little attention. – Karl-Heinz Mayer

With the utmost modesty, a small thought on the text by Ms. Mayr, which makes a subtle difference: unfortunately only one... Even if many people yearn for her dearly; a felt reality cannot exist. Nevertheless, I can guess which type of world shifter you might be referring to. However, he is not on the move in a parallel existing, felt reality, but he refuses to allow that experience of powerlessness that we call reality and that all people share with each other. This is also where one of the roots of democracy lies buried. Today, people are once again aiming for the res publica. Do we want to allow them to claim the existence of a felt reality? Let us not allow ourselves to be shaken ontologically so easily. – Stephan Lehberger

Based on the idea of ​​people's ability to learn, Maja Göpel and Petra Pinzler draw the picture of a utopia in which our way of doing business and living is diverted from the track of the disastrous growth and market ideology to the track of an ecological and climate-friendly turnaround. A realistic utopia, because in the face of the corona crisis, our country has provided evidence that it is quite capable of setting such a fundamental course. Based on our tendency to suppress future dangers, Anna Mayr draws the picture of a dystopia: With our completely inadequate approach of stratified risk prevention, we are undeterred and run into forecast dangers. A realistic dystopia, because in view of the forecasts, exercises and reports on the risk of a pandemic, our country has once again proved that it was unable to set a preventive course. It is frightening how the members of parliament and decision-makers on whom Maja Göpel and Petra Pinzler place their hopes fail in Anna Mayr's picture. A forgiving move when Anna Mayr, with the thought that the improbable has become a bit more realistic, still allows a half-full glass to emerge. – Reinhard Koine

Anna Mayr puts her finger in self-inflicted wounds. Now it's "Open your eyes, switch on your mind and get going." - Monika Paris

I read your article on crisis and risk management “Because they knew what they weren't doing” with great interest. Raising readers' awareness and understanding to critically reflect on observations and developments is very important. The author is absolutely right when she emphasizes the problem of accepting certain realities using the example of the possible extent and the difficulty of calculating the probability of catastrophes. I was a crisis manager myself for many years, i.e. strategically and operationally responsible for resolving problematic situations in a large company. These situations were often so complex and at the same time subject to a very high pressure to act. In addition, in most cases there was little previous experience or predetermined solutions. The assessment of dangers, the taking of precautions, for example to introduce certain processes and the creation of technical prerequisites are the basis of good risk and crisis management.

I found the idea that responsible politicians regularly take part in workshops, evaluate critical scenarios in a team with experts and work on them in a structured way reassuring. Here I build on strengths in planning and logistics. Much harder to judge is the prioritizing and learning from mistakes part. Human factors often stand in the way here, but so does a culture of blame and competition. Trust that has built up is quickly lost, which is why some necessary discretionary decisions are ultimately not made. That is why I appeal above all to the know-it-alls, who are currently forming in anti-corona demonstrations, to exercise more restraint and respect the profession of the decision-makers and experts responsible for crisis management. – Alexander Stern

We canceled the time subscription years ago! Unfortunately, your last issue of May 14, 2020 is only for further checking, far from balanced reporting, no weighing up topics, e.g are guilty. Poor press, especially in times like these, you could contrast many things and let both sides have their say. Maybe the ZDF team just got a beating because a lot of people are fed up with your government subjects! It is not the demonstrators that are dangerous, but a government whose politicians have all mutated into medicine men and an RKI that is not independent but works as government employees. Many competent professors, e.g. Prof. Püschel, Prof. Bhagdis, Prof. Homburg, the list can go on indefinitely, are not heard or taken out of context or denigrated.

But on the part of the government and RKI, the true competence: For example, a second wave is continuously announced as a threat and to scare the public, although spreading fear is illegal! Masks were nonsense and unhygienic at first, now they are mandatory. Border closures will remain in place for a long time according to H. Seehofer, now they are lifted! No loosening according to Merkel and Söder, a few days later the loosening was there! Vaccination is compulsory according to Mr. Söder, yesterday it said no vaccination! etc, etc., e.g. Mr. Drosten, RKI, prepared us for the dangerous swine flu years ago and was wrong. Billions for thrown away vaccines back then! A good reason to take Mr. Drosten back as an expert, every day! Why isn't one differentiated between death from and WITH Corona? why are there no larger series of tests for different age groups who might already have antibodies? Why not distinguish between sick and infected?

Why? why is so much inconsistent and pointless? but it's forbidden to worry now, otherwise you're a "right-wing extremist"! We are not Covid 19 deniers, but creating such a scenario is completely ignorant of the disadvantages that are still to come in the social and medical fields and which the media does not deal with at all! Her article about Andrea Nahles could move you to tears, thank God she has a job again! Politicians, who are known to ALWAYS find their posts in the economy! So she can still lead a second life after all…. Your concern for Ms. Nahles at a time when millions of people are losing their livelihoods and are on short-time work due to the incompetence of the politicians (but they are duly pitied on page 3) shows complete disproportionality and incompetence! I congratulate us again on unsubscribing and future ignorance of your paper and I hope many people will do the same! – Irene Rieder

If the drinking water supply collapses, the smallest risk is that people die of thirst. You can get mineral water in the supermarket. Or go to the nearby river to get water. At least in the country. The danger is the lack of service water. Because no toilet will work anymore. That means people have to relieve themselves alternatively. If available, in a bucket in the garden, in the garage or in the bathroom. In large blocks of flats, the faeces will contaminate the stairwell. The places will start to stink. Such times will be reminiscent of the Middle Ages.

And this is where the RKI comes into play again, because then epidemic control is the most important tool. (Typhus and cholera) As far as I know, there are no specifications for such a case. In Germany, the water suppliers are obliged to maintain the water supply in the event of a disaster. There are requirements to do that. But are these also checked nationwide? If you think so. I am a water master and could give a full-length lecture on the German water supply and its deficits in the event of a disaster. – Klaus Gerbl

Congratulations on your article in "DER ZEIT" from May 14th, 2020. On page 3 in the Politics section, devote an entire page to the topic of the global pandemic that has just unfolded. In your polite manner you skilfully avoid getting to the heart of the matter, but without falling into the general stream of political claqeurs in the media. As carefully as you tried to deal with the areas of this topic, the central question treatment was not mentioned as much. That is the question of leadership. If leadership is necessary in such special situations, challenges, sudden events with their consequences, then it will and must show itself then. Napoleon's mother already stated in her (unfortunately banned book) that after the royal system there would come the rule of gray capital, where no one would be held accountable. She had said the right thing even then. To modify an example that can apply analogously here. The example on the question of the property of bankers. Quote: These are people who give out umbrellas when the sun is shining and collect them when it rains. It's the same with leadership.

Currently there are people in charge (in this country of ours) who know how to smile, shake hands and make small talk in the current flow of events, but have not had to bring any special skills with them so far. Above all, no leadership skills. This quality means being able to think faster and with more foresight, to assess correctly when danger arises and to be able to act with determination. A personality with suitable leadership acts confidently, with holistic thinking and with empathy for the community. Therefore responsible! In the case of the flood catastrophe in Lower Saxony at that time, there were, in addition to these losers, but there was also a Helmut Schmidt at the time. A scaffolding on a house does not collapse because the wind, swollen to a gale, was too strong. Or the planks under the footrests, or the hook in the wall was missing. It collapses because everything comes together at the same time. Not because of a single event. So let's look at one such error before the pandemic. The former Minister Westerwelle fervently preached the song about free liberality, which one absolutely has to observe under all circumstances.

A lot of companies took that literally and had the masks, goggles, gowns, gloves and chemical test equipment produced in the low-wage country of China. Not producible and subsequently deliverable in one's own country, i.e. would have been available at any time. Pure turbo capitalism, then, was this unlimited urge to maximize profits, embellished as liberalism. So are those currently responsible for the word liberality, where is this gentleman from the FDP, who is now committed to this prayer wheel statement by Chairman Westerwelle? Then we look at the structural flaws of capitalism as it is practiced. He has an effect here in his very own way. This is evident with full conviction in the example of Italy. The production of fashion items was not only made in China. No, there one has also avoided the entrepreneurial mass of the conceivable yield. Chinese were brought directly into the country as underpaid cheap labourers.

They then worked hard, were paid below the tariff for branded fashion such as Gucci. These branded items are sold at top prices in the rest of Europe. Because it was not just a few or just a few dozen, but more than 300,000 people who traveled to their country in China for the New Year celebrations, hundreds of them then started the infections in Italy. Reflexively, however, the Italians did not shout "MEA CULPA" but instead "we are innocent and supposedly rich Germany should pay for it." This expresses the Marxist idea that profits should be privatized and losses socialized. A third error should also be called by its name. Admitting mistakes is unique among politicians, isn't it? Only Ms Von der Leyen has publicly apologized for misconduct. The so-called "Minister of Health" Spahn, on the other hand, was not true to his oath of office either in October 2019, when the virus first appeared in China, nor in December 2019 when the pandemic was already named by the WHO, nor in January 2020 , to keep harm from the people acted. He also increased the damage.

He said in February 2020 that it was a harmless pathogen that was even less dangerous than a flu virus! The trust of large sections of the population has thus been abused and destroyed. Not only did he simply disregard and ignore all warnings that the WHO had communicated for a long time. In any case, he has completely failed to form his own opinion of the events in China. Against the background of the report you cited from 2013 called “Modi Sars”, which was also specifically presented again in 2017, he was occasionally to be prosecuted because he ignored it several times. The word ignorance hereby occupies the appropriate meaning, if it is not supplemented with negligent but with intent. In the context of this letter to the editor not all errors can be listed. A whole book would be too short to describe it.

Starting with the complete lack of advance warning to the public, the omission of comprehensive information during the decision-making chain, the omission of care, the nursing and auxiliary staff in the sick and old people's homes, which is already reminiscent of criminal behavior. The spread of the infection alone by this group of people who are already infected themselves probably amounts to thousands of cases. It should even far exceed Italian conditions, in this supposedly “well positioned and prepared country”, as Mr. Spahn publicly explained with fervor in March 2020. The example of Ischgl with only a few infected people shows the speed at which the virus is spreading. Mr. Yogeschwar rightly remarked that locking people up was appropriate to the Middle Ages in times of the plague. Contemporary would be s.E. the use of an app to track down an infected person. And to be faster than the virus, says Yogerschwar.

Refreshingly merciless, the virus uncovers past omissions in uninterrupted succession. Hundreds of infected people are known in the slaughterhouses, although the former minister (one of the FDP) had 30 million Deutschmarks paid out from taxpayers' money as emergency aid for the poor sinners. Inhuman conditions for people, as the revelations now show. As early as the Third Reich, people from “the East” were referred to as sub-humans. The treatment had to be carried out accordingly, it was said at the time. Not much seems to have changed in this respect, as can be seen in the current crisis. With the ducking away using the label "right-wing extremist", these disclosures are not even punished in the slightest. That would be decisive and decisive action for the first time. Through the leadership, if we had one in Germany that deserves the name! And the right-wing radicals in Germany, such as those gentlemen a'la' Kalbitz and Höcke, from the AfD, could also be asked in public what solutions they had in the matter of the pandemic.

If you don't get an answer, you could ask them about their area, which they are particularly familiar with. The field of the past and its guidance. What kind of Christmas did the former “oh so German leadership mean when they promised: … that the boys would be back home for Christmas. Devoid of any knowledge of land conditions in the invaded Russia. These gentlemen are by no means to be heard on the matter of the pandemic. So you can't erect a monument in Berlin at the Brandenburg Gate to honor them. So barren, the current government appears to be in the same vein in the pandemic. It would be nice if this pandemic were to end by Christmas! – H. Schumacher

Today I am turning to you with two comments: Last week I had to cancel my subscription to "Zeit". It's a measure I find difficult. I was a weekly Zeit reader with my husband for thirty years. Since I have to manage my finances very carefully in the course of the divorce, I had to decide to do so. I called a person in subscription management and said I've been a subscriber for a very long time but now I have to cancel because... so I gave the reason and I probably will once I get through this and know how much money I have available is very likely to resume my subscription.

Your associate was very strict in her stance on keeping me a subscriber and made offers that I found intrusive and unwilling to take up. The phone call got annoying after a while. I had to interrupt your employee. That sticks unpleasantly. And yet I see your newspaper as one of the most important in our country. Stay in our newspaper landscape. In issue no. 21, on page 3 of the politics section, there is an excellent illustration. This is one of the reasons why “Zeit” stands out from other sheets. Everyone stay healthy and continue to be there for the interested readers. – Gesa Hertzberg

Finally, the risk analysis of the "PANDEMIE DURCH VIRUS MODI-SARS" (Bundestag printed paper 17/12051 of January 3, 2013 / page 5 or pages 55 to 87) presented by the federal government at the request of the Bundestag is more detailed in an important German medium mentioned. However, question why so reticent. Because this 2013 analysis reads frighteningly like a script for today's SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Professionally with details on the enormous medical, administrative, technical, and in particular economic consequences, challenges for the Federal Republic. Quote p. 65: “So far there are no guidelines on how to deal with a mass infestation of infected people during a pandemic. This problem requires complex medical as well as ethical considerations and should if possible not only be considered in a special crisis situation". you! The author says: "The MPs (of the BT) completely ignored the paper".

Member of the Bundestag Prof. Karl Lauterbach, epidemiologist, (Deputy Member of the Health Committee of the Bundestag 2013-2017, SPD) when asked by Maybrit Illner, brushed aside the report with the comment (according to the content) that the report had not been implemented can be done because the responsibilities had not been clarified. That borders on cynicism. Shouldn't the health committee of the Bundestag immediately have asked the federal government to clarify responsibilities with the federal states and to initiate preventive measures? But even three federal health ministers did not take any of the precautionary measures required in their own analysis (prepared by the RKI) until the beginning of the corona pandemic! Gabor Steingart in the morning briefing of May 18 rightly called for the Bundestag to set up a committee of inquiry. Not to condemn individual politicians, but to get comprehensive precautions for the next pandemic under way as quickly as possible. - Harold N. Nestroy

Letters to the editor about "Should you still talk to them?" Dispute between Karl Lauterbach and Franziska Schubert

My day starts every morning with the ARD info night at 5.45 a.m., with "Kekule's Corona Compass" and his (crude) theories? Prof. Dr. dr Alexander S. Kekule is a renowned virologist and epidemic expert and holder of the Chair for Medical Microbiology and Virology at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg and Director of the Institute for Medical Microbiology at the University Hospital Halle. Then there are these "anonymous" conspiracy theorists who are constantly venting their "crude theories" to the people! Who actually hid the "Egg of Columbus" and where would the "yellow of the (Corona) egg" be found?

Eia popeia, what's rustling in the straw?(Children's song) "Eia popeia, what's rustling in the straw? The little goslings go barefoot and have no shoes. The shoemaker has leather, no lasts, so the dear little goslings go and have no shoes. Eia popeia, kill Kikelchen, don't lay eggs for me, and eat my bread, let's pluck out his little feathers and make a little bed out of them for the little child. Eia popeia, this is a need, who will give me a penny, with sugar and bread? If I sell my little bed and lie down on the straw, no feather will sting me and no flea will bite me.” (Text: Clemens Brentano, 1778-1842, German writer) – Klaus P. Jaworek

Just look at the two small profile photos of the two disputants! On the lower left side the strict, energetically looking Karl Lauterbach, highly intellectual, convinced of himself and his opinion, like the Lord God of his creation, even to think of another under his sublime dignity - opposite him the profile picture of a young, clever woman with an open look and a sympathetic smile, standing in the middle of all of our lives, that is not always just viewed and lived academically! No, Prof. Lauterbach, you may have a certain intellectual entertainment value and I also understand that this is now your hour – Franziska Schubert gets my flowers, my sympathy and approval! – Jurgen Franke

If you look at the scaremongering by politicians, the RKI, the media and the omnipresent Mr. Söder and Dr. Lauterbach has been observing for some time, the question may be asked whether it is perhaps having worse effects than the pandemic itself. Who - in whichever country - actually records the number of deaths caused by fear-related missed visits to the doctor or hospital treatment? What would a numerical comparison look like, for example, with the according to Dr. Lauterbach as 'irresponsible' Swedes? – Hans Ludwig Scherer

If Herr Lauterbach sees no reason to mingle with "the people" as a "politician", he reveals a world view that sees the politicians as the sole doers - and that means as "rulers" (read by Hannah Arendt) - over the people as those affected by their actions. He needs people who “believe in our politics” – just like a patient has no choice but to believe in his doctor's therapy. With this understanding of politics, is it any wonder that distrust of democracy is growing? The corona pandemic is an enormous social challenge. Countless people fight day after day - often with insufficient means and improvising - to ensure that the number of victims does not increase much faster and that public life is somehow maintained. And very many also see the crisis as an opportunity to think about our society, about the tyranny of profit, the economization of the health system, the galloping destruction of the environment, a global economic system that cuts off any development opportunity for a large part of humanity.

There is a great willingness to put many things to the test. Meanwhile, the politicians are just staring at how the ante situation could be restored as quickly as possible. Corrections? Citizens can write petitions again later, when "everything is over". Incidentally, these citizens are affected in very different ways by the pandemic and the restrictions. For some there are only a few inconveniences, for others their entire economic existence is threatened. If politicians demand compliance with the restrictions as solidarity in the interest of everyone, they must also give signs of solidarity themselves - for example by paying a basic income to all non-permanent employees. The relief from worrying about the immediate livelihood could unleash enormous creativity for initiatives and offers that make it easier for everyone to get through the crisis. None of this can be felt in politics. As always, it acts according to the principle “whoever has, will receive”. She haggles over every additional euro that should, for example, enable Hartz IV recipients to survive.

When the AfD, which itself is pursuing a radically liberal economic program, spreads the myth among the protesters that ruthless ramping up of the economy, car purchase bonuses, etc. are the solution to a crisis that is only fake anyway, they understandably find an audience. But Herr Lauterbach certainly doesn't want to meet people who believe such nonsense. The lowlands in which the unenlightened hang around, he expects at best to be journalistically filtered. However, more and more people from families who have been social democratically active for generations are among those who have reneged on the consensus demanded by Lauterbach. Should the SPD intend to seriously consider why their poll numbers are stagnating - this would be a starting point. – Susanne Rother

1:0 for Franziska Schubert! When I read the title question of the article, I immediately thought: yes, but of course! What else? Disqualifying a part of society numbering in the millions as “crazy”, “mob” and “muddleheads” and cutting it off from the discourse like Lauterbach does and hoping that their opinions will somehow disappear into thin air – is that politics? Arguments are hopeless anyway? Yes, where is the belief in the better argument, in the principle of democracy? In the age of fake news, has this belief already been declared yesterday's toy? Who decides, according to which criteria, who is not worthy of a speech as a "crazy"? The ones who are right? And who is right? The ones in power? And here we are with the arrogance of the powerful, which outrages so many and drives them to extremes. If you want to speak for everyone, you have to speak to everyone! And above all: how will those who have been described in such a disparaging way react to it?

According to all life experience, they will entrench themselves, rebel, obstinate, unite, radicalize - at least exacerbate the division. To expect any other reaction would be unrealistic. In other words, they would be upgraded precisely through derogatory ignoring and not through the downright subversive idea of ​​the Greens Franziska Schubert, who stands with the sign "ready to talk" in the middle of those who believe they no longer have to speak because they already do know everything. Come on, this gesture seems to me to say, get out of your opinion incubators, where the law of mutual confirmation and incitement reigns, step out into the fresh air of free discourse and let's cross swords there according to the well-known rules of reasonable discussion. Show what you've got!

That would be the factual level. A child who wakes up trembling because there is a “ghost” behind the curtain shouldn't be called nonsense either, but, let's have a look. Ok, this isn't about kids, but a little psychology doesn't hurt either. That would be the relationship level. I believe, if anything, an opinion that is clearly refuted publicly will die sooner than one that has been condescendingly excluded from the conversation. Lauterbach admits that politicians have to "explain and explain" but that they do "constantly". Well, in the case of the refugee crisis, many things were really “poorly justified”, but with Corona “they are working so intensively precisely so that the mistakes of 2015 are not repeated”. Really? Communicative everything paletti? No, not everything, Lauterbach admits: "I think it was a mistake to initially talk down the value of masks, even though we knew they bring a lot - but are not available."

And then Mr. Lauterbach is surprised that politicians are treated with distrust? He blabs out the principle of government-friendly opinion manipulation in a very candid manner and doesn't realize that he is confirming exactly what this "mob" is claiming: Those up there still have something to hide! In this way, for a short-term "advantage" - well-meant or not doesn't matter - long-term trust in "those up there" is tricked. I mean: Let's get everyone into the conversation - everyone! all the time! persevering! Let's listen and let our better arguments speak. We have them - right? However, they will only win if they are not PR-shaped packaging of their own interests, image cosmetics and/or attempts at manipulation. We're not that stupid. Not all. Almost all don't. – Michael Kokoschka

Mr. Lauterbach represents a privileged class that obviously knows neither hardship nor poverty. "Naive" was the view that unlimited growth brings prosperity for all people. It is now becoming apparent that the privileged are still benefiting even in the Corona crisis. Are we surprised at the demonstrations and emotions directed against the excesses of a failed neoliberal economic and social policy? To say now: "I don't think that we have an obligation to mingle with the people to make up for alleged omissions" is not very forward-looking. Be careful that German politics does not lose credibility like in the USA! -Walter

These so-called hygiene demonstrations are harmful, it is worrying when one observes which groups are coming together here with their views and intentions. The health risk that one exposes oneself and others to by participating in such an event, completely disregarded. I can therefore agree with Mr. Lauterbach on all points, with one exception: I do not think that Ms. Schubert offered herself to the demonstrators when she went and signaled a willingness to talk. That is worthy of all honor. Among the demonstrators are certainly people with honest concerns or, for example, those who have to fear for their financial existence due to the "Corona measures". I hope Ms. Schubert can reach you. But even these demonstrators should not lose sight of the fact that we are in a serious, exceptional situation that is also completely new territory for those responsible for politics.

It is incredibly difficult to always make the right decisions here, and it is simply possible that the measures that have been taken only later turn out to be inappropriate or even wrong. Or just as completely right! I have complete confidence in our politicians that they are aware of how serious the restrictive measures are for everyone and are striving to relax or lift them as soon as possible. There is no master plan to combat the Corona Pandemic, anywhere. You don't have to look far. A quick look at other European countries may help to see how far restrictions due to the Corona Pandemic can go. In addition, the demonstrators must not ignore who else they are taking to the streets with. In the late 70's (or early 80's) I was at a student demonstration.

It was about some school law reform. We were against it. In the middle of the demonstration, RAF sympathizers distributed leaflets with their slogans. They asked us to chant them too. I can still remember one of the slogans well: "Buback, Ponto, Schleyer, the next one will be a Bavarian." That was the end of the demonstration for me. I left them because I didn't want to have anything in common with these people or be lumped together with them. Needless to say, you didn't care at all about our concerns. I can only warmly recommend the reasonable participants of the hygiene demonstrations to make the jump in time. I myself think the time has passed. - Regina Stock

The argument between Ms. Schubert and Mr. Lauterbach reminds me a little of the controversy between the 3 ZEIT editors, who accused ex-Federal President Gauck of putting his finger on the right edge and losing his whole hand in the process. Karl Lauterbach's position not to take part in a demo under the motto "Resistance 20" is consistent. The dispute between him and Ms. Schubert is about two points 1. Participation in a mixed resistance demonstration 2. Criticism of the measures taken against the Corona Pandemic Point 2 can be quickly agreed upon. Yes, mistakes were made. In such a case, who really knows what is right and what is wrong? The debate will continue. The future will show.

There remains point 1 and the question of whether the different opinions and interests can be adequately clarified at a demo, for example with a poster "ready to talk". That sounds a bit naive. Does anyone seriously believe that they can educate themselves in this way or even capture the voice of the people? The purpose of a demonstration is to attract attention and resist, as the rally's motto proclaims. But against what? No one can counter the heterogeneous fears and demands that mix there with arguments. Participation would only play into the hands of the undifferentiated protest of the followers of conspiracy, esotericism, mysticism and right-wing thinking. This is not good for democracy. Participation is thankfully allowed in a democracy, but as an elected representative in a representative democracy you don't have to go through the detour of the extra-parliamentary opposition. - dr Klaus Tuch

Enclosed the first letter to the editor of my life for No. 21 from May 14th, 2020 and/or the following issues. I've been reading Die Zeit for 25 years, I'm the mother of a family in Cologne: My husband and I are in our mid-40s, both self-employed and have three children together. The demonstrations and the conspiracy theorists affect a large part of their output. My letter to the editor refers to various articles, including the dispute between Mr. Lauterbach (CDU) and Ms. Schubert (Greens) The "Zeit" as well as Ms. Schubert wonder what moves people to demonstrate and turn to "conspiracy theories". An attempt at an explanation: Every scientist, every entrepreneur, every employee, every person knows: If a problem arises, all opinions are heard and carefully weighed up in order to decide on the solution in order to achieve the best result. If our government did this extensively, the citizens did not notice anything in the short time between May 6th and 11th, when the 180 degree turn in corona policy took place.

We were not allowed to support a decision that will have far-reaching consequences for our society in the coming years, and which will override almost every fundamental right. There was no public debate about the ethical dilemma of "weighing the suffering and death of the pandemic in the here and now against the ongoing, creeping suffering and creeping death of our citizens in the years and decades to come". No articles about it in the media that would have made the corona policy understandable for the people. Instead of relying on the self-responsibility of their responsible voters (such as the Swedish government), regulations were issued. Nothing has ever been achieved through coercion except resistance, fear, and anger. Miss Dr. Merkel did not want any "discussion orgies" and those who thought differently were immediately devalued by politicians and the media as cranks, conspiracy theorists, right-wing or left-wing radicals. However, the vast majority of the demonstrators are people from mainstream society:

Families, employees in social professions, in care, doctors, entrepreneurs, freelancers who neither question nor want to destroy the basic democratic order. On the contrary: it lives through them. Certainly the increasing willingness to demonstrate is now also attracting radical groups. Unfortunately, this is very counterproductive, but it has actually always been the case with demonstrations of all kinds and ages. I consider the development of the media and politics to divide society into "good/discipline" and "bad/risk" to be very questionable. I would like to see more prudence and wisdom in their choice of words. I would like more differentiation. In every sense. The ignorance with which Mr. Lauterbach in the "discussion", representative of many politicians and media, treats these demonstrators is unwise and dangerous.

I fear that this resistance, which is desirable and necessary in a democracy, could turn into anger if critical citizens who are concerned about the future of our society continue to be branded as antisocial and lacking in solidarity. Instead, the question of why there is a demonstration at all, as Mrs. Schubert (Green Party) is trying to do, should be really seriously investigated. I am a non-partisan, political and medical layman. Nevertheless, as a carrier of general education and common sense, I feel capable of analyzing and questioning developments and processes. I criticize the scale of the measures, which I believe cause more suffering and more death in our society in the long term than the virus itself, and I wish for a return to parliamentary democracy and our fundamental rights. In my opinion, it is the smallest and the weakest in our midst who are suffering and the longer our state of emergency lasts, irreparable damage will be done.

I'm more surprised that so few people are taking to the streets to peacefully defend themselves against the restrictions on their fundamental rights: "When the vaccine is available early and in the middle of next year, there will be no more restrictions and we'll sweep." Finally back to normal life” (Head of the Chancellery Braun, Tagesschau 16.5.) Seriously? Gyms and swimming pools open before kindergartens and schools? Seriously? An immunity card allowing travel and other “rights”? Seriously? The Federal Ministry of Health is considering a possible abolition of the profession of alternative practitioner? (The FIRST / Panorama) Seriously? The reproduction number "R" of the RKI, used by our government as a basis for decision-making. was already below 1 before the shutdown due to our socially responsible behavior, the healthcare system has not collapsed, hospitals are vacant and are reporting short-time work, more people are dying from a lack of medical care than from Covid-19.

A lack of emergency medicine for heart attacks and strokes, a lack of check-ups, delays in treatment and non-detection of cancer diseases will result in unnecessary deaths in the course of the year and in the years to come. Excess mortality may still occur in 2020, but it is the fault of the political measures. "Stay at home", lack of exercise weakens our immune system and causes thrombosis (pulmonary thrombosis is the most common concomitant disease of the "Covid-19 autopsies), the lack of fresh air weakens the immune system, the lack of germs, bacteria and viruses weakens the immune system because it stops exercising, fear weakens the immune system. What happens to our unimmunized, weakened society in the fall? At the next wave of influenza. Even if it turns out to be a "normal," mild flu, more people will die from it than they should. What happens when Covid 19 or a new Covid xy hits our weak immune system?

I won't even go into detail about the effects of the political measures on the economic and psycho-social development of our society. It's overdue to stop the shutdown completely. Anything else is grossly negligent in my opinion. In my opinion, the government will have to account for this in the future, but who benefits from this accountability? What irreparable damage was caused then? I conclude with the words of Mr. Schäuble, President of the German Bundestag: "But when I hear that everything else has to take second place to the protection of life, then I have to say: That is not correct in this absoluteness." Because death is part of everyone's life, he explained in an interview on April 26, 2020. In accordance with Sections 1 and 2 of our Basic Law: Human dignity is inviolable. (...) Everyone has the right to free development of their personality, (...) Everyone has the right to life and physical integrity. The freedom of the person is inviolable (...) There is no right to health. – Susanne Augustinski

The conversation reveals two very different types of politicians. On the one hand, there are the elite university lecturers and established political professionals, who are seriously convinced that simply being there as a discussion partner would add value to a demonstration. Incidentally, the ancient Greeks coined the term hubris for this. On the other hand, the young but experienced politician who has recognized that there are things in social interaction that elude rationality. But that's exactly the point here. These diffuse fears in connection with the pandemic cannot be countered with rational arguments in interviews or video conferences. Even his 13-year-old daughter, whom he proudly mentions, could certainly point out to Mr. Lauterbach that a direct conversation is necessary. By the way, Mr. Lauterbach's selfish reference to the increased risk of infection during demonstrations further devalues ​​him in my eyes. Chapeau, Ms. Schubert, your active willingness to engage in discussions on site requires courage and deserves my full appreciation. – Jens-Uwe Bliesener

Letters to the editor on "Abolish the prisons!" by Thomas Galli

I have to say that you gave me an article that was difficult to digest here. I've heard and read many psychologists and social workers ranting about prison obsolescence. But such a series of platitudes and things I've heard a hundred times leave me speechless. I wish Mr. Galli all the best in his future as a lawyer. Due to his empathy, he is ideally suited for this. But one can be grateful to him or whoever that he gave up or had to give up the job of a prison manager. Attesting to the "deterrent effect" of a packet of cigarettes in prison. So that wouldn't even occur to a SozPed. In my healthy opinion, prison is not supposed to act as a “deterrent”, but to protect people from criminals and to give them appropriate punishment.

As a mere deterrent, maintaining them would be too expensive. The idea that our prisons are of no use to anyone can only occur to someone who had a lousy feeling in his stomach before he became head of the prison and was then completely traumatized. I can only say one thing to Mr. Galli: the majority of our society is in favor of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. In this respect, local criminals, manslayers and the disturbed of all kinds can count themselves lucky and in God's hands that they live here and were criminals here and convicted here. They would never be better off anywhere in the world. I am not judging here whether or not we have too lax a penal system and a too lax judiciary. I'm just using my common sense here. “Decentralized residential groups” for offenders or “driving license withdrawal” as a substitute for punishment I call crazy ideas. – Boris Bogunovic

The article "Abolish the prisons" by Thomas Galli in the ZEIT of May 14, 2020 is completely convincing. As a former prison manager, Mr. Galli knows the matter from his own experience. His arguments for the abolition of prison in its current form are not new. Each of these arguments can be supported by a wealth of scientific studies. Only a public discourse about it has not taken place in recent years. Apparently, the current system of criminal justice – like the prisons themselves – is protected from any critical debate by high and stable walls, and none of the political parties dares to touch this hot potato. I am very pleased that ZEIT has the courage to to give space to such a critical voice. - dr Lothar Helm

Plausible, agree! – Gernot Henseler

Amen. I'm convinced that as societies progress, they will eventually realize this, but I fear it will take quite a while. – Sven Raschke

Thomas Galli, as a former prison chief, has presented important arguments for changing the penal system in Germany and, as a member of a reform commission, should continue to pursue the issue. The film "Two Eyes, Twelve Hands", which was shown in the grandiose original version at the Berlin Film Festival before Easter 1961 and describes how an English colonial officer in India with six Indian serious criminals in a free country, could help him -Commune pursues social rehabilitation, initially with success, until a jealous cattle herd owner ruins the livelihood of these seven people by trampling on the fields and the officer dies defending those entrusted to him. In the final picture, those who have been tied up see their benefactor painted in the sky as a cloud picture, as if he had risen!

In the planned reform commission, an idea of ​​the Pope should also be discussed: abolition of life imprisonment in its current form! PS As a student of German at the Freie Universität in Berlin, I noticed on the occasion of a literary work on child murderers of the Goethe era that women abandoned by their lovers killed their children in an illegitimate birth and were therefore subject to the death penalty. Only Frederick the Great criticized this, while Goethe's grandfather did not question the relevant law. – Dietrich Bauer

This uncommented article in ZEIT is a slap in the face to the victims and the end of my subscription to ZEIT. – Joerg Schaldach

Here is a very bizarre suggestion: There is a court hearing, but without a judge. The judges are replaced by citizens who have registered as "judges". Any German can register. The registered judges take part in the court proceedings as spectators via the Internet. The criminal process is only shaped by the interplay of the public prosecutor and the defense attorney. A maximum of 3 days is allowed for this interplay. Since most court hearings last much longer than 3 days, the facts must be broken down into small pieces, each of which is decided individually by judgment. After each negotiation/partial negotiation, the "Internet judges" speak their verdict by simply awarding a number of points between 1 and 100.

If the score, together with previous scores, is less than 100, the accused is released. The number of points is only entered in all ID cards/documents/Internet. (Regarding China's social scoring: "smart approach", Chamber of Commerce President Wuttke). If the number of points is over 100 (as mentioned, added up with previous ones), the convict goes to the island. On the island (more precisely two islands for men and women) there is no state authority, no church or other private organization. Of course, no visits from anyone. The people are supplied only by air (helicopter, parachute). In any case, your stay there is lifelong. — Ulrich George

The article "Abolish the prisons" narrows the focus on pure special prevention, i.e. the "improvement" of the individual convict. Prisons really don't do much, because prison is the state's sharpest sword and is therefore inevitably extremely unpleasant for the prisoner. It is nonetheless necessary as a last resort, precisely in order to actually have to carry it out as rarely as possible. For each completed sentence, there are hundreds of suspended prison sentences and fines that could not be implemented without the JVA's sword of Damocles. Without the threat of imprisonment, it would actually be up to the convicted person to decide whether they wanted to comply with their probation conditions or pay the fine.

Here, with the conditions of probation and the processing of fines through community work, the special prevention that the author misses takes place. The author also ignores the general preventive effect of prison sentences and their importance for a fair settlement of guilt. It is essential for the cohesion of our society that the honest do not have the impression of being stupid, while the bold laugh up their sleeves. This requires that the state has the option, if necessary, to drastically sanction the bold. – Martin Siepermann

Chapeau to Mr. Galli, who managed to get to the heart of the misery of our prison law in a short, very apt article on the current situation of the German penal system. He describes a human dilemma that very impressively reflects the eye for an eye principle from biblical times in the context of our current understanding of the law. The deterrence goal of our penal institutions is more than questionable because none of the potential criminals even think in the slightest about the consequences for the victims and for you personally of your more or less planned act, let alone feel remorse, this act to perform. In addition, our correctional facilities are more likely to be breeding grounds for further violence and are in no way correctional facilities or places for reflecting on the consequences of your actions.

Our judiciary should focus much more on the measures demanded by Mr. Galli to gain insight through social services and the associated compensation for the missteps of the victims or the general public than locking them away according to the motto: Out of the eyes out of mind. Which judge has ever asked a convicted criminal the question: "How do you want to make up for the damage you have caused..." This question would perhaps be a start that would force the convict to reflect on his crime. Many thanks for these interesting insights from a man who knows what he is writing about and has drawn the consequences for himself from his findings. – Rudolph Sommer

Letters to the editor about "Authority in the storm" by Anna-Lena Scholz and Jan Schweitzer

The gain in knowledge of this hyper-long article: nothing that has already been chewed through umpteen times. this is called “premium journalism”. – Peter Dressler

Breaking an egg? On the one hand, the gentlemen are accused of being too powerful - on the other hand, do you expect even better information and information? Science is not the oracle of Delphi with the absolute truth in its pocket... Science lives from processes and knowledge and of course this also includes the freedom to revise statements - and the courage to do so! – Stefan Schissler

In the article BEHÖRDE IM STURM you report interestingly about the RKI. It is also briefly about the various figures that are published and discussed. What I miss there is an explanation of the numbers. What do reproductive factor or new infection changes mean for risk and people? Why was the focus always changed? … I would like a comparison of the values ​​over time and an explanation of what they mean to us and, if there is, a hint how I infer from one value to another. What conclusions can be drawn from the data. - Iman Schwäbe

In Zeit No. 21, you address the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) in the article "Authority in the storm". I would like to make the following comments on this: I. Your information on "False positive findings" On page 28 you report that experts accuse the RKI of not having researched in a representative study how many citizens are ill. For such, 30,000 people would have had to be saved. The problem, however, is that the tests also produce false positives. That is why the RKI would now favor a different route and want to use antibody tests to investigate how many citizens have already been through “Corona”. Could it be that you made a mistake here? A disease with Covid-19 is detected with a PCR test. As far as I know, the institute of Dr. Drosten developed. dr Drosten now claims that the PCR test is highly specific. His team investigated this question and observed NO false positives. In other words: zero false positives in the PCR. (But maybe this info is out of date. Admittedly, my knowledge of this question is a few weeks old.)

The antibody tests work technically completely differently. They also target something else. False-positive results are definitely found in the antibody tests. How large this probability of error is obviously also depends on the manufacturer of the test. II. The following comments with calculations in the appendix concern: 1. False positive findings and conditional probabilities: How quickly the validity of tests goes to its knees 2. Criticism of the RKI: Why it would have been necessary to increase the number of "newly infected" to be put into perspective with the number of tests to 1. How blatantly false positive results affect the validity of tests and what can be done about it (if money is not an issue) The false positive results or false negative results hang depends significantly on the incidence of the disease. For a given false positive frequency, the following applies: the lower the disease frequency in the population group you are examining, the more “false positives” you will get in the test.

Even with a low rate of false positives, the number of "false positives tested" can quickly exceed the number of "true positives" to such an extent that the meaningfulness of the test result falls to its knees. That is also one of the reasons why doctors and medical statisticians call for tests to only be carried out on risk groups. Because the incidence of disease is higher in risk groups, the validity of the test results is also better there. I calculated how the false positives affect the example of a fictitious test of 100,000 subjects. Namely for different false positive error rates and for these in each case for different disease frequencies. The table in the appendix shows how the significance of a test result decreases as a function of the disease frequency. And how quickly a test that you think is very reliable due to the low error rates, the result then only has little significance. (The pdf shows the results. You can understand and check the calculations in the Excel table.)

The validity of tests with false positives and/or false negatives can certainly be increased. And through multiple testing. That's why three tests were carried out on Chancellor Merkel. It was about securing the negative findings from the chancellor. The fact that this test cascade works mathematically is related to the conditional probabilities. The reasoning goes as follows: The negative result of the (third) test is reliable under the condition that the second test has already produced a negative result after the first test has already produced a negative result. This beautiful book provides aha effects for laypeople with an understanding of mathematics: "The dog that lays eggs". Here, two experts from Hamburg describe the pitfalls of statistics and conditional probabilities in an understandable and entertaining way. The authors are Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter Beck-Bornholdt and Hans-Hermann Dubben. On 2: Why it would have made sense to put the "newly infected" into perspective with the number of tests per day: In my opinion, the RKI and the Ministry of Health deserve criticism insofar as these institutions did not advocate a kind of "pandemic controlling system" at an early stage “ have taken care of. In your article you also write that for ten years there has been discussion about building a modern infrastructure for data collection. This is – once again – embarrassing!

How can it be that the executive and its authorities, e.g. RKI, can "force" all citizens into their apartments, but are apparently unable to oblige doctors and laboratories to provide important figures in the event of a pandemic delivery? An important number would have been the number of daily tests, for example. Because: The more people are tested, the more “new cases” are found. The knowledge you get in elementary school is enough to calculate that. However, the RKI did not collect the number of tests regularly or continuously. Why not? It is easy to calculate that there is a distortion of perception if you only look at the number of "newly tested positive" aka "newly infected" if more tests are carried out from day to day. Example: You take 1,000 tests in one day. With a disease frequency of 1% you will find 10 sick people. The next day you do 2,000 tests and according to Adam Riese you find 20 sick.

Now if you just look at the string of absolute numbers - 10 sick on the first day. Then 20 sick on the second - then you get the impression that the disease is spreading rapidly. But she doesn't. In the example, we had kept the incidence of illness constant. You will also find a file on Corona for this effect in the attachment. Incidentally, the data comes from the RKI. Unfortunately, this did not record the number of tests regularly, but only very late and only for a few weeks. These interesting figures were also rarely published. Why? These numbers seem to be quite important for assessing the situation in a pandemic. Why are the absolute values ​​of the "newly infected" (correct would be: "newly tested positive") published daily without being put into perspective with the appropriate values ​​for "number of people tested". It's been like this for months. It is apparently the case that the RKI cannot oblige the laboratories or doctors to report the number of tests carried out - it would be better to also report the number of people tested. Why not? The number of laboratories is relatively manageable. That's a few hundred or thousands. Not more. Their addresses are either already known or would be easy to research. The fact is that the RKI only queried the number of tests very late. The RKI published such values ​​for the two calendar weeks KW 11 and KW 12 for the first time in the management report of March 26th, 2020.

I would like to use this example to briefly explain why these numbers are important - in my opinion both for information for politicians and with a view to the population. The RKI published these values ​​on March 26. for week 11 Tests carried out: 127,457 positive tests: 7,582 This corresponds to: 5.9% (percent) new corona positives for week 12 Tests carried out: 348,619 positive tests: 23,820 This corresponds to: 6.8% (percent) new corona - Those who tested positive In week 12, almost 2.74 times as many tests were carried out as in week 11. No wonder that the absolute number of people who tested positive also increased sharply within a week. But: If you only look at the absolute numbers of the "newly tested positive", which has been happening since the beginning of the corona pandemic due to the published "lean" data, you quickly get a distorted impression of how quickly the pandemic is spreading: week 11 - > 7,582 "newly infected" week 12 -> 23,820 "newly infected" This representation suggests an increase in the "newly infected": by 16,238 or a tripling within just one week!

That's something that can scare you, isn't it? Most of this tripling could easily have been attributed to the fact that around 2.74 times as many tests were carried out in week 12 as in week 11. The increase from 5.9% (per cent) positive tests to 6.8% (Percent) positive tests, on the other hand, is only 0.9 percentage points (percentage points). This is NOT a tripling, just an increase of: 15% (percent) (= 0.9 / 5.9 x 100). I calculated these values ​​based on the current "Epidemiological Bulletin No. 20/2020" from the RKI for the weeks up to and including week 19. – Rudiger von Schoenfels

DIE ZEIT on the day of Saint Corona (May 14), Anna-Lena Scholz and Jan Schweitzer "Authority in the storm" The state may only command its citizens what they can also obey ("Ultra posse nemo obligatur") Das RKI wrote to me on April 6th that it "makes sense" to cover your mouth and nose. The RKI does not limit the meaning of a corresponding commandment/order to the protection of "others". Logically and as a matter of course, one's own (!) covered mouth is also extensively protected if an uncovered mouth of an "other" (!) who is acutely infected ever gets too close to a covered mouth. Accordingly, the Chancellor only needs three words to say aptly: "Distance and face mask!" After the RKI mail of April 6th, why understandably does it still take some time for the first orders from state governments and municipalities?