The new health policy spokesman for the Union parliamentary group, Tino Sorge, criticized Health Minister Lauterbach in his first week in office. In an interview, the Magdeburg MP says what is going well and what is going badly in the fight against pandemics – and how the CDU can become stronger again in the east.
ntv.de: Today we have 70 percent twice vaccinated. A reason to be happy?
Tino Sorge: Anyone who gets vaccinated and thus reduces the risk for themselves and others is a cause for joy. Ultimately, it’s not just about joy, but about encouraging and convincing people to get vaccinated. This is the only way we can get the pandemic under control. Vaccination is the way out of the crisis.
How do you think the vaccination campaign is going?
Thanks to our joint work with the SPD in the previous government, it is going very well: I think that surprised many. The point now is that we don’t get lost in discussions about small and small, but rather that we motivate people to be boosted.
This week you criticized Health Minister Karl Lauterbach for his statement that there was a threat of a vaccine shortage. Do you understand his reasoning by now?
The comments surprised us. If you look at the figures from the Federal Ministry of Health on the deliveries that are planned for this and next year, it is incomprehensible to speak of a vaccine shortage. To this day, the minister has failed to provide evidence for his thesis. We have contracts that provide for sufficient vaccine deliveries. It would have been correct to speak to us parliamentarians first instead of appearing in front of the media. Sitting with Markus Lanz and diving for two days without providing evidence for his claim, first unsettling people and then pinching in front of parliament – that’s bad style. He even rejected the health committee for a special meeting that was due to take place soon.
Lauterbach explicitly did not criticize his predecessor, but the thought is obvious: Jens Spahn did not buy enough.
It is clear what impression he wanted to create with his statements. In the meantime he has rowed back. The reproach is a point that cannot be left standing. When it comes to the question of the vaccine quantities, it also plays a role whether they are vaccinated and whether they are effective against the current virus variant. If Mr. Lauterbach now announces additional doses, it is transparent, but old hat. They were already provided as an option in the contracts. The success of the booster campaign is not due to the new minister, but to the previous government, especially Jens Spahn. We should see the success of the vaccination campaign much more often in Germany.
Did Karl Lauterbach do something right in his first days?
He tried hard, but many see a false start. By now he should have realized that it is something different whether you go to talk shows, whether you simply send a tweet quickly – or whether you make a statement as a minister.
The booster campaign could have started earlier. Shouldn’t Spahn have to insist that she get going earlier?
This can be argued about, but one must not forget that many developments were not foreseeable even in late summer. At the time, Karl Lauterbach himself questioned whether it even made sense to boost everyone over the age of 18. To say today that you should have ordered a lot more back then is easy. I can imagine what kind of discussion about wasting taxpayers money would have flared up if, conversely, millions of cans were lying unused in the warehouse.
But isn’t it better to prepare for the worst than let the worst surprise you?
That is also correct, we all had to learn that in the pandemic. You had to make decisions in very dynamic situations. This always included questions of procurement and quantities. However, it was not foreseeable that so many people would be boosted later. When it became clear that the booster campaign was due, the previous government immediately tried to get new vaccine doses. The contracts also provide for that. The new minister now also activates these options. So he uses exactly what his predecessor had prepared with foresight. But I also ask myself: What did Olaf Scholz actually do? His close confidante Christoph Krupp has been the coordinator of the task force since February, which was intended to provide more vaccine.
The biggest problem, however, are the vaccine skeptics. How do you get hold of them?
With all the emotional debates, persuasion is very, very important. This will also play a major role in the question of how a possible mandatory vaccination could be designed. Many citizens are not bitter vaccination opponents. Because of the heated discussion in society, they say: I’ll wait and see. In addition, of course, people have very different assessments of the dangers of the pandemic for themselves. This is also due to the fact that we are all tired of the restrictions in everyday life – and also with regard to the collateral damage, especially in children and adolescents.
But that’s where the vaccinations would help.
That’s exactly the point: that it would make sense. At the same time, however, there are areas such as gastronomy, in which it is rightly asked whether the current measures there make sense at all and whether the gastronomy is really the driver of the pandemic. How to turn it around: We can only get out of the pandemic if we convince people to get vaccinated. But this also includes taking the skeptics with you.
You can discuss a lot, but at some point the arguments are exchanged.
By then, at the latest, the moment will be reached when we as politicians have to make a decision. In the long run, one cannot take into account the sensitivities of individuals or a noisy minority, although after weighing up scientific findings one knows that vaccinations will most likely lead to normalizing our lives again.
That means we need a mandatory vaccination?
You have to differentiate here. It is of course legitimate to talk about the means of compulsory vaccination, but it involves a difficult constitutional trade-off. In addition, there are questions relating to the specific implementation: What is compulsory vaccination? How is it designed? How is it enforced?
The conversation is: Everyone for whom it is medically possible would have to get vaccinated.
We are voting in our group on what compulsory vaccination could look like. It is important to us to convince as many people as possible to defeat the virus and overcome the pandemic. We already have a facility-related vaccination requirement, which I think makes sense. In this respect, it must also be considered in other areas of life how compulsory vaccination would be expedient, for example with regard to groups of people who are particularly at risk. Educators and teachers should also be part of the plans – the traffic light coalition has so far ignored this fact.
Would you vote for compulsory vaccination?
We are currently in the process of creating our own concept in the Union Group and forming an opinion.
Compulsory vaccination does not mean compulsory vaccination and nobody should go to jail. There could be fines instead, what do you think of that?
I think it’s a shame when striking terms are simply thrown into the room on such an important topic. It would be important that the governing coalition now even present its own proposal for mandatory vaccination and form its own majority for it. Because you can see how difficult the specific design is. Instead, she makes herself slim and declares the question to be a decision of conscience. In the absence of a parliamentary majority, the traffic light parliamentary groups are now handling group motions. That shows how chaotic things are in the left-yellow government coalition.
Can you understand that many nurses are frustrated with so many unvaccinated people in intensive care units?
I can absolutely understand that. You are the ones who are at the forefront and experience first hand what the virus does to the unvaccinated: the serious and fatal courses. Unfortunately, there are people in some social groups who ignore what is going on in the intensive care units and still downplay Corona as a mild flu.
Is that a bigger problem in the east than in the west?
I wouldn’t turn it into an East-West debate. It is certainly the case that we in the new federal states often react more sensitively, also due to the experiences from GDR times. On the other hand, I currently cannot understand some of the discussions because as a child I saw myself being vaccinated against serious illnesses. There were far fewer discussions than is the case today.
On Friday, the CDU submitted the result of its membership decision on the next chairman. What is the most important task of the new boss?
The most important task of our new chairman Friedrich Merz will be to close the ranks. This is done through substantive work, but also through stronger discussions: to involve the wings and sociological groups even more and to position oneself as an opposition with a clear course. Friedrich Merz will credibly represent this demarcation from his political opponent.
You come from Magdeburg, how can the Union in the East become stronger again?
By having more open debates again. By not pretending that there is only one right opinion and we would shy away from discussions. There must be no taboos, we also have to discuss uncomfortable topics. This is about the health policy of the future, but also about issues such as migration, internal security, intergenerational justice and the additional burdens planned by the left-yellow coalition for citizens. We must also show our colors more strongly on such critical questions, on which there are very different views in society.
So move to the right?
We are a big people’s party in the middle. And that includes all currents, including within the party. To qualify opinions by saying that they are right is the wrong way to go. Ultimately, the point is that we discuss social opinions and take up different currents. We have to make it clear what the future of our country should look like. Bans on thinking or scissors in the head do not go well with this.
Volker Petersen spoke to Tino Sorge