Interview: Fabian Eberhard
Mr. Montgomery, you’re in the middle of a shit storm.
Frank Montgomery: You can’t imagine what’s going on with me. All jurisprudence discharges its holy anger into my mailbox.
The reason is the following statement from you: “I am against the fact that little judges stand up and, as in Lower Saxony, topple 2G in retail because they do not consider it proportionate.”
It cannot be that the judges in one federal state decide one thing and something completely different in another. People don’t understand. The judges must be precise.
So you don’t regret the statement?
Of course not! I am amazed at the judges’ lack of sovereignty. What do we medical professionals have to listen to in this pandemic. Endless hostility. And the lawyers are now “totally offended” because I called them “little judges”. I would like more serenity there.
56% omicron cases: Omikron is raging brutally in Switzerland(00:48)
The German Medical Association sees it differently. She distanced herself from you. They are “not legitimized to question the rule of law”.
I was very surprised at this statement by the Medical Association. I was their president for a long time. In my day we would have spoken to the person before we denounced them in a statement.
President of the German Medical Association
Frank Ulrich Montgomery (69) is a multiple award-winning radiologist and has been Chairman of the Board of Directors of the World Medical Association since 2019. Before that he was President of the German Medical Association. Until the end of 2018, Montgomery worked as a senior physician at the Radiological Clinic at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. He is married to a general practitioner and has two children.
Frank Ulrich Montgomery (69) is a multiple award-winning radiologist and has been Chairman of the Board of Directors of the World Medical Association since 2019. Before that he was President of the German Medical Association. Until the end of 2018, Montgomery worked as a senior physician at the Radiological Clinic at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. He is married to a general practitioner and has two children.
But with your statement you are disavowing the judiciary.
It was never about that to me. I am a total advocate of the separation of powers. The rule of law is the basis of our democracy. But judges, courts and judgments must also be allowed to criticize in a constitutional state. Admittedly, the statement was a deliberate exaggeration. In essence, however, it is correct.
They like to sharpen. At the beginning of November you said on a talk show that we were suffering from “the tyranny of the unvaccinated”.
Sometimes you need to sharpen something to get a discussion going. At that time nobody dared to say that we had to treat unvaccinated and vaccinated people differently. Today that’s standard. I’m even a little proud that I started that.
The “NZZ” wrote this week that you have changed from being an official to being a populist.
I don’t see myself as populist. But others have to judge that. If a populist, then at least not on the side where most populists are located – namely with the vaccine opponents, lateral thinkers and corona deniers. But didn’t we want to talk about the epidemiological situation?
Omikron took over the action, the numbers are increasing. What is in store for us?
We’re running into bigger problems right now, that much is clear. Omikron is so contagious that the cases will explode. Even if Omikron leads to serious illnesses less often than Delta, hospitalizations will increase sharply.
And the hospitals are already at the limit.
There is indeed a risk of overload. We can’t afford that.
What do you suggest?
The only thing that really helps is contact restrictions. They work very quickly and safely.
Do you need a lockdown?
Each of us can restrict contacts. This does not necessarily require legally mandated measures. I assume that we cannot avoid further measures. At the same time, I am confident that we will no longer simply have to run everything down to zero. We are further than a year ago, mainly thanks to the vaccination.
The vaccination quota in the German-speaking countries is still insufficient. Why?
I can only explain this with a traditional aversion to vaccinations. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland there is a widespread turn to esoteric forms of medicine. I really don’t know how we can take these people with us. The massive awareness campaigns have also been of no use.
The last resort is compulsory vaccination.
That’s the result of it. And it’s totally right. Those who absolutely do not want to be vaccinated are excluded from certain parts of public life. Period.
Isn’t that very problematic in terms of democratic politics?
There have really been enough warnings now. We’re not talking about compulsion here. The police will not force anyone to vaccinate. No doctor will vaccinate patients against their will.
While we are already boosting, the vaccine is missing in developing countries. How do we manage to enable a fair distribution of the vaccine?
Obviously, the vaccines are sold far too dearly by most corporations. The state should skim off the manufacturers’ exorbitant profits. All western states should do that. And ensure a fair distribution with the money.
Are you pleading for partial expropriation?
Do not get me wrong. I am neither a socialist nor a communist. I am in favor of these companies making a profit. But what speaks against the fact that states skim off part of the profits – we are talking about billions of francs here? For example about taxes. If you want to call that expropriation, fine me.
An alternative would be to release the patents for the vaccines.
That does not work. The manufacture and quality assurance of mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna in particular are so complex that it would be dangerous to set up a production facility in a third world country quickly. This cannot be done without the know-how of the corporations.
With all these models, isn’t there a risk that manufacturers will lose their motivation to develop vaccines at all?
I would also prefer the pharmaceutical industry to pursue a sensible pricing policy of its own accord. By the way, some companies do that. Astrazeneca has avoided excessive profits from the start and focused on moderate returns. In poor countries, the company even offers vaccinations at cost. And we must not forget that corporations like Biontech received many hundreds of millions of countries as gifts at the beginning of 2020 to research vaccines.
Back to Omicron. Could it be that the variant means the end of the pandemic? An end in horror, so to speak?
Omikron will undoubtedly advance the basic immunization of the population. Each of us will come into contact with the variant. That could flatten the pandemic.
Finally, the but.
The virus has amazed us every time with new variants. The key now is that we try to prevent as many infections as possible. A mutation can only arise in the infection. Hope is in order, however.