According to the economist Andreas Peichl, a new lockdown would not be necessary, but a targeted reduction in contacts. But he fears that Germany will wait too long. Until a lockdown becomes unavoidable – and expensive. Peichl heads the Ifo Center for Macroeconomics and teaches economics at the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich.
ntv.de: The Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the “Federal Emergency Brake” was legal. What does that mean from your point of view?
Andreas Peichl: The problem with pandemic management in Germany is that we try to make everything legally secure and therefore react so slowly. Of course, legal certainty is good, but it would be better at one point or another to react faster and not wait for the perfect law.
Will a new total lockdown come after the verdict?
It definitely becomes more likely. However, I would not speak of a total lockdown, because other countries are laughing at the restrictions we have had in Germany so far – European countries, not dictatorships. In Italy, Spain and France, for example, exit restrictions and other measures were much stricter.
Austria is currently seen as a role model for some German politicians. Is it already clear how the tougher measures will affect there?
After all, we reacted a little faster than Austria, for example with 2G or partial lockdowns in Bavaria. This gained us a little time, we are 15, 16 days behind Austria’s incidence trend. Austria reacted too late, so there had to be a tough lockdown. In addition, the mandatory vaccination was decided there. I’m afraid, however, that the same will happen in Germany. You didn’t want one or the other, but you wait too long – and in the end we’ll get both. German politicians will probably wait another week or two before they decide on more stringent measures again. Then it will probably be so far that one can only decide on a total lockdown. It could have been avoided by acting faster now.
In your opinion, what would be necessary at the moment?
It is right to take a regionally differentiated approach. We also have to move away from the hospitalization incidence, because because of the delay, the reactions to it are four weeks too late. We definitely need to vaccinate as much as we can, but that won’t help us until Christmas. For now we have to test a lot more, especially where the incidence is high, such as in schools and daycare centers with PCR pool tests. And we have to reduce the contacts to a single-digit range. The data situation in Germany is not good. But we know that clubs, discos, restaurants, where many people are in a closed room for a long period of time, without a mask, with alcohol consumption and sometimes poor ventilation, explain a large part of the infection process.
So what would you shut down?
Clubs, discos, bars and the like completely, which is already done in some areas. I would also only have restaurants in high-incidence areas delivered. For everything else in an enclosed space, 2G plus should apply, for example in fitness studios or for body-hugging services.
How do you explain this to a club or restaurant owner?
In order to contain the infection process, this is absolutely necessary. We need to make sure that the companies that are restricted or even closed receive compensation. Last year the implementation of the November and December aid was a disaster. Instead, you have to pay out aid quickly and unbureaucratically. Companies that have done well should be allowed to offset their current losses against past profits so that they can receive a tax refund. This is how you get immediate liquidity. The federal government has to step in here, the financial means are there.
Where should the money come from?
As a federal government, we can incur significantly more debts. At the end of the year we will have a national debt ratio of almost 70 percent of the gross domestic product. In 2009, after the financial crisis, we were well over 80 percent and didn’t have to raise taxes. So we still have enough buffer. We could run the aid programs that we ran last and this year to the same extent two or three times – without any negative effects. It’s not nice, it costs money, but we’re in such good shape in Germany that we could do it a few more times. Even if I don’t hope we have to. But that we finally learn and hopefully prevent the fifth wave.
Then why don’t we take even stricter measures?
Then the infection process would be contained even faster. But I fear that the collateral damage and thus the costs would then be even higher. On the one hand, this has economic consequences: there is a risk of loss of income, unemployment and bankruptcies, as well as long-term damage from loss of education. Above all, however, it also has other consequences: psychological such as depression or domestic violence. There are quite a number of studies there. It would therefore not be a good idea to ban all contacts. From my point of view, two entire households can meet, the risk here is manageable.
So a new hard lockdown would be “more expensive” for our economy than a further increase in the number of infections?
Yes and no. Rising numbers of infections would also be bad. We have to get them down, but more focused. It is better to start where the infection spreads than to limit all contact.
Which industries do we have to be particularly concerned about then?
Hotel industry, tourism, gastronomy, “social consumption”, as it is called, including cinemas, theaters, ultimately the entire cultural sector, football stadiums and other sporting events with spectators. 50,000 people without a mask in the stadium are devastating for the public image. People wonder why they should restrict themselves if that is allowed.
Who has to worry about their job?
Everyone who works in the areas mentioned has to be prepared for short-time work. There will probably also be some effects on unemployment. However, a large part is cushioned by the instrument of short-time work.
What do you say to those affected?
It is very important that the state compensates for the loss of income. But the longer we wait, the harder and longer the measures have to be in the end, because the number of infections increases exponentially. If we wait until Christmas now, we will have action until Easter.
Have we been too cautious so far?
That is a difficult question. The tougher the measures, the faster it will all be over. At the same time, the collateral damage is then significantly greater. The difficult thing: How do you find the right balance between the duration and the severity of measures? The extreme case: if I lock the whole world up at home for two weeks, then the virus is gone, but so are many other things. Then the energy supply collapses, the food supply. Then we will no longer have any police or ambulance services. Then many more people would die than from the virus. So you can’t paralyze the whole world. However, we also don’t need the complete lockdown that everyone has to stay at home.
Not even in high incidence areas?
There you may need more drastic measures, especially with incidences above 1000, 2000. Even there, most infections will not arise from meeting two households. But a total lockdown there could be a sensible signal to the population that the situation is really serious.
Christina Lohner spoke to Andreas Peichl