Covidistan Annals XXXIV: The Return of the Mandates is Official (as of 24 March 2022)

In an early draft, the Health Minister wanted to apply the 3G Rule to grocery stores and pharmacies, thereby bringing back dark memories of exclusion of 'certain groups' from public life

Editorial note: I shall now write yet another piece about Central Europe instead of doing something else, such as my current pastime (writing the next instalment of my Germany 1918 series, which I hope to finish by the weekend) or keep you posted on Covid in Norway.

As regards the latter, attentive readers may have noticed that I haven’t updated you on last week’s and this week’s numbers yet, which has two reasons (other than my own limited time): first, last week a major change was introduced as the Institute of Public Health removed the comparative data on ‘incidental’ hospital admissions, i.e., the Norwegian reports won’t show the relationship between those who are hospitalised for Covid, as opposed to those with Covid (an incidental positive test). As I mentioned in my last dedicated post (week 9). Second, I don’t yet have figured out how to include these data, for otherwise any further update that merely mentions how the numbers of hospitalisations for Covid change, while certainly not totally meaningless, morphs into discussions akin to how many angels might fit on a needle.

I shall soon update you on these past two weekly reports, but I must beg your pardon for now. Also, if you have any idea how to rectify this data mess, please let me know (I did check the Health Directorate’s websites: there’s a general one and a Covid-related one). Both are really nicely done, and while the overall website shows hospitalisations for and with Covid (which at least allows for analysis of Covid-related pressures on the health system in general), the dedicated website doesn’t differentiate between admission for Covid, as opposed to hospitalisation with Covid.

That said, I’ll soon update you on the subject matter with regard to Norway, but for now—let’s talk about Covidistan once more this week.

The Return of the Mandates

In my recent report on the evolving dynamic from last weekend (19 March), I brought to your attention the fact that Health Minister Johannes Rauch announced the re-introduction of many more mandates by Wednesday, 23 March.

First reported by left-liberal daily Der Standard, Katharina Mittelstaedt and Gabriele Scherndl—whose names attentive readers may recognise for they are among the most inglorious Covid Hawks in Covidistan media (e.g., here and my take on it)—provide an overview of the new rules and regulations.

Caption reads: ‘Mess with Masks: These New Covid Rules Apply Now. At first, this was just supposed to be the return of mandatory masking indoors, but the notion then became an intra-government dispute.’

Here’s what Mr. Rauch had to say on the occasion of the presentation of these new mandates: ‘There were many different options on the table.’ The piece also mentions, in the best partisan manner, of course, that the delayed presentation of these rules was due to the Greens’ coalition partner’s intransigence:

It took long and drawn-out negotiations to achieve the seemingly simple re-introduction of the indoor mask mandate. There were significant clashes.

It all began with the fact that while Mr. Rauch had announced the measure to enter into force at midnight during the night from Tuesday to Wednesday, but the mask mandate was simply not available by then…thus Tourism Minister Elisabeth Köstinger (ÖVP) took to the airwaves on Wednesday morning and demonstratively called out their coalition partner…Rauch’s Health Ministry countered by stating that the draft mandate was ready by Tuesday afternoon, but that the ÖVP then engaged in unexpectedly hard negotiations.

So, why, pray tell, would these measures be so hotly contested?

For one, Mr. Rauch’s draft mandate had envisioned the blanket introduction of the 3G Rule (one has to show proof of a negative test, recovery, or injection status)—by which is meant the Covid Passport—everywhere, including so-called ‘businesses that sell daily necessities’. These businesses include grocery stores and pharmacies.

In other words: Covidistan’s new Health Minister had drawn up a regulation that would probably cause China’s envy.

Or, if you’d rather prefer a more historical analogies, I could think of Limpienza de sangre (literally ‘cleanliness of blood’), a set of ‘policies’ that ‘defined castes of those of Spanish or Portuguese ancestry, as opposed to the non-Christian aboriginal populations of Asia, Africa and the Americas’, according to Wikipedia. There’s of course an abundance of scholarly literature on the subject, and I’ll gladly share references, if needed. Note, by the way, that the entry on Limpienza de sangre is linked to Nazi Germany’s exclusionary policy of the so-called Ariernachweis (Aryan certificate) in Wikipedia.

Sidenote: if you go down further this particular rabbit hole, you could click on the German Wikipedia entry of the Ariernachweis, which is more exhaustive than the above-linked English version.

Translation: ‘With the Aryan certificate began the exclusion of “non-Aryans”, above all Jews, "Gypsies", which led to the deprivation of their civil rights and exclusion up to expulsion, ghettoisation, deportation and state-organised mass murder in concentration camps (Holocaust and Porajmos) (1941-1945). In contrast, “an Englishman or Swede, a Frenchman or Czech, a Pole or Italian…was considered related, i.e. Aryan”.’

To return to the present, it suffices to note the implications of Mr. Rauch’s draft mandate. First, take a look at the below official injection uptake date, current as of 22 March 2022:

Yep, you saw that correctly: 6.8m or 75.86% of the resident population ‘have received at least one injection’, 6.5m are two-dose recipients, and 4,768,172m took a booster injection.

Context matters: Austria has approx. 9m inhabitants, which means that the above draft mandate would have coerced almost half the population (booster recipients are 53% of the general population) to get tested or illegally participate in the medical experiment referred to as ‘Covid-19 Vaccination Campaign’.

(I know that it’s a crude argument and that the numbers are a bit fuzzy due to the fact that a two-dose recipient whose second injection occurred within the past six months would still fall in the ‘fully vaccinated’ category, but the point still stands, esp. since that status would expire after six months.)

Let that sink in for a moment.

And then consider the fact that the Greens’ coalition partner-in-crime ‘objected’ not for constitutional, legal, and historical reasons. No, as we learn from another piece in Der Standard, incidentally by the same Gabriele Scherndl, published on 23 March, which explained the delayed mandates in the following way (my emphases):

Initially, indoor masking should have been re-instated…what become public knowledge on Tuesday [22 March], though, looks much more differentiated…

Until the last minute, many details were hotly debated. An early draft required masks indoor, albeit with an opt-out clause: retail businesses, event organisers, and night hospitality [Nachtlokale, i.e., places that serve food and beverages at/throughout the night] could instead of masks require a 3G check…

There’s a veritable laundry list of issues, and I shall not reproduce them here, with the exception of criticism emanating in one form or the other from the ÖVP:

• Mask Mandate or 3G optional, even though when sitting down for food intake, you’d be allowed to take off you mask; all decisions are made by management, not be the patrons.

• No 3G option in public transport or public buildings; similarly, no ‘choice’ at work, although the mask must not be worn if there are ‘other protective measures’ implemented or one doesn’t share an office.

• 3G plus masks in ‘vulnerable settings’, esp. hospitals and nursing homes.

• No mask mandate in schools, according to ÖVP Minister of Education Martin Polaschek (still, this means three test per student and week until Easter).

• Quarantine obligations: the draft wasn’t clear about them, but note that ÖVP politician Thomas Stelzer, Governor of Upper Austria, floated ‘the idea of a general end of the quarantine mandate’, which was ruled out by Chancellor Nehammer (ÖVP), who stated that ‘would be very good, if it is medically justifiable’, for which Nehammer pointed to the Health Ministry.

All new mandates would last until 2 April (for now), and could really be put to rest in practice earlier when, from 1 April onwards, less government-funded tests (max 5 PCR and antigen rapid tests per person and month) would be available.

As reported by state broadcaster ORF in a recent piece, the new rules are:

The obligation to wear masks indoors will be largely reintroduced; night-time catering and at larger events, the 3G rule will apply as an alternative. Quarantine regulations will be relaxed: in the future, people with [Covid-19] will be able to end their isolation without a negative test under certain circumstances…

New Quarantine rules: those patients with a severe course of the disease can test themselves out of quarantine at the earliest ten days after the onset of symptoms (with a negative PCR test or a positive test with a Ct value of 30 or higher), if they have been symptom-free for 48 hours. Those who experienced only a mild course of the disease can test themselves out of quarantine after five days, provided they have been symptom-free for 48 hours and the PCR test is negative, or the Ct value is 30 or higher.

Ending self-isolation without a negative test: in addition, the possibility is created to be released from quarantine without testing. This applies if sick people have been symptom-free for 48 hours and accept ‘traffic restrictions’ for five more days. In concrete terms, this means that they must wear [FFP2] masks when coming into contact with others. They are also banned from health facilities, restaurants, gyms and large events.

When asked about these Kafkaesque rules, Health Minister Rauch told ORF in the evening news (23 March, find the recording here; my translation and emphases):

I understand that folks are tired of the pandemic, that they don’t want any more mandates. However, my job as Minister of Health is to ensure that when case numbers are that high and when the hospitals are experiencing staff shortages, I must not look the other way, but act. This is what I have done…

If I am asymptomatic for 48 hours, then I can go to work with a mask. Still, I need to clarify that we do not send sick people to work.

That was yesterday, and Mr. Rauch appeared on national radio Ö1’s morning news again, explaining himself in the following way (as summarised by ORF; my emphasis) earlier today:

Asked about the relaxed quarantine regulations, Health Minister Johannes Rauch (Greens)…said that this had been an explicit request from hospitals and care facilities. Many people would sit at home without symptoms and instead like to go to work. Those who are sick, of course, do not have to go to work. In nursing homes, there are also additional measures that protect the vulnerable people there.

There you have it: mandates are back because…

The government’s absurd quarantine and contact-reduction rules are causing staffing shortages.

Let me repeat this: yes, Omicron is infecting more people than previous variants, but the problems in hospitals and care homes are political.

A Brief Comment on the Current State-of-Play

Needless to say, mandates are creeping back, although it’s important to remember that they never really went away in the first place. Vienna is different, and it never abrogated FFP2 mask mandates in the past couple of weeks, thereby bucking the federal trend.

The political nature of the current stage of the Covid tragic comedy has been openly acknowledged by the Committee of Public Safety: yes, Omicron exists and infects people, but the ensuing problems—most notably the staff shortages in the healthcare sector—are a consequence of the absurd quarantine and contact-reduction rules.

Don’t just take Mr. Rauch’s, the legacy media, or my words for it, here’s Prof. Kathrin Stainer-Hämmerle (poli-sci, FH Kärnten) on this, as per her interview with ORF nightly news yesterday, 23 March 2022):

One has to acknowledge that the Health Minister is like King Lackland, i.e., overseeing a huge portfolio with very limited options. [Mr. Rauch] said so himself, that he was thrown a number of curveballs by the ÖVP [in the original, she says ‘er wurde da offensichtlich…etwas ausgebremst’]. Of course, party-politics on part of the ÖVP played a role, in addition to the interests of the hospitality industry trying to save the winter season. All told, the Black Peter* in all of this was among the Health Minister’s deck of cards. Hence, on the one hand, things aren’t going too well inside the Health Ministry, but the intra-governmental support for the Health Minister certainly didn’t increase, on the other hand.

Sidenote w/reference to (*): holding the ‘Black Peter’ card is a common, if slightly outdated, saying in German, which in English means ‘to pass the buck’, i.e., something inconvenient or unwelcome is merely dumped on—in this case—the Health Minister.

You see—Covid is a political charade (it always was), and it my next dedicated post, we shall explore the most likely consequences of it.

In the meantime, go and tell Mr. Berenson.