Schrödinger's Pandemic Appraisal

Branch Covidian rag 'Der Standard' hails a new book about the Covid reappraisal--whose central tenet is that no such thing occurred: an enquiry into why that may be--and lots of nonsense

Signs and marvels, dear readers, are upon us—the rabidly anti-unvaccinated/pro-Covid régime rag Der Standard just published a review of a mandate-critical book by the economist Christian Felber.

If you’re ever in doubt about just how patently insane and borderline unconstitutional all these mandates were, I’ll invite you to peruse the ‘search’ function of these pages and enter the terms ‘Der Standard’.

My personal favourites include reporting™ on Valentine’s day in Thailand:

It’s likely to be unsolicited relationship advice for couples in Thailand: Health authorities in the East Asian country have urged lovers to keep pandemic measures in mind on the upcoming Valentine’s Day—and to wear masks during sex as well.

Footnote 19: Happy Valentine's Day

Needless to say, Der Standard was also firm in its virtue-signalling commitment against Sauron and Mordor ahem, Mr. Putin and Russia by celebrating the painting of temporary construction walls in Ukrainian colours as somehow noteworthy—as it occurred next to Vienna’s Soviet Victory Monument:

Footnote 22: the (virtue-signalling) bravery of being out of range

I’ll stop here—you get the gist. The below is therefore quite unexpected in this context, but fear not, Der Standard’s readers/commenters are there to help.

Translation, emphases, and [snark] mine.

---

In Praise of Reappraisal [orig. Aufarbeitung]

The coronavirus pandemic has led to much criticism of the way we deal with our fundamental rights. The common good economist [orig. Gemeinwohl-Ökonom, on which see below] Christian Felber has now published a book on the subject

By Dietmar Krug, Der Standard, 5 April 2025 [source]

In April 2020, Federal Chancellor Kurz was asked whether the Covid-19 laws and regulations that had just been hastily passed might not be constitutional. His answer: they would no longer be in force anyway until a review by the supreme courts had taken place [this was the original sin of the Covid Mania: blatant and open disregard for the rule of law; no wonder there followed all kinds of abuses]. This could be used to justify any breach of the constitution, provided it is only temporary. Unfortunately, his blunt answer reflects a general carelessness in dealing with fundamental rights during the pandemic [moreover, why wasn’t former chancellor Kurz put on trial for high treason once ‘the pandemic™’ was over?].

This makes it all the more important to remember the value of fundamental rights. Christian Felber, initiator of the Economy for the Common Good, has now dedicated an entire book to the topic: In Praise of Fundamental Rights [orig. Lob der Grundrechte]. In it, he lists more than a dozen restrictions on fundamental rights that have occurred during the coronavirus pandemic. These were the most serious interventions of the post-war period, which Felber calls a ‘cardiac arrest of democracy’ [orig. Herzstillstand der Demokratie].

Restrictions on Fundamental Rights

Temporary restrictions on fundamental rights due to a declared health emergency are permissible, but they must be appropriate, without alternative and scientifically justified. And above all: their benefit must be greater than their harm. Was this the case? [we knew the answers back then…]

In the foreword to Felber’s book, public health expert Martin Sprenger [he was, of course, kicked off the gov’t’s Covid taskforce, much like other sane voices, and ‘cancelled’ from polite society] draws a damning conclusion:

None of the countless non-pharmaceutical measures prescribed during the coronavirus pandemic have been supported by methodologically sound scientific evidence showing the desired effects were greater than the undesired effects.

[while this is true, note the carefully avoided elephant in the room: the ‘pharmaceutical measures’, i.e., the Covid poison/death juices—and while I wholeheartedly agree with the above comment by Mr. Sprenger (whom I met once in a Zoom call and was thoroughly under-whelmed), I shall note that the main problem here are those lies of omission, which is, in my view, why Der Standard published this review: the golden calf of the Branch Covidians remained beyond the piece…]

Looking Outside the Box

Felber documents Sprenger’s assessment by analysing the official scientific justifications and describing the devastating collateral damage that the measures have caused.

One example: in Germany, a total of nine children died from Covid-19 in 2020 and 2021, all with serious pre-existing conditions. In contrast, 92 children ended up in intensive care after suicide attempts in the second lockdown alone, compared to an average of 32 in the three years before the pandemic [that’s an indictment, if there ever was one: Angela Merkel was chancellor back then, and it was her gov’t that imposed the second lockdown (note that her German Wikipedia profile notably omits the Covid Mania from her tenure)]. Schools were closed, even though studies showed that children contributed little to the spread of the pandemic. However, Felber’s understanding of fundamental rights and the common good does not stop at national borders [while I understand the sentiment, the problem here is the conflation of what any gov’t can/is supposed to do (care for their citizens) vs. was any gov’t is expected to do (save the world): leveraging this kind of argument is akin to intellectual bankruptcy]. For example, the coronavirus measures led to an increase in malnutrition worldwide, with around 92 million people suffering from hunger as a result of the pandemic management [while I don’t think this is o.k., what would have been the difference had, say, Germany or Austria ‘done something’? 91.2m people suffering food insecurity (but perhaps wearing a sticker reading ‘I’m better than thou’?—this is an insane argument™ worthy of the worst abuses by that rag, which, in my view, is a second reason why they printed the piece].

This kind of thinking outside the box did not play a role in the public weighing up of benefits and harms. This was due to the fact that a strategy was chosen to combat the pandemic that narrowed the view: fuelling fear. The crisis discourse was characterised not by reassurance and prudence, but by panic and war rhetoric. ‘Then came the [why it’s not mentioned that these] pictures from Bergamo’ [were fake, well, that, too, is beyond the purview of the piece] is still a standard theme in the coronavirus narrative today. However, the question of what was behind these images is rarely asked [no worries, Der Standard doesn’t go down that road for it might be too troublesome to ‘discover’ that the pictures from Bergamo were part of a gigantic media/psy-op to ramp up the fear (which Mr. Krug had just decried a moment earlier: talk about consistency…].

Felber also analyses this. This narrowing of the debate affected not least mainstream media and the scientific community. Expert voices that deviated from the fear narrative were either ignored or defamed [note the passive voice here: why can’t Der Standard name those who did the cancelling and shaming, you’d ask, well, it’s because they were all in on it]. This has led to a split in society and a dangerous loss of trust in politics, the media, and institutions [here, this becomes obvious: the use of the passive voice in the preceding sentence is treated akin to the proverbial lightning strike out of the blue sky, hence Mr. Krug absolves himself, his employer, and every other Covid Manic of any responsibility (and note that he had failed to spot this problem in the opening paragraph about the unconstitutionality of Mr. Kurz’ actions: you can blame the Covid Maniacs for many things, but not for lack of consistency in shirking their responsibility].

Felber also dispels another myth, namely that there is no alternative to the measures. A look at Sweden shows this. The country has come through the pandemic without authoritarian measures and has a better record than Germany and Austria, both in terms of excess mortality and Covid deaths per capita [this is ‘fun’ as Christian Drosten also argued that Germans are less responsible than others, hence they need to be governed harder…]

Arguments Instead of Hostility

A genuine and well-documented reappraisal [orig. Aufarbeitung] of all these upheavals has not even begun yet [wonder why? Because people like Felber, Krug, and Sprenger hark about ‘non-pharmaceutical measures’ while omitting—all the poison/death juice-related ‘stuff’, ranging from the ‘lockdown for the unvaccinated’, the Covid Passports (now institutionalised across the EU), the vaxx mandate, and a bunch of other related things]. If politicians, the media and society are willing to do so in the hopefully near future, Felber's book will provide a good basis for discussion [only in a pre-approved way that omits the gravest sins]. It is clearly argued and comprehensibly [sic] written, and all statements are backed up with external links on the publisher’s homepage [but not in the book via, say, footnotes?].

Felber develops theses on how all this could have come about and how fundamental rights could be better anchored in the future [like, pass a constitutional amendment? Oh, wait, we’ve already have a constitution: this is as blatant a non-sequitur as any other aspects raised in this review™ by Mr. Krug]. He may well be wrong on some points [yep, like the omission of all pharmaceutical mandates]. Then let’s refute him! The debate is open, but this time with arguments instead of hostility, as an open discourse in a space free of domination. Fundamental rights are worth such a reappraisal, they are not a luxury good for good times, not democratic folklore that loses its meaning as soon as a crisis breaks out [re-read the first sentence: ‘in the future’]. On the contrary, especially in an emergency, they are the compass that protects citizens from excessive interference.

---

Bottom Lines

It’s hard to believe this piece of shit appeared in the Zero Covid rag Der Standard, tell you the truth.

Yet, once one reads it carefully, it’s obvious why that’s the case:

• the exclusion of pharmaceutical measures

• obfuscation and disinformation rule

• mixed with concessions that cannot be denied

At best, the above piece is a very, very ‘limited hangout’; at worst, it’s a conscious effort to misdirect the few remaining, ever so faithful (Branch Covidian) readers of Der Standard.

There remains one more question to ponder: why on God’s green earth would a public health expert™ like Martin Sprenger—who got himself ‘cancelled’ from polite society and hounded (a few years into the Covid Mania, he posted on Facebook that he’d stop talking in public now for fear of reprisals; he’s since re-emerged here and there)—can’t and/or won’t bring himself to criticise the pharmaceutical measures?

Big Pharma’s influence, whether direct or indirect, is a cancer on Western society.

Let’s merely note that Big Pharma should be treated equally under the law—and with a modicum of the same ‘medicine’ that ‘Covid deniers’ received, such as anti-racketeering and anti-trust legislation, as well as, of course, everything the criminal code has to offer as regards bodily harm, injury, and death.

Until then, I shall reserve my contempt for both the Covid perps and those who are enlisting now to white-wash the former’s crimes, such as Martin Sprenger.

What a shit-show.