A small piece of cloth, worn over the mouth and nose, splits since Sunday, once again, the Nation: While the are a glad that the majority of people in Germany are now fairly reliable on the mask of duty, urging Mecklenburg-Vorpommern’s Minister of Economics Harry Glawe will soon be the same. “When the infection happened remains so low, I see no reason any longer to the mask mandatory in the trade capture”, stated the CDU politician in the “world on Sunday”.
low-Saxon counterpart, Bernd Althusmann agrees with him shortly thereafter, calls for the “strict mask obligation in the retail sector in the coming months in a recommendation” to convert, if the infection is done, this allows.
Merkel is sticking to mask duty, even if you find many annoying
Both of them have whistled by the heads of government, in the meantime, back again. In dealing with the Coronavirus caution was still necessary, informed about the state Chancellery in Hanover. And also Althusmann self was balanced by his call on Monday.
The Federal government granted the fantasy of a soon-to-be lifting of the mask duty is also a clear rejection. Chancellor Merkel is opposed to this rule. Wherever in the public life of the minimum distance can be guaranteed, are masks “is an important and, from today’s point of view, also, is essential,” it said.
- All the latest news on Corona pandemic, you read in the News-Ticker of FOCUS Online.
Emotionally, the desire for the end of the mask duty is understandable. The barrier in front of the mouth and the nose is annoying, is to wear, especially in the heat uncomfortable. You sweat underneath it, is understood To be worse. The glasses can fogging and remember, the mask to take with you, you still need to. In addition, the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and the health authorities held them in front of a few week, but still largely ineffective and therefore pointless.
This assessment has changed, in the meantime, however, solid. The mask duty is from a common-sense perspective is necessary – although, even today, arguments for both sides can be found. The Pro-Contra Overview.
Per mask for all: What is the mask mandatory
- Argument 1: talking masks the contagion risk via reduce droplets.
“The Wearing of a mouth-nose-covering in public life can help to slow the spread of Covid-19 in the population and to protect groups at risk from infection,” says the RKI recommendation for the Wearing of a mask. In particular, in situations in which a number of people in closed rooms were together and the minimum distance of one and a half meters, not respected by other people could be applied.
The mouth, nose coverings had then as a mechanical barrier for the small droplets, produced during coughing, Sneezing or Talking, is confirmed by the Federal centre for health education (BZfgA). Both self-made makeshift masks made of cotton as well as a former scarf out of it has slowed down the virus particles and can at least intercept a large part of the emitted particles before they enter the mucous membranes of other people. the The result: The risk of infection is reduced.
- Argument 2: masks reduce the risk of infection via the air called aerosols.
taken into account at the beginning of the epidemic, is brought the contagion through the air, via a so-called aerosols, in the past few weeks, increasingly in the focus of science. Studies from Hong Kong have shown, they play in the infection happen to have a Central role. Germany’s chief virologist Christian Drosten holds the Transmission over the air for some time for highly relevant for the spread of Sars-CoV-2. He was now based on the fact that nearly half of the Sars-CoV-2 infections are due to aerosol, as he explained in may in the NDR Podcast.
in front of the suspended particles in the air, is even more difficult than from infection by the classical droplet infection, which is often the Transmission path of the conventional cold viruses. The Drostens point of view, the most effective lever: the need for a regular and effective Ventilation and the Wearing of a mouth-nose cover.
Because the masks don’t prevent infection completely. This is the virus particles are too fine, the pores of the fabrics used are too coarse. But they offer a flow resistance, such as Christian Kähler by the Institute of fluid mechanics and aerodynamics, explained at the University of the Bundeswehr Munich. “Rather than particles far outside of the blow, keep you close to the head.” And in order to prevent potentially infectious particles spread unhindered in the room. the The result: The risk of infection is reduced.
More: aerosols are to blame for any second infection: Self-Airing out always helps
- Argument 3: masks of the risk of smear infection reduce.
virologists, the infection to write on contaminated surfaces such as in the supermarket or on the Bus, although a rather low importance. However, masks also reduce this risk.
The obstacle in front of the mouth and nose makes it difficult to be in contact with the mucous membranes there. Viruses get more difficult in the organism. the The result: The risk of infection is reduced.
- Argument 4: masks to raise awareness for the still existing danger of Infection.
In Western countries the Wearing of masks is unusual. That is exactly why they keep reminding us that (as yet) no normality in social life and keep your distance, particularly regular and thorough hand washing, as well as General caution in symptoms, such as cough or fever obligation remains. the The result: The risk of infection is reduced.
- Argument 5: Mere recommendations of the health authorities is not enough – the view from abroad shows.
Some criticize the Federal government to ensure that the masks are compulsory to wear, and is in favor of a less strictly regulated manner that relies on self-responsibility of citizens instead of on a flat-rate compulsory. How to very fact, however, can be trusted, seems questionable.
So, Bulgaria had had its mask of duty in the middle of June already cancelled, due to mass violations of the Corona adhere to rules, however, only a week later re-introduced.
Contra mask for all: the mask of duty
- Argument 1: The makeshift masks speaks can create a false sense of security, the people can be careless act.
Community-masks and surgical mouth-nose protectors from the pharmacy does not protect the wearer against infection with the Coronavirus, but above all the others. It Infectious disease specialists take point tired. Nevertheless, the mask may be tempted to weigh yourself in a false sense of security, warns the BZfgA.
Also, the world medical President Frank Ulrich Montgomery justified in his criticism of the mask duty. Who is wearing a mask, and never think themselves safe, and forget the crucial minimum, he believes.
- Argument 2: a number of to wear your mask in the wrong, and increase your risk of infection in order.
cause the masks to less infections, you have to be property, plant and worn in accordance with. This means washing: before Tightening hands, the mask snugly over the nose, mouth, and cheeks put, regularly replacing and at least 60 degree wash. Even if the mask is through the breath already soaked through, it helps barely counter-passing on the Virus.
However, not long ago, each of these rules. Some of them wear their actual mouth, nose and the protection pseudo-effective on the chin, others use a week of the same mask, to free without you even once from the hanging pathogens. The risk will then possibly virus-contaminated material to infect, rises, concludes world medical President Montgomery. “Faster-you can catch the little.”
- Argument 3: masks dampen the impulse to Buy, and damage trade and the economy.
“We find that masks inhibit the shopping desire of the customers,” explains a spokesman for the trade Association Germany (HDE) in an Interview with the “Rheinische Post” of Tuesday. You think it would be, therefore, “be nice if there was no mask to be compulsory”.
As a full-fledged Argument to this, however, is too short. Because of breaks, a second Corona-wave, would reset the trade and the economy as a Whole much stronger than the temporary mask duty to Maintain. The trade Association argues, therefore, even for a repeal, “when the point is reached where the health is required,” clarified the spokesman.
