France recalls ambassador to Turkey over Turkish criticisms of law on Islam

Alex Lantier

Yesterday, the French Foreign Ministry announced that French Ambassador to Turkey Hervé Magro will be recalled to Paris for consultations, over Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s criticisms of French President Emmanuel Macron.

This exchange between two NATO member states points to the tensions tearing apart the trans-Atlantic alliance. The recalling of an ambassador is the most serious diplomatic gesture taken between states short of a complete breakdown of diplomatic relations and war. It comes as French and Turkish forces wage proxy wars against each other in a broad arc of conflicts from Libya to the eastern Mediterranean, Syria, and the Armenian-Azeri war in the Caucasus.

Erdoğan criticized Macron’s planned “anti-separatist law,” the far-right proposal of Prime Minister Jean Castex’s new government, which would set up state control over Islam in France and impose oaths of loyalty to the state on political and social organizations. The draconian law would trample upon France’s 1905 secularism law, which forbids state interference in religious life. Amid an explosive resurgence of COVID-19 in France, officials are stirring up anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic hatred, denouncing halal and kosher foods in supermarkets.

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (left) and French President Emmanuel Macron, in Berlin, Germany January 20, 2020 (AP Photo/Michael Sohn, File)

Amid public debate over this reactionary legislation, a young Chechen Islamist brutally murdered a schoolteacher, Samuel Paty, in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine for showing obscene caricatures of the prophet Mohamed to a class to discuss freedom of expression.

As calls for boycotts of French goods spread from Kuwait, Qatar, and across the Muslim world, Erdoğan publicly criticized Macron. “What is the problem this individual called Macron has with Islam and with the Muslims?” Erdoğan asked during a speech in the central Turkish city of Kayseri on Saturday. “Macron needs mental treatment. … What else can be said to a head of state who does not understand freedom of belief and who behaves in this way to millions of people living in his country who are members of a different faith?”

Erdoğan also implied that Macron, who is bitterly unpopular for his anti-worker social policies and his “herd immunity” policies in the COVID-19 pandemic, would lose the 2022 elections. He said, “You are constantly picking on Erdoğan. This will not earn you anything. There will be. … We will see your fate.” Speaking of Macron, Erdoğan added, “I don’t think he has a long way to go. Why? He has not achieved anything for France, and he should do for himself.”

On Twitter, Turkish government spokesman Fahrettin Altun also criticized the Macron administration’s “anti-separatist” law, writing: “This is about intimidating Muslims and reminding them that they are welcome to continue to make Europe’s economy work, but that they will never be a part of it.” Altun added that this policy is “eerily familiar,” noting that it recalls “the demonizing of European Jews in the 1920s.”

French officials immediately declared that these statements could not be tolerated and would provoke a harsh response. “President Erdogan’s comments are unacceptable. Outrage and insult are not a method,” staff of the Elysée presidential palace told AFP.

Yesterday, the French Foreign Ministry published a communiqué claiming: “In the absence of any official token of condemnation or solidarity from the Turkish authorities after the terrorist attack in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, now come hateful and slanderous propaganda against France in recent days, expressing a will to stir hatred against us and in our midst, as well as direct insults against the President of the French Republic, expressed from the highest level of the Turkish State. This conduct is unacceptable, especially from an allied nation. The French Ambassador to Turkey has been recalled and is returning to France this Sunday 25 October 2020 for consultations.”

France’s Junior Minister for European Affairs Clément Beaune also denounced Ankara. “It is very serious so we are responding with a very serious gesture, we are recalling our ambassador for consultations. This is very rare,” Beaune said. He attacked Turkey’s “provocative, aggressive, offensive political strategy” against French-backed forces: Greece in the eastern Mediterranean gas conflict, the Libyan National Army in the Libyan civil war, Kurdish nationalist militias in Syria, and Armenia. He pledged to deploy more French warships to waters off Turkey’s coast.

Again asserting that Turkey had made “no official reaction” to the Conflans-Sainte-Honorine murder, Beaune all but blamed Ankara for the killing. “We believe that Mr. Erdoğan represented a moderate form of political Islam. But there is no such thing as political Islam with a human face.” He said that the European Union might adopt stricter economic sanctions to strangle Turkey’s economy.

In fact, the accusations of the French Foreign Ministry and of Beaune against Turkey were false. Astonishingly, in their haste to recall their ambassador, none of the French officials noticed that Turkish officials had in fact officially condemned Paty’s murder.

On October 17, the day after the killing, Turkish Ambassador to France Ismail Hakki Musa tweeted in French: “I’m horrified by the appalling murder of a teacher in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine. Nothing can justify this. My condolences to his family.” The Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a statement recalling this yesterday and stressing again that it was “saddened by the murder of Samuel Paty.”

For now, however, it appears that Macron will nevertheless follow through and recall Magro from Ankara to Paris for consultations.

Macron’s decision to withdraw France’s ambassador, effectively threatening to cut off diplomatic relations, and work to encircle Turkey militarily is a reactionary provocation. After three decades of imperialist war since the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the entire Mediterranean-Middle East-Central Asian region is a powder keg. The region has teetered on the brink of all-out war throughout 2020, and these conflicts are now intersecting with toxic internal conflicts in Europe bound up with the bourgeoisie’s “herd immunity policy” on COVID-19.

Amid a rapid resurgence in Europe of the pandemic, with France logging over 52,000 cases yesterday, Macron is doubling down on nationalist appeals to anti-Muslim, law-and-order hysteria. While Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin has stressed his respect for neo-fascist presidential candidate Marine Le Pen and calling for banning Muslim community organizations, he is leading denunciations of kosher and halal foods taken straight from the political arsenal of the far right.

Erdoğan’s populist posturing as a defender of Muslims is undoubtedly hypocritical. The Turkish bourgeoisie is in fact an accomplice in the imperialist plunder of the Middle East, having supported NATO proxy wars waged by CIA-backed Islamist militias in both Libya and Syria, and provided its territory as a NATO base for military operations across the region. Its policies on the COVID-19 pandemic have also been disastrous. However, French officials’ attacks on Erdoğan’s statements are false and have dangerous implications for democratic rights.

Millions in France are appalled by Macron’s disastrous handling of the pandemic, his savage police repression of workers protests, and unabashed appeals to political racism and neo-fascism from top administration officials. Macron himself is perhaps France’s most widely hated president. Yet a press campaign is unfolding, denouncing all criticism of Macron’s law as “Islamo-leftism,” effectively equating opposition to Macron with support for terrorism.

The way forward is a rejection of attempts to divide the working class with appeals to religious and ethnic hatreds, and the unification of the working class and youth in struggle against imperialist wars, “herd immunity” policies and far-right attacks on democratic rights.

White House makes clear, “We’re not going to control the pandemic”

Benjamin Mateus

In an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union” talk show, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows made clear that the Trump Administration has abandoned any efforts to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We’re not going to control the pandemic,” Meadows said, instead claiming, “We are going to control the fact that we get vaccines, therapeutics, and other mitigation areas.”

Meadows’ statement is the most explicit declaration to date that the White House is implementing a policy of “herd immunity,” allowing the disease to spread unchecked throughout the population.

President Donald Trump speaks about the coronavirus in the Rose Garden of the White House, Wednesday, April 15, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Last week, two unnamed White House officials told the press on background that the Trump Administration supports the Great Barrington Declaration, which calls for the abandonment of efforts to contain the disease, including the prohibition of large crowds and other “superspreader” events.

But Meadows’ statement makes clear what this policy, cynically presented by its apologists as “protecting the elderly,” will be in practice: nothing will be done to stop the spread of the disease.

Instead, those who fall severely ill are to rely on therapeutics, which have proven only marginally effective, and vaccines, which do not exist. That is, they will simply be allowed to fall sick, and the elderly will be allowed to die.

After Meadows made these statements, CNN moderator Jake Tapper said, “We’re getting the hook from your team over there at the White House,” cutting the interview short. It can be surmised that Meadows, who did not seem to be fully in possession of himself, said too bluntly what the administration is actually doing.

Meadows’ admission corroborates the World Socialist Web Site’s analysis that the White House’s embrace of the Great Barrington Declaration amounts to support for what can only be construed as a policy of mass homicide. As we wrote last week, the White House “plans to allow additional hundreds of thousands of people to die amid a global resurgence of the pandemic caused by the premature abandonment of business closures and other efforts to contain the pandemic.”

These comments come amid a massive resurgence of the pandemic in the United States. On Friday and Saturday, the US recorded a record 81,417 and 79,453 cases respectively. All over the country, hospitals are once again filling up, as epidemiologists warn that hundreds of thousands more people will die this fall and winter. The United States has had 8.89 million cases of COVID-19 and over 230,000 deaths.

In chilling remarks on Friday, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned, “We are at a critical juncture in this pandemic… Too many countries are seeing an exponential increase in cases, and that is now leading to hospitals and ICUs close to or above capacity, and we are still only in October.”

He continued, “We urge leaders to take immediate action to prevent further unnecessary deaths, essential health services from collapsing, and schools shutting again. As I said it in February and I am repeating it today, ‘this is not a drill.’”

A recent study published by Columbia University’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness attempted to look at the “staggering and disproportionate” number of COVID-19 fatalities in the United States to determine how many could have been avoided. Using comparative analysis, they estimated that “at least 130,000 deaths and perhaps as many as 210,000 could have been avoided with earlier policy interventions and more robust federal coordination and leadership.” Such a scale of deaths required an all-in government approach.

The number of hospitalizations in the United States has grown by more than 40 percent nationwide. At least 38 states have reported a rise in hospitalizations over the last week, which underscores the ludicrous argument that rising numbers are a byproduct of increased testing.

Dr. William Haseltine, a world-renowned infectious disease expert, speaking to the Daily Beast, offered sobering words, stating, “You should be prepared for how bad it’s going to get. We’re looking at easily an excess 100,000 infections a day and overwhelmed hospitals all over the country.”

The initial wave of the pandemic in the spring was centered essentially in the densely populated Northeast. In contrast, the second wave over the summer remained regional, affecting the Sunbelt states. More specifically, facilities like retirement homes, meatpacking plants, and prisons were hardest-hit. Presently, infections are being traced to family gatherings, schools and universities, religious services, cafes, bars, and athletic events across all urban settings.

Dr. Haseltine continued, “We’re not even near the peak. What we can hope for is that this will plateau at 100,000, and that enough people will get scared enough, and that enough hospitals will get overwhelmed that it convinces the American public to wear masks, social distance, and exercise caution.”

Government of Germany DAAD Scholarships 2021/2022

Application Deadline: 30th October 2020

Offered Annually? Yes

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany

Type: Short courses/Training, Masters

Eligibility: Foreign applicants who have gained a first university degree in the field of the Performing Arts at the latest by the time they commence their scholarship-supported study programme.

What can be funded?

In this study programme, you can complete

• a Master’s degree/postgraduate degree leading to a final qualification, or
• a complementary course that does not lead to a final qualification (not an undergraduate course)

at a state or state-recognised German university of your choice.
This programme only funds projects in the artistic field of the Performing Arts (Drama, Theatre Directing/Theatre Dramaturgy, Musicals, Performance Studies, Dance, Choreography). Other DAAD scholarship programmes are available for applicants from the fields of Theatre and Dance Studies or for artists with a scientific project.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

• A monthly payment of 850 euros
• Travel allowance, unless these expenses are covered by the home country or another source of funding
• One-off study allowance
• Payments towards health, accident and personal liability insurance cover

Under certain circumstances, scholarship holders may receive the following additional benefits:

• Monthly rent subsidy
• Monthly allowance for accompanying members of family

To enable scholarship holders to learn German in preparation for their stay in the country, DAAD offers the following services:

• Payment of course fees for the online language course “Deutsch-Uni Online (DUO)” (deutsch-uni.com) for six months after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter
• if necessary: Language course (2, 4 or 6 months) before the start of the study visit; the DAAD decides whether to fund participation and for how long depending on German language skills and project. Participation in a language course is compulsory if the language of instruction or working language is German at the German host institution.
• Allowance for a personally chosen German language course during the scholarship period
• Reimbursement of the fees for the TestDaF test which has either been taken in the home country after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter or in Germany before the end of the funding period
• As an alternative to the TestDaF for scholarship holders who have taken a language course beforehand: the fee for a DSH examination taken during the scholarship period may be reimbursed.

Duration of Program: 

• Masters/Postgraduate study programmes: Between 10 and 24 months depending on the length of the chosen study programme or project
• Complementary studies not leading to a final qualification: One academic year

How to Apply: The application procedure occurs online through the DAAD portal. You are also required to send additional documents by post to the specified application address. 

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Why does Indian Nationalism Undermine South Asian Solidarity?

Manjima Misra

With a long collective history and geographical proximity, the goal of forming an integrated vision for South Asian countries seems like a natural outcome. The South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC), formed in 1985, was an ambitious move to fulfil the goal of South Asian solidarity. The aim of SAARC was to “strengthen cooperation among themselves to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region.” While PM Narendra Modi of India claimed to pursue a neighbourhood first policy, the underlying nationalist ideology of his policies has meant a setback for a shared South Asian vision of development.

The Case of Bangladesh

Contrasts in views about national development amongst SAARC countries are sharper than ever before. International Monetary Fund (IMF) has recently predicted that the per capita GDP of Bangladesh will overtake that of India in 2020. This has led to some negative reaction in India. In comparison to the protectionism of nationalist economic policies of countries such as India which are now emphasizing on investing locally, Bangladesh’s outward orientation and export led model of growth has contributed to its economic development.

While India continues to perform poorly in human development indicators, Bangladesh model of development has been better for human development. In Bangladesh, there has been massive improvement in the health sector with significant decrease in infant, child and maternal mortality rates. There has also been growth in primary school enrolment. In contrast, life expectancy was higher in India in 1990 but after that it has rapidly decreased. “Bangladeshis currently have a life expectancy three years longer than a typical Indian or five years than a Pakistani.” If India instead of learning from the development models of other developing neighbouring countries, views them in solely competitive terms, it does damage to its own prospects.

On 29 September 2020, the sixth round of Bangladesh-India Foreign Ministers’ consultative meeting took place. Several issues were discussed such as the repatriation of displaced Rohingyas. Here, the sticking point is the contentious relationship between nationalism and human rights. India has recently adopted policies which beat the spirit of human rights- the equal dignity of all human beings. There have been conflicts in India’s relationship with Bangladesh due to its nationalist approach towards citizenship and migration. India’s implementation of National Register of Citizens (NRC) and Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAA), both of which are problematic for human rights, has led to discontent amongst Bangladeshis.

Border Disputes with Nepal

Indian Army Chief will be visiting Nepal in November 2020. However, the planned visit comes in the backdrop of a border dispute with Nepal.

One of the goals of SAARC is to contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation of one another’s problems. However, a recent border dispute with Nepal went against this purpose by strengthening the “trust deficit” (a term used by Lok Raj Baral, former Nepali diplomat) between India and Nepal.

On 8th May 2020, India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated the 80 km long strategically important Lipulekh road, which will serve as the shortest route between India’s capital New Delhi and Kailash-Mansarover- a popular Hindu pilgrimage site. The Defence Ministry said in support of the construction that now the travel to Kailash Mansarover would be very short. India’s Nationalist government has consistently tried to encash upon the religious devotion of the Hindu majority. A construction of a road with appeasement of  Hindu piligrims as one of its goals led to a strained relationship with Nepal. Appeasing the religious majority is one of the components of nationalism.

The ties between India and Nepal suffered a setback following the inauguration of the road connecting the Lipulekh pass with Dharchula in Uttarakhand. Nepal protested against the inauguration of the road by saying that it passed through its territory. Nepal came out with the new map which showed Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura as its territories.India too published a map showing the territories to be its own in November 2019.

Conclusion

India is losing ground with other South Asian countries such as Sri Lanka and Maldives as well. Sri Lanka and Maldives are increasingly coming under China’s influence and ever-deteriorating India-China ties makes it worse for Indian interests.

Foreign policy is influenced by the ideological underpinnings of the domestic politics. The ideological base of the ruling establishment of India needs to be rectified in order to develop better cooperation with its South Asian neighbours.

Limits of Puritanism

Bhabani Shankar Nayak

The principles and ideological commitments in politics, culture, religion and social practices breed culture of puritanism both in its progressive and regressive forms. The transformation of society to lead an exemplary life is the core in the politics of puritanism as a movement of divinity. Both right wing reactionaries and left-wing radicals use puritanism like applied theology to the concerns of their followers. The confident control of individual conscience and sanctification in the name of purity is central to this gradual and subtle process of puritan socialisation. Such puritan praxis shapes individual rights, liberties, duties and obligations for the society, state, community and family in different stages of history. The puritan provocations change with the change of time, place and public opinion but certain unchanging core doctrinal elements of puritanism continue to exist in spite of growth of science and technology. In the idea of purity of race, religion, gender, sexuality, caste, language, region and nationalism, the puritans use core doctrinal elements to appeal to public for its legitimacy. The purity and coherence between thoughts and actions are central to the core of puritanism, which individuals and communities tend to practice as daily discipline in matters of all forms of relationships and interactions. Puritanism as an ideological force has influenced religious, cultural, political, secular, liberal, conservative and radical trends in the society.

The religious, right wing and reactionary puritans have relied heavily on the idea of god and nationalism in their effort to exercise political authority, influence government policies and control the state by forming informal and voluntary associations with missionary spirit. It is the idea of god and religion that works as the core and heart of puritanism. Religions provide ideological foundation to puritanism as an ideology of conformism, which emphasised on ‘work is god and god is truth’ for salvation. Such a narrow puritan essence has helped to hinder working class abilities to embrace emancipatory ideals of their own consciousness from their own work and workplace. Further, the religious puritanism has destroyed the organic relationship between the ‘work’ and ‘worker’ by converting it into a contractual language of ‘‘Covenant of Works’’ and the ‘‘Covenant of Grace’’ in Christianity. The spiritual relationship between the ‘work’ and the ‘worker’ was further destroyed by asking for desire free work (Niskama Karma) in Hindu religion as outline in the Bhagavad Gita. All major world religions follow this pattern of theological arguments, which are adopted by puritanism and its advocates. Any deviation is regarded as sin; a path towards hell and blind following is sacred; a path towards heaven. In this process, the glorification of god, complete surrender to work, unquestionable truth and morality becomes the core of right-wing puritanism that helps to domesticate individual freedom, individual labour and community space in the service of power; rulers, industrialists and capitalists.

Similarly, the radical sectarians and democratic dissenters have also reconfigured puritanism as a revolutionary ideology of counter culture led by marginalised communities to transform existing social, political and economic order. The mechanical understanding of historical transformations and conceptualisation of revolutionary processes follow certain outdated and unchanging narratives like puritans. Class struggle as a revolutionary project need to get away from the orientation of puritanism. Class struggle often demands political and ideological manoeuvres within different contexts. It is an adultery of ideas, people and strategies to uphold working class values and interests. The revolutionary organisational structure, its mechanisms and style of functioning need to get away from everything that disciplines individuals and their creativity abilities. The idea of disciplining is the core of puritanism that drags revolutionary processes into the reactionary puritan path. The individuals find themselves in an environment of disorientation; be it in religious congregations or in revolutionary political projects. Puritanism provides simple and readymade answers to higher questions guided by puritan morality. In this way, puritanism and its frameworks create a theological understanding of human life and natural world.  Puritanism discourages individuals for scientific scrutiny and inquiry into existing knowledge and its advancement.

The re-emergence of religious puritanism and its right-wing avatars are product of this larger philosophical terrain, which is concomitant with capitalism and its hegemonic control over individuals and communities. The domesticated labour is a central requirement for the growth of capitalism. The religious puritanism can only create conformist and subservient individuals. Therefore, capitalism promotes authoritarian and religious right-wing force in politics and society to nourish conformist and domesticated individuals, who live with limited resources with unlimited manufactured desires. The gap between reality and desire is so vast that individuals fall in line to fulfil the gaps in their life. Puritanism itself is a desire that exploits such a situation of unnecessary emptiness created by the capitalist system to control individuals and communities.

Puritanism fortifies the spirit of capitalism and ensures the survival of unequal economic relationships based on social and religious morality. The religious foundations of puritanism shape everyday lives by controlling our choices and freedoms in the name of morality devoid of any substance and materiality. Puritanism as a movement, it has sanctified the ruling classes virtues as natural social and political order. The ideas of subordination, hierarchy, exploitations and inequalities are normalised within puritan frameworks of divine order. In this way, puritanism is a detrimental ideology, which is against progressive social and political transformations. It is within this context, it is important to reject all forms of puritan ideals to pave a clear path for scientific inquiry for the advancement of knowledge for social and political change.

UK COVID-19 deaths surge to more than 1,100 over last week

Robert Stevens

Friday’s death toll of 224 took COVID-19 fatalities in the UK over the last seven days past the grim milestone of 1,000, to 1,142.

The virus is spiraling out of control, with official figures showed 141,741 new cases over the same one-week period, with the rolling 7-day average for daily new cases eclipsing 20,000 for the first time.

The R (Reproduction) rate of the virus remains above 1 nationally, with an estimated daily growth rate range of 3 to 6 percent.

Large areas of the UK were placed under local lockdowns over the last 24 hours, including six million people placed under the highest tier restrictions. Despite the massive resurgence of the deadly disease, the government, which rules on behalf of big business, is yet to enforce a national lockdown comparable with that put in place from March 23—which saved hundreds of thousands of lives. It was the premature ending of the national lockdown from June onwards, and the opening of schools, colleges and workplaces to facilitate the profitmaking of big business, that produced this disastrous situation.

A member of the public passes the Nightingale Hospital North West in Manchester, England, Thursday Oct. 22, 2020, as strict coronavirus restrictions on England's second-largest urban area, Greater Manchester, will start at midnight. The temporary facility set up in a conference centre in the city to treat patients in the north west of England recovering from coronavirus is to reopen from next week, it has been confirmed. (AP Photo/Jon Super)

The “firebreak” lockdown announced by the Welsh government this week came into operation last night at 6 p.m., covering its population of 3.1 million. People in Wales are to stay indoors unless they need to travel for an essential reason. Non-essential retail is closed, and those shops that are open can only sell essential goods. Workers are to work from home wherever possible, with exceptions for essential workers. Pubs and restaurants will close, as will places of worship.

Yet these restrictions will only be in place for 17 days. Children from years 9-13 cannot attend school but pupils in years 7 and 8 are allowed to return after the half-term break. Those who are taking exams can also attend, as can children who attend special schools or pupil referral units.

Scottish National Party First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced a five-level system for restricting movements and limiting physical contact. The highest level of the five entails more restrictions than the highest of England’s three tiers already in place.

Greater Manchester, in the north of England, was moved from Tier 2 “high” restrictions to Tier 3 “very high” by central government. The move, covering a population of nearly 3 million people, was imposed after local Labour Party mayor Andy Burnham was unable to reach a deal with Prime Minister Boris Johnson over the financial support available to local business.

The county of South Yorkshire in England, with a population of over 1.4 million and including the cities of Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster, was also placed in Tier 3. The cities of Coventry and Stoke and the town of Slough enter Tier 2 today. These moves are an indication of catastrophe that is being allowed to unfold.

Hospitals are already being overwhelmed, with ICU units full in several areas. The government announced that 997 COVID-19 patients were admitted to hospitals in England on Wednesday, well above the 706 a week earlier. A total of 6,518 COVID-19 patients were in hospital in England yesterday, up from 4,647 a week ago. The number of people requiring ventilation is surging, with 601 in ventilation beds, up from 482 a week ago.

Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust said Friday that the increase in COVID-19 hospitalisations is "similar to April". More than 200 of their patients have tested positive for coronavirus, and 16 are in a critical condition. The Guardian reported that the trust said "a full ward of people" were being admitted daily with coronavirus infections and that an average of seven people were on mechanical ventilation a day. The Trust has been forced to postpone some non-urgent operations.

In Liverpool, in northwest England, it was reported Thursday that the city’s three main hospitals—Royal, Aintree and Broadgreen—were treating 398 COVID-19 patients, compared with 390 during the height of the pandemic in April.

The scale of cases in the northwest mean the first of the government’s emergency Nightingale field hospitals, on standby for months, will reopen next week in Manchester.

Two MPs contracted COVID-19 this week. On Friday, Bolton Labour Party MP Yasmin Qureshi was discharged from hospital where she was treated for pneumonia after testing positive for COVID-19. At the same time, it was announced that Conservative MP for Rushcliffe, Ruth Edwards, was infected.

Such is the dysfunctionality of the UK’s test, track and trace system that the real number of cases is likely to be much higher than the total officially recorded each day.

Just over a month ago, Chief Scientific Officer Sir Patrick Vallance announced at a Downing Street press conference that without further action and at the then current rate of infection, “you would end up with something like 50,000 cases in the middle of October per day”. He warned, “Fifty-thousand cases per day would be expected to lead a month later, so the middle of November say, to 200-plus deaths per day.”

As this week’s fatalities reveal, the 200 deaths a day is already a reality weeks ahead of Vallance’s grim prediction. And Vallance revealed yesterday that the prediction of 50,000 cases a day could have already also been massively eclipsed.

Vallance showed a slide dated two days previous from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) sub-group, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M). He said: "The modelling consensus suggests that between 53,000 and 90,000 new infections per day may be occurring… The number of infections overall across the country continues to increase.”

He warned “It’s worth remembering the number of infections leads to hospitalisations a week or two later and that in turn has the effect of increasing intensive care unit numbers and of course, unfortunately, the number of people who die as a result of that.”

The explosion of COVID-19 infections and deaths exposes as a total failure the government’s ineffectual “rule of six” restriction on socialising and policy of localised lockdowns, which have done nothing to arrest the spread of the disease.

This week, after coming under relentless pressure from business figures, Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced a new £3 billion-a-month business bailout scheme for companies in local lockdown areas. This amounts to offering businesses in Tier Two areas a paltry maximum of £2,100 per month—which in many cases will only pay the salary of one or two workers.

Speaking alongside Vallance at Thursday’s press conference, Johnson declared, “I want to thank Rishi for measures that will protect people’s livelihoods and protect jobs and which will help us to deliver our overwhelming objective of getting the virus under control while keeping pupils in education and keeping the UK economy moving forward. I know that there are some people who will say that this economic objective is so important that we should stop all measures to control the virus and stop restrictions of any kind on our social lives or on the way we run our businesses.

“We can’t do that because alas the maths is inescapable. We would face many thousands more deaths … So that’s why we reject that extreme laissez-faire approach.”

This is a pack of lies. Johnson’s government is responsible for well over 60,000 deaths, after declaring it was pursuing a herd immunity policy at the outset of the pandemic, before a public backlash forced it to impose March’s lockdown. Despite Johnson’s claims to the contrary, his “keeping pupils in education and keeping the UK economy moving forward” will result in thousands more deaths.

Among the main vectors for spreading coronavirus are schools and universities. The infection rate in secondary schools is now 17 times higher than on September 1, when they reopened. According to the Tory Fibs Twitter account, which is collating the figures, the total number of schools where an infection or multiple infections have occurred now stands at more than 6,000.

Almost all universities have reported infections, with the UniCovid website reporting cases at 116 higher education institutions. It reported, “As at 6pm 22 October 2020, our data puts the number of confirmed cases for students at 25,530, for staff 523, in total 26,053.”

Spain’s “left populist” Podemos separates migrant children from their parents

Alejandro López

Spain’s Socialist Party (PSOE)-Podemos government is implementing the barbaric policy of separating migrant mothers from their children.

Earlier this week, Cadena Ser radio and Eldiario.es reported that a dozen children in the Canary Islands had been separated from their mothers or relatives for months while DNA testing was carried out to verify they were related. The decision was made by the prosecutor of Las Palmas.

Yaiza Martín, a worker at Misión Cristiana Moderna, an evangelical church in Fuerteventura that has acted as an improvised reception centre of migrants to the Canary Islands, explained to the news agency EFE that she has heard cries and pleas from mothers for over two months. The mothers were separated from their children, some two and three years old.

Pablo Iglesias (right), Secretary-General of Podemos. (Image Credit: PODEMOS/Youtube)

Martín explained: “When they arrive at the port, the children are sent to juvenile centres, and the adults are sent to a warehouse on the dock (where they do the PCR and filiation tests); then to another ship to pass the COVID-19 quarantine and then to the shelter, but the children are not returned until the DNA tests are completed, which usually takes between three and four months.” For the mothers, she added, “this as a terrible thing, because they don’t know who to turn to.”

The PSOE-Podemos government-appointed State Attorney General’s Office has defended Las Palmas Prosecutor’s Office instructions to separate the minors, claiming that it aims to stop human trafficking. According to the attorney general’s statement, since 2019 they have found “alarming number of cases” of minors disappearing together with those who claimed to be their mothers.

These disappearances occurred before receiving the results of the DNA tests. In an inhumane and bizarre argument, the state attorney general asserts that this is proof, not of the brutality of the detention centres where migrants are locked up, but that there was no biological link between them. The statement claims the criterion is of “temporary nature,” although it recognizes that the notification of test results suffers “long delays.”

This policy, however, has nothing to do with stopping human trafficking. The tests, which recall the medical measures employed by fascist regimes against Jews and other “undesirables,” aim to terrorize migrants to stop them from undertaking the dangerous journey to Spain via boat. According to the Interior Ministry, more than 8,000 migrants have reached the Canary Islands from Africa by sea so far this year, compared with just 1,000 in the same period of 2019.

Data shows that there are very few cases in which tests reveal that the adult does not have the relationship that they claim to have with the minor. According to provisional data from 2019, provided by the General Immigration and Borders Commission to the Ombudsman, 416 minors were located who, accompanied by adults, tried to reach Spain irregularly by boat. That year, 651 DNA tests were carried out to prove the parentage link, of which 39 were negative and 38 were pending.

Even the negative test results must, however, be interpreted carefully. As many NGOs have pointed out, bonds between migrant adults and children aren’t always biological.

DNA tests on minors began in 2013 after a recommendation from the Ombudsman warning of risks such as trafficking, illegal adoptions or even trafficking of organs. It should be noted that if such risks exist, this is due to the brutality of the European Union’s anti-migrant policy. Based on police repression, it consigns refugees to a vast network of concentration camps spreading from Turkey, the Greek Islands, Northern Africa and Spain’s African enclaves in Ceuta and Melilla, and the Canary Islands.

However, even the recommendation of the ombudsman did not include separating children from parents. Instead, it called for authorities to closely monitor the adult’s bond with the minor while they waited together in these detention centres.

It was the PSOE-Podemos government which adopted this brutal policy, notoriously implemented by America’s fascistic president, Donald Trump.

In 2018, the US government started separating parents from minors, and it currently holds thousands of children behind bars. The assault on migrants in the United States enjoys bipartisan support. Indeed, during last Thursday’s presidential debate, Trump asked Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, “who put the kids in cages, Joe?” This was a reference to the record deportation of 2.7 million immigrants and the hundreds of thousands of parents torn from their children under the Obama administration.

While in the US it has been the Democratic Party that has laid the basis for Trump’s anti-migrant policy, in Spain it has been traditionally the social democratic PSOE, supported by the Stalinists and Left Populists, which have led the way in implementing brutal anti-migrant policies.

In the 1990s, in the aftermath of the Stalinist regime’s dissolution of the Soviet Union, the PSOE launched drastic attacks on migrants. These measures included fortified frontiers, increasing police repression, militarised borders and razor-wire fences. Spain was the first attempt to externalize border control—in Spain’s case, to Morocco. This was later expanded to Turkey and Libya.

This policy has continued to this day. The PSOE-Podemos government has lobbied the EU to continue to fund Morocco to the tune of billions of euros in exchange for terrorising migrants in the country before they try to enter Europe through Spain’s North African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla and by boat across the Mediterranean. This has led to the deaths of thousands at sea, while in Spain migrants have been attacked and even died due to police brutality.

The PSOE-Podemos government also continued the notorious summary expulsions, or “hot returns,” by directly deporting individuals who do manage to cross without conducting any credible trial, trampling on the right to asylum. Earlier this year, the government also sent 111 police officers to support Greece’s conservative New Democracy government in its savage crackdown on migrants.

Spanish police are well versed in these practices. In 2014, Civil Guards tried to repel migrants trying to cross the border at Ceuta, by swimming around the Tarajal seawall, by shooting the swimming migrants with rubber bullets and tear gas. Fifteen died. The PSOE-Podemos-nominated state attorney defended the Civil Guards, stating that they were facing a “violent avalanche.”

The ruthlessness with which the social democrats and Left Populists are violating elementary fundamental rights and the lives of refugees and migrants must be taken as a warning. They are demonstrating the same ruthlessness towards human life in the coronavirus pandemic, where they deliberately accept the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people by reopening schools and forcing workers back to nonessential activities.

Faced with the deepest crisis of capitalism since the 1930s, the ruling class everywhere is turning to violent police-state measures. The immigration policies of the “left populists”—whether Greece’s Syriza and its concentration camps for migrants in the Greek islands, or Podemos-backed separation of children and parents—could have easily been written by fascistic parties like Vox.

The working class must unconditionally defend all refugees and migrants and their fundamental right to asylum, and to live and work wherever they want, as an essential element of the defence of the social and democratic rights of the entire working class.

Thai protesters demand the resignation of the prime minister

Ben McGrath

Students and youth in Thailand continue to press for the government to meet their demands amid a highly volatile situation. After attempting to use police force last week to shut down large-scale demonstrations, the administration of Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha is now working to shut down the protest movement via parliament. The danger of a violent crackdown remains.

Protesters occupy a main road as they gather at a junction in Bangkok, Thailand, October 15, 2020 [Credit: AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit]

During another mass demonstration and march to Government House on Wednesday, Prayuth delivered a television address, stating, “I will make the first move to deescalate this situation. I am currently preparing to lift the state of severe emergency in Bangkok and will do so promptly if there are no violent incidents.” He called on the protesters to resolve the political issues through parliament—in other words for students and youth to place their faith in opposition parties.

The government lifted the state of emergency yesterday. It had banned public gatherings of five people or more and enabled the government to carry out broad censorship of anything deemed to “affect national security” or “spread fear.” Under the decree, Bangkok targeted four media outlets: VoiceTV, Prachatai.com, “The Reporters,” and the Standard .

VoiceTV was ordered to close on Tuesday, but a court reversed the decision the next day. It is partly owned by the family of former Prime Ministers Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck. Both were ousted in military coups, with the latter removed in 2014 and replaced by a military junta led by Prayuth.

Protest leaders, however, are continuing to demand the resignation of Prayuth and his government and the release of protesters who have been arrested over the past two weeks. “He’s still seeking to stay in power while ignoring all the people’s demands. The emergency decree shouldn’t have been issued in the first place,” said protest leader Sirawith Seritiwat. Thursday was the first day since October 14 without major demonstrations but protest organisers warned that the rallies will continue on Sunday if their demands are not met.

In July, the protest movement put forward three core demands: Prayuth’s resignation, the writing of a new constitution, and the end to persecution of government critics. In August, protesters also put forward ten demands to reform the monarchy, which include the abolition of the draconian lèse-majesté law, transparency regarding the king’s finances, and an end to government propaganda involving the king.

Prayuth recalled parliament on Monday from a recess and will discuss the protests during sessions next week. The prime minister clearly hopes that the main opposition parties—Pheu Thai and the Move Forward Party (MFP), which has some support among students and youth—will be able to use their influence to put an end to the demonstrations.

Students, youth, and workers genuinely motivated by democratic rights should place no faith in these parties. The Pheu Thai Party is connected to former Prime Minister Thaksin and is the successor of his Thai Rak Thai Party. Thaksin, a billionaire, was ousted in a 2006 coup after his policies cut across the business interests of the Bangkok elite including by opening the economy to increased foreign investment.

Pheu Thai has attempted to divert the protests behind the courts—another wing of the government—by filing a lawsuit in the Bangkok Civil Court against the state of emergency. Pheu Thai legislator Cholanan Srikaew criticized Prayuth for lifting the state of emergency at this point: “He’s really doing it to protect himself. Why? Because if he didn’t lift the emergency decree today, and the court ordered the temporary protection of the protesters, it would mean all his orders and announcement relating to this were illegal.”

The smaller Move Forward (MFP) is oriented to middle class layers in Thailand dissatisfied with the role of the military and the monarchy in business. While issuing mild, left-sounding criticisms of the current system, the MFP and its de facto predecessor the Future Forward Party (FFP) are pro-capitalist. The MFP was founded in 2014, undergoing a number of name changes since then. When the FFP was dissolved in February, the majority of its members of parliament moved to the MFP.

The leader of the defunct FFP, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, has criticized monopoly capitalism in Thailand from the standpoint that only a small layer of the ruling elite controls the economy. He stated at the FFP’s launch in 2018 that he wanted to open the economy to other layers of business. He has added vague promises about making the economy work for the benefit of the majority. He is not an opponent of capitalism but represents a segment of the ruling class demanding greater access to wealth.

Before being disqualified as a member of parliament earlier this year, Thanathorn was the wealthiest person in the legislature, reporting assets last year worth 5.6 billion baht ($US180 million). From 2002 to 2018, he served in a leading role in the Thai Summit Group, which was founded by his father and is the largest auto parts manufacturer in the country.

Thanathorn has remained an influential figure despite being barred from politics after the government accused him of violating election laws. He has appealed to Washington for support and offered his party as a more reliable ally against China than the current Prayuth government.

Current MFP leader and wealthy businessman, Pita Limjaroenrat, has also criticized Prayuth’s government. While with the FFP in February, he stated, “Only one percent has enjoyed stability, prosperity and sustainability. This is the economy of the capitalists, by the capitalists, for the capitalists.” While the latter statement is true, Pita’s reference to the “one percent” is in fact a call for a greater dispersal of wealth within the bourgeoisie. His uncle served as a close aide to former Prime Minister Thaksin.

The attacks on democratic rights in Thailand are not solely the result of the Prayuth government or the monarchy. They ultimately stem from capitalism, which Pheu Thai and the MFP support. While in power, Thaksin sought to intimidate and silence critics and waged a ruthless “war on drugs” involving thousands of extra-judicial murders of alleged drug runners.

The fight for democratic rights is completely bound up with the struggle against capitalism and all factions of the ruling class. Students and youth should turn to the working class in Thailand and throughout the region by raising demands for improvements to social and economic conditions as part of the fight for socialism internationally.

Thousands of furloughed US aviation workers see no relief from US Congress

Steve Filips

As of the beginning of October, over 40,000 aviation industry workers out of a total workforce of 775,000 in the US were on furlough. The largest proportion of job losses were at United and American Airlines, which had a combined 32,000 on furlough.

This is despite futile lobbying efforts by the airline unions and air carriers for the US Congress to enact a further payroll support bill. However, federal legislators have shown no interest in further aid to the airlines even as the COVID-19 pandemic surges and millions remain out of work.

To reinforce the idea that furloughs and further concessions are inevitable, the airlines have reported huge third quarter losses and predicted no early return to conditions before the pandemic.

United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby, whose company had third quarter losses of $1.8 billion, predicted the airline would return to profitability next year. However, Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly is predicting the recovery will take much longer and said on CNBC, “it may be 10 years before business travel recovers. I don't know." The airlines have had the more lucrative business travel segment collapse and have been cutting fares to attract leisure travelers combined with reduction of non-stop routes to further bolster profits.

United Airlines flight on March 11, 2020 (Anna Zvereva / Wikimedia Commons)

Disregarding the surge in the coronavirus pandemic, Southwest said this week that is joining other airlines in scrapping safety precautions and planning on removing middle row seat restrictions on December 1 in order to compete with the other major airlines that have been filling their planes at close to capacity.

American Airlines saw a net loss of $2.8 billion for the last quarter. CEO Doug Parker commented on the adjustment the company has made after the massive furlough of 19,000 workers noted that new passengers were, “somewhat different from our normal clientele,” in that they are now, “leisure customers traveling to leisure destinations.”

The catastrophe facing tens of thousands of airline workers, who face the loss of their jobs and health insurance, has evoked no response from union officials except more lobbying. Sara Nelson, the president of the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) union continues these fruitless efforts, joining with other trade union bureaucrats throughout the industry in alliance with airline executives, and industry trade groups, to call for passage of a second payroll support bill.

Nelson continues to exhort her membership to write and call their Congressional representatives to explain the hardship they are experiencing. “People are losing their homes right now; falling ill and unable to get another job without access to routine medical care that keeps chronic illness at bay and allows them to otherwise live a normal life; moving their children and all the belongings they can fit into their cars and trying to survive as single parents or two parents out of work,” she pleaded. As though the millionaires in Congress, who recently voted unanimously to hand trillions to Wall Street, were the least bit interested in the hardship facing working class families.

The major airlines are reporting that third quarter passenger service is still down over 80 percent from last year. The brunt of this crisis is being borne by rank-and-file airline workers, as it appears that there have been no pay cuts or staff reductions imposed on well-heeled union bureaucrats.

A young American Airlines machinist from the company's main hub at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, near American’s headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas, spoke to the World Socialist Web Site about the challenges facing younger workers considering going into the airline industry.

“Some were going to go into aviation but decided against it because it’s not a stable field anymore. Others, like myself, chose being a machinist because it opens more doors than just aviation.”

Speaking about the collaboration of the unions in enforcing concessions on workers, “It’s not the pandemic that has done this, it’s American’s reputation of not being stable, of making promises that are not kept. It’s having a union that doesn’t care.”

Speaking to the lack of action by the unions on the mass furloughs he said, “No response from the union or company. It’s as if they have left them out to dry per se. An example occurred when a furloughed employee was trying to fly somewhere, but were stripped of their flight benefits. That individual tried contacting both union and company to no avail. They posted on Facebook and it seems they were not the only one with the issue or issues.

“This is occurring while airline companies have been utilizing fewer planes and filling the remaining planes to fullest capacity with hardly any restrictions or precautions against the spread of the coronavirus.”

Of the union officials he said, “Don’t hardly see them on the floor. They used to come around and ask how things were going, or if we needed anything. I believe that the last time I saw a member in our area was when they handed out face wraps.”

Speaking on the upcoming US elections, he commented, “Politically, it doesn’t matter who wins. The damage has been done and I am sure it isn’t over. Four rounds of furloughed employees, and with a net loss of $2.8 billion, there are bound to be more furloughs coming.”

Catastrophic increase of coronavirus infections in Germany

Gregor Link

The coronavirus policies of Germany’s federal and state governments have set the stage for a catastrophic development, threatening the lives and health of millions. According to figures from the Johns Hopkins University, new coronavirus infections in Germany yesterday reached a new record of over 12,500, with the death toll rising by 40 to 10,084. Across Europe, the total number of new coronavirus infections reached almost 8 million.

The virus is spreading faster and faster worldwide. Since January, over 380,000 people in Germany have been infected with COVID-19, more than one in ten of those within the last seven days. According to the current Robert Koch Institute (RKI) management report, this applies to almost every federal state—in Bremen, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Hesse, almost one in five of total cases developed last week.

The fact that many politicians and federal officials have tested positive in recent days also highlights the dynamics of the pandemic. Besides Federal Health Minister Jens Spahn, who yesterday went into domestic quarantine with “cold symptoms,” the entire leadership of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (as the secret service is called) is affected. Labour Minister Hubertus Heil and Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier are in quarantine due to contact with infected persons. There have been a total of 37 cases of infection among members and employees of the Bundestag (federal parliament) since March.

When the pandemic spread rapidly for the first time in the spring, due to the inaction of European governments, there were dramatic scenes in many regions of Europe. In the northern Italian region of Bergamo, for example, the military had to move in at night to remove coffins that could no longer be buried by the regional crematoria despite operating round the clock. In Spain, corpses had to be temporarily stored in Olympic ice sports arenas, while hospitals—similar to those in France and other countries—increasingly developed into infection clusters because nursing staff were denied any adequate protection.

Across Europe, the pandemic has already cost more than 247,000 lives—a loss of life surpassing anything that has occurred on the continent since the Second World War. Now, mass mortality is threatened on a scale that will go far beyond the previous catastrophe if no drastic measures are taken to contain the virus.

Hans Kluge, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Regional Director for Europe, said at a press conference on Thursday that COVID-19 is currently “the fifth leading cause of death and the point of 1,000 deaths per day has now been exceeded.” In Belgium, infected nurses are already being forced back to work because otherwise, health care would collapse.

The same “work until you die” policy is increasingly being imposed by the authorities on people in non-essential industries and businesses that should have been closed long ago. For example, workers at the Weidemark slaughterhouse in Sögel, Lower Saxony, were sent back to work this week, even though at least 112 of their colleagues had already been infected with the coronavirus in the unfiltered, cold and recirculating factory air. Instead, the district authorities ordered a so-called “work quarantine” in order not to further reduce “slaughter capacities.” The theory is that workers “move only between work and home” and otherwise are “isolated.” In other words, workers live only to produce surplus value.

Carola Reimann (Social Democratic Party, SPD), Lower Saxony’s Minister of Social Affairs, spoke of a “good solution” that would “protect against infection” and “address the serious problems of farmers.” Regional spokespersons of the German Trade Union Federation (DGB) and the Union of Food and Catering Workers (NGG) declared that there was “no legal basis” to end this slave-owner policy.

The RKI’s status report makes an urgent appeal for “the entire population to commit itself to infection control,” without mentioning the government’s policy of opening up the economy. According to the Institute, “case clusters” and “outbreaks” are observed especially “in old people’s homes and nursing homes” and “in companies.”

The report documents a sharp increase in the proportion of old people among the newly infected since the beginning of September. In the “70 years or older” age group, there has been a 75 percent increase in the number of new infections in the last two weeks, from 2,032 to 3,521. In mid-August—after the reopening of schools—two-thirds of the new infections were still accounted for by the under-40s.

Despite this deadly danger for the 700,000 people over 70 years of age who are in care homes throughout Germany, the federal and state governments’ latest “Decision to combat the coronavirus pandemic” states that “the respective regulations must not lead to the complete social isolation of those affected.” This must “always be taken into account.”

The media propaganda that young people and other “irresponsible” private individuals are responsible for the renewed ballooning of the pandemic has now been strikingly refuted by empirical surveys.

For example, the latest youth study conducted by the Social Science Research Centre Berlin (WZB) and the TUI Foundation revealed that 52 percent of those surveyed considered the protective measures currently still in place to be appropriate, and a further 23 percent considered them “insufficient.” According to the survey carried out by the YouGov opinion research institute, 83 percent of young people also adhere to the measures and do so predominantly to “protect others” and to “protect their own health”—not so much because of possible penalties for disregarding them.

These were “similar figures to those we know from adult surveys,” WZB analyst Marcus Spittler noted on Thursday on broadcaster ZDF’s Morgenmagazin .

The results of the study once again make clear that the main cause of the dramatic increase in infections is not the private behaviour of young people and workers, but the opening up of businesses and schools. This is an international phenomenon and affects all age groups. As Michael Wagner, Professor of Microbiology in Vienna and Aalborg (Denmark) explained on Twitter: “SARS-CoV-2 infections now occur in most elementary schools in Malmö.”

On Wednesday, the administrative court in Neustadt/Weinstraße rejected the urgent injunction sought for an asthmatic boarding school student from Kaiserslautern and declared that the boy was not entitled to be exempted from attending classes and recourse to distance learning because of the coronavirus pandemic. A “certain risk of infection with the novel coronavirus” was currently “part of the general life risk for the entire population,” the court declared, referring to “the case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court.”

With a 7-day incidence of more than 120 cases per 100,000 inhabitants, there are now 15 districts in the worst-affected areas, including, as before, the Berchtesgadener district, the city districts of Delmenhorst, Berlin Neukölln and Mitte and the district of Sankt Wendel. But as news weekly Der Spiegel reports, even these ominous figures from the districts could be far below the actual case numbers.

According to the newsmagazine, the RKI has “in many cases given the central number of the pandemic … incorrectly.” “At least 30 percent of all 7-day incidences published by the Institute between August 31 and October 12 were incomplete and therefore incorrect. The data of at least one day was completely missing.”

The Institute thus provided “a distorted picture of the infection situation in Germany.” Sometimes, according to the RKI, a place “bobs below the 50 mark for weeks, although in reality, it has long since passed it.” For example, on Oct. 8, the RKI reported an incidence in the district of Cloppenburg in which “almost three-quarters of the infections were missing.”

According to Der Spiegel, the 7-day incidence is on average “ten percent too low” nationwide—a frightening difference since each individual case is a multiplier of the exponential spread of the pandemic. In Hamburg, the figures were always 25 percent too low, in Saxony 19 percent too low. Under these conditions, a comparison of districts across federal state borders is “hardly possible,” concludes Der Spiegel. In other words, it may not be possible to determine in time whether a district is developing into a European hotspot.

As the RKI itself states, the currently reported death figures are misleadingly low, although these figures also suggest the beginning of an exponentially rising trend. The RKI report cites as “reasons” for the current pattern of deaths the still low average age of those infected, on the one hand, and the government’s “broad testing strategy,” which “increasingly includes mild cases as well.”

Susanne Johna, the chairwoman of the doctors’ association Marburger Bund, noted on the Maybrit Illner talk show that in the course of the so-called “ban on staying in accommodation away from home”—which Chancellor Angela Merkel and the state premiers had fought over in negotiations lasting several hours—people are being tested who have no symptoms. In this way, tests were being “wasted that we need elsewhere.” This means that the official numbers of infections are also rising less than the real level of infections because testing resources have not been sufficiently expanded.