When we founded our company 17 years ago, we had no idea that our eponymous leitmotif would one day become so central: Comites - the companions, the companionship.
We wanted to express that we do not want short-term, changeable and unstable spot relationships. We wanted to offer a service on the basis of which a long-term relationship, a deep trust, a stable connection could be established. And when, if not these days, will this attitude be confirmed?
Of course the current Corona challenge also shapes our daily actions. And at the same time, we would like to intensively advertise today to remember that life goes on after Corona.
First two small observations and two first insights: 1.
in the past days many of us have probably seen the video of Bill Gates from 2015. The genius of this man, his impressive modesty and empathy - fascinating. Seen ex post: simply brilliant.
Now you could say: You see, politics has failed once again; he knew what was coming five years ago. But beware: As convincing as Bill Gates presents it all, there have been similar videos about completely different challenges. You cannot prepare for everything and there were also enough videos with counter positions.
As decision makers we know that we have to process a lot of information, risk indications, counter-arguments, analyses with contradictory statements etc. We call this managing ambiguity.
2
The author of these lines had to treat a patient who was admitted with severe head injuries as a young medical student in a hospital outpatient clinic. A flower pot from a window sill at a great height had fallen on his head while walking along the street. Especially budding doctors tend to have a certain hypochondria, so the author temporarily considered going out onto the street wearing only a full-face helmet. What we mean by this
is There is no such thing as zero risk. You can't prepare for every risk. I was very
impressed these days by the article "The hammer and the dance" by Tomas Pueyo. He describes in great detail and impressively how to deal with Corona, which different strategies countries have chosen - and with which consequences.
In Germany - quite clearly - we have now decided on the "hammer", i.e. drastic measures. Perhaps even for the sledgehammer. There is indeed a lot to be said for it. And yet: The strategy is based on assumptions.
Example 1: For the hammer and against the strategy of herd immunisation it is argued that the coronavirus mutates rapidly. This is possible. It has not yet been proven. The nonimmunity and non-infectivity of a person infected with corona is as much an assumption as the opposite. Example 2: It is
assumed that the "hammer" will save time. Time for reflection never hurts. And of course time helps to strengthen the health care system. But do we really believe that this can be achieved on a significant scale within weeks? Given the high infectivity of the virus, a very high infection rate of the entire population is probably inevitable - the Chancellor speaks of 70 percent.
Example 3: Behind the hammer policy is also the assumption that drugs and a vaccination will be found quickly. This is also very optimistic.
Let us hope that the assumptions are correct. But let's not forget what we are accepting with the "hammer policy".
Basic democratic rights are being massively curtailed. Who of us could have imagined house arrest for several weeks just a few months ago? And for some governments, the temptation to impose permanent cuts may be great.
The economic consequences - a nightmare. And in economic terms: a country like Germany, which has reduced its national debt over the past six years through budget surpluses, is now facing the largest budget deficit in its entire history - including the Lehman crisis.
And this is where our reflections on life after the Corona crisis begin.
Good leadership is characterized by thinking in systems, not focusing one-sidedly on a single development.
This is what medicine had to learn. While 30 years ago there was still a dispute between surgeons and gynaecologists about who should treat breast cancer, today the institution of the tumour conference is taken for granted - i.e. the cooperation of doctors from various disciplines and other explicitly non-medical experts for the benefit of the patients.
We should think the crisis from the end. And at the same time listen to and weigh up alternatives. How long will we accept these legal restrictions on our freedom? How long can we afford the current situation economically?
The stronger an economy is, the more massive the contribution it can make to combating the virus. More hospital beds per citizen, more ventilators, more intensive care units and so on. This may sound brutal, but right decisions take into account the big picture.
So what does that mean?
The present hammer had to be and in this consequence. But after a few weeks this has to end. And the "Dance" must begin. A phase of normalization with one or the other rash up or down. If we
know that the elderly, chemotherapists and other seriously ill people are particularly affected by severe courses of corona infection or by a high risk of lethality, then why not voluntary protective measures for these groups, fully supported by the state? And an increasingly normalized life for the overgrown rest. Why punish everyone when you can protect the most vulnerable?
Exactly this approach should be followed in the future. Targeted, voluntary protection for risk groups instead of global blockade with the risk of political and economic system destruction.
In recent years, we have worked intensively on the leadership of tomorrow. It was always clear to us that resilience plays a decisive role in this. The belief in a life after Corona is currently the driving force for many of the resilient leaders.
With our thoughts we would like to encourage the "post-Corona debate" to take place already today and much more offensively and intensively.
After a few years as a doctor, the author of these lines was once confronted with a well-known "joke": Excellent operation, excellently succeeded, patient unfortunately deceased.
The quality of this joke is limited in terms of humour. But: We have to be careful not to turn this bad joke into an even worse reality when it comes to long-term strategies for dealing with corona virus infection.
Dr. Andreas Föller |
