> After two years, the small "Monitor" series on "Coronavirus and Politics: On the Role of Science" is coming to an end. Over two years, 24 articles have been published, exploring the topic from all angles: We extend our sincere thanks to all authors.
The focus was deliberately not (only) on the scientific aspects sui generis raised by the coronavirus epidemic, but rather on the relationship between the scientific system on the one hand and the political system on the other. In conclusion, this short article discusses two questions that have become considerably more acute and even more salient over the course of these two years, but still await a satisfactory solution or interpretation.

Failed social integration of the crisis

The first question concerns the central function of politics to reflect and integrate social conditions and conflicts. Unfortunately, there is no doubt; the finding that cannot be denied is this: the crisis has not been resolved; it remains an open wound. In contrast to historical examples, such as HIV 40 years ago, politics, and thus society, has not been able to achieve an integration of the diverse positions and subjective worlds of experience that have emerged during the coronavirus pandemic. Dogmatism and irreconcilability remain, and common learning steps are not discernible even from a distance.
This situation should give all responsible actors serious food for thought. Not only because it represents an unfavorable imbalance that is difficult to maintain, but because it blocks social learning. While the HIV crisis led to further development through the acceptance of same-sex lifestyles, bisexuality, and even intravenous drug use, all we hear now are platitudes like "we did everything really well." On the one hand, a deceptive conformity prevails; political systems are once again conceived in hierarchical terms; democratic decisions are "without alternative" and are removed from democratic debate; and the understanding of disease has been reverted to a purely biological "war on the virus"—social, even host factors (age, pre-existing conditions) are being suppressed. At least 50 years of development toward a holistic understanding of disease have been lost.
On the other hand, there is something that is perhaps not fully understood in some circles: anger and disappointment. Many citizens who had previously been
Those who could have been integrated into the social process with promises feel excluded. Patient autonomy had been preached for decades, and now not even grandchildren were allowed to be with the dying.
The question remains: how could this happen, and what is preventing the productive integration of the contradictions that emerged during the Corona crisis, which are clearly evident in the current election results?
What is certain is that the simultaneous coexistence of internal conformity and the disintegration of the camps is an extremely stressful situation, one that drains society of considerable energy that could certainly be more effectively deployed elsewhere. Identity politics, this much is certain, has largely sidelined the political left with its fixation on group interests and its rejection of universalism (Susan Neiman), while concepts like autonomy, freedom, and discourse have shifted to the right of the political spectrum. Yasha Mounk has compiled eloquent sources on how even medical treatments (including the coronavirus vaccine) in the US are distributed under diversity guidelines based on group membership, rather than need. The Left (in its previous terms) accepted the pharmaceutical industry's liability disclaimer for vaccines, accepted state control of drug administration (while restricting patient rights, e.g., including Paxlovid), and even agreed to the undermining of evidence-based considerations (as is now the case with the "Corona Minister's" "Healthy Heart Law") – a return to eminence-based medicine. But other elements of identity-based policymaking are also in vogue: hypermoralization is used to stabilize one's inner self (otherwise, one is considered a lateral thinker), and above all, it is opportune to work with induced fear again. There is agreement that the primary level must be addressed; too much reflection, even intellectuality, is dangerous – fear is even elevated to a virtue (Harry Lehmann, Bernd Stegemann), and being afraid demonstrates one's maturity. Mark Lilla rightly points out the parallels to evangelical self-recrimination: one must speak out loud about one's non-conformist deviations in order to purify oneself.
Furthermore, there would be no crisis without the media (which also played a huge role in HIV). However, the media are currently in a deep crisis – "calculating (expected clicks) instead of telling" is the current survival motto. They are being squeezed, on the one hand by free social media offerings, and on the other by the Communication Decency Act Section 230 (passed by Bill Clinton in 1996), which classifies algorithms as free speech and exempts tech companies in the US from the obligation – unlike the press and television – to influence content in any way. Thus, the EU, too, can only argue in economic terms and issue threats of local fines, but this is precisely what is driving scandalization to new heights.

Once to scientism and back

During the coronavirus crisis, "science" played a central role, at times appearing to replace political action: "Follow, listen to, unite behind science" was the cry from all sides. While it was unclear who would represent "science," numerous institutions (e.g., Leopoldina) and disciplines (e.g., virology) vigorously applied. Even though internationally renowned scientists like Wolfgang Streeck warned: "'Follow the science' was once the motto when it came to climate change. But which 'science'? 'Facts are facts!'"
As a scientist, I can only ask: Since when? What epistemological courses could someone have attended who writes something like that on a poster and then has themselves photographed with it?" The legitimacy gained by science was irresistible to politicians. Even if "the numbers" were incorrectly collected, the reference to their neutral objectivity made all inquiries superfluous, even when it came to serious restrictions on fundamental rights. On the issue of vaccination and the legislation on de facto compulsory vaccination, the Science Policy Alliance faced even more drastic scrutiny because, through the use of terms like the "pandemic of the unvaccinated" and the alleged lack of side effects of vaccination, vaccination was being exaggerated as a social obligation – by scientists and those who used science for their arguments.
However, and this is noteworthy, developments did not stop there. Naturally, numerous scientists (Richard Münch, Peter Strohschneider, Wolfgang Merkel, Michael Rüther, Caspar Hirschi, Klaus Ferdinand Gärditz, among others) protested and emphasized the epistemological nature of science (formulating questions, creating uncertainty, formulating new questions), but the real "bang" only came when Paul Schreyer of the "Magazin Multipolar" succeeded in having the so-called RKI protocols published. Here, a completely different picture emerged; "Follow the Science" had suddenly become "Science, please follow the politics." Politicians had made numerous decisions even against professional/scientific advice; the scientific reference was merely a pretext.

The big question that always comes at the end

As mentioned above, the political-economic theory of the coronavirus epidemic has not yet been written—although some elements may already be discernible. Graz sociologist Klaus Kraemer understands coronavirus as the first singular crisis that overrides all rules and overwhelms institutions. The thesis paper group relied on the parallel
The elision of several social antagonisms that neutralize each other under normal conditions. The biological concept of disease ("defeat the virus") triumphed over the social one, the basic sciences (laboratory virology) over the clinical one, and the hierarchical understanding of politics over complex concepts. The failure of left-wing discourse as a corrective and the paralysis of the media have already been mentioned above. The transition from a socioeconomically based social analysis (the ostracized term "interests") to a discourse of misunderstood cultural hegemony ("values") is certainly an important factor, as can be seen in the escalating culture war in the USA and increasingly in Europe – Corona was an opportunity to show "attitude."
It's easy to forget that a century ago, Antonio Gramsci, as a Marxist, certainly had a basic socioeconomic concept at his disposal when he described the importance of cultural hegemony. For numerous institutions, the coronavirus pandemic also represented an opportunity to promote the desired internationalization of decision-making ("One Health"), which led to opposition in some electorally oriented democracies. And, of course, perhaps historically comparable to the introduction of ID cards during the plague epidemics in the Middle Ages, digitalization as a technological option for social structure formation. Even if we know that technological interventions only have a supporting character and take a back seat to social, organizational, and cultural interventions, the temptation was great to achieve comprehensive control of population mobility through vaccination passports, digital access regulations, etc.
A cybernetic social model analogous to Singapore or China appeared on the horizon. If one follows Joseph Vogl's "Capital and Resentment," the convergence of financial and data capitalism was further over-optimized by the population's movement and health data.
It's always said that epidemics are moments of social change, drivers of new political and cultural developments. It remains to be seen what will be said in the future about the social role of the coronavirus epidemic. Hopefully, we can remain optimistic.

The individual episodes of the series
(Part 1: 02/23 to Part 25: 02/25
at a glance:

1: Schrappe/Roski: Corona and Politics: On the Role of Science
2: Schrappe: On the role of clinical infectiology
3: Antes: Knowledge from data – how it should and could be
4: Müller: Complexity in epidemiological data
5: Manow: The profession was silent during the pandemic
6: Kraemer: Mysterious data policy
7: Sprenger: A societal and social event
8: Kowall/Stang: Uncertain knowledge: Example of excess mortality
9: Tretter, C: Overlooked side effects of the corona pandemic
10: Scale: Children in the Corona Pandemic
11: Tretter, F.: The pandemic viewed systemically
12: Exner/Walger: Lessons from a hygienic-medical perspective
13: Stöhr: What could virologists do better in the future?
14: Voshaar: Over is not done
15: Stronegger: Intervention effectiveness is not yet an indication
16: Püschel: The dead do not remain silent: the Hamburg way
17: Francois-Kettner: Protection of vulnerable people in need of care
18: Pantel: Protect risk groups – but how?
19: Lindner: Fundamental rights and proportionality: criticism and desiderata
20: Radbruch: Immune through the pandemic
21: Scheuch: Aerosols: the ignored problem
22: Rothenberger: Right to infection protection vs. duty to infection protection
23: Weckwerth: Thinking style and thinking collective
24: Pürner: Necessity and status of the investigation
25: Schrappe: Corona crisis not yet overcome

All comments in this commentary series, which ended with episode 25 and was curated by Prof. Schrappe and Prof. Roski, can be found at this link:
https://www.monitor-versorgungsforschung.de/cooperations/serie-kr/
or under the short link:
https://t1p.de/d8obk

A very special thank you goes to Prof. Schrappe for his tireless and voluntary work.