Corona mask obligation: A picture is worth more than a thousand words

Even the official corona data of the Robert Koch Institute show that there is no reason for compulsory masks in Germany.

By Jens Bernert.

On April 27, 2020, the nationwide mask obligation was introduced as part of the corona crisis (1-3). Some federal states had already implemented corresponding regulations a few days earlier. The data of the Robert Koch Institute on the daily new corona cases in Germany show that this compulsory introduction of masks came at a time when the number of new cases had been declining for weeks (4).

According to the RKI results, the peak of new cases occurred in mid-March and since then the numbers have been falling steadily in wave movements. The introduction of compulsory masks at the end of April 2020 therefore had – visible to everyone – no influence whatsoever on the incidence of infections or the number of illnesses. In any case, experts had repeatedly pointed out that compulsory masks were medically pointless, especially for non-infected people (5). But even if one assumes that masks offer protection, the compulsory introduction of masks was useless, as the RKI figures show – not to mention the impact on basic rights.

This mask obligation, which continues to be in force, is therefore also interpreted by a number of experts and citizens as a purely politically motivated symbol of humiliation and subjugation and as an instrument for “soft-cooking” the population for the implementation of further political, technological and economic goals of the Federal Government and its “partners” (5, 6).

According to Chancellor Angela Merkel, for example, the “pandemic” will not be over until a vaccine against corona is found. Reality obviously plays no role here (7). Currently, attempts are being made to simulate “corona outbreaks” by means of raid-like mass tests on poor people and ethnic minorities (8,9).

A large number of experts criticise the procedure and measures taken during the corona crisis (5, 6). As an example, Professor Dr. Peter Gaidzik, trained physician and lawyer, head of the Institute for Medical Law at the University of Witten/Herdecke, is quoted here (10):


„„Up to what limit may I restrict fundamental rights on the basis of mere plausibility for months?“(…)The lockdown was wrong.  He does not say that only now and afterwards. “Even back then the number of infections was visibly declining. One could and should have waited after the first measures in order to see whether and which effects would occur. Instead, new restrictions were introduced almost daily.”This was initially justified with the doubling rate. When that no longer fitted, the reproduction factor was brought into play. And when no legitimation could be derived from this either, its calculation basis was changed several times. This is obscure.””




Thanks to the author for the right to publish.


Image source: FamVeld / shutterstock


KenFM strives for a broad spectrum of opinions. Opinion articles and guest contributions do not have to reflect the views of the editorial staff.


This article was first published by Blauter Bote.


Subscribe to the KenFM newsletter now:


KenFM now available as a free app for Android and iOS devices! Via our homepage you can access the stores of Apple and Google. Here is the link:


Support KenFM now:


You like our program? Information about further support possibilities here:


Now you can also support us with Bitcoins.

BitCoin address: 18FpEnH1Dh83GXXGpRNqSoW5TL1z1PZgZK

Auch interessant...

Kommentare (0)

Hinterlassen Sie eine Antwort