The Pandemic and Criminal Law – A Look at Theory and Practice in Germany

This article provides an overview of the topic of the pandemic from the perspective of criminal law theory and practice in Germany. First of all, the major criminal offences of bodily injury and murder are discussed in the context of infecting a person with the Coronavirus and the (possible) consequences of having Covid-19, such as risk of death. The dilemmatic situation of triage, i.e., allocating limited intensive care resources, is illustrated in relation to the same offences. Then, the more specific crimes that came to the fore in the course of the pandemic are addressed. Subsidy fraud due to the state aids intended to compensate for the financial damage in the marketplace because of pandemic-related measures, and issuance or use of incorrect health certificates for exemption from the obligation to wear a face mask fall within this scope. Finally, the administrative offences law of the German Infection Protection Act was discussed, primarily with regard to regulations that violate the principle of legal certainty.

Parlamente in der Pandemie: Anlass für Verfassungspessimismus?

The pandemic has not led to a crisis of the parliamentary system of government . The Bun­destag in particular has upheld its governmental functions during the Corona crisis . But it could be more open to practice “virtual parliamentarism” . Parliamentary government via the interplay of the Infection Protection Act and statutory ordinances has also shown to be suitable for solving the pandemic; and with regard to the constitutional separation of pow­ers: Especially in a crisis, the executive is only as independent as parliament allows it to be .

Cardiac arrhythmias in patients with SARS-CoV‑2 infection and effects of the lockdown on invasive rhythmological therapy

Background Since the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, various strategies have been taken worldwide to reduce the risk of infection. As part of the amendment to the Infection Protection Act, elective medical interventions were restricted, leading to a change in patient care. However, the consequences of the lockdown on the treatment of rhythmological patients in Germany remains unclear. Objectives The aim of this study was to analyze the reduction in rhythmological interventions and the patient care situation using a nationwide survey during the first lockdown period. Methods A survey was sent to all electrophysiological centers certified by the German Society of Cardiology. Here, the treatment volume of tachycardia and bradycardia and their invasive therapy were surveyed before and during the lockdown period. Furthermore, the number of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) treated at these centers and the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias was also recorded. Results Participating centers performed a total of 24,648 ablation procedures/year and represent approximately 34% (24,648/72,548) of the estimated German ablation treatments. The majority of these centers (33/40; 82.5%) were so-called primary COVID-19 hospitals (level-1). Overall, the number of ablations and pacemaker implantations were reduced by 41% and 18% respectively. Due to postponed ablation procedures and pacemaker implantations, 22/40 (55%) centers reported a worsening of clinical symptoms or early re-hospitalization of their patients. Conclusion These results demonstrate a significant decline in elective rhythmological procedures during the lockdown, as required by the German Federal Government. At the same time, however, more than half of the participating centers reported an increase in patient re-hospitalizations due to postponed procedures.

COVID-19 among Health Workers in Germany and Malaysia

We report on the suspected case reports filed for SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 illnesses among health and social welfare workers in Germany. In addition, we report about COVID-19 in health workers in Malaysia. Claims for occupational diseases caused by SARS-CoV-2 are recorded separately in a database of the Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare Services (BGW). This database is analyzed according to its content as of May 22, 2020. In addition, the notifiable cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections from personnel in medical institutions (e.g., clinics and doctor’s office) and social welfare institutions (e.g., nursing homes, shelters and refugee camps) following the German Infection Protection Act are analyzed. The report from Malaysia is based on personal experience and publications of the government. In Germany at present, 4398 suspected case reports for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections among health and social workers have been filed. This figure is four times the number of all reported infections normally received per year. The majority of claims, regardless of being a confirmed infection, concerned nurses (n = 6927, 63.9%). The mortality rate for workers infected with SARS-CoV-2 is 0.2% to 0.5%. Doctors are affected by severe illness more frequently than other occupational groups (8.1% vs. 4.1%). In Malaysia, work-related infection of health workers (HW) occurred mainly when COVID-19 was not suspected in patients and no adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn. Although knowledge on the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections among workers remains limited, the impact appears to be substantial. This is supported by the mortality rate among infected workers. Occupational health check-ups carried out at the present time should be systematically analyzed in order to gain more information on the epidemiology of COVID-19 among HW. Since the supply and use of PPE improved, the infection risk of HW in Malaysia seems to have decreased.