Is it illegal to carry beer

Curfew, alcohol ban and wearing masks in the city center

While one big city after another is taking drastic measures such as curfew at 11 p.m., ban on serving alcohol, compulsory masks in the city center, many people are wondering what these measures actually use to contain the corona virus.

A difficult question for science, because so far there have only been modeling and observational studies on the anti-corona measures in spring, but these works are not controlled studies.

You can only record which countries carried out which measures and when, and how the number of infections subsequently changed. And they never have an eye on all influencing factors. Two large studies on this were recently published in preprint.

Jan Brauner from Oxford University examined the relative impact of eight measures in 41 countries. At the University of Vienna, a team led by Peter Klimek even looked at 46 measures in 76 regions.

The most effective way of doing this is to ban smaller group meetings

In short: The Vienna study shows that the ban on smaller group meetings was most effective. Followed by restrictions at airports, quarantine and public education. Then help for risk groups and closing schools.

This is also confirmed by the study from Oxford. At least for the assumed "best case". The scientists see the ban on smaller group meetings as the most important measure, followed by the ban on large events.

Stuttgart and Mainz limit the number of people at group meetings

From October 14th, only 10 people are allowed to meet in Stuttgart for celebrations in private houses, in restaurants there are 25. In Mainz, only five people or two households are allowed to meet in public spaces. For private celebrations such as weddings or birthdays, only a maximum of 20 people are allowed in one room. In addition, the maximum number of people for outdoor events will be reduced to 250, and in closed rooms to 50. Outdoor sports are only allowed for fixed small groups of a maximum of 20 people, in the hall a maximum of five.

In the worst case, shop and school closings were the most effective measures

The Oxford Study did that too Worst case scenario worked out. In the worst case, it is most effective to close all stores except the systemically important ones, followed immediately by school and university closings and a ban on meetings with more than 10 people. In the worst case, curfew, mask requirements and the ban on major events are not as effective as other large-scale measures are already being carried out.

Curfew and alcohol ban

None of the studies named an alcohol ban or early curfew for restaurants and bars as effective measures. But this is exactly what some major German cities have now decided in response to the increasing number of corona cases. In this way, politicians hope to limit sprawling parties and alcohol-related carelessness.

Scientists doubt the effectiveness of these measures. The head epidemiologist at the Helmholtz Center for Infection Research, Gérard Krause, warns that the earlier closing times may mean that more people will meet in a shorter time.

So far, curfew has never been considered as an infection protection measure. The researchers from Oxford and Vienna explain that they are unable to make any statements on the subject of a ban on alcohol as a corona precautionary measure. There was simply no data on how much this would help in a pandemic. But be sure that it is not the most important measure.

The benefit of alcohol bans is questionable. It is not scientifically proven. Because this only shifts the problem - usually just to another place. There people can come closer to each other just as drunk and uninhibited.

The Hamburg edpidemiologist Ralf Reintjes thinks it makes sense to ban alcohol, depending on the region and situation. So he welcomes it in the red light district of St Pauli in Hamburg. Reintjes told the SWR that in more civic areas he did not consider it to be an effective measure.

UK curfew experience

There is already experience from Great Britain about curfew: There has been a curfew at 10 p.m. for pubs, pubs, bars and restaurants there since September. But the guests rarely go home at 10 p.m., but rather crowd around in front of the pubs and continue drinking. Economic researcher Flavio Toxvaerd from the University of Cambridge therefore suggests that the pubs should be lingered longer - in order to equalize the rush. So the rush of people is spread over more time.

The Hamburg virologist Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit also warns that illegal parties can no longer be controlled well after the curfew. That is why it is better to make offers to young people, such as club visits with previous quick tests, as soon as capacities allow this. Schmidt-Chanasit thinks that we have to send signals that the needs of the young population are also important. So you can get them to participate.

The Hamburg epidemiologist Ralf Reintjes told the SWR, on the other hand, that he thinks it makes sense to limit the time in which potentially infected people can meet others. And especially in the evening, when people are drunk, less attention is paid to keeping a distance. Reintjes insists that, unlike in Great Britain, the people here understand the meaning of the curfew and adhere to it.

Wearing masks outdoors, in pedestrian zones, at markets

In Stuttgart, masks must be worn in the city center from October 14th. Virologists such as the Bremen scientist Andreas Dotzauer consider this measure to be the right one. Mouth and nose protection makes sense wherever closer contact can occur. Because the mask brings additional security. The SPD health expert Karl Lauterbach even calls for a general mask requirement in public places. The Robert Koch Institute also recommends wearing masks in tightly packed situations outdoors if the minimum distance cannot be maintained there.

In Belgium, the Netherlands and France, wearing a mask outdoors is compulsory in many regions, and in Spain nationwide.

Ban on accommodation

In the course of the increasing numbers, numerous federal states have imposed bans on accommodation for citizens from Corona hotspots, i.e. from inner-German regions in which the limit value 50 has been exceeded. The Hamburg virologist Schmidt-Chanasit does not think this makes sense. Inner German trips are not the reason for the increasing numbers. The foci of infection have always originated in the affected cities themselves.

The head of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Andreas Gassen, also considers the ban on accommodation to be ineffective. He warns in the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung: "Due to the jumble of incomprehensible regulations, we may lose acceptance for the measures that really bring something."

The epidemiologist Ralf Reintjes, however, considers the ban on accommodation to be sensible and effective from an epiemiological point of view. Because the more the population groups are mixed, the more the virus can spread. That is why it is important to reduce travel to a minimum. On vacation you usually have more contact with people from other regions, which is difficult in Corona times, these contacts should urgently be minimized. Reintjes sees more of a problem in how this measure is communicated.

Constitutional lawyer: lawsuit against the ban on accommodation has "good chances"