"That's why Görlitz has got off lightly so far"

The Görlitz district often ranks last. This time, however, it’s in a positive sense. In terms of COVID-19 case numbers, the district ranks very low in a nationwide comparison. Currently, 25 people are infected with COVID-19; there have been 268 cases since the start of the pandemic. Raj Kollmorgen, a sociologist at the Zittau/Görlitz University of Applied Sciences, explains why Görlitz has gotten off so lightly in the crisis so far.

Mr. Kollmorgen, do we adhere particularly well to safety measures in the district, or what reasons do you see for the comparatively low case numbers at present?
It’s rather unlikely that the people of Upper Lusatia in particular are especially disciplined. It seems to me that both our geographic location and our demographic structure are more important. People in our district are often less mobile than those in Leipzig, for example, and they don’t travel en masse to Italian ski resorts either.

Why not?
Our region today—not least because of the out-migration over the past three decades—has fewer mobile and more highly educated people than the urban centers. We also know that the Görlitz district is not only among those with the lowest gross income in all of Germany but also has one of the highest average ages. Income and age, however, are two key factors in mobility patterns, alongside education. To put it bluntly: The typical Upper Lusatian is not inclined to—or cannot afford to—go on vacation to Ischgl or Colmar, France, in February or March. Rather, people in our region often live in rural areas, own homes and gardens, and spend their free time locally. Although people run into one another more often in these small communities, they don’t otherwise drive around the area constantly. The number of contacts outside their immediate work and social circles is therefore lower.

However, people here are among those who commute the most—on both sides of the Neisse River. Just how many there are became clear when the border with Poland was closed.
On the one hand, I see our peripheral border location as a factor—one that should not be underestimated—in the low number of cases. Even after the Schengen Area reopened, there wasn’t much interest in traveling to Poland. Poland is also a country with the lowest infection rates in Europe, from which we are largely cut off due to the rapid border closure. As for the commuters who travel from Poland to Germany, it’s important to note that most of them do not work in the district itself, but further west. In that respect, our region is more of an important transit area. On the other hand: Yes, we do have a significant number—about 4,000 people—with Polish citizenship living in Görlitz, as well as others who work in the region. However, there is a difference compared to the border area with France: Not only is the exchange of people more intense there, but above all, that’s where the hotspots of the outbreak were. As is well known, we did not have that here, on the Polish or Czech side.

How sensible was it, then, for Poland to close the border?
On the one hand, it was the result of uncertainty; on the other, it was symbolic politics. This is not just my personal opinion, but has been discussed repeatedly by epidemiologists: The question is whether there is a significant disparity in infection risk on either side of the border. If there is a pandemic hotspot on one side but not on the other, then closing the border is an effective means of breaking chains of transmission. But if—as is the case here—that is not the case, then the resulting economic and social damage must be considered greater than the risk of cross-border transmission.

Let’s lookin another direction, toward Bautzen. The sociodemographic conditions there are unlikely to differ greatly from ours. Nevertheless, the number of infections in the Bautzen district is currently significantly higher. Do you have an explanation?
I see two possible explanations. First, isolated outbreak clusters can influence the overall statistics. We saw this in our own district when two nursing homes in the northern part of the district were affected. That’s why, when assessing transmission dynamics in individual districts, one must be cautious, look for possible outliers, and monitor the situation over the long term.
Second point: The Bautzen district does, in fact, differ from the Görlitz district in terms of sociodemographics. The population is slightly younger, and the economic structure is different. Above all, however, there are more commuters to Dresden, where case numbers are significantly higher. The risk of infection and transmission increases the closer one gets to the state capital.

So, given our circumstances, could we begin easing restrictions sooner than Zwickau, Saxony’s hotspot?
That’s difficult. On the one hand, yes. I am in favor of differentiating the measures—at least at the state and regional levels. But it depends on how this is monitored to prevent the export or import of an outbreak. That’s virtually impossible to achieve even at the county level, let alone at the municipal level. I would therefore not be in favor of delegating decisions on specific pandemic rules to individual cities or municipalities, or tying them to county boundaries. We’ve already seen examples of outbreaks right near municipal borders. It’s obviously nonsensical to shut everything down in one town while keeping everything open in the neighboring town. Such a policy could actually accelerate the spread, because many people would then go shopping or sit in a café in the neighboring municipality.

Over the weekend, there were protests against the COVID-19 measures at three locations in Görlitz. Some seem concerned about arbitrary measures and scaremongering, while others sound more like COVID-19 deniers. To what extent do the low case numbers influence these protests?
I have great sympathy for small business owners, freelancers, and small-to-medium-sized business owners—who are currently particularly affected—as they voice their concerns. I think that’s right and fundamentally democratic. The very purpose of our democracy is for ideas and interests to be expressed and incorporated into the political process. It becomes problematic, however, when these legitimate positions are linked to a general rejection of the system and conspiracy theories. It’s also clear that people in Bergamo or elsewhere, where the virus raged, were more willing to go into isolation. Given the comparatively few cases in our region, it’s understandable that people might be unwilling to accept drastic restrictions on their freedom and extensive state power over an extended period. However, that was not—and is not—the reality in Germany, unlike in Spain, for example. Our democratic state has functioned effectively and fulfilled its duty of care. It has also acted with a great deal of restraint throughout the crisis. Especially when I look at other countries, I’m very glad to live in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Isn’t it nevertheless striking—despite all understanding—that, of all people, AfD members are once again leading the way?
I find that very understandable. After all, since 2015, the AfD has vociferously articulated criticism of elites, distrust of institutions, and even conspiracy theories. By no means are all—and probably not even the majority—of the protesters AfD members or even supporters. But the fact that the party is now joining the protests or even helping to organize them is consistent with its stance and fundamental orientations and is highly plausible. I’ve actually wondered why it took so long and why this strategy is only now being pursued more intensively. However, given the scale of these protests so far—with participant numbers in the double to triple digits—we should be careful not to hype them up too much. When we put these numbers in perspective relative to the total population, it becomes clear that by no means is the majority out there. It is a group that is making its voice heard, and one that we must engage with democratically. But in our region, there aren’t 5,000 or even 50,000 people taking to the streets to protest the pandemic policies of the Free State of Saxony or the federal government.

The interview appeared on May 15, 2020, in the Sächsische Zeitung, Görlitz and Niesky local edition. You can download the original as a PDF here.