The NZZ fails on the Covid law

The NZZ spreads out the Federal Council's arguments on one page. There is no trace of a factual or even critical debate. Is the NZZ already positioning itself for the government millions to be generously distributed to the media under the Covid 19 Act?

So Fabian Schäfer may write in his article that the Covid law is not about the big picture. It is not about the Federal Council's Corona policy. It is about - quote NZZ: "a lukewarm breeze". Journalist Schäfer obviously forgot to briefly read what the law says. It would not have taken much effort. Already in Article 1a, this "tepid air" cements an egregious expansion of power:
It says: "The Federal Council sets the criteria and benchmarks for restrictions on economic and social life." The Federal Council didn't even have this much power during the Second World War. The NZZ doesn't want to admit it.

Fabian Schäfer also relies exclusively on the Federal Council's message when it comes to the authorisation of medicinal products. He does not question why the law refers to "medicinal products" and why the electorate has to rely on political promises that this does not mean vaccines. Because for everyone except the Federal Council and its journalist Schäfer, vaccines clearly fall under medicinal products. So why is the government writing the law differently than it is meant to be written? Questions that are probably better not asked at a time when government millions are up for grabs. The urgently declared Covid law has long since taken effect. In its own paper, NZZ has already confirmed that it will accept the government's millions for "media promotion". Cash is King.

Anyone who, after so much unreserved government support, has sufficient capacity for suffering to continue reading Fabian Schäfer's text will now, at the latest, come across speculations that can no longer be surpassed in naivety. "No selective opening is to be expected in the case of restaurants," Schäfer speculates, adding that vaccination status will not play a role. Stupidly, at the same time that Schäfer's poorly researched words were going to press, the Federal Council announced that restaurants that do not insist on the vaccination certificate will be allowed fewer guests and will have to follow stricter protection plans.

And of course, even Schäfer does not resist the temptation to reach for the worst of all clubs. He has not noticed that the term "Enabling Act" was not introduced by the friends of the constitution, but by the constitutional law expert Prof. Dr. rer. publ. Dr. iur. h. c. Andreas Kley of the University of Zurich. Journalist Schäfer unsuccessfully abandoned his studies in political science. Whether he has understood the law better than the constitutional law professor at the University of Zurich is for the reader to decide.

The NZZ was once known for critical research and intelligent analysis. Can the NZZ still do that, also and especially on the subject of Covid-19? Another attempt has failed miserably.