The district of Görlitz often brings up the rear. But this time in a positive sense. In terms of coronavirus case numbers, the district is far behind the rest of Germany. 25 people are currently infected with Covid-19, compared to 268 since the start of the pandemic. Raj Kollmorgen, sociologist at the Zittau/Görlitz University of Applied Sciences, explains why Görlitz has got off so lightly in the crisis so far.

Mr Kollmorgen, are we in the district adhering particularly well to protective measures or what reasons do you see for the comparatively low number of cases at the moment?
It is rather unlikely that the people of Upper Lusatia are particularly disciplined. I think both our geographical location and our population structure are more important. People in our district are often less mobile than those in Leipzig, for example, and don't travel to Italian ski resorts en masse.

Why not?
Today, our region has fewer mobile and more highly qualified people than the urban centers, not least because of the emigration of the last three decades. We also know that the district of Görlitz not only has one of the lowest gross incomes in Germany, but also one of the highest average ages. However, income and age are two key factors in mobility patterns alongside education. To put it in a nutshell: The typical Upper Lusatian does not tend or cannot afford to go on vacation to Ischgl or Colmar in France in February or March. Instead, many people in our region live in the countryside, own houses and gardens and spend their leisure time locally. Although people often meet up in small communities, they don't travel around all the time. This means that the number of contacts outside of close working and living environments is lower.

However, the people here are among those who commute the most. On both sides of the Neisse. Itbecame clear how many of them there are when the border was closed by Poland.
On the one hand, I see our peripheral border location as a reason for the low number of cases that should not be underestimated. Even after the Schengen Area was opened, the desire to conquer Poland as a travel destination was not particularly pronounced. Poland is also a country with the lowest infection figures in Europe, from which we are also largely cut off due to the rapid closure of the border. When it comes to commuters traveling from Poland to Germany, it should be borne in mind that most of them do not work in the district, but further west. In this respect, our region is more of an important transit area. On the other hand, yes, we have a considerable proportion of around 4,000 people with Polish citizenship who live in Görlitz and others who work in the region. But there is a difference to the border region with France: not only is the exchange more intensive there. Above all, the hotspots of infection were there. As we know, we didn't have that on the Polish and Czech sides.

So how sensible was it for Poland to close the border?
That was the result of uncertainty on the one hand and symbolic politics on the other. This is not my personal opinion, but has been discussed several times by epidemiologists: The question is whether there is a significant disparity in the risk of infection on this side and the other 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 way of breaking off chains of infection. However, if this is not the case - as is the case here - then the economic and social consequential damage must be estimated to be higher than the cross-border risk of spread.

In the other direction, after Bautzen. The socio-demographic basis is probably not very different from ours. Nevertheless, the number of infections in the district of Bautzen is currently significantly higher. Doyou have an explanation?
I see two possible explanations. Firstly, isolated outbreaks can influence the overall statistics. We also saw this here when two care homes in the north of the district were affected. That's why you have to be careful when assessing the spread dynamics in individual districts, look at possible outliers and observe them over the longer term.
Point two: The district of Bautzen actually also differs from the district of Görlitz in socio-demographic terms. The population is somewhat younger, the economic structure is different. Above all, however, there are more commuters to Dresden, where the number of cases is significantly higher. The risk of infection and spread increases the closer you get to the state capital.

So with our conditions, could we start easing restrictions earlier than Zwickau, the Saxon hotspot?
That's difficult. On the one hand, yes. I am in favor of differentiating the measures - at least at the level of the federal states and regions. But it depends on how you control this in order to prevent the export or import of an infection. This can hardly be achieved at district level, but certainly not at municipal level. I would therefore not be in favor of handing over the decision on specific pandemic rules to individual cities or municipalities or tying them to district boundaries. We have already had examples of outbreaks close to municipal borders. It is obviously nonsensical to close everything in one place but keep everything open in the neighboring town. Such a policy could even accelerate the spread because many people would then go shopping in the neighboring community or sit down in a café.

At the weekend, there were protests against the coronavirus measures in three places in Görlitz. Some seem to be worried about arbitrariness and scaremongering, others sound more like corona deniers. What influence do the low case numbers have on these protests?
I have a lot of sympathy for the fact that small businesses, freelancers and SMEs - who are now particularly affected - are articulating their interests. I think that's the right and democratic thing to do. The whole point of our democracy is that ideas and interests are put forward and incorporated into the political process. It becomes problematic when these legitimate positions are linked to general rejection of the system and conspiracy theories. It is also clear that people in Bergamo or elsewhere where the virus was raging were more willing to go into isolation. Given the comparatively few cases in our region, it is plausible that people are unwilling to accept drastic restrictions on freedom and the state's power over a longer period of time. However, this was and is not the reality in Germany - unlike in Spain, for example. Our democratic state has functioned and fulfilled its duty of care. For the most part, it also acted with a sense of proportion during the crisis. Especially when I look at other countries, I am very happy to live in Germany.

Isn't it still striking, despite all the understanding, that AfD members of all people are once again leading the way?
I find that very understandable. Since 2015, the AfD has loudly articulated criticism of the elite, distrust of institutions and even conspiracy stories. By no means are all, or probably not even the majority of protesters AfD members or even supporters. But the fact that the party is now joining the protests or even helping to organize them is in line with its gesture, its basic orientation and is highly plausible. I have wondered why this has taken so long and is only now being pursued more intensively as a strategy. However, we should be careful not to blow these protests out of proportion given the scale of the protests so far - double to triple-digit numbers of participants. If we put the numbers in relation to the overall population, it becomes clear that this is by no means the majority. It is a group that is audible and that we have to deal with democratically. But there are not 5,000 or even 50,000 people in our region who are taking to the streets against the pandemic policy of the Free State or the Federal Government.

The interview was published on 15.05.2020 in the Sächsiche Zeitung, local edition Görlitz and Niesky. You can download the original as a PDF here.