The background to specific measures, their communication and questions about social cohesion were the focus of the event.
The second event in our "CoronaDialogue - Who can you still believe?" series was also met with great interest and a great need for discussion: over 150 participants came together on the evening of March 15, 2021, to discuss the connections between science and politics in times of pandemic together with Saxon politicians and scientists from the HSZG.
After a brief welcome and introduction, we delved into our topic by means of two surveys: around 75% of participants confirmed a general trust that the corona measures are being taken for the benefit of the population and around a third of participants believe that other sciences besides virology and epidemiology also play a central role in corona policy. These survey results already show a great need for discussion between citizens, science and politics.
Dr. Maicher (Member of the Saxon State Parliament, Chairwoman of the Committee for Science, Higher Education, Media, Culture and Tourism) then gave us a vivid explanation of how a corona measure is created and when and how science is involved in this process. Her impulse formed the basis for our subsequent discussion. The other guests were introduced: Prof. Raj Kollmorgen (HSZG, Sociology), Prof. Dr. Maja Dshemuchadse (HSZG, Communication Psychology) and Dr. Stephan Meyer (Member of the Saxon State Parliament, Member of Parliament for the district of Görlitz) and kicked off the discussion with their theses on the current debate.
Once again, we didn't have to wait long for the first questions from the audience. The topics that most concerned the participants were once again the background to specific measures and their communication, but also questions about social cohesion and science communication. The questions were quite controversial and emotional and also prompted the politicians to concede that many things were not going well and that they themselves were not satisfied with some decisions.
The related questions in the chat indicated this - the most controversial view was probably put on record by Prof. Kollmorgen. One had to be aware of the limits of (even good) science communication. This would by no means turn interested laypeople into experts.
The closing statements revealed two small golden nuggets: The first came from Dr. Maicher. She said that supporters of the Swedish way (fewer rules, more personal responsibility) should carefully examine whether they are not simply rejecting the measures or whether they really want more personal responsibility. Because then they would have to independently take measures at least as stringent as those currently required by law.
The second golden nugget was revealed by Prof. Dshemuchadze: The bad mood that we probably all have at times due to the current situation is our own feeling. We have to find solutions to it, not someone else.
The event was moderated by Cornelius Pollmer in an entertaining manner and without shying away from uncomfortable questions.
Following our first CoronaDialogue on 22.02.2021, we made some methodological changes for the follow-up event. For example, we intervened more often in the sometimes heated chat, sorted the questions asked thematically in the background so that the moderator had a better overview, encouraged the audience to ask questions verbally (unfortunately only one participant took advantage of this opportunity) ...
... and only asked questions of people with real names - Peter Silie was not on the list of participants this time either...
The once again high number of participants and the large number of questions show that there is still a great need for communication and dialog in times of crisis. We at Transferprojekt Saxony5 are taking this as an opportunity to organize further exciting dialogue formats in the future - in line with our goal of bringing citizens and science closer together - whether digitally or in our new CELSIUZ.
The event was organized as part of the Saxony5 transfer project.
