Concretization of the hypothetical

By the 1980s at the latest, the "age of immunity" (Thießen) was coming to an end. As the flip side of a new phase of globalization, the perception of pandemic-causing viruses as a threat to health, the economy, prosperity and security became increasingly important. As has been proven many times in the past, combating epidemics has never been exclusively a medical and hygiene issue, but has always had - more or less far-reaching - political, social, economic, ethical and legal consequences. The pandemic planning that has been driven forward since the 1990s was therefore aimed at an epidemiologically based field of action in a complex future characterized by many uncertainties. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the responsible authorities in Germany attempted to plan for a pandemic future in this way. These plans were adapted after each new pandemic (e.g. the bird flu in 2003). Who was involved in pandemic planning, which resources the plans were based on, which public health measures were projected, which perspectives were included or excluded, which areas of society were taken into account and on which values, such as justice, health or the relationship between the community and the individual, the plans were based, are central questions of a historical approach as well as ethical and legal considerations.

The current corona crisis shows the limits of attempts to concretize the hypothetical through planning. In times of the pandemic, it has become clear that it is not only the ability of the healthcare system to respond that is important, but also other - previously unconsidered - areas of society. What is "systemically relevant" in a crisis is a central point of contention in current debates.

Preparedness concepts and pandemic planning are the result of Communications and negotiations between health experts, international organizations, national actors and society. These processes between "global" and "national", "public" and "private", "nation and individual" have been examined in two projects since the 1990s.

• 1. apl. Prof. Dr. Heiko Stoff / Dr. Wiebke Lisner, Institute for Ethics, History and Philosophy at the MHH:
  Health as a security issue - On the way to national pandemic planning in unified Germany

After the unification of Germany, it was necessary to structure the public health system in a uniform way, to realign civil protection and civil defense after the end of the Cold War and to react to the threat of unknown viruses. It is necessary to examine how international pandemic planning was received and implemented in the 1990s and 2000s in Germany as a national player, as well as in the individual federal states in their federal structure. From a medical-historical perspective, the project focuses on decision-making and planning processes in the development of national and local pandemic plans as well as concretizations during the outbreak of pandemics in the 2000s. It emphasizes the importance of a crisis dialogue, as well as the need to involve a broad circle of expertise and social actors in the development of preparedness concepts.

• 2 Prof. Dr. Cornelia Rauh / Dr. Jonathan Voges, Department of History, Leibniz Universität Hannover:
  Towards a global alert system? The WHO and pandemic prevention in the 1990s and early 2000s

After the end of the Cold War and the emergence of new viruses, the WHO sought a new role in global politics. The international organization developed a self-confident mode of action, invited international experts from various fields and published several pandemic plans. All plans and preparedness concepts were based on the assumption that only international cooperation could stop the spread of viruses. The 1990s and early 2000s can be interpreted as a case study for the central importance of a strong WHO challenging national sovereignty in developing effective responses to the global risk of a pandemic.