How the Austrian government communicates about Covid and what that has to do with neoiliberalism

On December 20, 2020, about a week after the second lockdown had ended, Austrian Chancellor Sebasitan Kurz stated in an interview that the third wave of Covid will be even more severe than the second one. But still, we are in the middle of the second wave. Should more than 2,000 daily infections and between 100 and 150 deaths per day really be the lowest point of the curve, a third wave would be absolutely horrifying.

Kurz thoug talks about a third wave as if he had no influence whatsoever on how strong that wave will be. The wave will ineveitably come and there is nothing that can be done about it.

But in fact, Sebastian Kurz is Chancellor and therefore actually very able to put measures in place in order to at least lower the impact of a third wave. Since this interview, measures have indeed been annouced, these are better known as the third lockdown. The third lockdown is indeed a good thing and absolutely necessary, though there are some severe flaws in its implementation. However, I will nor get into those flaws in further detail in this piece.

What I mean to highlight is not so much the Austrian covid policy itself but rather the way the federal government communicates it. What the government signals today is in stark contrast to the clear messages put out in March of this year. While in March the Covid-19 pandemic was acutally treated like the crisis it is, we now get confusing and drainig flip-flopping. In March, the government showed that something can be done about the infection numbers. Today, the much higher (than March/April) numbers are more or less just accepted as given. Who gets to be blamed for the current situation alternates between the general public or parts thereof ("brought in from their countries of origin"), the opposition parties, the coalition partner or other factors that are, so claims the government, impossible to control. A further example is a new Covid-related public service announcement in which the song in the backgroud goes "all I can do is try". It is clear that this line of communication does not signal competence and a hands-on mentality from the side of the federal government.

This approch to policy has obvious similarities with neoliberal ideology, with the fundamental belief in markets in particular. For neoliberals, the market is the paramount ruling entity. Let the market just be free and all problems will be solved by its invisible hand.

Covid as well as the market are displayed (as communicated by the government) as forces of nature that can only be interfered with in a very limited capacity, if at all. Covid deaths are treated like poverty in neoliberalism. If they are even talked about at all, they are displayed as some minor fringe phenomenon. Though it is viewed as undesirable, it is not something that can be dealt with in any substantial way. One can only hope that the market solves the problem by itself or, in respect to Covid, the external and uncontrollable factors change in a way so the infection numbers decrease. The government supposedly has no power to act.

The reality is though, that neither the free unfeathered market is a suitable mean to end economic hardships, nor will Covid just disappear if the "infection market" is not constrained. The government must do it's job, proavticely put measures in place and communicate in a clear cut manner and not let more and more preventable deaths happen. Finally, they did annouce measures for after Christmas. I sincerely hope the government has now found a clear line that it will follow until the pandemic is over.