Team caution likes to use double standards

If you look at the Lauterbach case, you have to ask yourself what team caution is really about. Is it really about being particularly careful and largely minimizing the risk of infection? If so, why is there a double standard?

Let's just imagine that this would not be about Mr. Lauterbach, but about a work colleague or a student, if you are a teacher. Now the work colleague has tested positive. He is on the phone almost every day and he reports that it has hit him harder than he expected. He has also developed a high fever with a severe cough. A few days later he reports that he is not yet fully fit but is on the mend. Shortly thereafter, he shows up at the office and says that his rapid test, which he did himself, was negative. His PCR test was positive, but only with a CT value of 37. He also says in a hoarse voice and possibly with difficulty swallowing that he has been symptom-free for 48 hours.

He also says that he took Paxlovid, which is why the symptoms quickly subsided. The colleagues in the office know that there can be a Paxlovid rebound, which means that after the drug has been taken for 5 days, the viruses can replicate more strongly again and as a result a rapid test is positive again in the next few days or the CT value of a PCR test can also be < 30 again. This also means that the colleague could become infectious again if he is not already. Now there is a joint meeting in a very large meeting room, where the colleague takes off his mask and talks a lot. How would the colleagues who ascribe themselves to team caution act? Would you really say that you believe he was actually symptom-free for 48 hours, even if the previous phone calls gave a different impression? Would you happily greet your colleague in the office and not worry that it might be a bit too careless? Precisely because your own free test was possibly only possible thanks to the medication, but things could look different again in the next few days? I think it's pretty clear that team caution wouldn't act like that. They want to minimize the risk and would rather be a little more careful than risking an infection. But then what is the point? Is it about the fact that their figurehead must be defended at all costs? Under no circumstances should this person be criticized, even if it actually goes against your own principles? Team caution is caught in a parallel world and can't get out because you'd have to admit you were wrong, or at least exaggerated. Team caution is only superficially about protection against infection, in truth it is about ideology and an enemy image that you morally devalue in order to feel uplifted. It didn't matter whether vaccinated people infected others with 2G, they wanted to torment the "enemy", the unvaccinated. Climbing the pecking order has never been easier, even if you don't do it true to yourself. The status in the two-class society changed quickly. A poke and you belonged in the next higher caste. The myth of foreign protection is necessary in order to feel morally superior. If the myth falls apart, all that remains is "I wanted to travel and go to a restaurant". So very banal selfish and superficial needs. Nothing in solidarity.