Review of Covid measures
Since the end of the Covid-19 pandemic, seven evaluations by the Liechtenstein Institute have examined the course of the pandemic, crisis management, the views of society, politics and the administration on the measures taken, legal aspects, the impact on schools and economic support measures. A study commissioned by the government from the Institute of Epidemiology Biostatistics and Prevention at the University of Zurich on the medical and scientific aspects of the measures taken during the Covid-19 pandemic in Liechtenstein was published in July 2024. The study evaluated nine measures, including mandatory masks, school closures and vaccinations, in terms of their advantages and disadvantages based on current medical and scientific evidence. It concludes that the Liechtenstein government's medical measures in the early phase of the pandemic, i.e. before vaccines were available, were largely in line with the scientific evidence. The vaccinations themselves are rated as very beneficial. According to the report, the wearing of masks, general hygiene measures, contact reduction and quarantine and isolation regulations also demonstrably contributed to containing the spread of the virus. The assessment of school closures is more critical, which - although shorter in Liechtenstein than in other countries - caused more harm than good according to current knowledge. Their negative impact on education and psychosocial development outweighed the epidemiological effect. The report also sees greater discrepancies between political action and medical evidence for the period after the vaccines were introduced: measures such as comprehensive assembly bans or travel restrictions should have been weighed up more carefully, as their benefits decreased while their social and economic disadvantages increased. The report does not clarify the question of the political and legal proportionality of the measures. The VMR had suggested an assessment in this regard, particularly with regard to the impact on particularly vulnerable groups. During the pandemic, it had criticized the lack of protective measures and compensation for care migrants in domestic care and the disproportionate and persistent ban on contact in the national prison.
