A DOSSIER ON EXAMINING THE COVID YEARS
Masken-Alarm – An initiative for a full review
DEEN
A staged symbolic image of a huge pile of surgical and FFP2 masks in a warehouse

BILLIONS OF MASKS. MILLIONS IN DEALS.

Madrid: 24 years in prison.
Berlin:
parliamentary group leader.

The federal government bought 5.8 billion masks for €5.9 billion. Billions were incinerated. Brokers collected millions. In Spain, former minister José Luis Ábalos was convicted. Jens Spahn led the CDU/CSU parliamentary group.[86]

Those responsible ↓Who profited from masks ↗

The starting point: Boris Reitschuster’s article of 22 October 2026.
“24 years in prison in Madrid – parliamentary group leader in Berlin” ↗ [15]

THE DOSSIER01 · Accountability02 · The deals03 · The studies04 · The people05 · Protest & doctors06 · The costs07 · The details

01 / PUBLIC OFFICE, DEALS & DECISIONS

Who made the decisions.
Who bears responsibility.

One minister was convicted. No criminal investigation was opened into another. His successor promised reliable protection. Here, the names, actions and decisions appear side by side.

§

THE GAP IN GERMAN CRIMINAL LAW

Political contacts.
Million-euro deals.
A gap in criminal law.

Hard to imagine: members of parliament could use their status and political contacts for lucrative mask deals without committing the offence of bribery of elected representatives as it was then defined. Germany’s Federal Court of Justice confirmed this gap in 2022 in the Nüßlein/Sauter case: brokering deals outside parliament did not fall under section 108e of the Criminal Code. That decision concerned these two brokers; the Spahn case is addressed separately. [05]

SPAIN CONVICTION

José Luis Ábalos
La Moncloa · 14 January 2020

José Luis Ábalos

Former transport minister and close confidant of Pedro Sánchez

24 years
and 3 months in prison

The Supreme Court convicted Ábalos of organised crime, bribery, misappropriation and influence peddling. Among its findings, the court held that he had received benefits connected with contracts for 13 million masks. [03]

The Supreme Court’s findings +

The official statement lists, among other things, €10,000 a month for fixed expenses, jobs for acquaintances and payment for a flat. The total sentence of 24 years and three months covers these and other events and multiple offences. [03]

GERMANY NO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

Jens Spahn
Martin Kraft · CC BY-SA 4.0

Jens Spahn

Former Federal Minister of Health · CDU/CSU parliamentary group chair, May 2025–July 2026

No
grounds for initial suspicion.

In March 2026, after more than 170 criminal complaints, the Berlin General Public Prosecutor’s Office found insufficient factual indications of an offence and opened no investigation. Spahn denies the allegations. [04]

The words of Berlin’s prosecutors +

“No sufficient factual indications that a criminal offence had been committed.” No investigation was opened after more than 170 criminal complaints. The overprocurement and the Federal Audit Office’s criticism nevertheless remain on record. [04]

02 / COMMISSIONS & CONTACTS

The brokers’
millions.

The crisis became a business opportunity. Those with the right contacts could make millions by brokering government mask contracts.

Andrea Tandler giving evidence to the Bavarian State Parliament’s mask procurement inquiry
picture alliance/dpa · via RND
AROUND48MILLION EUROS

in commissions earned jointly
in the Tandler and partner case [06]

Andrea Tandler.
A business deal. A tax prosecution.

The daughter of former Bavarian minister Gerold Tandler brokered mask deals with her business partner. Around €48 million in commissions flowed into their joint business structures. [06]

Following the Federal Court of Justice’s 2025 decision, both have final prison sentences of three years each for evading trade tax. The proceedings concerned unpaid taxes on the millions earned from masks. [06] [07]

And Franz Josef Strauß’s daughter? +

Monika Hohlmeier is Franz Josef Strauß’s daughter. She arranged contacts for Andrea Tandler. Tandler, in turn, is Gerold Tandler’s daughter. The tax convictions concerned Andrea Tandler and her business partner. [16]

03 / THE STUDY FINDINGS BEFORE THE BILL

The requirement was clear.
The evidence of benefit was not.

DANMASK-19 found no statistically established additional protection for the wearer from a recommendation to wear surgical masks. The analyses of community interventions and school requirements shown here also found no clear additional benefit for their respective outcomes.

DANMASK-19 · PROTECTION FOR THE WEARER1.8% / 2.1%

No statistically established difference.

Infections with and without a recommendation to wear surgical masks. Odds ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.54–1.23. The study tested protection for the person receiving the recommendation, not protection for others. [27]

COCHRANE 2023 · COMMUNITY STUDIESRR 1.01

No established reduction in laboratory-confirmed infections.

For laboratory-confirmed influenza or SARS-CoV-2, the relative risk was 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.72–1.42; six studies). Differences in use and study weaknesses limit what can be concluded. [11]

CATALONIA · 599,314 CHILDREN4.59% / 4.36%

No clear transmission benefit at the mandate’s age threshold.

Secondary attack rates in five-year-olds without a mask requirement and six-year-olds with one. The difference was not statistically established. An age-group comparison, not a randomised trial. [28]

FINLAND · 10- TO 12-YEAR-OLDS3 cities

The extension showed no discernible additional benefit.

The broader mask requirement in Turku showed no consistent advantage in infection trends compared with Helsinki and Tampere. Other differences between the cities remain possible. [29]

The measures affected millions of people. The bill was enormous. The question of demonstrated benefit therefore belongs at the beginning.

The studies in detail ↗

Other trials found benefits: fewer self-reported respiratory symptoms in Norway and a reduction in symptomatic seropositivity in a mask campaign in Bangladesh. These outcomes are also covered in the dossier. [32][33]

FLASHBACK / APRIL 2020

The images of success.

Eight million masks from China. A reception on the airport apron. The political appearance is documented.

Markus Söder, Andreas Scheuer and Carsten Spohr at Munich Airport beside pallets of protective masks and a Lufthansa cargo aircraft
Munich Airport · 7 April 2020picture-alliance/dpa/M. Balk · via Deutsche Welle [14]
8 million
Masks on the airport apron.

Markus Söder, Andreas Scheuer and Lufthansa chief Carsten Spohr personally received the delivery. It was publicly presented as a success. Procurement continued at the same time. The Federal Audit Office’s subsequent multibillion-euro assessment concerns all federal procurement. [14]

THE POLITICAL STATEMENTS

The promise.
The mandate.
The evidence gap.

The evidence question also applies to surgical masks: DANMASK-19 found no statistically established additional protection for the wearer from a mask recommendation. The RKI identified a further evidence gap concerning everyday FFP2 use. Yet requirements were tightened and reliable protection was promised.

Karl Lauterbach
Martin Kraft · CC BY-SA 4.0

03 / THE SUCCESSOR AT THE HEALTH MINISTRY

Karl Lauterbach.
The promise of protection.

“With variants such as BA.2.75 or BA.5, only FFP2 masks reliably protect against infection.”

Lauterbach said this in the Bundestag on 8 September 2022. The speech remains on his ministry’s website. His justification for stricter FFP2 requirements was the variants’ greater transmissibility. [23]

Assessing the measures ↗

  1. The RKI discusses the added value.

    The internal minutes state: “there is no evidence for the use of FFP2 masks outside occupational safety”. [41] The RKI later explained the comparison between FFP2 and surgical masks: additional protection against transmission among untrained members of the public in everyday situations had not been demonstrated. This assessment had not changed substantially since October 2020. [24]

  2. Bavaria makes FFP2 compulsory.

    On local public transport and when shopping. On public transport, also at stations and stops, from age 15. Fines were imposed after a one-week grace period. [25]

    “Wearing FFP2 masks reduces the risk of infection to a minimum.”

    Hubert Aiwanger, state government statement of 12 January 2021. [26]

DANMASK-19 · SURGICAL MASK RECOMMENDATION

No statistically established
additional protection for the wearer.

MARKUS BÖNIG · COMMENT ON THE PROMISE OF PROTECTION

“A promise of protection without the corresponding evidence.
That is an outright lie.”
Studies, the COVID policy evaluation and precise findings +

This expressly concerns surgical masks: in the randomised DANMASK-19 trial, 1.8% of the group receiving a mask recommendation became infected, compared with 2.1% of the group without one. Additional protection for the wearer was not statistically established. The odds ratio was 0.82; the 95% confidence interval ranged from 0.54 to 1.23. [27]

The pooled community studies also showed no established reduction in laboratory-confirmed infections. Cochrane 2023: relative risk 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.72–1.42 for laboratory-confirmed influenza or SARS-CoV-2 across six studies. Usage and study quality limit what can be concluded. [11]

The FFP2 mandate had a further evidence gap. According to the RKI, greater protection against transmission from FFP2 than from surgical masks among untrained people in everyday situations had not been demonstrated. Higher laboratory filtration performance does not guarantee that a person will avoid infection in everyday life. [24][41]

These findings do not establish that all masks are generally ineffective. They show what was not statistically established for the particular community measures and outcomes studied.

What the 2022 COVID policy evaluation actually recorded.

The expert committee considered masks a potentially effective tool. Correct fit and consistent use were crucial. The data available at the time did not support a general recommendation for FFP2; the committee preferred FFP2 in medical and care settings involving higher risk. The effects of mask mandates on children and in schools could not be conclusively assessed. [85]

The local Corona-Revision documents and further studies.

The available reading versions distinguish technical filtration performance, individual protection when used correctly, the effect of a community intervention and the additional benefit of a legal requirement. These are not interchangeable. [17]

Other randomised trials found benefits for particular outcomes: fewer self-reported respiratory symptoms in Norway and less symptomatic seropositivity in a mask campaign in Bangladesh. Findings must therefore be considered according to the intervention and outcome. [32][33]

Read the individual studies ↗

04 / THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE NUMBERS

What people
had to endure.

While billions were spent on masks, people had to live with the rules. Examining the crisis also means listening to those who found wearing them an ordeal.

Children wearing medical masks sit in a classroom and read
Masks in the classroom · Illustrative photograph: Oksana Kuzmina / Adobe Stock, via Unfallkasse Hessen [20]

CHILDREN & SCHOOL

Reading. Learning.
Faces behind fabric.

Masks also became part of children’s school days. Covered mouths changed communication and hid part of people’s facial expressions. This affected encounters, emotions and learning together.

A study of 74 children found changes in emotion recognition. The basic language processing tested, however, was not significantly impaired. The experiment does not establish what longer-term consequences there were. [18]

Complaints deserve to be heard.
Even when they have no line in the accounts.

Unfallkasse Hessen also described wearing masks as uncomfortable and identified situations in which children could remove them. [20]

A photograph published in spring 2020 showing a healthcare worker with pronounced pressure marks after wearing protective equipment
Documented personal post, 2020 · Screenshot Instagram/covid_nurses, via Stern [21]

WORK & PHYSICAL STRAIN

When the shift
left its mark on your face.

Pressure marks on noses and cheeks, irritated skin, exhausted faces: healthcare professionals shared these signs themselves in spring 2020. Their images show the strain of protective equipment during an extremely demanding working day. [21]

Occupational safety guidance also treated wearing FFP masks as a serious matter: wearing times, recovery and preventing skin complaints belong in the risk assessment. They must be part of any assessment of requirements. [19]

Passengers wearing different types of masks on a Berlin U-Bahn train during the pandemic
Berlin Underground · Photograph from 8 October 2020, via Tagesspiegel ↗

A requirement that reached
into every part of daily life.

School, commuting, shopping and work: for many, the mask question was ever-present. A review must therefore examine the practical burden, exemptions, conflicts and handling of individual complaints, alongside purchase prices and commissions.

05 / HUMOUR, PROTEST & EXEMPTIONS

Mask mandate?
I don’t get it!

During the crisis, there were also attempts to answer compulsory masking with humour and a look at the law. Maskenfrei.express was our most colourful example: apes, film parodies and a play on the German words for hearing and obeying.

“Kiev, 8 degrees · Hair in place · Mask not” · Historical campaign image
“Don’t let them pull your leg.” · Historical campaign image

THE IDEA BEHIND THE CAMPAIGN

The exemption was
in the law.

Section 28b of the Infection Protection Act at the time expressly exempted deaf and hard-of-hearing people, their companions and people communicating with them from mask requirements. Maskenfrei.express took up this exemption, combining a hearing test and self-assessment with a privately issued card. [66][67]

The service cost €14.99. It was a campaign run by Markus Bönig at the time. The website no longer accepts new registrations. [66]

View all 51 images ↗Visit the original Maskenfrei.express ↗

THE LAW AT THE TIME · 2022/23

“deaf and hard-of-hearing people and people communicating with them, as well as their companions.”

Section 28b(1), sentence 3, no. 3 of the Infection Protection Act; period covered by the measures: 1 October 2022 to 7 April 2023. [67]

The exemption applied to people with an actual hearing impairment and the specified accompanying and communication situations. A private card did not automatically make anyone hard of hearing. The campaign’s claim about a general reduction in adults’ hearing does not replace a medical finding. [68][69]

The images document the campaign at the time: satire, exaggeration and protest. Their slogans are not scientific evidence. Originals from the supplied collection, shown in full without alterations to their content. [70]

A man wearing a blue surgical mask holds his flat hand to his temple in a salute.

MARKUS BÖNIG · A PERSONAL LOOK BACK

The virus was invisible.
Compliance became visible.

For me, the mask became a visible sign of obedience. You could see at a glance who was going along with it. A compulsory piece of fabric on the face made the crisis visible everywhere. That is precisely why, for us, laughing at compulsory masking was also part of dealing with that time.

MASK EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES, VACCINATION CERTIFICATES & CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

And what happened
to the doctors?

Mask deals generated millions in commissions. On the other side, doctors faced criminal courts. Bianca Witzschel and Carola Javid-Kistel over mask exemption and other certificates; Heinrich Habig over vaccination certificates. The consequences: loss of practices, bans on practising, high costs and time actually spent in prison.

DRESDEN · FEDERAL COURT OF JUSTICE, 27 AUGUST 2025

Bianca Witzschel

32 monthsin prison · three-year ban on practising

The aggregate sentence covered false mask exemption and other health certificates, false test documentation, fraud and a weapons offence. The Federal Court of Justice upheld the judgment. [77]

Witzschel did serve time in prison. According to an Ostdeutsche Allgemeine report, she was released in July 2026. [78]

Read Witzschel’s account ↗

BOCHUM · FIRST PARTIAL JUDGMENT, 29 JUNE 2023

Heinrich Habig

34 monthsin the first partial judgment · time actually served

The judgment concerned 207 false vaccination records: certificates for vaccinations that had not been administered. The Federal Court of Justice upheld this judgment in 2024. His case concerns vaccination certificates, not mask exemptions. [80][81]

Further proceedings followed. According to his own account, Habig served a total of 26 months in prison and was released in May 2026. This period is not the same as the sentence imposed. [82]

Read Habig’s account ↗

DUDERSTADT · JUDGMENT OF 5 FEBRUARY 2024

Carola
Javid-Kistel

14 monthssuspended sentence · practice closed

The local court convicted her of issuing false mask exemption certificates, incitement to hatred and insult. She closed her practice in Germany. Her prison sentence was suspended. [83]

She now reports from Mexico on the loss of her professional livelihood, the suspension of her medical licence and around €50,000 in legal fees. Her own account. [84]

Read Javid-Kistel’s account ↗

THE QUESTION OF DOUBLE STANDARDS · MARKUS BÖNIG

Millions in profits.
Gaps in criminal law.
And the harsh treatment of doctors.

“I am outraged by these double standards: the crisis generated enormous business deals. Doctors who challenged the requirements and offered their patients ways out lost their practices and their freedom.”

A far-reaching mandate, insufficiently established additional benefit in everyday life, millions in profits from political contacts – and, on the other side, searches, bans on practising, destroyed professional livelihoods and prison. For me, this harsh treatment of doctors belongs at the centre of any reckoning. The judgments above also show which specific certificates and other offences the courts punished. In Nüßlein and Sauter’s case, the bribery charge failed because of the gap in criminal law at the time. [05][77][80][83]

Doctors with a conscience:
those affected tell their stories ↗

06 / PRICES, PHARMACIES & PERSONAL SPENDING

What did a mask
actually cost?

An inexpensive FFP2 model was listed at 67 cents excluding VAT in the manufacturer’s 2019 price list. The federal government offered €4.50 excluding VAT in 2020. Pharmacies initially received €6 including VAT for each mask dispensed. The price levels and money flows are set out openly side by side here.

BEFORE COVID · 3M CATALOGUE 2019€0.67

FFP2 list price excluding VAT

VFlex 9152/9152S without valve. Pack of 50, minimum order 400. With 19% VAT, calculated at just under 80 cents. Other FFP2 models in the same list cost more. [54]

FEDERAL PROCUREMENT · MARCH 2020€4.50

Open-house price excluding VAT

Government-set price for FFP2/KN95. For surgical masks: 60 cents excluding VAT. At 19% VAT, €4.50 excluding VAT equals €5.36 including VAT. [02]

CURRENT OFFER · 22 OCTOBER 2026€0.50

FFP2 product price including VAT

JIFA bulk carton: 1,080 masks for €540, including DPD delivery to Germany at this order value. In a pack of 20: 60 cents each plus delivery. [56][57][59]

Specific offers for different models and quantities, not a single market price. Prices including and excluding VAT are identified. The 50-cent figure is a documented current bulk price; the pre-crisis source above shows 67 cents excluding VAT.

Surgical masks, more FFP2 models and delivery costs +
Product / datePack size and priceUnit price
3M 8810 FFP2 · 2019Minimum order 240€1.86 excluding VAT [54]
3M Aura 9320+ FFP2 · 2019Minimum order 240€2.30 excluding VAT [54]
Type IIR surgical mask · Jesamed catalogue 201950 masks for €6.00 excluding VAT€0.12 excluding VAT / approx. €0.14 including VAT [55]
Type IIR surgical mask · Siegmund Care, today50 masks for €3.50 including VAT; DPD €3.95€0.07 product price / approx. €0.15 delivered [58][59]
Type IIR surgical mask · bulk carton, today2,000 masks for €109.98 including VAT; free DPD deliveryapprox. €0.055 including VAT and delivery [64]
Mivolis FFP2 · dm, today2 masks for €1.95 including VAT€0.975 excluding delivery [65]
JIFA FFP2 · pack of 20, today€12.00 including VAT + €3.95 DPD€0.60 product price / approx. €0.80 delivered [57][59]
WHAT THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF REPORTED ABOUT PRICES

Late February 2021: 40 to 80 cents wholesale.

In its reply to the Bundestag, the federal government reported that observed wholesale prices for certified FFP2 masks had fallen from €1.62 to 40–80 cents. It did not expressly state whether VAT was included. This is a documented market observation, not a uniform purchase price for every pharmacy. [52]

THE PHARMACY PROGRAMME · A SEPARATE POT OF MONEY

A billion-euro business.
For pharmacies.

€6 including VAT per mask in the first voucher period, then €3.90. Pharmacies bought the goods and received the government-set payment for procurement, checking and dispensing. The lower their purchase price, the greater their trading margin. The €2 personal contribution per six-mask voucher also stayed with the pharmacy and was deducted from the reimbursement. [09][10]

The yellow façade of the Flora-Apotheke in Berlin-Weißensee, with the word “Apotheke” and a red pharmacy sign.
Pharmacy exterior · illustrative viewA.Savin, Wikipedia ↗CC BY-SA 3.0
The interior of Berlin’s Flora-Apotheke, with wooden cabinets, medicine shelves and historic pharmacy jars.
Pharmacy interior · illustrative viewAngela Monika Arnold, Berlin ↗CC BY 3.0

WORKED EXAMPLE · €0.50 PURCHASE PRICE EXCLUDING VAT

50 cents for the product.
€6 in payment.

€6 including VAT became €5.04 in revenue excluding VAT. With a purchase price of 50 cents excluding VAT, the pharmacy retained €4.54 per mask before staffing, dispensing, logistics and other costs.

That is a 908% markup on the purchase price. At a purchase price of €1.50 excluding VAT, it would still be 236%. The markup is not net profit.

SECOND VOUCHER · €3.90 INCLUDING VAT

Even after the cut:
a substantial margin.

€3.90 including VAT equals €3.28 excluding VAT. At a 50-cent purchase price: €2.78 gross profit per mask, a 555% markup. At a €1.50 purchase price: 118%.

The 50-cent and €1.50 figures are assumptions for the calculation. The government documented wholesale prices of 40–80 cents for late February 2021, without expressly stating whether VAT was included. The actual purchases made by each pharmacy are not recorded. [52]

MARKUS BÖNIG · MY ASSESSMENT OF THIS PROGRAMME

“This is what corruption looks like to me: the state ties an entire profession to its programme with a great deal of money.”

A political accusation against this payment system. The documented payments and potential trading margins show why I consider the level of payment a scandal.

53.9 million

six-mask vouchers redeemed

28.5 million first vouchers and 25.4 million second vouchers. Equivalent to 323.4 million masks.

348.4 million

masks from the documented dispensing figures

Including around 25 million masks from almost 2.5 million ten-mask sets for recipients of unemployment benefit II.

€2.13 billion

in federal funds for distribution and vouchers

Around €2.12 billion for the completed dispensing programme, including health insurers’ administrative costs, plus around €12 million for Bundesdruckerei.

Quantities: rounded interim figures from the Federal Office for Social Security (BAS), published on 27 May 2021; December dispensing excluded. Spending: completed programme, as of 18 May 2022. [50][53]

Who received vouchers? People – not 40 million households. +

People aged 60 and over and certain risk groups were eligible; further recipients of unemployment benefit II were added later. The federal government had 35.3 million sheets printed, each with two vouchers. That is neither 35.3 million verified users nor a household count. The same person could redeem several vouchers. [08][10][52]

Reconstructed accounts · documented dispensing, January–April 2021
DispensedMasksRevenue including VATPaid privatelyPaid by the federal government
28.5 million first six-mask vouchers171.0 million€1,026.00 million€57.00 million€969.00 million
25.4 million second six-mask vouchers152.4 million€594.36 million€50.80 million€543.56 million
approx. 2.5 million ten-mask sets for unemployment benefit II recipientsapprox. 25.0 millionapprox. €97.50 million€0approx. €97.50 million
Calculated total≈ 348.4 million≈ €1,717.86 million≈ €107.80 million≈ €1,610.06 million

Calculated from rounded historical dispensing quantities and the rates set by regulation; not final accounts accurate to the cent. The €2.13 billion above includes other parts of the programme and comes from its later final figures. [09][10][50][53]

CALCULATED ACROSS 18,753 PHARMACIES

Around 18,578 masks.
€91,605 in revenue including VAT.
€76,979 after VAT.

These are the sector averages from documented dispensing in 2021, divided across all community pharmacies operating at the end of 2020. Actual quantities varied by location. [51][53]

ASSUMED PURCHASE PRICE · EXCLUDING VAT

€0.50 per mask≈ €67,689Gross profit per calculated average pharmacy
€1.50 per mask≈ €49,111Gross profit per calculated average pharmacy

Before staffing, logistics, rent, other operating costs and taxes on profits. Purchase prices are scenarios; these figures do not establish actual individual profits.

CALCULATE THE TRADING MARGIN YOURSELF

What did the pharmacy retain
after buying the masks?

This calculator shows a pharmacy’s gross profit from the mask programme. After mask purchases and VAT, this money was available to the business for staffing, rent, administration, other costs and ultimately profit. Choose the quantity, payment phase and assumed purchase price excluding VAT.

Default: rounded average quantity from documented dispensing and the nationwide mix of payment rates. The December lump sum is not included.

Revenue including VAT
After deducting VAT
Cost of goods excluding VAT

PHARMACY’S GROSS PROFIT

This is the calculated amount retained by the pharmacy before staffing, logistics, rent, other operating costs and taxes on profits were paid. Any remaining balance would be the operator’s profit. Formula: revenue including VAT ÷ 1.19 − quantity × purchase price excluding VAT.

IN ADDITION · DECEMBER 2020 LUMP SUM

€491.4 million.
For dispensing through pharmacies.

On 16 December 2020, the Federal Office for Social Security paid €491.4 million to the pharmacies’ night and emergency service fund. After deducting its administrative costs, the fund distributed the lump sum to pharmacies. It paid for their procurement and distribution of the December masks. Allocation was based on each pharmacy’s share of prescription medicine packs dispensed in the third quarter of 2020 – the actual number of masks dispensed was not recorded for this purpose.

Averaged across all 18,753 locations, the fund amounts to around €26,204 including VAT per pharmacy before fund administration costs. Actual payments varied. This was revenue for pharmacy businesses; without mask quantities and purchase records, the operator’s profit after mask purchases and operating costs cannot be determined. [09][51][52][63]

TWO MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAMMES

€5.9 billion for procurement.
Around €2.13 billion for dispensing and vouchers.

Combined ≈ €8.03 billion

Direct federal procurement and the pharmacy dispensing programme are separate expenditures. This sum covers these two programmes; it is not a complete account of all government mask costs. Around €517 million in procurement-related follow-up costs through the end of 2024 are listed separately in the Audit Office’s assessment. [01][50]

The corner façade of the Federal Ministry of Health at Mauerstraße 29 in Berlin.
Federal Ministry of Health · Berlin office at Mauerstraße 29GodeNehler, Wikimedia Commons ↗CC BY-SA 4.0

WHAT THE PUBLIC PAID ON TOP

What additional costs
did the public bear?

The billions in government spending were not the whole bill. Personal mask purchases came on top of co-payments. Even people without vouchers had to pay to comply with the requirements in daily life.

≈ €107.8 million

in co-payments from documented vouchers

53.9 million six-mask vouchers redeemed × €2. Part of pharmacies’ revenue including VAT, not an amount to add on again.

Additional purchases

No reliably defined total is available

The official data checked do not quantify private mask purchases separately. Import values and masks funded by employers or the state cannot simply be added together for this purpose. [53][60][61]

WORKED EXAMPLE · NOT A MEASURED TOTAL

100 masks at 50 cents each
cost one person €50.

The implications for large numbers of people paying themselves can be scaled transparently. Only additional masks bought personally during the full period 2020–2022 are counted here.

RESULT OF THE SELECTED ASSUMPTIONS

The number of people, quantity and price are freely chosen assumptions. Publicly funded, reimbursed or employer-funded masks do not belong in this quantity. The result is not an estimate of actual total German consumption.

5.8 billion

masks procured by the federal government

5.9 billion euros

spent on procurement

3.0 billion

destroyed by August 2025

Rounded figures from the Federal Audit Office. Procurement costs exclude additional follow-up costs. Stock and destruction: as of August 2025. [01]

THE GOVERNMENT’S MULTIBILLION-EURO BILL

First a shortage.
Then excess.

At first, masks were scarce. In the end, billions were left over. Who decided to keep buying anyway – and who paid for those decisions?

5.8 billion masks for €5.9 billion. According to the Federal Audit Office’s later assessment, a large proportion were never distributed for use. By the end of 2024, around €517 million in follow-up costs had also accrued – for storage, logistics and consultancy, for example. [01]

First the bill.
Then destruction.

The question is: who checked quantities, prices and quality? When was the surplus apparent? And why did procurement continue?

WHAT BECAME OF THE MASKS

Destroyed≈ 3.0 billion
Distributed in Germany≈ 1.7 billion
Scheduled for destruction≈ 0.4 billion
Donated abroad≈ 0.4 billion

Rounded subcategories; not a complete reconciliation of the total. “Distributed” does not mean proven to have been used. In August 2025, 332 million masks were still fit for delivery. [01]

A huge pile of masks in front of a glowing industrial furnace

THE END OF A PROCUREMENT PROGRAMME

Paid for.
Stored.
Destroyed.

3 billionmasks already destroyedAs of August 2025 · Federal Audit Office

Total federal procurement cost €5.9 billion. Three billion masks had already been destroyed; another 400 million were scheduled for destruction. This assessment does not give a separate purchase value specifically for the destroyed stock. [01]

Read the Audit Office’s assessment ↗

07 / MASK TYPES & EFFECTIVENESS

Not all masks
are the same.

The quality of purchased goods, technical filtration performance and the benefit of a mandate are three different questions to investigate.

Sewn cloth mask
01 / COMMUNITY MASK

Sewn from fabric.

Materials and fit vary. An ordinary cloth mask does not have standardised filtration performance like an FFP2 mask.

Blue medical surgical mask
02 / MEDICAL DEVICE

The surgical mask.

Defined material tests, developed primarily to protect others. Leakage at the sides limits protection against aerosols.

White particle-filtering FFP mask
03 / RESPIRATORY PROTECTION

The FFP2 mask.

Tested aerosol filtration. A tight fit is a major factor. A test result is not a fixed reduction in everyday risk.

Type descriptions: BfArM, historical pandemic information. Photographs show product examples, not rejected delivery batches. [13]

THE STUDIES ON THE TABLE

The mandate was certain.
How certain was its benefit?

Cochrane 2023: no clear reduction in the community studies.

For flu-like or COVID-like illness, the relative risk was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.84–1.09; nine studies). For laboratory-confirmed influenza or SARS-CoV-2: 1.01 (0.72–1.42; six studies). Neither analysis found a statistically established difference. Differences in use, low adherence and risks of bias limit what can be concluded. [11] [12]

WHAT THE ORIGINAL STUDIES SAY

Far-reaching requirements.
Specific findings.

How many people were studied? Which masks? Which outcome? Here are the findings behind the headlines.

DENMARK · DANMASK-19

1.8% / 2.1%

No statistically established protection for the wearer.

These are the proportions who became infected with and without a recommendation to wear surgical masks. The difference was not statistically established. 6,024 adults were randomised; 4,862 completed follow-up. [27]

Randomised trial, spring 2020. It tested the recommendation as additional protection for the wearer; protection for others was not a study outcome.

CATALONIA · SCHOOLS

599,314

Children. No clear benefit at the mandate’s age threshold.

The study compared, among others, five-year-olds without a mask requirement and six-year-olds with one. Secondary attack rates: 4.59% versus 4.36%. No statistically established difference. [28]

Observational study, September–December 2021. Age groups and school stages differ; no randomisation.

FINLAND · THREE CITIES

Ages 10–12

The extension brought no discernible additional benefit.

Turku extended the mask requirement to younger schoolchildren. Helsinki and Tampere kept the higher age threshold. Infection trends showed no consistent advantage from this additional requirement. [29]

Ecological comparison of cities, August–November 2021. Individual mask use was not verified; other differences between the cities remained possible.

CHILDREN · SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

22 studies

No randomised trial in the evidence reviewed.

After screening 597 papers, 22 observational studies were included. The authors found no randomised trial in children up to the search cutoff in February 2023. They found no high-quality evidence that child mask mandates reduced SARS-CoV-2 infections or transmission. [31]

Review with a February 2023 search cutoff. The risk-of-bias assessments are the authors’ judgments; no pooled effectiveness estimate.

FIT · REVIEW OF 29 STUDIES

3.6%

Ear loops: few fit tests passed.

Only 3.6% of the 222 fit tests analysed for ear-loop models were passed. For three-panel folded models with head straps, the figure was 80.8% of 4,625 tests. Design and fit against the face made a major difference. [30]

These percentages refer to fit tests in different studies. They are neither the proportion of defective products on the market nor a measured infection rate.

NORWAY · RANDOMISED TRIAL 2024

8.9% / 12.2%

Fewer reported respiratory symptoms.

Over 14 days, people wearing surgical masks reported respiratory symptoms less often than the comparison group. The estimated difference was 3.2 percentage points. This trial therefore found a benefit for the outcome studied. [32]

Unblinded trial with self-reported symptoms. It did not establish a reduction in laboratory-confirmed COVID-19.

BERN · SCHOOL MEASUREMENTS 2023

90 adolescents

Fewer aerosols during the mask phase.

Aerosols, PCR findings and cases were recorded in two schools over seven weeks. Aerosol concentrations were 69% lower under the mask mandate. A model also estimated less transmission. [45]

Small non-randomised study with changing time periods. Measurements and modelled transmission are different outcomes.

INDIA · CLUSTER RCT · PUBLISHED 2025

32,019

Adults. No established reduction in infections.

Cloth masks were distributed and promoted in 20 villages. The adjusted relative risk for COVID-19 was 0.96; the 95% confidence interval ranged from 0.57 to 1.63. The data therefore remained too imprecise for a firm conclusion. [46]

Conducted August–November 2020, published in 2025. Group intervention with cloth masks and few events; not an FFP2 trial.

Bangladesh: what a mask campaign achieved +

600 villages, 342,183 adults: a randomised distribution and promotion campaign reduced symptomatic seropositivity. The adjusted prevalence ratio was 0.91; the 95% confidence interval ranged from 0.82 to 1.00. The intervention was a programme of distribution, promotion and behavioural change. [33]

Newer reviews: differing assessments of the overall evidence +

The 2025 BMJ review assesses masks and respirators as protective depending on their use and adherence. Another 2025 review found positive findings in 61 of 79 heterogeneous studies. A 2026 methodological analysis describes why mask reviews reach different conclusions. The overall evidence cannot therefore be replaced by the null finding of a single study. [47][48][49]

CORONA-REVISION AS A BASIS FOR THE WORK

Assess the benefits. Reconstruct the decisions.

The existing local reading versions were used: volume 1, section 8.125b–c, and volume 2, section 54.3. The extract shows the arguments and the state of the documentation.

Open the reading page ↗

TESTING, APPROVAL & QUALITY

What did the label say?
What was inside?

FFP2, KN95, CPA, CE: during the pandemic, masks reached the market through different routes. For procurement, what matters is which tests the specific product had passed.

CE

The standard conformity process.

For standard FFP2 masks, checks include the CE mark with the notified body’s identification number, the EN 149 standard and conformity documentation. The abbreviation on the packaging alone does not answer the procurement questions. [34]

CPA

The simplified pandemic route.

In 2020, abbreviated test procedures existed for coronavirus pandemic respiratory protection. After a successful test, confirmation by the market surveillance authority was also required. This route did not involve the regular EU conformity procedure or CE marking; it ended on 1 October 2020. [34][35]

KN95

A different standard.

Many Chinese KN95 models underwent CPA testing. KN95 does not designate standard European FFP2 certification. The model, batch, test report, authorisation and delivery date must match. [34]

STIFTUNG WARENTEST · 2022

32 models

Problems with breathing comfort and fit.

Ten models performed poorly because of insufficient breathing comfort. Of the 22 models tested for fit, twelve failed to meet all requirements; ten others had already been eliminated at the comfort-testing stage. Four models were recommended without reservation. [36]

Product tests of specific models. The selection is not a representative measure of all masks bought by the federal government.

DGUV / IFA · RECOMMENDATION AT THE TIME

75 / 30 minutes

Wear. Then recover.

For filtering facepiece respirators without an exhalation valve during moderately strenuous work, occupational safety guidance specified 75 minutes of wear followed by 30 minutes of recovery. It also covered training, a tight fit and individual risk assessment. [37]

A recommendation for the stated workload; not a general medical maximum wearing time for all people and situations.

Titanium dioxide and other substances: the measurements behind the archive posts +

MATERIAL TEST · 2022

TiO₂ in twelve masks.

A materials study found titanium dioxide in the masks examined and called for further investigation. It determined material content and modelled surface levels. It did not measure how much actually entered the air breathed during wear. [38]

DIRECT RELEASE MEASUREMENT · 2026

No detectable TiO₂ nanoparticles.

A later laboratory experiment examined three mask types under stationary and moving conditions. No TiO₂ nanoparticles were detected in the released particles analysed. Three types do not represent the entire market. [39]

REVIEW OF POTENTIALLY HARMFUL SUBSTANCES · 2024

24 studies. 631 masks.

The review covered detected substances and questions about release. There were 1,003 search results, from which 24 studies were included. Predominantly laboratory findings and some worst-case comparisons; no measurement of average everyday doses or clinical illness. [40]

The crucial record: product and batch → test procedure → complete documentation → acceptance → actual use.

Pencil drawing of a girl: a hand covers her mouth and nose
“The Mask” · commissioned work supplied by the initiator

08 / BEYOND THE BILLIONS

Behind the mask.
A person.

The accounts tell a story about money.
This image tells a different one.

A hand over mouth and nose. A gaze that stays with you. The drawing gives the dossier a personal counterpoint: alongside quantities, contracts and proceedings are experiences of restriction, fear and speechlessness.

Watch the film “The Mask” ▶

Film supplied by the initiator. The image and film are loaded locally from this website.

THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

A reckoning
needs answers.

This is the standard against which politicians and public authorities must be judged.

  1. 01

    Who determined demand?

    Disclose demand forecasts, safety reserves and criteria for stopping procurement.

  2. 02

    Who received which contract?

    Provide traceable records of contracting routes, brokerage services, commissions and conflicts of interest.

  3. 03

    What was actually delivered?

    Distinguish contracted quantities, testing quality, accepted goods, distribution and actual use.

  4. 04

    What was the additional benefit?

    Assess measures on their implementation, effects and burdens.

READ. VERIFY. THINK FURTHER.

The sources
are on the table.

Original documents are central. Commentary and news reports are identified as such. Figures carry a reference date.

THE MASK ARCHIVE

Studies. Contracts. Judgments. Original sources.

The in-depth dossier on effectiveness, prices, brokers, procurement and mask mandates. Organised by topic, searchable and with direct links to documents.

Open the source archive ↗

86 sources

02
Procurement · 29 March 2021 · hib 409/2021

Bundestag · Open-house contracts ↗

€4.50 excluding VAT for FFP2/KN95 masks, €0.60 excluding VAT for surgical masks; contracts and delivery volumes.

03
Justice · Sentencing announcement · accessed 22 October 2026

Spanish Supreme Court · Ábalos case ↗

24 years and 3 months for José Luis Ábalos. Conviction for multiple offences; the sentence was not determined solely by the amount of commission.

06
Justice · 11 July 2025 · Decision of 29 April 2025

BGH · Trade tax evasion / Tandler ↗

Final prison sentences of three years each for Tandler and her partner. Approximately €48 million in joint commissions.

09
Pharmacies · 15 December 2020 · Sections 5–9

Original ordinance · Remuneration ↗

Initially €6 including VAT per mask supplied against a voucher. This does not establish pharmacies’ profit.

10
Pharmacies · 5 February 2021

Amending ordinance · €3.90 ↗

Reduction applying, among other things, to the second voucher period, from 16 February to 15 April 2021.

11
Evidence · 2023 · CD006207.pub6

Cochrane · Systematic review ↗

Randomised studies of physical interventions against respiratory viruses; limitations concerning adherence, bias and generalisability.

12
Evidence · March 2023 · Addition in June 2024

Cochrane · Statement and update ↗

Statement on the 2023 review. Since June 2024, changes to the abstract and plain-language summary are no longer being pursued.

13
Evidence · Historical pandemic information

BfArM · Differences between mask types ↗

Cloth masks, surgical masks and FFP masks: product types, standards, filtration properties and fit. This archived information does not establish a current mask requirement.

16
Background · 11 July 2025 · Secondary source

Tagesspiegel · Tandler and Hohlmeier ↗

Andrea Tandler is Gerold Tandler’s daughter. Monika Hohlmeier, daughter of Franz Josef Strauß, facilitated contacts.

18
Evidence · Online in 2022 / 2023 · J Exp Child Psychol

Bourke et al. · Masks, language and emotions ↗

Experiment involving 74 children aged four to eight: altered emotion recognition; no significant impairment of the basic language processing tested. No evidence of long-term developmental harm.

19
Evidence · Historical COVID-19 FAQ · Especially question 25

DGUV · FFP masks and recovery breaks ↗

Plan wearing times and recovery breaks for FFP masks in the risk assessment; prevent skin problems. Distinguishes FFP masks from medical face masks.

20
Evidence · 11 September 2021 · Historical information

Unfallkasse Hessen · Masks in everyday school life ↗

Discomfort while wearing masks, removal in specific situations and differences between mask types. At the time, no evidence of breathing impairment posing a health risk from the masks recommended for children. School photograph: Oksana Kuzmina / Adobe Stock.

21
Background · 2 April 2020 · News report

Stern · Visible marks after hospital shifts ↗

Documented self-portraits of exhausted healthcare professionals and marks left by masks. Image: Instagram screenshot/covid_nurses. The strain of everyday hospital work cannot be attributed to masks alone.

24
Evidence · FAQ section as of 26 November 2024 · Referring to 30 October 2020

RKI · FFP2 versus surgical masks in everyday life ↗

Additional protection against transmission compared with surgical masks was not established for untrained members of the public in everyday use; higher filtration in the laboratory.

27
Evidence · Online in 2020 / 2021 · Randomised study

Bundgaard et al. · DANMASK-19 ↗

6,024 randomised adults; 4,862 completed follow-up. No statistically significant difference in protection for the wearer from a recommendation to wear surgical masks.

30
Evidence · 2023 · Journal of Hospital Infection

Knobloch et al. · Respirator fit ↗

29 studies; ear-loop models passed 3.6% of 222 recorded fit tests. Passing a fit test is not an infection rate.

33
Evidence · Online in 2021 / 2022 · Science · Cluster RCT

Abaluck et al. · Mask campaign in Bangladesh ↗

600 villages, 342,183 adults. Reduction in symptomatic seropositivity in the distribution and encouragement programme; aPR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82–1.00.

34
Certification · Pandemic testing pathways in 2020 · Official information

BAuA · Identifying compliant respirators ↗

Standard conformity assessment, KN95 and coronavirus pandemic respirators (CPA); the CPA procedure ended on 1 October 2020.

35
Certification · 20 March 2020 · Revision 0 · Original PDF

DEKRA / IFA · CPA testing specification ↗

Simplified tests of filter penetration, breathing resistance and donning. Distinction from respiratory protection fully tested to EN 149.

36
Certification · 19 October 2022 · Independent product test

Stiftung Warentest · FFP2 masks tested ↗

32 models in total: ten with low breathing comfort; twelve of the 22 models tested for fit did not meet all requirements.

37
Evidence · 19 January 2021 · Updated 3 February 2022

DGUV / IFA · Using FFP2 masks correctly ↗

Instruction, a close fit and risk assessment. The recommendation at the time for moderately strenuous work: 75 minutes of wear, followed by a 30-minute recovery break.

41
Background · PDF page 1716 · Minutes page 10/11

RKI · Original minutes of 30 October 2020 ↗

Internal discussion of evidence for FFP2 use outside occupational safety. Additional context and subsequent explanation in source 24.

44
Background · 22 October 2026 · Telegram source collection

Maskenalarm · Supplied archive package ↗

Historical Telegram source collection with 1,103 entries, 756 media files and indexes of studies, schools, quotations and external sources.

48
Evidence · 20 October 2025 · Systematic review · Search cut-off June 2023

Crespo et al. · Real-world studies of masks ↗

79 heterogeneous studies, 61 with positive findings. Counting study results does not establish a pooled effectiveness of 77%.

49
Evidence · 2026 · Methodological analysis · Studies through September 2025

Greenhalgh et al. · Why mask reviews differ ↗

Analysis of 66 reviews and approximately 300 primary studies. Addresses differing results, study designs and problems with evidence synthesis.

50
Pharmacies · 2021 activity report · Final figures as of 18 May 2022

BAS · Final accounting for the protective mask programme ↗

Approximately €2.12 billion for mask distribution and health insurers’ administrative costs; a further approximately €12 million for producing and mailing the vouchers.

51
Pharmacies · Year-end figures for 2020 and 2021

ABDA · Changes in the number of pharmacies ↗

18,753 community pharmacies, including branches, at the end of 2020; 18,461 at the end of 2021. Denominator used to calculate the sector average.

53
Pharmacies · 27 May 2021 · Published interim figures

APOTHEKE ADHOC · BAS accounting figures ↗

28.5 million first and 25.4 million second vouchers for six masks; just under 2.5 million sets of ten for ALG II benefit recipients. Rounded figures, not precise final volume statistics.

56
Prices · Price checked 22 October 2026 · JIFA · Bulk carton

Siegmund Care · 1,080 FFP2 masks ↗

€540 including VAT for 1,080 masks: 50 cents per mask; standard DPD shipping within Germany is free at this order value.

57
Prices · Price checked 22 October 2026 · JIFA

Siegmund Care · 20 FFP2 masks ↗

20 for €12 including VAT: product price of 60 cents per mask; shipping may cost extra.

58
Prices · Price checked 22 October 2026 · Meditrade

Siegmund Care · 50 Type IIR surgical masks ↗

50 for €3.50 including VAT: 7 cents per mask excluding shipping. An individual DPD order incurs an additional €3.95 shipping charge.

59
Prices · Accessed 22 October 2026 · Germany

Siegmund Care · Shipping terms ↗

DPD shipping costs €3.95 for orders under €50; free for orders of €50 or more. Basis for calculating the delivered price per mask.

60
Prices · 18 March 2021 · Press release 136

Destatis · Imports of protective face masks ↗

January 2021: 1.1 billion filtering half masks with an import value of €166.7 million. A figure at the import stage, not a record of pharmacies’ purchase costs or additional private expenditure.

62
Private spending · Consumer Market Outlook · Model estimate

Statista · Estimated consumption, 2020–2022 ↗

An estimated 17 billion masks used by consumers. No breakdown by self-funding, employers and publicly funded spending; does not establish a national total for private expenditure.

66
Protest & humour · 2022/23 campaign · Accessed 22 October 2026

Maskenfrei.express · Historical campaign ↗

The service’s own description at the time, offering a hearing test, self-assessment and privately issued card for €14.99. No new registrations today.

69
Evidence · Fact sheet · Accessed 22 October 2026

WHO · Deafness and hearing loss ↗

Hearing loss is assessed using hearing thresholds. This does not mean that every adult has clinical hearing loss.

71
Doctors’ cases · Documentation portal run by MWGFD e.V.

Ärzte mit Gewissen · Case directory ↗

Accounts by those affected, describing proceedings and professional and personal consequences. The individual court decisions are linked separately.

72
Doctors’ cases · 10 September 2025 · 5 StR 335/25

BGH · Walter Weber proceedings ↗

52 instances of issuing incorrect health certificates; aggregate suspended sentence of one year and ten months upheld. Original decision.

73
Doctors’ cases · Ärzte mit Gewissen · Accessed 22 October 2026

Walter Weber · His own account ↗

His own account of the proceedings and their consequences; more than €130,000 in legal and procedural costs according to his account.

76
Doctors’ cases · Ärzte mit Gewissen · Accessed 22 October 2026

Monika Jiang · Her own account ↗

Her own account of the proceedings and financial consequences; approximately €113,000 in legal fees according to her account.

77
Doctors’ cases · 23 September 2025 · Press release 175/2025 · Decision of 27 August 2025

BGH · Bianca Witzschel proceedings ↗

Final sentence of two years and eight months in prison and a three-year ban on practising; incorrect health certificates and other offences. Aggregate sentence.

80
Doctors’ cases · 29 June 2023 · 12 KLs 6/23 · Full court judgment

Bochum Regional Court · First partial judgment in the Habig case ↗

Two years and ten months for 207 incorrect vaccination records, 190 of which also constituted incorrect health certificates. Reproduction of the anonymised full court judgment; vaccination certificates, not a mask exemption certificate case.

81
Doctors’ cases · 11 September 2024 · 4 StR 75/24 · Full text at HRR

BGH · Appeal on points of law in the first Habig proceedings ↗

The Federal Court of Justice dismissed the appeal on points of law against the first partial judgment from Bochum. Its confirmation concerns these proceedings; other judgments must be considered separately.

82
Doctors’ cases · September 2026 · Personal account

Heinrich Habig · Account by the person affected ↗

His own account states that he actually served 26 months in custody and was released in May 2026. The portal’s headline on the sentence does not match the court judgments; time served and sentence imposed must be distinguished.

83
Doctors’ cases · 5 February 2024 · Contemporary trial report

Deutsches Ärzteblatt / dpa · Javid-Kistel proceedings ↗

Duderstadt Local Court: 14-month suspended sentence for incorrect mask exemption certificates, incitement to hatred and insults. No substantiated conviction resulting in a three-and-a-half-year sentence.

84
Doctors’ cases · March 2026 · Personal account

Carola Javid-Kistel · Account by the person affected ↗

Her own account of her suspended sentence, closure of her practice, suspension of her licence to practise, legal fees and life in Mexico. Personal consequences from her perspective.

85
Evidence · 30 June 2022 · Especially pp. 15 and 91

2022 coronavirus evaluation · Expert Committee report ↗

Masks can be an effective tool; their effect depends on fit and use. The data available at the time did not support a general FFP2 recommendation; effects in schools could not be conclusively assessed.

Download the source register ↓
Image credits +

New portraits and everyday scenes:

  • Pharmacy exterior · illustrative view: A.Savin, Wikipedia, 2 May 2012. Original photograph ↗ · CC BY-SA 3.0. Reduced in size for the website and saved as WebP; a crop is displayed depending on screen size.
  • Pharmacy interior · illustrative view: Angela Monika Arnold, Berlin, 28 August 2024. Original photograph ↗ · CC BY 3.0. Reduced in size for the website and saved as WebP; a crop is displayed depending on screen size.
  • Federal Ministry of Health · Berlin office at Mauerstraße 29: GodeNehler, 5 April 2026. Original photograph ↗ · CC BY-SA 4.0. Reduced in size for the website and saved as WebP; a crop is displayed depending on screen size.
  • Karl Lauterbach: Martin Kraft (photo.martinkraft.com), CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Original and image credit ↗ · Licence
  • Jens Spahn: Martin Kraft (photo.martinkraft.com), CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Original and image credit ↗ · Licence
  • José Luis Ábalos: Ministry of the Presidency. Government of Spain / La Moncloa, 14 January 2020, via Wikimedia Commons. Original and image credit ↗
  • Salute with a mask: editorial illustration, not depicting a specific person.
  • Andrea Tandler: picture alliance/dpa; source RND. Original and image credit ↗

The portraits were reduced in size to improve loading times, without altering their content; the visible crop is determined by the page layout. School: Oksana Kuzmina / Adobe Stock, via Unfallkasse Hessen (illustrative photograph). Underground: historical photograph via Tagesspiegel, 8 October 2020. Hospital: screenshot Instagram/covid_nurses, via Stern. Source links appear directly beside the images. Freiheitskanzlei wordmark and symbol: original graphics from kriegs-alarm.de.

Mask mountain and incinerator scene: editorial illustrations. Airport: picture-alliance/dpa/M. Balk, via Deutsche Welle. Product photographs: Primitive Tribal Craft (cloth), via Tagesschau (surgical), Natex Group (FFP2). Drawing and film: commissioned work or file supplied by the initiator; the artist’s name was not provided. Logo: custom vector graphic based on the Alarm family.

MASKEN-ALARM

The money has been spent.
The questions remain.

Back to the top ↑
↑