It is not disputed that the containment measures against the pandemic were reasonable to prevent disasters such as in Lombardy or New York. We do not question these measures.

Steps to relax these containment measures are currently being discussed and implemented. However, the needs of young families are being completely ignored. In the ongoing discussion it remains unclear how day-care for young children will proceed.

In the recommendations of the Leopoldina institute, there is only one sentence relating to day-care institutions: “As smaller children do not keep to social distancing rules, and at the same time can pass on the infection, these institutions should remain in emergency mode until the summer holidays.” Based upon these recommendations, day-care institutions for young children are excluded from any steps to relax the lockdown.

However, in practice those children will not be able to keep to social distancing rules after the summer holidays, either. According to expert opinion (e.g. the Robert Koch Institute) there will not be a vaccine until the end of the year. How then will we proceed in the autumn? Obviously, there is no perspective whatsoever for young families and their children.

The recommendations of the Leopoldina institute emphasize the importance of perspectives to balance severe psychological and social impacts. In the recommendations for day-care institutions the needs of young families are virtually ignored. The composition of the working group (average age > 63; 92% male) suggests that this could be a reason for the weighting of the suggested measures. This is not an objective basis for political decisions.

No consideration is given to how parents of the 2.8 million children (below 6 years) in day-care* can meet their professional requirements in the medium and long term if no day-care facilities are available. Only a few professions are considered as key workers, so that for most of the population there are no options for day-care. But even expanding emergency care is not a comprehensive solution as it will only exacerbate social injustice. And home office arrangements ignore the fact that with young children it is simply impossible to combine work and care.

This professional state of emergency can be handled for a limited time, but it cannot be continued indefinitely. Many parents are taking annual leave or working night shifts to compensate for the work time lost in childcare. We cannot prolong this situation indefinitely without having severe psychological, social and financial consequences.

If the rules are relaxed step-by-step for other citizens, this will intensify the professional disadvantages for parents of young children. The fall back on traditional role models with one main wage earner is being enforced as the only possible family model. New family models, though, are not only ideological, but also economic decisions. Single parents and women are the main victims of these developments. If they are forced out of the labour market, the state will lose important qualified workers and tax income.

Pre-school institutions are not merely care facilities; they have an educational task. Younger children are being deprived of pedagogical processes that up to now have been considered indispensable. Instead, they are being cut off from social contact for a lengthy period, missing out on learning opportunities and falling behind in important phases of their development. The longer the lockdown continues, the more severe the impact will be on early learning. It is families in difficult social circumstances and immigrant families that are most severely hit in this situation.

A total of 3.8 million young children** are currently being banned from social contact. The long-term impact of such isolation over many months is not being questioned. Children need exercise, but playgrounds have been closed since the beginning of the lockdown. For many families, their family life must be organised in confined living spaces. This increases the potential for strain and conflict that can lead to violence.

Moreover, it is not clear if children really contribute significantly to the spread of the virus and if the closing of day-care facilities has been a significant factor in the containment of the pandemic. The studies available so far are contradictory. On the other hand, it is not disputed that children rarely suffer from severe symptoms of the disease. To deny the re-opening of day-care facilities dogmatically is incomprehensible, even more so as no plan exists for working parents.

• source: [https://www.destatis.de] ** figure represents children > 1 year and < 6 years; source: [https://de.statista.com]