Did you read it too? In Greenland and Hong Kong the consumption of alcohol has been banned or severely restricted. And in Mexico the Corona brewery was closed down. While in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, no more alcohol can be purchased, in Hong Kong no drinks with more than 2.25 percent alcohol content were allowed to be served and sales were completely prohibited.

In the case of Greenland, the government was concerned that stoned-drunk people would be less alert, increasing the risk of infection. There was also the fear that excessive alcohol consumption by parents would increase domestic violence and abuse of children – those are the words of, Martha Abelsen, the Minister of Health, speaking to journalists. Interestingly, the ban only applies to the capital Nuuk, where, according to Wikipedia, one third of Greenland’s entire population lives and where members of the Christian community “Unitas Fratrum” was founded in 1731. (Also worth mentioning is the revered author Erich Kästner, who in his autobiographical book “When I was a little boy” reports that his cousin Dora, who had been sent by her father to one of those boarding schools, returned pale and haggard). This admittedly does not explain the part with the limited attention. It should also be mentioned that the claim that the “Blood Wound Fish”, “Miracle Bees” and the “Little Bird of the Cross” gave Jesus all kinds of comfort hanging on the cross comes from the same organization. But I digress.

Now, as far as Hong Kong is concerned, the Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, has arranged for the sale of alcohol to be restricted, as mentioned above. The reason for this is that in bars, if people drink more, intimate acts can happen. In bars. Wonderful. But because nobody in Hong Kong cares what Mrs Lam says, nobody followed the ban and so she changed the instruction. Now a ban on alcohol is in force when more than four people are together in a bar. You won’t get rid of the movie in your head that easily, dear reader.

And in Mexico, the Corona brewery had to be closed down by order of the government, because beer is not a vital agro-industrial product. I don’t know where you stand on the German Purity Law, and clearly beer made from corn does not comply with the Purity Law and is therefore problematic for the time being, but to call it “not vital”? By the way, sales in China are said to have slumped dramatically.

And strictly speaking, I am only now getting to the actual and central aspect of this article. Finally, I have the opportunity – and how much I have avoided to date to get in on this – to really get involved in the conspiracy theories. Pay attention now. Pay attention.

The governments of this world are compliant instruments of the international brewery mafia. The corona virus is their invention. For months, their strategists have been tinkering and, in collaboration with Chinese breweries, have invented the myth of “Corona” and discredited the brand of the same name (corn!). Jens Spahn, the German Minister of Health, called the virus “alcohol sensitive”, the city of Munich defers fees for beer gardens, Mrs. Lam permits boozing again, the Czech Republic calls the action “save the beer” and dozens of small breweries go bankrupt. The big ones will survive, they will divide the market among themselves and dictate prices, quality and politicians. This is exactly what will happen!

But what does Sars-Cov2 have to do with guilt? The answer is short and sweet: I have a guess.

But first to the factual considerations. Will the pandemic lead to project cancellations and postponements? Of course it will. We can already observe this. Short-time work, reduced income and so on inevitably lead to projects being reprioritised. But can’t other problems not directly attributable to the virus be hidden behind this? Absolutely! The suspicion is obvious that “the new virus” will be seized upon as the excuse for all kinds of bad luck, omissions and inadequacy.

What makes the virus such a are wonderful candidate for such manoeuvres? It is better suited than providence because it is concrete. Dependencies on other projects are also concrete and are often used as an explanation, if there is the slightest opportunity to distract attention from one’s own project. Contractors too are ideal targets of blame, as they will very likely be gone at some point. However, the virus has huge advantages over the above mentioned: it cannot defend itself against blame and is not just external to your organization, but any organization. The danger of encountering it again (beyond medical circles) is zero. No disadvantages to be expected.

In addition, the virus is also suitable at every level of the hierarchy as an object for apportioning blame, at any rate much better than providence or other disasters. Hurricanes, floods and stupidity itself may also be suitable candidates, but compared to the virus they have the disadvantage that a certain predictability is inherent in them, at least as far as the expected duration of the blame assignment is concerned. Okay, I admit stupidity is an inappropriate example. Nevertheless, although it may take weeks and months to overcome the consequences of such natural disasters, possible second waves, extension of short-time work, etc. open up the possibility of blame being placed in the future. This is pre-announced, acknowledged and accepted unpredictability, like the quest of Shangri-la. All decisions made and also future decisions have, at least for a considerable period of time, no personal consequences.

And that brings me now to the second aspect under consideration: the consequences of one’s own actions. The drunk driver is held accountable in case of an accident, the sailor who goes out despite bad weather is in danger of drowning. We find examples of this kind in large numbers. But what about the economy, for example? Isn’t it an essential difference between a manager and an entrepreneur that an entrepreneur usually bears the consequences of his actions, while managers (can) protect themselves against the legally provided liability mechanisms by means of insurance? Is it acceptable for companies to receive state subsidies in the past for completely failed company policies in order to iron them out (e.g. state banks and car manufacturers)?

Do we as a society want to (continue to) allow people to make decisions (for us) who are not affected by the decisions themselves, i.e. who do not have to bear the consequences? For some areas this will have to be the case. Doctors, for example, have to be able to decide about life and death without being threatened by the same fate, why is, I think, self-explanatory. But to come back to my specialism, how should this be regulated in projects? Should project management and project team be made ‘liable’ for decisions made by them? Will this ultimately lead to no decisions being made at all, or could this lead to better decisions? What could models look like that reconcile both?

I strongly believe that these issues should be discussed urgently and I would like to invite our readers to join me. As a small incentive, I’m offering the first respondent a piece of the best Swiss chocolate gift-wrapped. My intention is to start bearing the consequences of my writing. So here’s my bet: If there is another unexpected delay in the opening of the “new” Berlin airport, I already know who’s to blame. Should it not come to that, it will be celebrated as “despite Sars-Cov2”. And the first reader who can show that in the case of BER neither one nor the other has happened will also receive a piece of said chocolate. Please send a comment (harlequins are excluded, they will get one anyway).