The flood disaster in the German states of North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate, which began in mid-July, has caused hitherto unheard of destruction. About two weeks later, 59 people are still missing, and so far the deaths of 180 people due to the floods have been recorded. 763 are injured. The water came very quickly and rose much higher than in previous floods, catching many people while sleeping. The responsible authorities and a great many volunteers are still very busy providing emergency aid. The lives of the people in the affected areas have changed drastically: Many have lost their belongings, and in the villages and towns that have been hit by the floods, many have to get by without electricity and have to be supplied with drinking water from outside. The clean-up work itself is difficult, whereas reconstruction will take months or even years. Getting medicine, seeing a doctor, getting basic necessities – all this is a daily struggle for the victims of the floods.
It is still too early to even get an overview of what the particular risks were that led to people being injured or killed by the floods. Nor do we yet know the ages and demographics of victims. In any case, the extremely large number of dead and injured people makes people wonder what action should be taken from now on in risk-prone areas to protect people’s lives and health as much as possible during floods and natural disasters. There are ongoing and very legitimate discussions on how citizens can be warned more effectively – with systems that also work during power failures and reach everyone. Amidst all these considerations, special attention needs to be given to the vulnerable and elderly. There was the shocking news of the deaths of 12 in a home for people with mental disabilities in Sinzig in Rhineland-Palatinate, who could not be brought to safety in time by the staff during the night. In future disaster plans, information on where vulnerable people are located should be available to the responsible authorities. It is not only care homes that should be taken into account, but consideration should be extended to the more vulnerable and elderly population in general, who are less able to help themselves. Considerations need to start with the fact that these groups are harder to reach through digital means. They also need more support to keep themselves safe. With programmes like Long Live the Elderly, a municipality would have information on hand about where older people over the age of 80 live and could target its emergency response efforts accordingly. And it is not only the initial emergency measures that could be better targeted in this way – the most vulnerable also need the most support in the longer-term restrictions that the local populations now have to endure, especially the loss of their homes and personal belongings. We do not know how many people are suffering under these conditions without anyone taking notice.
Susanne Bühl, Community of Sant’Egidio, Würzburg, Germany