They told us that too in the beginning, but apparently they found a way now.
The German
IfSG does not provide strict "epidemics control trumps civil liberty X, but not civil right Y" guidelines (in spite of naming the rights to property and of the inviolability of the home as possibly getting trumped). The general understanding is that once restrictions are demonstrated to be "necessary, effective, and without alternative", they are legal to be imposed,
for that moment - and those properties can, of course, be doubted, and challenged in court.
(General jurisprudence practice around
constitutional rights adds a requirement that all restrictions thereof additionally need to be effective only until a
specific date, forcing the legislator to explicitly pass a renewal if conditions keep being met beyond that date. I suspect that Baden-Württembergs back-then Verordnung about the first closure of borders, being issued by the Gesundheitsamt on the basis of the state government having passed on the authority to it and literally saying that restrictions shall remain in effect as long as that authorization persists, would have been overturned if someone had challenged it.)