The cases and deaths counts aren't informative enough to really say anything useful about what's going on. When a "case" is reported, we don't when the symptoms started occurring, or even when the original sample was collected. So you can't really draw any conclusions from this "consumer grade" information. You'd have to study it properly, and look a sample of individual case progressions.
I think the CFR stat is especially misleading, and we shouldn't be trying to compare it. For instance, if a country simply has a longer lag between testing and reporting the tests, the CFR will look higher. CFR will also look lower if the growth rate is high.
I made a little hypothetical to illustrate this.
Imagine a disease where your skin turns bright green on day 8 and you drop dead on day 30, without fail for all infections. It's growing 25% a day. What's the "CFR" at day 100?
In this hypothetical, all infections are symptomatic, all symptomatic cases are detected, and all symptomatic cases are fatal. But people don't drop dead immediately -- it takes 22 days, and at 25% a day the number of cases grows 135x in that period.
So even though this fictional disease is 100% fatal, the "case fatality ratio" will stay under 1% all the way through the growth phase.
In summary: those stats aren't really evidence that Germany's outbreak is progressing any differently from anyone else's. The information is much too vague to say one way or another. Instead the baseline assumption is, Germany has the same virus as everywhere else, and is applying the same treatments. So for any individual patients, the outlooks will be the same here as anywhere else that still has ICU beds and ventilators available.