[ad_1]
Contact restrictions have been in place in Germany since March 23. Virologist Drosten explains why the measures were effective. Image: imago images / photothek
Meaningless lock? This is how virologist Drosten rebukes his critics
The corona pandemic will not stop so easily. That is why it is now Germany’s stated goal to at least crush the pandemic wave. To understand flattening, experts calculate the R number: This is the infection rate and describes how many people are infected with an infected crown on average. Right now, the number in Germany is 0.9, which means that not everyone who carries the coronavirus is infecting another person on average.
According to the Robert Koch Institute, the number had already dropped in early March, before closing on March 23. Based on this, there is possibly no longer any exponential growth of the newly infected at this point. Therefore, critical voices are increasing: The blockade in Germany was unnecessary.
This graph shows the course of the infection rate:
source: robert-koch-institut
Other critics say the lock is ineffective: After all, more than 2,000 people are still infected with the corona virus every day.
In his NDR podcast “Coronavirus Update,” virologist Christian Drosten of Charité in Berlin sheds light on the dark theories about the supposedly unnecessary or ineffective blockade and explains exactly what the infection rate is all about. In his opinion, there are four reasons why the R number has decreased since the beginning of March, before closing:
People took action before they were ordered
According to the virologist, the mobility data of mobile operators can be used to understand “that mobility will be significantly reduced across Germany from the week of March 9.” Drosten recalls:
At this point, the Heinsberg outbreak became known, and recordings of Italy’s catastrophic situations passed through the media. The virologist suspects:
There has been a lot of public discussion about how we should proceed in the Corona crisis. According to Drosten, it is not true that the first social changes did not come until March 23.
Measurements show their effects gradually and with a time delay.
According to Drosten, the gradual introduction of measures has led to a gradual reduction in the number of infections. First, important events were banned, then schools were closed; however, the level of infection in the home continued.
But as we can see that the number of new infections decreased in early April and again in mid-April, in various stages, it is clear: Locking shows positive effects, albeit with a slight delay.
The measures could not be implemented in all social groups
The fact that there are still new infections with the coronavirus is not due to the fact that the population has not followed the measures consistently or that the blockade is not effective. But because the virus has now broken out in closed parts of society, for example in nursing homes or hospitals. According to Drosten, these are …
“(…) special situations, where you basically have a situation almost like a home, but much bigger. And where these contact measures simply could not work.”
This means that the virus could continue to spread to new people, but not in the general population. The measures were able to reduce the mass of infections. However, there were people who were still exposed to contagion because the prohibition of contact and distance rules could not be implemented for them.
Testing capabilities have increased since March
From mid-February to mid-March, the labs made a huge leap in terms of diagnosing the coronavirus, says Drosten. “87,000 tests were performed each week starting March 2,” says the virologist. A week later there were already 127,000, another week later 348,000. “This is, of course, an extreme increase,” says Drosten.
In this context, the expert explains that R depends not only on the number of recently reported cases that have been positive with PCR tests, but also on the test capabilities.
“That means we had two effects that occurred at the same time: namely, the increased chances of recognizing this, and then the actual increase (of new infections).”
Therefore, Drosten has strong suspicions: Before, we had two increases in parallel, namely, that of the newly infected and that of testing capabilities. As a result, we had a sharp increase in the number of reported cases. Test capabilities now stagnate, not increase. The fact that the number of reported cases no longer increases may also be due to the fact that we simply cannot evaluate more people.
The conclusion regarding the R number is: It can’t really be calculated exactly because we can’t know what the actual number of infected people is. It could also be a statistical bias that the infection rate has decreased.
The criticism that the blockade would be unnecessary or ineffective is unwarranted
According to Drosten, the researchers will perform new calculations on the R number to investigate the situation more closely and avoid distortions. However, the virologist says: The effects he mentioned could hold up against the assumption that the blockade would have brought nothing.
Drosten also talks to the NDR in his podcast about a possible Chinese vaccine and the role of T cells in immunity. You can find the full podcast here.
(ak)
