[ad_1]
In the fight against the corona pandemic, there should be a so-called “shutdown light” in Germany. Renowned virologists consider this to be ineffective. In fact, there is a lack of empirical values and the role of schools is also controversial.
By Patrick Gensing and Andrej Reisin, ARD-faktenfinder Editorial Team
The federal and state governments want to take drastic measures to curb the spread of the corona virus. From Monday to the end of November, among other things, more stringent contact restrictions apply.
Besides a lot of approval, there are also criticisms. Renowned virologists consider the concept to be insufficient or specific enough. When asked if there was scientific evidence that closing restaurants and cultural and leisure facilities would be appropriate, virologist Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit said when asked by tagesschau.deThat is not the case. Virologist Hendrik Streeck agreed with this assessment.
Christian Drosten suggested a temporary lockdown: “If the load becomes too great, you should take a break,” he said in the Ed-Podcast.
Controversial role of schools
There is much discussion about the role of schools. Unions and parents’ associations are calling for classes to be shared and more digital lessons offered, especially for the older years. The Permanent Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK) emphasizes, however, that there is no significant occurrence of infection in schools, they must remain open as long as possible.
However, it is unclear when a specific point will be reached where this is no longer possible. Furthermore, the evaluation of schools in the pandemic is based mainly on empirical values and studies without a high level of infection. Experts assume that schools are now also increasingly affected by infections.
Hamburg’s first mayor, Peter Tschentscher, emphasized that there are now reliable findings that younger children and adolescents contribute little to the infection process. However, schools also teach older adolescents and young adults. The RKI writes:
Schoolchildren (SuS) are in principle susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and can infect others. However, younger children and adolescents are less affected than adults and are not the drivers of the pandemic. As age increases, adolescents resemble adults in terms of susceptibility and infectivity.
Children and young people definitely affected
Furthermore, the RKI states that the extent of transmission within schools and from schools to families / households is “largely unclear and under investigation.” Figures show that children and adolescents are tested less frequently: about 7.5 percent of tests performed in the past 12 weeks concern the often asymptomatic age group 5 to 14 years, which that corresponds to about 350 people for every 100,000 inhabitants. This makes five to 14 year olds and zero to four year olds the least screened group.
However, the proportion of positive tests in this group increased considerably and was almost five percent in calendar week 43, and therefore third among the age groups defined by the RKI. First is the 15-34 age group, although it is not clear to what extent, for example, 15-18 year olds are affected compared to 30-34 year olds.
There is also the problem of tracing the sources of infection, which in most cases is no longer possible. This means that data is lacking to adequately assess the infection rate and sources in individual areas of public life.
Impact of individual measures difficult to determine
In the spring, Germany was confident of shutting down public life, and the first corona wave diminished rapidly, also because many people had already massively restricted their contacts. Schools and kindergartens were sometimes closed for months. In addition, there were exit restrictions: in some federal states you were not allowed to leave the apartment without “good reason”.
According to a scientific study that was published in the specialized journal “Lancet”, these measures showed a great effect, in varying degrees. The study examines the effect of the measures in an analysis of 131 countries. Consequently, a set of measures can significantly reduce the number of infections: according to the study, these include a ban on (large) public events, school closings, a ban on private gatherings of more than ten people, extensive home work and finally a general request to stay at home. . In combination, these measures resulted in an average decrease in reproductive number R of 29 percent after 28 days.
The study also claims to have found out which measures had the greatest adverse effects: reopening of schools led to a 24 percent increase after 28 days, although researchers noted there were differences in the type of instruction (divided classes, mandatory masking , ventilation etc.) cannot be considered separately. Critics of the study criticize this partially incomplete database, especially when comparing developing and industrialized countries. One of the researchers involved also admits this: “We still need more data to understand the role of schools in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2,” said Harish Nair of the University of Edinburgh. This is only possible through “robust contact tracing”. This is exactly what is currently lacking in Germany.
Curfew only ineffective
Individual measures are likely to have little or no effect, as the example of the curfew announced two weeks ago shows. Studies had previously concluded that a curfew does not have a significant effect. However, the head of the CSU, Markus Söder, had given the impression that the curfew could be a decisive instrument against the overload of the hospitals.
In Britain, there has been a curfew since 10pm since September 24, with no significant impact on the number of infections being measurable. Other countries such as France, Spain, Italy, Austria or the Netherlands are relying on curfew and night curfews, while keeping schools and businesses open, so far largely without resounding success.
Calculation with many unknowns
If the measures that have been announced now, the so-called “blocking light”, will be enough to stop the rapid growth in the number of infections, it cannot be reliably evaluated at this time. Experiences from other countries can only be transferred to Germany to a limited extent, but at least they indicate that schools and businesses definitely play a role in a high incidence of infections. The federal and state governments want to review the measures in two weeks.
