Controversial Corona article: doctors criticize Gassen’s head of legal health insurance

In an article, virologists Hendrik Streeck and Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit and the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians call for a move away from bans and the closure of the crown. But doctors criticize him a lot, also because they are called “partisans” without being asked.

No again Emergency shutdown, without prohibitions, the end of the general follow-up of the individual contacts of people infected with corona: these are some of the requirements for the future handling of Corona-Pandemiethat the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KBV) formulated in a new position paper.

The document by the umbrella organization of the 17 statutory health insurance associations in Germany was presented on Wednesday, shortly before the decision on another lockdown across Germany and a day after major German scientific organizations came out in favor of strict contact restrictions. KBV article co-signers: the two virologists Hendrik streeck and Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit.

But many doctors and medical professional associations are irritated and upset by the statement entitled “Joint position of the medical profession and science”, which the head of KBV, Andreas Gassen, Hendrik Streeck, Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit and the deputy KBV-Se introduced President Stephan Hofmeister.

National Association of Mandatory Health Insurance Physicians Against Lockdown

In the article, the authors speak out against closing everyday life. “A general lockdown regulation is neither desirable nor enforceable,” KBV chief Gassen said at the presentation of the document. The number of new corona infections alone would not justify such a step. The virologist Schmidt-Chanasit explained that the rules of the AHA-LA (distance, hygiene, daily masks, ventilation, app) should be the central measure to combat Corona-Pandemie his. Rather than bans, Germany must rely more on the commandments to maintain popular support, according to the article’s authors. Furthermore, the comprehensive contact tracing strategy of infected people in the current pandemic is no longer feasible.

Measures in the corona pandemic: In Germany, there is now a partial lockdown again. (Source: franconiaphoto / Getty Images)

Now there are more and more voices of disgruntled doctors and professional associations who see the position represented in it as a trivialization of the situation. Many, instead, support Tuesday’s by various major research organizations such as the Leopoldina Opinion delivered titled “It’s serious.” In it, the authors warn, “that there is currently a main instrument to regain control of the pandemic: the number of contacts between people without adequate precautionary measures must be consistently reduced.”

Association of anesthetists: KBV position increases uncertainty

The Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists (BDA), which has more than 20,000 members, harshly criticized KBV’s statement in a press release that a blockade in some parts is not the correct means to combat the corona pandemic. There is currently no alternative but to significantly restrict contacts and thus the possibility of spreading the infection. All other steps so far have not been effective enough, BDA President Götz Geldner said.

“The BDA does not consider such a statement to be desirable at this time. It only contributes to further unnecessary uncertainty among the population.” This opinion is also shared by BDA’s sister company, the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) with more than 15,000 anesthesiological members.

Medical associations were named sympathizers without being asked

Another excitement: In KBV’s position paper, more than 20 medical associations and associations are listed as “sponsors.” However, some of the “supporters” named after the publication of the newspaper are not only opposed to their positions.

For example, the BDA writes that it was named as a supporter in KBV’s statement on membership in the National Association of Specialists in Germany (SpiFa), but did not support the document at all, and “had no prior knowledge of this document.”

Accusation of doctors: KBV boss abuses his position

Meanwhile, contributions from medical professionals on social media who, as KBV members, clearly distance themselves from their position paper are increasing.

“The medical profession” is in no way criticizing the new measures to contain the COVID19 pandemic, writes Prof. Medicine Leif Erik Sander, specialist in internal medicine and pulmonology at the Berlin Charité on Twitter. “This statement is not endorsed by any society of medical-scientific specialists or by physicians,” criticized Sander. The position paper suggests that it reflects a general position of “the medical profession.” “This is certainly not the ‘common position of science and the medical profession’!”

Marc Hanefeld, a general practitioner and specialist in both general medicine and anesthesiology, emergencies and intensive care, also expressed his anger on Twitter: “I have no support whatsoever. It is a very perfidious thing, debatable facts in such a context, at such a time and doing it with such tenor. Herr Gassen does not speak on behalf of the medical profession. “

Rainer Röver, a general practitioner from Überlingen, writes on Twitter: “I cannot imagine that Gassen will find the support of the majority of residents. We, the general practitioners, together with the intensive care physicians, are the ones who have to deal with the increasing number of infections, and that, sometimes, in changing conditions every day. “

“I also do not understand how Mr Gassen can position himself so clearly on such a controversial issue and also abuse his role as representative of the compulsory health insurance doctors,” complains Ulrich Kastenbauer, specialist in general medicine and infectious diseases from Schwabing. “He does not represent my position here.”

At the time of publication of this text, t-online had no response to a request to the KVB regarding the named supporters of the position paper.