In the words of a German virologist, a strong reaction: the chosen strategy will have dramatic consequences.

Supposedly, it is his fault that “the basic reasons for the denial of science are increasingly ingrained in society”, ch. Drosten, advising the German government on coronavirus issues.

One such “pseudo-expert,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor at Harvard Medical School, reacted immediately: he invited a Berlin virologist to join a discussion based on arguments rather than a nickname.

Since then, there has been no controversy, centered on the relationship between science and politics, politicizing scientists and the media in the country. The controversy has also been fueled by recent decisions of the German government: April 21. The German federal parliament approved amendments to the Infection Prevention Act, creating a legal basis to implement the “emergency brake at the federal level” proposed by Chancellor Angela Merkel.

And specifically, this means that when the number of infections per 100,000 inhabitants in 7 days exceeds 100 cases and persists for three consecutive days, additional quarantine restrictions are automatically introduced.

In this way, a strict quarantine strategy was enshrined in the law as the only means of controlling the coronavirus, of which Cap. Drosten, who earned the nickname “Drostedamus” (by analogy with Norstradamus, a 16th century French pharmacist and astrologer famous for his prophecies) due to his propensity for gloomy predictions in the field of critics.

The doomsday mood is incomprehensible to the scientist

Two authorized scientists tried to stop the government and the federal parliament from the “emergency brake”: the virologist Detlev Krüger and the virologist and epidemiologist Klaus Stöhr, the former for 27 years as director of the Charite clinics in Berlin, the latter for 15 years in the world. Health Organization (WHO) that leads the global influenza program and coordinates SARS research. They expressed their critical position in a public letter to the leaders of the Bundestag factions.

In the letter, the researchers criticize the desire to further strengthen quarantine measures, taking into account only one parameter: fixed cases per 100,000 inhabitants, the so-called “7-Tage-Inzidenz”. Naturally, testing intensifies and the number of infections detected increases, but this does not “at all reflect the burden of disease on society.”

Because that 7-day number of infections does not reveal “in which age groups and population, in which residential areas these infections spread. With the same number of infections, the consequences can be very different ”, say the researchers.

As a result, there may be fewer patients in the clinics than during the flu wave and “severe restrictions on the rights of the population are being accepted with serious consequences for the economy, culture and physical and mental health,” argue Kruger and Stöhr. . In his opinion, the limitations should depend mainly on the workload of the hospitals.

Furthermore, both academics advocate a calmer tone for the government, the media, and the academics themselves.

The “doomsday mood”, according to Stöhro, comes from a “primal fear” that has gripped many people.

“The sense of threat of facing an invisible virus that causes incurable disease and death is infinitely strong. Many people, including the media, politicians and academia, have given up, “Stöhr told Cicero magazine, commenting on” unrealistic anti-virus proposals “and” panic semantics “among some colleagues.

Quarantine protects only “portable class”

At first, Harvard epidemiologist M. Kuldorff, who caught Ch. A Drosten in the fall, when he launched the noisy “Barrington Great Declaration.”

It will be recalled that he made arguments against the strict quarantine restrictions, criticizing the exclusive focus on a single disease, hiding the protection of health as a whole and not wanting to see tragic side effects on public health.

Now, in response to the derogatory Ch. According to Drosten, in an interview with the German daily Die Welt, Kuldorff did not deviate from his earlier view that strict quarantine was not the most appropriate strategy to control the coronavirus. He also criticized the endless spread of fear.

Mr. Kuldorff was particularly interested in the closure of educational establishments: for children, “this will have long-term consequences, not only for education, but also for their physical and mental health and social development.”

And Mr. Kuldorff does not feel alone in this world of science. Suppose Canadian economist Douglas Allen, after evaluating 80 scientific studies on livestock, concluded that many researchers make faulty assumptions when modeling strategies because they overlook a crucial factor: human behavior. In his analysis, “Covid Quarantine: Costs and Benefits. A critical review of the literature ”. Allen seeks to show that the positive effects of the quarantine are overestimated and that the consequences for the economy and society are dramatic.

The comment by Die Welt, a journalist who spoke to Kuldorff, that a strict quarantine had been carried out in New Zealand, Australia or South Korea, did not convince the scientist. The first two are islands, and in South Korea, as in Japan, innate or acquired cross-immunity has played a role, he argued.

“Vaccines are a great thing and an ideal means of targeted protection. Quarantine, on the other hand, is another targeted protection measure: it protects the laptop class, people who can work remotely, ”said the Harvard professor with a rooster.

There is no single scientific opinion, no single political answer

In the media, Principal Ch. Hendrick Streeck, a virology professor who is considered Drosten’s scientific opponent, reacted emphatically to his colleague’s innuendo in his speech.

The coronavir problems, he said, should be addressed in a more differentiated way. He himself does not oppose either those who minimize the dangers of the omnipresent or those who see “a pandemic as the beginning of the end of the world.”

Scientists’ knowledge of the coronavirus is highly unsustainable and is constantly changing. “I would very much like to know everything about how the virus spreads, what are the mechanisms of action and mutation of Sars-CoV-2. Believe me, I read all the major studies that I have available on this subject. But the more I know, the clearer I will be, the more I don’t know, “Streeck admitted to the Swiss daily Neue Züricher Zeitung.

In response to ch. Drosten’s comment on the “denial of science” or the frequent calls from politicians to “hear what science has to say,” Streeck said: There are methods, hypotheses, observations, studies. We will never know everything about this virus. In the end, we don’t need that, we don’t need to know everything to be able to fight it successfully. “

When asked by a Swiss journalist if we lost control in the pandemic, Streeck replied: “No. But the mind suffered in some places. And wise politics requires everyone: virologists, epidemiologists, sociologists, philosophers, politicians and, of course, citizens. Because what we experience is a marathon, not a sprint. The more clarity and consensus there is, the sooner we can return to a normal life, no matter how specifically we understand that normality. “

“There is no single scientific opinion, so there can be no single political answer. Virologists should not take power and politicians should not hide behind virologists. Rather, we already need open public debate and public consensus. That’s the only way forward, “summarized H. Streeck.

Only a few dare to make their opinion public

However, such a differentiated approach does not appear to be convenient for the government. The most critical political commentators, as well as health and economic experts, have long criticized Chancellor Merkel for the bias of her strategy against the coronavirus. To paraphrase H. Streeck, she hides behind the backs of the toughest virologists.

The mainstream media, especially public radio and television, are also contributing to the clear “one size fits all” approach to the coronavirus pandemic and ways to combat it, and the arguments of scientists opposing the government’s strategy. seep out “or exposed.

The “homogenized media landscape” was emotionally criticized on German radio last weekend by renowned political scientist Ulrik Guerot, head of the Department for European Policy and Democracy Studies (DED).

He got the impression that on coronavirus policy issues, “the whole debate seems to be mine. As soon as he tries to express legitimate criticism of the measures (taken by the government), he immediately makes a mistake. “

Only “very few dare to make their views public,” because critics are immediately reminded that the right can benefit them, the political science professor said.

Desired and undesirable scientific position

This accusation of information and policy bias is perfectly illustrated by the case of a scientist’s silence that came to light last week.

Another epidemiologist wanted to sign the public letter to the Bundestag from the epidemiologists K. Stöhr and D. Krüger mentioned in the article, Gérard Krause, head of the Department of Epidemiology at the Braunschweig Helmholc Infection Research Center. They wanted to, but couldn’t, “the institute’s leadership would not allow it, arguing that the Helmholtz researchers should speak” seriously and neutrally, “” without engaging in any political or other bias, “the daily Bild reported.

But why was this argument not applied to the other two Helmholtz scientists: virologist Melania Brinkmann and physicist and social modeler Michael Mayer-Hermann, who exaggerated the authors of the No Covid policy paper? Bild asked.

After all, they both belong to Chancellor Merkel’s closest circle of advisers on the coronavirus (M. Brinkmann even clung to “Merkel’s muse” and M. Meyer-Hermann, the nickname of the Chancellor’s spokesperson).

In the No Covid document, they call for the strictest quarantine measures possible to reduce the “spread in 7 days” of the virus to zero. To this end, they advise the state to carry out “motivational campaigns” to gain “public acceptance.”

“After all, the No Covid document goes incomparably further and is much more political than the Stöhr and Krüger letter, which only objectively criticizes the reliability of the ‘7-day prevalence rate’ and offers an alternative: target the number. of COVID patients admitted daily to intensive care units, ”says Bild.

Apparently Professor H. Streek is correct in saying: “Virologists shouldn’t take over and politicians shouldn’t hide behind virologists.”