[ad_1]
The Federal Office of Public Health is changing the benchmarks for flexibility without providing extensive information. The lack of explanations for the new “target values” and a wild combination of calculation methods also raise questions.
Suddenly, new benchmarks should be applied: the population was not informed, for example, at a press conference.
The Federal Council bases its decisions on easing and tightening in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic on various benchmarks. The Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) has now adjusted these guide values and published them on its website without informing the public.
The reference values of March 1 will no longer apply to easing, but to those of March 22. The 14-day incidence increased from 166 to 220.9 during this period. This means that the BAG has established the criteria for less stringent relaxation and has not provided extensive information on them.
The positivity rate is no longer a criterion for relaxation. Instead, the number of hospitalizations and deaths is now used as a guide. The positivity rate will be dispensed with as a guideline value, since it will lose its informative value and therefore its significance “as part of the expansion of the testing strategy in the coming weeks,” according to the BAG in the prospectus.
The Federal Council announced Friday that it was also proposing guidelines for tightening. These guide values are now also described in more detail in the new brochures.
The respective calculation method differs from that of the flexibility guide values. While the 15-day average of intensive care unit use is specified for relaxation, the latest daily value is applied to the setting. And while the last R-value applies to easing, the 7-day average of the R-value applies to adjustment.
Furthermore, in the new documents “target values after adjustment” were proposed, also without prior notice. What these values are about is not explained in the document. It is unclear if a relaxation will be contemplated when these values are reached or if they are just a non-binding target.
It is not the first time that the BAG and the Federal Council have confused the calculation methods with their reference values. Regarding the positivity rate, the NZZ was informed in early March that the deciding factor was the positivity rate of the combined PCR and antigen tests over the past 14 days. Then it was said that the value of the previous day was decisive, the PCR and antigen tests were evaluated separately. At the press conference on Friday (March 19), when asked by a journalist, Patrick Mathys could not precisely explain the discrepancy between the figures published on the BAG website and the Federal Council’s assessment. It is also not the first time that the FOPH has not provided comprehensive information on the changes. For example, the Keystone-SDA news agency was only informed of a correction in vaccination figures in January.
The BAG told NZZ that the adjusted benchmarks would now apply to a decision on easing in April, and that the cantons would still be consulted on the benchmarks for tightening. The Federal Council defines the reference values for the next opening step. The BAG writes about the now less strict incidence benchmark: “In the opinion of the Federal Council, epidemiological events allow one more opening step if the situation has not worsened with the next decision.” The combination of different calculation methods is not confusing, but corresponds to scientific standards. The BAG does not answer the questions as to why the new guide values were not communicated more widely and what exactly the “target values” are about.
Assistance: Florian Seliger
