As a reminder: The abbreviation Stiko means “Permanent Vaccination Commission”, not “Permanent Sensitivity Commission”. The committee is independent, well-staffed and evaluates scientific findings on the subject of vaccination based on evidence. The Stiko is not there to make recommendations for wellbeing based on what could be politically opportune or what corresponds to a collective longing. The fact that politics and authorities were unable to make schools more infection-proof in year two of the pandemic cannot be a reason for wanting to ignore scientific standards and press Stiko members to recommend child vaccination in haste and without sufficient safety evidence .
The criticism of the vaccination experts is reminiscent of a dwarf rebellion
In this respect, the attacks by various politicians against the Stiko and its chairman Thomas Mertens are inappropriate, hostile to science and, as an attack on an independent institution, reveal a strange understanding of democracy. Recently, two politicians have behaved particularly shabbily towards Stiko, Markus Söder (CSU) and Karl Lauterbach (SPD). Söder contrasted the “volunteer” Stiko with the “professionals” from the European drug agency Ema and metaphorically brought the vaccination experts close to the board of a rifle club.
Lauterbach praises – rhetorically more skilful – the work of the Stiko, but often in the same sentence on the question of child vaccination certifies that it is an “outsider position”. On Thursday he even went so far as to say in a talk show that the Stiko would “come back to full bloom”. You had to keep in mind that the vaccination experts are currently not up to date. Politicians were therefore advised by “other scientists”, Lauterbach whispered. Finding the opinion that suits you is cherry-picking and the opposite of science. Being able to read studies is not yet a quality feature, especially when findings from them – such as the unclear findings on “Long Covid” – are unilaterally exaggerated by Lauterbach.
All reports on the current situation in Germany and worldwide as well as the most important news of the day – twice a day with SZ Espresso. Our Newsletter brings you up to date in the morning and in the evening. Free registration: sz.de/espresso. In our News app (download here) you can also subscribe to the espresso or breaking news as a push message.
If doctors and politicians criticize the Stiko, it is reminiscent of a dwarf revolt by those who hardly work scientifically or do not understand studies. The remark that “there are also studies to the contrary” (often of modest quality) is like an attempt by a regional division club to feel superior to the Champions League winner because the village club has just won five times in a row, the European champion not. When “a hundred authors turned against Einstein” with flimsy arguments, the physicist is said to have replied: “If I were wrong, a single author would be enough”. Of course, the Stiko can be wrong. But then scientific arguments should come from their opponents, not bad gossip at the regional league level.