The report on the corona measures polarized. Criticism of the paper flares up among experts. Too unscientific is the devastating conclusion. Now the commissioners are fighting back.
The evaluation of the previous corona measures should bring clarity and help politicians to prepare for the fall. But the result presented by the members of the expert committee at the end of last week was disappointing across the board. (Read why here.) There were no clear insights into which protective measures were particularly useful, nor were there any clear guidelines for politicians. Instead, the experts made a sobering verdict: The measures cannot therefore be definitively evaluated.
Instead of clarity, the long-awaited expert report now brings one thing above all: dispute – even among experts. The main criticism is the chapter on the measures. Experts complain that this is bad and does not correspond to good scientific practice. “There were obviously not enough human resources for systematic literature research,” complained Isabella Eckerle, head of the Center for Novel Viral Diseases at Geneva University Hospital.
As university professors, some members of the expert panel would have had access to qualified academic staff to carry out the research. “Given the relevance of this work for current and future pandemics, this would have been a sensible investment,” she writes on Twitter.
Lack of transparency and a lack of scientific knowledge
The social psychologist Ulrich Wagner from the University of Marburg had already discussed the personnel savings with the star criticized and the expectations of the evaluation report dampened. “It is completely incomprehensible to me that, after a long period of restrictions, there has not been massive investment in scientific programs that would have helped us to clarify many questions,” he said in an interview. The virologist Friedemann Weber summarized where this is leading to on Twitter. “Important statements should be based on scientifically verified studies, and not just on unverified preprints that, in principle, anyone can put on the internet. Unfortunately, this is not always the case in the evaluation report.”
He has collected several passages from the report of the Corona Expert Committee on his Twitter profile, which, however, only refer to sources and have not yet gone through a scientific review process. The assessment of scientific studies by specialist colleagues (also known as peer review) and the subsequent publication in a specialist journal are regarded as scientific quality features.
It is okay to cite preprints as long as these studies are very recent. The problem with the expert report, however, is that the committee refers in part to preprints from 2020, Weber tweeted. These publications did not make it into scientific journals for more than two years. “But important statements should be based on scientifically tested studies and not just on untested preprints, which in principle anyone can put on the Internet,” says Weber.
In addition, the authors of the report did not disclose how many preprints they cite. “Overall, several percent of the sources mentioned in the report are incorrectly assigned or incorrectly reproduced,” says Matthias Linden, physicist at the Max Planck Institute. the “Süddeutsche Zeitung”. According to the experts, the report lacks both systematic literature research and a methods section that explains why certain studies were used for the investigation and others not. The comparison of measures and incidences is also amateurish.
Stefan Huster, chairman of the committee, pointed out before the report was published that there was a lack of time and money for the work, but that the committee was not given any additional staff. One of the reasons why Charité chief virologist Christian Drosten left the committee in April. He considered a careful evaluation to be unfeasible. He should now feel confirmed, because he spreads the criticism of his colleagues on Twitter without comment. He recently commented on his departure from the committee with the words: “My withdrawal from the Committee of Experts was not a mistake because I would have avoided any responsibility. It was a mistake because as a member I could have continued to try to improve quality to pass.”
Commission members defend their Corona report
However, the members of the committee do not want to just let that sit on them. In a guest article for “Zeit Online” three members defend themselves against the criticism. “The Commission is set up, works, delivers on time. And on the day it is handed in, leading politicians have to read that ‘you already know everything’ and that the report should not be a ‘brake pad’,” write the social researcher Jutta Allmendinger, who Economist Christoph Schmidt and virologist Hendrik Streeck.
Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach (SPD) defended his own comments on the work of the commission on Tuesday evening on the ZDF program “Markus Lanz”. “I know how thankless that is,” he said, referring to the volunteer work of the experts. Mistakes in filling the commission – for example with too few virologists – were made in the past legislative period. “I had nothing to do with the cast.” The report is one of several building blocks in the assessment of the corona preparations for the fall, which now have to be speeded up, Lauterbach confirmed.
“A detailed assessment of individual measures of the corona pandemic is simply not possible,” write Allmendinger, Schmidt and Streeck. It was clear to the Commission early on that it would not be able to meet the overriding expectations. The reason for this was, among other things, that the members of the expert committee were selected by the parliamentary groups and the National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina. The Commission had no influence on the composition. “The statistical expertise was represented, but more members from epidemiology and public health research would have been good for the commission.”
In the contribution, the Commission representatives repeatedly pointed out that they had not been granted any additional human or financial resources. In addition, Health Minister Karl Lauterbach had been warned in advance that “a comprehensive evaluation would not be possible with this scarce equipment”.
“Everyone with government responsibility must now take precautions”
Whether self-inflicted or not: Politicians must now help themselves. Bundestag Vice President Katrin Göring-Eckardt (Greens) has already warned that the country should be prepared for the fall. “Everyone who bears government responsibility must now make provisions for the fall. A pandemic fall of chaos must be prevented. This requires precautionary decisions,” she told the German Press Agency. It is not about new measures, but already tried-and-tested precautions: “Compulsory masks indoors, contact restrictions for certain areas, special protection for sensitive groups, in order to ensure that children in particular can attend school.”
Companies should allow more work in the home office again. Last autumn and winter, staff shortages caused an estimated cost of more than seven billion euros, said Göring-Eckardt. “Such damage must not be repeated right now.”
Sources:southgerman newspaper, time onlinewith material from DPA