context
Previously unpublished protocols from the Robert Koch Institute on the corona pandemic are currently causing a stir. However, according to experts, the content is far less explosive than is claimed, especially in “lateral thinker” circles.
A huge wave of outrage spread across social networks last week – and was picked up and multiplied by some reputable media. The reason for the excitement are protocols from the Corona crisis team at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), which were sued and published by a blog. Since then, individual excerpts from the more than 1,000 pages have been hyped up into an alleged scandal. ZDF, for example, writes about “explosive” Corona protocols that could have “political explosive power”.
One of the main reasons for the alleged explosiveness is the RKI’s decision on March 17, 2020 to rate the risk assessment of Corona for the health of the population in Germany from moderate to high. The minutes therefore show that this decision was not based on the RKI’s professional assessment, but rather on the political instructions of an external actor. However, this cannot be seen from the logs.
The number of cases rose sharply
The minutes from March 16, 2020 state that a new risk assessment was prepared over the weekend. “It will be scaled up this week,” they say. The risk assessment will be published as soon as a person blacked out in the documents gives a signal. According to the Ministry of Health, “an internal RKI employee” is behind the redaction.
The RKI had already carried out a new risk assessment, which had not yet been published. The claim that this decision was not based on professional judgment is therefore misleading. All that was needed was the consent of a specific person to publish this risk assessment.
In addition, it is questionable to present this increased risk assessment as if there had been no evidence of it at the time, says Hajo Zeeb, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Bremen. The number of corona infections rose rapidly in March 2020. At the 4th of March Only 262 cases had been reported in Germany on March 16thjust under two weeks later, there were already 6,012 cumulatively.
“At that time there were the first signs of classic exponential growth in Germany too,” says Emanuel Wyler, molecular biologist at the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine (MDC). “Therefore, the RKI’s decision actually came as no surprise.”
The number of reported infections also rose rapidly worldwide during the period: from 94,150 cases to 167,667. Global deaths rose from 3,219 to 6,442. Numerous deaths were reported at the time, particularly in Bergamo, Italy.
“Not only from a small, narrow German perspective, but also from a global perspective, you have to say very clearly that the numbers have exploded,” says Zeeb. Although more tests were carried out from mid-March onwards, the positive rate in Germany also rose by a good percentage point within a week. “Such an increase in such a short period of time is substantial, even if it doesn’t sound like much,” says Zeeb. At the time, the tests only provided a small excerpt of the infection process.
WHO had already declared Corona a pandemic
The World Health Organization (WHO) had already declared Covid-19 a pandemic on March 11th – that is, a disease outbreak that is no longer localized. On March 13, the EU health authority ECDC classified the risk of widespread and sustained transmission of Corona as moderate for the general population and as high for older adults and people with chronic underlying diseases.
According to Zeeb, Germany was not alone in making the decision to upgrade the risk assessment. “These are international votes, often at the world population level like the WHO. And a country like Germany can’t suddenly say: No, we think everything is different.” Germany’s neighboring countries had also already introduced drastic measures at the time. For example, Switzerland, like Spain, had declared a state of emergency and, like several EU countries, closed their borders, while France had introduced nationwide curfews.
“There is also discussion the other way around that this upgrade should actually have taken place at the end of January or beginning of February,” said Zeeb. “It is a bit surprising, after a very large pandemic event with many millions of deaths, to doubt whether the risk assessment at the time was wrong.”
The RKI refers to the upon request Fundamentals of the Institute for Risk Assessment. This assessment therefore takes into account the current level of knowledge available about the international situation, the current epidemiological situation in Germany and the availability of protective and treatment measures. “Various media outlets have speculated that the upgrading of the risk assessment was not carried out independently. That is wrong,” the RKI also writes in one statement.
No evidence of benefit from FFP2 masks?
In Zeeb’s opinion, other aspects of the so-called RKI files are also less scandalous than some media and conspiracy ideological sites claim. For example, the fact that a protocol from October 30, 2020 notes that there is “no evidence for the use of FFP2 masks outside of occupational safety” does not mean that the masks were therefore useless.
“It takes a lot of time before scientific evidence can be assumed,” says Zeeb. “It certainly wouldn’t have helped the population to take no action at all and wait for study results.” At that time, there were no studies for the novel coronavirus that met the high standards to prove the benefits of masks with regard to Covid-19.
In any case, it is difficult to clearly demonstrate the benefits of FFP2 masks in studies, says Wyler. “Even if you have two comparison groups, it could theoretically be the case that the people with FFP2 masks simply behaved more cautiously and were therefore less likely to be infected.” In principle, however, we knew that a mask helped to a certain extent with a virus that is transmitted through aerosols and droplets.
“We first had to work with analogies,” says Zeeb. For example, we looked at what the benefits of masks were for other viruses with similar transmission. This meant that there was at least some evidence that FFP2 masks could also work in the case of Covid-19. There are now several Studiesshowing that wearing masks can reduce the risk of infection.
“There are still not that many large studies on the topic, but the studies that do exist are relatively clear,” says Zeeb. “We now know that masks have made a major contribution.”
Statement taken out of context
Other aspects of the protocols that have so far been scandalized in some circles are not really new upon closer inspection. For example, one protocol states that the AstraZeneca vaccine is “less perfect” than the others. The fact that the effectiveness is lower compared to the vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna was already discussed at the beginning of the vaccination campaign. The protection provided by AstraZeneca for the then prevailing corona variant was given as 76 percent, while the other vaccines were more than 90 percent.
“Every vaccine must first be thoroughly tested in order to be approved,” says Zeeb. “And the AstraZeneca vaccine was definitely effective and quickly available. It is also known that the vaccine also had a few other undesirable effects and that is why it was no longer recommended for everyone.” Due to several reported suspected cases of sinus vein thrombosis after vaccinations with AstraZeneca, the Standing Vaccination Commission (STIKO) only recommended the vaccine for people over 60.
In some circles it is also incorrectly claimed that the protocols show that, from the RKI’s point of view, the consequences of the lockdown in Germany would sometimes have more serious consequences than Corona itself. However, this part of the protocol refers to the course of the pandemic in Africa, such as emerges from the document. There were therefore indirect negative effects of the lockdown through gaps in the treatment of tuberculosis and the suspension of routine vaccination programs, which could be expected to increase child mortality.
Overall, Wyler sees no real news in the published minutes. “The discussions that can be seen in the documents are very reflective. They show that the RKI took into account the advantages and disadvantages of individual measures at the time.” Ultimately, it was politicians who decided which recommendations would be implemented based on the knowledge available at the time and which would not.