Jump to content

aderwent

Kettering Tower 408'
  • Content Count

    690
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

aderwent last won the day on July 14 2019

aderwent had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

550 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Probably the worst reading comprehension in this thread. I was clearly talking about the flu. But thanks for playing.
  2. Dear Chancellor, As Emeritus of the Johannes-Gutenberg-University in Mainz and longtime director of the Institute for Medical Microbiology, I feel obliged to critically question the far-reaching restrictions on public life that we are currently taking on ourselves in order to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus. It is expressly not my intention to play down the dangers of the virus or to spread a political message. However, I feel it is my duty to make a scientific contribution to putting the current data and facts into perspective – and, in addition, to ask questions that are in danger of being lost in the heated debate. The reason for my concern lies above all in the truly unforeseeable socio-economic consequences of the drastic containment measures which are currently being applied in large parts of Europe and which are also already being practiced on a large scale in Germany. My wish is to discuss critically – and with the necessary foresight – the advantages and disadvantages of restricting public life and the resulting long-term effects. To this end, I am confronted with five questions which have not been answered sufficiently so far, but which are indispensable for a balanced analysis. I would like to ask you to comment quickly and, at the same time, appeal to the Federal Government to develop strategies that effectively protect risk groups without restricting public life across the board and sow the seeds for an even more intensive polarization of society than is already taking place. With the utmost respect, Prof. em. Dr. med. Sucharit Bhakdi 1. Statistics In infectiology – founded by Robert Koch himself – a traditional distinction is made between infection and disease. An illness requires a clinical manifestation. [1] Therefore, only patients with symptoms such as fever or cough should be included in the statistics as new cases. In other words, a new infection – as measured by the COVID-19 test – does not necessarily mean that we are dealing with a newly ill patient who needs a hospital bed. However, it is currently assumed that five percent of all infected people become seriously ill and require ventilation. Projections based on this estimate suggest that the healthcare system could be overburdened. My question: Did the projections make a distinction between symptom-free infected people and actual, sick patients – i.e. people who develop symptoms? 2. Dangerousness A number of coronaviruses have been circulating for a long time – largely unnoticed by the media. [2] If it should turn out that the COVID-19 virus should not be ascribed a significantly higher risk potential than the already circulating corona viruses, all countermeasures would obviously become unnecessary. The internationally recognized International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents will soon publish a paper that addresses exactly this question. Preliminary results of the study can already be seen today and lead to the conclusion that the new virus is NOT different from traditional corona viruses in terms of dangerousness. The authors express this in the title of their paper „SARS-CoV-2: Fear versus Data“. [3] My question: How does the current workload of intensive care units with patients with diagnosed COVID-19 compare to other coronavirus infections, and to what extent will this data be taken into account in further decision-making by the federal government? In addition: Has the above study been taken into account in the planning so far? Here too, of course, „diagnosed“ means that the virus plays a decisive role in the patient’s state of illness, and not that previous illnesses play a greater role. 3. Dissemination According to a report in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, not even the much-cited Robert Koch Institute knows exactly how much is tested for COVID-19. It is a fact, however, that a rapid increase in the number of cases has recently been observed in Germany as the volume of tests increases. [4] It is therefore reasonable to suspect that the virus has already spread unnoticed in the healthy population. This would have two consequences: firstly, it would mean that the official death rate – on 26 March 2020, for example, there were 206 deaths from around 37,300 infections, or 0.55 percent [5] – is too high; and secondly, it would mean that it would hardly be possible to prevent the virus from spreading in the healthy population. My question: Has there already been a random sample of the healthy general population to validate the real spread of the virus, or is this planned in the near future? 4. Mortality The fear of a rise in the death rate in Germany (currently 0.55 percent) is currently the subject of particularly intense media attention. Many people are worried that it could shoot up like in Italy (10 percent) and Spain (7 percent) if action is not taken in time. At the same time, the mistake is being made worldwide to report virus-related deaths as soon as it is established that the virus was present at the time of death – regardless of other factors. This violates a basic principle of infectiology: only when it is certain that an agent has played a significant role in the disease or death may a diagnosis be made. The Association of the Scientific Medical Societies of Germany expressly writes in its guidelines: „In addition to the cause of death, a causal chain must be stated, with the corresponding underlying disease in third place on the death certificate. Occasionally, four-linked causal chains must also be stated.“ [6] At present there is no official information on whether, at least in retrospect, more critical analyses of medical records have been undertaken to determine how many deaths were actually caused by the virus. My question: Has Germany simply followed this trend of a COVID-19 general suspicion? And: is it intended to continue this categorisation uncritically as in other countries? How, then, is a distinction to be made between genuine corona-related deaths and accidental virus presence at the time of death? 5. Comparability The appalling situation in Italy is repeatedly used as a reference scenario. However, the true role of the virus in that country is completely unclear for many reasons – not only because points 3 and 4 above also apply here, but also because exceptional external factors exist which make these regions particularly vulnerable. One of these factors is the increased air pollution in the north of Italy. According to WHO estimates, this situation, even without the virus, led to over 8,000 additional deaths per year in 2006 in the 13 largest cities in Italy alone. [7] The situation has not changed significantly since then. [8] Finally, it has also been shown that air pollution greatly increases the risk of viral lung diseases in very young and elderly people. [9] Moreover, 27.4 percent of the particularly vulnerable population in this country live with young people, and in Spain as many as 33.5 percent. In Germany, the figure is only seven percent [10]. In addition, according to Prof. Dr. Reinhard Busse, head of the Department of Management in Health Care at the TU Berlin, Germany is significantly better equipped than Italy in terms of intensive care units – by a factor of about 2.5 [11]. My question: What efforts are being made to make the population aware of these elementary differences and to make people understand that scenarios like those in Italy or Spain are not realistic here? https://swprs.org/open-letter-from-professor-sucharit-bhakdi-to-german-chancellor-dr-angela-merkel/
  3. SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data Highlights • Comparison of incidence and mortality rates of four common coronaviruses circulating in France with those of SARS-COV-2 in OECD countries. • As of 2 March 2020, 90 307 patients had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 worldwide, with 3086 deaths (mortality rate 3.4%). • As of 2 March 2020, among OECD countries, 7476 patients had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with 96 deaths (mortality rate 1.3%) • As of 2 March 2020, in France, 191 people had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with three deaths (mortality rate 1.6%). • In OECD countries. the mortality rate for SARS-CoV-2 (1.3%) is not significantly different from that for common coronaviruses identified at the study hospital in France (0.8%; P=0.11). • The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.
  4. Funny how we use CDC "estimates" for influenza death rates, but use only confirmed cases for Covid-19 death rates. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/54973 https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/54974 Total number of confirmed positive influenza tests in the US from October 1st, 2017 - May 19th, 2018: 277,093. Deaths: 61,099. CFR: 22%!
  5. Please explain to me how what I posted is not credible.
  6. Boy, all the additional deaths from Covid-19 have spiked Italy's all-cause mortality. Oh, wait. http://www.euromomo.eu/index.html
  7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32133832/ "Results: When the infection rate of the close contacts and the sensitivity and specificity of reported results were taken as the point estimates, the positive predictive value of the active screening was only 19.67%, in contrast, the false-positive rate of positive results was 80.33%. The multivariate-probabilistic sensitivity analysis results supported the base-case findings, with a 75% probability for the false-positive rate of positive results over 47%."
  8. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.03.20030593v1
  9. Here's an epidemiologist:
  10. Here are health experts saying it's widely overstated. 10x is the real conspiratorial misinformation. That would equate to almost 7 million deaths in the US with their also high 70% infection rate. Highly, highly inaccurate.
  11. From: "Joshua D. Niforatos, Emergency Medicine Resident Physician; Edward R Melnick, MD, MHS, Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Jeremy S. Faust MD MS Brigham and Women’s Hospital Department of Emergency Medicine, Division of Health Policy and Public Health, Instructor, Harvard Medical School Department of Emergency Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Hospital"
  12. Linking to the British Medical Journal is deliberately spreading misinformation?
  13. "They're the only one saying it's overblown."
  14. Rapid Response: Why Novel Coronavirus Fatality is Likely Overestimated "The CFR amongst all confirmed cases in China (through February 11) is reported as 2.3%.(1,5) The CFR among the initial Wuhan cohort was reported as 4.3%, and 2.9% in Hubei.(1,5) However, in subsequent cases outside of Hubei, the CFR has been 0.4%. Deaths occurred only in cases deemed “critical.” No deaths were observed among asymptomatic carriers, nor in patients with mild or even severe presentations of confirmed disease. Importantly, the CFR from these reports are from infected, syndromic persons presenting to health care facilities, with higher CFRs among older, hospitalized patients (8% - 14.8% in the Wuhan cohort)." https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m606/rr-5
×
×
  • Create New...