In a press conference on Wednesday afternoon, Karl Lauterbach announced the measures that should get us through the Corona autumn. However, experts expressed doubts about some of his statements. A fact check.
“Autumn will be difficult,” said Karl Lauterbach on Wednesday. In a press conference, the Federal Minister of Health warned that the pandemic should continue to be taken seriously. He announced which measures should apply in the coming months and what options the individual federal states have to react to the infection process.
But some statements made by the Minister of Health are controversial. Scientists have already criticized four points.
Lauterbach also used the press conference to emphasize the benefits of the vaccination.
Statement: “In those who are vaccinated, symptoms often begin before the viral load is very high. This is very different for unvaccinated people.”
Here, Lauterbach claims that one of the reasons why vaccination limited the pandemic was that vaccinated people showed symptoms earlier and thus isolated themselves earlier. So even before the viral load and thus your risk of passing on the virus is high.
Assessment: But is that true? The thesis that Lauterbach represents here is not new – but it is not undisputed either. FOCUS online spoke about this a few months ago with immunologist Carsten Watzl. He explained: “I lack the data as to whether vaccinated people really show symptoms earlier than unvaccinated people,” he doesn’t know of any study on this.
The background is also not so clear. “Yes, the symptoms of an infection are mainly triggered by the immune reaction and not by the pathogen itself. However, the innate immune system also plays a major role in the symptoms, and this is not changed by the vaccination because it has no immunological memory,” he emphasizes. “Only the reaction of the adaptive immune system is faster and therefore earlier in vaccinated people. But I don’t know whether that’s enough to lead to symptoms noticeably earlier.”
“At best, a lot of things have been mixed up here,” comments epidemiologist Klaus Stöhr on Twitter about Lauterbach’s statement. And medical statistician Gerd Antes writes: “As always, evidence-free”. And asks: “What’s the increase of stunned?”
The video in which Lauterbach makes this statement has already been shared several times on Twitter, and Germany’s health minister is also talked about internationally.
Statement: “Omikron BA.5 is extremely contagious. If you wear a mask, it should also work. Hence the FFP2 obligation,” Lauterbach tweeted on Thursday night, referring to his statements at the press conference. This was about the FFP2 obligation in long-distance trains.
Assessment: According to virologist Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, there is “no scientific evidence” for the FFP2 mask requirement. As he emphasizes on Twitter, this recommendation even contradicts those of the scientific societies.
For example, the German Society for Hospital Hygiene (DGKH) has often spoken out against such a system. “FFP2 masks are high performance respirators intended for the workplace. Only when used correctly does their effectiveness generally surpass that of surgical mouth and nose protection,” emphasizes the DGKH. The decisive factor is that the mask is adjusted, checked for a tight fit and that wearing it has been trained. “There is no way for the population to choose the right mask, nor is there any training. In general, the masks are therefore not worn correctly and thus lose their protective effect.
“If the FFP2 mask is used to breathe through a leak, the protective effect is largely lost and is significantly worse than if a well-fitted surgical mouth and nose protector is worn.”
Statement: With the new Infection Protection Act, Lauterbach is also proposing possible exceptions for a certain group of people: for the “freshly vaccinated”. So for those whose last vaccination was no more than three months ago.
Assessment: This regulation was already planned at the beginning of August. Even then, it was met with criticism – and “nothing has changed after today’s presentation of the BMG and BMJ,” writes epidemiologist Klaus Stöhr on Twitter. His comment: “The 3-month period mentioned in the IfSG draft neglects either the data on the vaccination goals or the vaccination side effects.” The vaccination goal cannot be to prevent infections in general, but to minimize the severe courses in the vulnerable.
Lauterbach also spoke of the Corona dead.
Statement: “We are starting to get used to the high death toll and also the very high number of long-Covid cases. And we are not allowed to do that.” The Minister of Health emphasizes the high number of corona deaths. “We already have 100 corona deaths a day, too many,” he writes on Twitter.
Assessment: Lauterbach’s statement is fundamentally not wrong. Many people die as a result of infection with the corona virus. However, he omits an important point: he does not distinguish whether those affected died of or with Corona.
As intensive care physician Christian Karagiannidis told the “Tagesspiegel”, this distinction is worthwhile. Among the deceased were many people who had contracted the omicron variant but had died for other reasons, he explained.
It is not the first time that Lauterbach has been heavily criticized in public by other scientists. International experts have also commented on his tweets, in which he often presents study results hastily and not always correctly.
Lauterbach has also been a “study expert” on talk shows for two years, criticizes statistician Antes. The boundaries between his work as a scientist, as a health minister – or as a talk show guest were often blurred. Medical statistician Gerd Antes recently emphasized in an interview with FOCUS online: “Anyone who saw through the number of studies and complexity, it was clear early on that his statements could not be fundamentally correct.” Countless studies were published every month, he explains, around 1,500 a week worldwide. “And in order to read and understand one of these correctly, three to four hours are certainly necessary.” Especially with the relevant mask question, high demands are placed on the quality of the study, which is “grossly violated” here.
For this reason, research institutes, for example, worked in teams. “And that’s why, for example, the Standing Vaccination Commission (Stiko) needs so long to come to new decisions,” explains the scientist, who himself was part of this expert panel for several years. Antes does not accuse Lauterbach of not being able to read and analyze all of these studies on his own. “But much more that he then comments so unfiltered.”
What the above points also clearly show is the following: Karl Lauterbach may well be a scientist. But he’s also a politician. What he says must therefore not be interpreted as a purely scientific statement by an independent expert.
Our team of experts has compiled more than 1,700 excellent clinics for you, divided according to indications and regions.
