The evaluation report of the Expert Council does not give good marks to Corona policy and the Robert Koch Institute. Because due to a lack of data, the experts were allegedly unable to correctly assess the effectiveness of the measures taken. But there is also criticism of the report.
The 160-page evaluation report of the Federal Government’s Expert Commission on the state corona measures was eagerly awaited last Friday. It should actually serve as a basis for possible measures in the fall. But instead of providing clarity, the report leaves many questions unanswered.
The expert panel, which includes numerous well-known scientists such as the sociologist Jutta Allmendinger, the Charité boss Heyo Kroemer and the virologist Hendrik Streeck, cites the poor data situation in Germany as the reason for the difficult or insufficient evaluation of the measures: “While there are opportunities in other countries were used to assess the effect of non-pharmaceutical measures, there was largely no coordinated accompanying research during the corona pandemic in Germany,” says the report.
The committee also complains that there is no research concept whatsoever to “… make the upcoming decisions in the pandemic on the basis of better data and analyzes based on them”. Nor would politicians have attempted any of the studies already planned or ongoing “to solve the most pressing combat issues at national level”.
When it comes to the most far-reaching measure of corona policy, namely the lockdown, the panel of experts does not come to a correct verdict either: It is said, for example, that lockdowns at the beginning of the pandemic make perfect sense: “The longer a lockdown lasts and the fewer people are ready to support the measure, the smaller the effect and the more serious the unintended consequences,” it continues. The effectiveness of a lockdown is therefore most effective in the early phase and wears off very quickly.
The “exact effectiveness” of school closures in terms of the spread of the virus, which had a serious negative impact on children and families, is also “open,” the report goes on to say. However, the “unintended effects” of this measure cannot be dismissed out of hand. Therefore, school closures would have to be evaluated more closely, taking into account the well-being of the child.
With regard to 2G and 3G, the verdict is also vague. The effect of this measure can be high in the first few weeks after boosters or recovery, but the protection against infection decreases over time. So if access restrictions are necessary again due to a high infection situation and an impending overload of the health system, testing is recommended as an access condition regardless of the vaccination status. Even if it is still necessary to research how well containment through testing can work, the report goes on to say.
With regard to the masks, however, the panel came to somewhat more positive conclusions. “The combination of epidemiological evidence and animal experimental confirmation allows the conclusion that wearing masks can be an effective tool in controlling the pandemic,” the report says.
However, an ill-fitting and tight-fitting mask would have reduced to no effect. In the future, mask requirements should be limited to indoor areas and places with a higher risk of infection. However, a general recommendation to wear FFP2 masks cannot be derived from the data so far.
Surf tip: Slide show – Corona expert panel: These 18 people will advise the government in 2022
Basically, the evaluation report leaves everything open and the question arises of what use this report is at all? In any case, critics complain that the scientists involved may not have included all available and relevant studies.
If there is no systematic literature research, there is a risk that only a “selection of the available evidence will be taken into account,” says Jörg Meerpohl, director of the Institute for Evidence in Medicine at the University Hospital Freiburg and scientific director of Cochrane Germany, a global evidence research network at “time”.
Virologist Friedemann Weber also finds deficiencies in the selection of data. “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 said on Twitter. Weber immediately refers to several preprint sources that were used, which were listed at various points in the evaluation report and never managed to be published as studies.
André Karch, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Münster, is similarly critical of the quality of the data used. Although he would not have expected an all-encompassing evaluation of the study situation, the scientific part of the work is still thin, the “Zeit” quotes the scientist. A lot of existing knowledge is not even shown in the report – for example the evidence from retrospective modeling studies.
Problems with the report and the panel of experts were already apparent in advance. As early as April, virologist Christian Drosten left the committee in protest because of internal discrepancies. In an interview with “Spiegel” he said: “If you want to do this scientifically seriously, you need people who do the literature search, help with the writing, and bring in additional scientific expertise. Epidemiology, for example, was not represented at all. The commission is political and not composed according to scientific criteria.” According to Drosten, the task could not be accomplished with the group of people.
A note in the evaluation report itself also points to internal quarrels. So an epidemiologist followed for Drosten: Klaus Stöhr. But even with Stöhr, the committee apparently did not quite find a common denominator. The report itself contains the following note on page 160: “Prof. dr Klaus Stöhr only took part in the deliberations of the evaluation commission from June 10th, 2022. During this period, consensus could not be reached on all points.”
