To all my international colleagues:
Your German word of the day (and the next weeks) is “Hospitalisierungsinzidenz” or “7-Tage-Hospitalisierungsinzidenz” to be very German…
This is essentially the number of hospitalized #covid19 patients per 100,000 per week
(with patients counted for the week their case was notified not when they were hospitalized)
and it’s now the variable that will be used to decide what level of measures is instituted.
If Hospitalisierungsinzidenz in a state is
3-6: Events will only be open to vaccinated and recovered peope (2G)
6-9: Events will only be open to vaccinated and recovered peope who also have a negative test (2G+)
>9: further measures may be added (if state’s parliament agrees)
Obviously given delays in notification, most recent “Hospitalisierungsinzidenzen” tend to be underestimates.
Which is why you get this shape in the current graph for Germany:
Again and again in this pandemic we have reacted too late. So using a measure that has a built-in delay (the hospitalized patients this week are the infections of previous weeks after all) seems to me exactly the wrong strategy.
Switching from infections to hospitalizations as the key measure, feels a bit like telling your smoke detector not to start beeping when it detects smoke but only when it’s starting to melt from the heat.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Kudos to Lothar Wieler, head of @rki_de (essentially Germany’s CDC), who had some very candid words for politicians today about the current #covid19 situation in Germany:
@rki_de Wieler started by telling them that of today's 52k notified cases (given CFR of 0,8%), about 400 will die.
“Everyone listening needs to realise: this cannot be changed”, he said. "None of us sitting here can help these people. That is a bucket of water that has been spilled."
@rki_de Already normal patient care is impacted in every region of Germany, Wieler told them:
Surgeries are being postponed, ambulances are spending an hour or two searching for a bed for stroke patients, children who need an ICU bed are being transferred far away.
“WHO’s call for social science expertise, only to appoint more scientists, shows at best wilful ignorance of politics and political expertise or, at worst, active contempt.”
Do read this well-argued piece by @clarewenham, @DrJRMoon and @DrSophieHarman!
“Given everything we have learned about the role of social science in pandemic governance in the last 20 months (or indeed the last 20 years), the lack of political science (or social science more generally) expertise on SAGO represents a major gap in knowledge…”
“conducting an investigation under the microscope requires a myriad of both technical and political competencies. Not least, it requires an understanding of the politics of the institutions and states under investigation, to understand the context in which results are delivered.”
The other issue I wanted to bring up in this new article is a question that I find fascinating: How may being a social media celebrity influence researchers going forward?
As @M_B_Petersen told me there is clearly a risk of being influenced by your followers’ likes. “Scientists are humans as well and humans like to get positive feedback, they like to be celebrated”, he told me. “That’s just how social media works”
Petersen told me that he saw some signs of this already. “In the beginning, everyone was just trying to figure out what is going on,” he told me. “Now, scientists are more and more locked into a particular position.”
Some scientists have become twitter celebrities in this pandemic - bringing power as well as hate.
I talked to @devisridhar - a constant presence in my twitter feed the last two years - about her experience
First of all: This story is part of a @NewsfromScience series on the “new normal” and just a brief peek at some of the issues scientists are grappling with in this time of viral posts and a pandemic virus. It’s a huge topic and I want to hear more stories and see more research…
But briefly:
One of the most amazing things early on in this pandemic was watching science (and policy) debates play out in real-time online. Some researchers have helped hundreds of thousands of people make sense of what’s going on and make informed decisions. They saved lives.
Last week I sat down with @billgates to talk about global vaccine inequity, why COVAX has failed to curb it, his foundation more generally and Germany’s role in global health. Interview (€, in German) here and a few points in English to come:
On Covax:
He told me one huge problem was the complete absence of US leadership on this.
Another one was basically bad luck: COVAX bet on vaccines that were cheaper and more easily distributed than the mRNA vaccines and many of these have hit snags
(It is worth remembering that the bulk of globally available doses so far have been of just four vaccines: Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer and Sinopharm and Sinovac. Of these, Covax only bet early on AZ. Others it was counting on like J&J or Novavax have hit snags along the way.)
So today, @WHO unveiled a new team of scientists from around the world that will guide the search for the origins of #covid19 but also work on future outbreaks and more generally on emerging pathogens.
That might be criticised by some, @angie_rasmussen told me. But: "I think it is important for continuity and to assert that the first mission wasn’t a total wash"