How can we accept it if almost everyone was involved in pandemic politics? At least not like before, says epidemiologist Hajo Zeeb.

A social reassessment would be good here: school closures during the coronavirus crisis Photo: Michael Weber/imago

taz: Mr Zeeb, individual points of more than 200 protocols of the Robert Koch Institute are currently being discussed. Is this an appropriate way to deal with the coronavirus pandemic?

Hajo Zeeb: Many people agree that the processing has not yet been done to a sufficient extent. But no one has anything to do with what is happening now. In reality, this is just a form of opinion and has little meaning when you look closer.

Let's review the most discussed points. For example, there is the question of who decided in March 2020 to publish a risk assessment update. The name of the person in question is crossed out; It was initially assumed that he might be a political figure. According to the RKI and the Federal Ministry of Health, the name of an RKI employee is hidden behind the blackout.

All I can say is that those decisions must be made on a scientific basis. Which apparently was the case. Even if a politician had decided to finally publish it, I honestly wouldn't be surprised. It is clear that science and politics go hand in hand when making decisions like this in a situation like this.

Even before this case, the need for the Robert Koch Institute to be more independent was criticized. Do you share these?

Former RKI director Lothar Wieler himself underlined the importance of the Robert Koch Institute being able to work independently.

But during the time of coronavirus there were definitely points of friction. It is a fact that the Robert Koch Institute depends directly on the Federal Ministry of Health.

The RKI already works independently scientifically, but is part of the responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Health. That's a very fine line. The Minister of Health decides what he does with the RKI information, but he cannot say that you can only do this and that and only this and that. He doesn't have time or leisure for that either.

I wouldn't be so sure about Mr. Lauterbach.

(laughs) Not even Herr Lauterbach can see everything himself. He has to trust RKI employees to do his job well.

They themselves repeatedly insist that political decisions be made on the basis of sufficient scientific knowledge, the so-called evidence. The protocols published by the RKI show that in October 2020 it was discussed that there was no evidence for the use of FFP2 masks as protection against infections and yet they were widely recommended shortly afterwards.

Until the pandemic, FFP2 masks were only used for occupational safety and mainly as dust masks. In reality, there was very little evidence of its widespread use to protect against infections, almost exclusively in the healthcare sector. In a case like this, when trying to protect the population as quickly as possible from infection, one can only work with assumptions and analogies and then correct them as soon as more scientific knowledge becomes available.

During the pandemic there were always both things: on the one hand, the demand for more scientific discoveries before freedoms were restricted. On the other hand, there is a demand for quick and clear policy recommendations (I just remind you about childhood vaccination).

Absolutely. But this also shows that science has tried to free itself from the pressure and has not limited itself to making decisions and recommendations in one direction.

Another point of criticism of the RKI protocols is the controversy surrounding the Astra-Zeneca vaccine. The RKI commented that it works worse than mRNA vaccines, yet it was recommended for all age groups.

The potential for scandal is particularly low. It was known from the beginning that the Astra Zeneca vaccine was less effective. However, this was a vaccine tested and approved at a time when there was a vaccine shortage. Efficacy was also good compared to other vaccines, but the mRNA vaccines were even better. From a global perspective, the Astra Zeneca vaccine did a lot of good because it was accessible to more countries: that was the policy of the University of Oxford, which participated in its development. When very rare side effects of the vaccine became known and sufficient vaccine subsequently became available in Germany, the recommendations were corrected accordingly.

Finally, from the protocols, the statement was extracted that confinement causes more damage than the pandemic itself, although the cited statement did not refer to Germany at all, but to Africa.

This is a classic example of a statement taken out of context. What actually did not occur enough in Germany was a broad debate on the consequences of measures such as school closures. The virological view was too dominant, especially in the early days.

What would proper reprocessing look like in your opinion?

We should take another look at the central decisions and milestones of the corona pandemic and ask ourselves: how exactly did this come about? How will this be evaluated in retrospect? Where could something have gone wrong? It could be decisions about school closures or whether to go for a walk in the park as a couple. Did it make sense to do this harsh confinement or not? We also have a variety of countries we can compare ourselves to, from Italy to Sweden.

Who should participate in this review?

People from science, politics, healthcare and other organizations involved, but also citizens themselves, can now be easily surveyed and included in the evaluation. There is also a need to examine financing mechanisms and cooperation between countries.

Do you see that happening?

Let's put it this way: there are signs, there is openness to it, also with a view to future pandemics. But everyday life is so dominant that coming to terms with it is always lost sight of.

Is it a problem that everyone who could and should fix this was involved?

Independent moderation would be nice, but I don't know exactly where it would come from after a pandemic that pretty much everyone was involved in. Perhaps the only solution is for a broad and representative group from different areas to participate in the review and not just individual experts.

Do you share the concern expressed by Karl Lauterbach, for example, that a political reassessment could especially favor populists?

Populists will continue to try to somehow create an atmosphere with Corona because the topic is touching. And, just like now, they will choose what is useful to them, regardless of whether there is a comprehensive review or not. I think that, regardless of this, we should make a sensible analysis that meets democratic and fair standards.

Can scientific and political analysis be separated?

I don't know what the point of that was. It has been the case in the past, and hopefully will continue to be the case in the future, that science provides data that politicians use as a basis for decision-making. This can only be seen together.

If the Minister of Health is asked about a review, he refers to the successor to the Corona Expert Council, the new scientific Expert Council “Health and Resilience”.

At the end of the day, this is very broad scientific advice. They just had their first meeting, but they are sworn to secrecy. However, they should not limit themselves to reprocessing…

…but above all, develop future strategies. That seems like a lot for a volunteer committee, right?

Yes, especially a year from now and with people who are certainly not underemployed. In my opinion, this can only be one re-evaluation approach, but it should not remain the only one.

Would you welcome a political review, for example in the form of a study commission?

Fortunately, I'm not a politician, but I would definitely like a formalized process for reaching an agreement, no matter what you call it.