Unveiling the Source of COVID-19 Should Not Be Concealed
**Fluid Discourse: Interview with Buyx and Drosten – Coronavirus Tracing Back to Its Origins Matters**
March 16, 2020, marked the beginning of Germany's first corona lockdown, kicking off a series of contentious discussions surrounding school closures, mask-wearing, and the coronavirus vaccine. With the fifth anniversary of the pandemic approaching, Alena Buyx, former chair of the German Ethics Council, and renowned virologist Christian Drosten sat down for a chat on "ntv Salon" to address a myriad of topics, including the politically charged lab theory – is it essential to know where Sars-CoV-2 originated from?
ntv.de: Mr. Drosten, you were part of Angela Merkel's inner circle of advisors. You recently mentioned that this was more of a casual discussion for the chancellor.
Christian Drosten: The chancellor's office referred to it as an exchange of ideas when we were invited. It was purposely not an official high-level political consultation, as there was the Robert Koch Institute or the Leopoldina for that. The chancellor simply wanted to have a candid, fact-based discussion to ask questions and gauge sentiment.
Alena Buyx: Essentially, we went through thought processes, debated new information intensely, and argued. But there was no disagreement between Christian Drosten and myself on virology or ethics matters.
About what, specifically?
Alena Buyx: There was a heated debate among scientists at the time about the meaning of legal forms, as they argued for immediate action. The question remained: With which measures?
Did these debates produce tangible results?
Alena Buyx: The term "reflection room" seems fitting.
Christian Drosten: This group only existed since May 2020. The heavy decisions had already been made by politics in March.
Why are there no records of these conversations? Can we understand that?
Christian Drosten: I'm not even sure if that was ever considered. From Chancellor Merkel's perspective at the time, institutions like Robert Koch had the duty of political consultation. It might have been considered inappropriate to disrupt that with the opinions of professors who were brought in for their expertise. Whether that was the right call in retrospect, I'm not certain.
Alena Buyx: I would like to emphasize: No firm recommendations were made. That's important.
With such candid discussions, would it be appropriate if people knew what was said?
Christian Drosten: Sometimes, it's challenging to manage what comes across in public or not. During that period, I was hosting the NDR podcast and always said: I say the same thing in political consultation as I do here. Take a listen for yourself. That's how it is.
Did you ever annoy Mrs. Merkel or later Olaf Scholz with your candid comments?
Alena Buyx: In January 2021, I made a comment that was rather unflattering, stating that it was ethically unbalanced to close kindergartens while leaving large office buildings open as usual.
The Ethics Council has been criticized for being overly supportive of the government.
Alena Buyx: If you review our papers, it's simply not accurate that we were overly affirmative. For example, when examining the question of a vaccine mandate, we published arguments both for and against, spanning 24 pages. This nuanced consideration was otherwise condensed to a single statement in the media – "The Ethics Council favors a vaccine mandate."
Politics: Was the coronavirus released intentionally from a lab?
Christian Drosten: There's a tendency to latch onto a solitary statement from a study, which might even be taken out of context. This single statement is then magnified by the media and politically leveraged. Suddenly, there's something in circulation that doesn't actually exist in that manner. Furthermore, politics has taken decisions based on security considerations, locking down playgrounds, for instance, due to a lack of clarity on where the risk lies. It's instinctive that this strategy seems nonsensical, as playing areas, in actuality, dilute the virus.
Each to Their Own: Whisperers or No?
Christian Drosten: No, I wouldn't see myself as a Merkel or Scholz whisperer, nor do I get upset when I hear that term.
Were these measures effective in combating the coronavirus? Did the assembly bans stop infections, or was their impact minimal?
Christian Drosten: Assembly bans clearly, and efficiently, curbed the spread of infections. The question, of course, is at what cost? What other damage did we cause by implementing these quarantines?
Retrospective Evaluation: How do you see school closures now? The consensus is that this was a mistake.
Christian Drosten: This is complicated. Data shows that school closures had a significant impact on infection control. However, the question remains: Are we willing to risk children suffering educational setbacks or being isolated from their peers? In hindsight, it appears that the price was excessive for schools, and alternative measures might have been necessary.
Survey Shows Lasting Effects from the Pandemic On Families: How did the Ethics Council debate this? Shouldn't a work-from-home mandate have been considered?
Alena Buyx: To curb the spread of the virus, different measures need to be rotated and implemented sequentially, which can lead to a range of ancillary effects. That's why I gave an interview discussing the pros and cons – school closures versus a work-from-home order.
When did schools close for 74 days, equivalent to 15 school weeks? What's so bad about that? Learning deficits or missed opportunities to socialize?
Alena Buyx: My family is fortunate; we have space and even a garden. My children found the partial closures and the shift system quite enjoyable. They've even stated that the small class sizes made for the best school experience they've ever had. But for families living in smaller, cramped spaces without a yard, this time was undoubtedly difficult. The psychological strain on children, adolescents, and young adults was largely overlooked, but it had a significant impact on their well-being.
Alena Buyx: The youth, in general, have adapted quite resiliently to the start of the pandemic. Youth was initially strong and resilient, but the restrictions continued, and over time, vulnerability increased. The prom is an essential milestone for students. The second prom for graduation ceremonies was canceled, and opportunities to celebrate were limited. To top it off, the Ukraine war broke out, which further escalated challenges for young people. Fortunately, this strain has lessened, but the situation remains grim.
Would school closures be an option in a future pandemic?
Christian Drosten: In a future pandemic, I believe we would carefully approach school closures. We would need to evaluate whether the virus affects different age groups equally and with equal severity.
Vaccinations: Were they a game-changer? Even Drosten's virology colleague Sandra Ciesek thought the vaccination could end the pandemic.
Christian Drosten: Yes, initially, her hypothesis was correct. In the first year, we saw that the virus remained relatively stable in terms of mutations. With effective vaccination throughout the population, the virus could have been brought under control, thanks to a few months' protection post-vaccination. However, we underestimated the portion of the global population that would remain unvaccinated. The virus simply circulated through these unvaccinated populations time and time again. As the virus encountered individuals with immune response, mutations emerged, allowing it to evade the antibodies created by the vaccine in previously vaccinated individuals.
Were we always playing catch-up to the virus?
Christian Drosten: Yes, dealing with the virus was the primary source of disruption in our plans. The Alpha variant did not exhibit immune escape, but Delta presented a small degree, and with Omicron, chaos ensued. However, the vaccines were effective in preventing a severe disease course.
Alena Buyx: Even in reputable media outlets, I read: The vaccines did not prevent infections at all. That's wrong. Of course, they did decrease transmission, just not completely, and with a waning effect. Unfortunately, this message was conveyed, further fueling confusion.
Could the new coronavirus, HKU5-CoV-2, give rise to another pandemic? But if we think about Joshua Kimmich and what was said... shouldn't our focus have been on unity rather than exclusion and targeting the unvaccinated?
Alena Buyx: Of course, we should have emphasized our commonalities instead of ostracizing the unvaccinated. The Ethics Council also made a nuanced recommendation concerning the unvaccinated – reach out to them, take their concerns seriously, engage in conversation, and offer low-threshold options. For hardcore vaccine refusers who were politically manipulated, I must say: There may not have been a viable alternative.
Couldn't we have said: You can protect yourself with a vaccination, but if you choose not to, that's your choice?
Alena Buyx: That would have been ideal for the ongoing course of the pandemic, but I recall October, November, and December 2021 when hospitals were transferring patients by helicopter to other regions because they were strained to capacity due to unvaccinated individuals occupying critical care units. If you fall from a ladder or have a heart attack and are unable to seek proper treatment because intensive care beds are occupied by unvaccinated patients, it's not fair to say: Vaccinated or not, it doesn't matter.
Sweden's Approach vs. Germany's: Would it have been wiser to follow the Swedish model in hindsight?
Christian Drosten: The effectiveness of a particular strategy depends on a country's demographic, education level, economic strength, and more.
In that case, the Swedish approach would not have been viable in Germany?
Christian Drosten: I don't believe so. For instance, Sweden and Germany have approximately the same population size, but Sweden has only one-tenth of the population. Furthermore, its population primarily works in the service sector and had a home office quota of 40% even during the early stages of the pandemic. In contrast, we have significant metropolitan areas, constant traffic, and numerous industrial areas where working remotely isn't a viable option. Comparing Sweden and Germany becomes challenging when accounting for these differences.
Would anything have changed if we knew where the virus originated?
Christian Drosten: It has limited impact in fighting the pandemic but is of supreme importance for the future. We should uncover the truth about this. We can't just brush it under the rug and hope interest fades away. It's clear that this worrisome research, which may have led to a lab accident in Wuhan, is being conducted in other countries as well. It's imperative that we establish international guidelines to regulate such research responsibly.
With the newfound understanding that dangerous pathogens linger in nature, we have the capacity to research, classify, and even develop vaccines against these threats before they emerge. The question remains: How far should we go? If we only explore these pathogens superficially, no one would get infected, as no live virus would be created in the lab. But if we push the limit and make the virus live in the lab, are we taking an excessive risk?
Alena Buyx and Christian Drosten spoke with Hedviga Nyarsik and Tilman Aretz. The conversation has been edited for clarity and smoothing. You can listen to the podcast version or watch the video here.*
*Enrichment Information*
Overview:
The COVID-19 pandemic has witnessed different approaches between Germany and Sweden in managing the spread of the virus. Here's a comparison of their strategies:
German Measures
- Lockdowns: Germany implemented strict lockdowns to reduce social interactions, resulting in economic and social consequences.
- School Closures: Schools were closed nationwide at varying points to reduce transmission among children.
- Mask Mandates: Widespread mask mandates were enforced, particularly in public transportation and retail areas.
- Vaccines: Germany faced challenges with vaccine hesitancy and supply chain issues, affecting overall vaccination rates.
Swedish Model
- No Lockdowns: Sweden opted for voluntary social distancing measures, relying on citizens' responsibility and trust in public health advice.
- Limited School Closures: Schools remained open for younger children; older students had periods of remote learning.
- Low Mask Usage: Mask mandates were not enforced, reflecting low mask usage compared to European countries.
- Vaccines: Sweden pursued a robust vaccination campaign, with high vaccination rates contributing to controlling the spread of the virus.
Comparison of Outcomes:
Germany's approach involved stricter lockdowns, school closures, and mask mandates. While these measures temporarily reduced transmission rates, they also had severe economic and social consequences.
Sweden's strategy focused on maintaining societal openness while relying on individual responsibility and trust in public health advice. Despite initial criticism, Sweden's approach did not lead to significantly worse health outcomes compared to many other countries, and it maintained a relatively stable economy and social structure.
Mortality and Recovery:
Both countries faced challenges in terms of mortality and life expectancy. However, Sweden's overall mortality and life expectancy recovery post-pandemic were among the best in Europe, possibly attributable to their less intrusive public health measures and high trust in authorities. Germany, like many countries, experienced significant socioeconomic impacts and life expectancy declines during the pandemic.
- Christian Drosten, who was part of Angela Merkel's inner circle of advisors, argued that the origins of Sars-CoV-2 should be understood, as there was a tendency to politically leverage a single statement from a study out of context.
- During debates about the coronavirus, Alena Buyx and Christian Drosten disagreed on legal forms and immediate action but were aligned in their views on virology and ethics matters.
- Kindergartens were closed for an extended period during the first corona lockdown in Germany, and Alena Buyx later questioned this decision, stating that it was ethically unbalanced to close kindergartens while leaving large office buildings open as usual.
