Recently, experts from various disciplines have published a thesis paper on the pandemic. In it, you, what’s going on from your perspective so far wrong, and how to do it in the next few weeks could go better criticize.
Let’s look at the right Numbers, and we take the right measures?
These questions were raised during the time of the Corona-pandemic again and again. Finally, the pandemic is to this extent a Situation, we do not know so far. Measures need to be constantly reconsidered, strategies are questioned. The six experts from various disciplines have recently in your "Thesis paper on the pandemic of Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19" done.
You have to put yourself in their 26-page-long paper three areas of focus, to show you facts and problems:
- Development of prevention measures and
- socio-political consequences
- Matthias Schrappe of the University of Cologne, former Vice-Chairman of the. Chairman of the expert Council of health.
- Hedwig François-Kettner, care Manager and consultant, former. Chairman of the action Alliance patient safety in Berlin
- Matthias Gruhl, doctor of Public health, Hamburg/Bremen
- Franz Knieps, a lawyer and the Executive Board of the Association of company health insurance funds
- Holger Pfaff, University of Cologne, center for health services research, former. Chairman of the expert Advisory Board of the innovation Fund and
- Gerd Glaeske Universität Bremen, SOCIUM Public Health, former. A member of the expert Council of health
To criticize the experts of medicine, sociology, health, Law, and nursing Sciences have on the current approach so much – also the current approach of the Federal government. First and foremost, you write that your post was a constructive thought. They wanted to "to support the decisions of the next few weeks."
All the news about the outbreak of Coronavirus read in the News Ticker.
The authors criticize, among other things, that at the present time, no reliable statements could be made to currently Diseased, the newly occurring cases. Finally, there is only event-related Tests, and a maximum of as many as Tests are available. It lacks, however, systematic testing with at least 10,000 persons, in which randomly selected people were to be tested. This, according to the authors, demand will have to be prioritized.
The total number of Tests is not fully known. Therefore, it is not to speak also makes sense from a doubling time (the time in which the number of cases doubled) and to make far-reaching actions dependent on, the authors explain. For this, there must be random Sampling of the total population. This would also help to provide meaningful mortality rates, i.e. the proportion of Infected who die of the disease, name it. The authors assume that the currently reported mortality rates are resorted to high.
Find out more:
- Problem the case of pay – statistician: The corona, the figures are not wrong because they reflect the reality
In addition, the authors argue, the newly diagnosed cases should not be added to the cases, which have already recovered. Rather, healthy patients who have survived the disease would have to be deducted. "The cumulative representation of the daily new cases diagnosed, giving the impression of a catastrophic increase in", the experts criticize.
2. Prevention strategies
The scientists base their explanations on the assumption that a vaccination will only be available in 2021. Social Distancing is seen as a method whose effectiveness is limited and leads to collateral damage. Also it was a paradox, because "the more effective (Social Distancing), the higher the risk of a &apos is;the second Welle'", the authors write. Finally, it could be achieved, if the measure was effective, there is no immunity in large numbers in the population, as would be necessary to stop the spread of the pathogen.
KameraOne COVID-19 survived: neighbors applaud 100-Year-old on the balcony
“Is it the spit”: the infectiology Lodge of the pale about Spahn-statement
FOCUS Online/Wochit “Remains for me the spit away”: the infectiology Lodge of the pale about Spahn-statement