Drosten shows for children’s study, self-critical, then he went over to the media

2020-06-04

The first knowledge of the Christian Drosten the virus load in children triggered a heated discussion. Meanwhile, the virologist has revised its study. Now he’s, what has changed in contrast to the first edition explains and puts in dispute the media representation of his work.

In his as a Preprint of the published study, the virus load in children virologist Christian Drosten, came to the front about five weeks to the result, the virus load in children could not differ, perhaps significantly from that of adult persons. Medially, there was plenty of fuss about the study. Especially the statistical analysis of the data was the focus of the discussion.

Meanwhile, Drosten has revised the study and maintains its basic knowledge. In the NDR Podcast "The Coronavirus-Update" he explained the differences from the first publication, and his Anger about the media portrayal of his work out

New age grouping made

In the revised Form of the study, there are significant differences. A new age grouping has been made, the distinct children aged 0 to 6 years, children and young people aged 0 to 19 years of age and adults. In addition, a distinction was made after evaluating the type of test.

Read also: Controversial study: Drosten is to testify to the danger of Infection of children

The Tests have analyzed Drosten and his Team for the study, carried out by two different machines – a simple laboratory machine for Virus test and a special, large testing machine acquired.

Differences in evaluation of the type of test

The former was particularly used in the early phase of the pandemic, as Tests came most frequently from the out-patient area, or, for example, from the health Department for the contact person of an infected Person were carried out.

Since, in this case, the infection was mostly still quite fresh, was the viral load in the throat usually quite high.

In the case of the second machine, the evaluated Tests, however, came from a later Phase of the pandemic. Here in particular Tests were evaluated, the come of children from hospitals.

These were, according to Drosten, on average, already in the second week of illness, the viral load in the throat was already low. Tests of adults on the other hand, also from the outpatient testing.

Result of the study remains "unverändert"

In spite of the changed evaluation criteria, the finding of the study remains almost the same. Especially in the case of the Tests from the first machine, there are no significant differences in the virus load detect. In the case of the Tests from the second machine, there were, according to Drosten, although a slightly lower concentration in children. This could, however, be explained by the fact that the children tested were often advanced in the course of the disease already.

In 29 per cent of kindergarten children (0 to 6 years), with 37 percent of the children between 0 and 19 years, and 51 percent of the more than 20-Year-old virus was found in quantity, the contagion is likely to be sufficient.

All the News and information to the Coronavirus pandemic, you read in our News-Ticker

"The study is in their Interpretation unchanged, and geschärft", Drosten says about the adapted Form of his work. His recommendation that goes with it, has changed slightly. Drosten is now "a recommendation for close Monitoring of Situation" in schools and day care centers.

After the first publication, he had advised against, first, the full Opening of the schools – and particularly in this point feels Drosten be misunderstood.

"That is pure Unsinn"

"This is what was understood in the current media discussion in the last ten days of some of the Newspapers completely wrong. Because then Yes in the end even the government would have taken this study to make decisions. This is, of course, bare Unsinn", the virologist says.

Drosten of the time: "I would machen&quot so;

"I don’t think I would machen&quot the meantime;, Drosten says on the question of whether he had published his first study of the early sets but immediately in the dispute with the German media: "Not because of the science. What I did not expect, the recording is in the media. There are media sources that have reduced, in my view, also be aware of the Messages so that it looked like a grossly incorrect study, which is not true."

Drosten: "Would have been somewhere just an indication that this study is wrong, I would have taken them immediately from our website and also publicly stated, I hereby take this study back. But there has never been a reason for that."

"It was not to study, but to me as a Person"

More Drosten: &quot says;This has been shown in a media debate is distorted in the header area, which I think is the whole of society is dangerous, not only for Faith in science. This goes far beyond that."

And more: "This is a great deal of uncertainty and damage caused thereby. The Whole thing was personalized then. It was not the study, but it was clearly against me as a Person. With all the I expected at all and I can’t explain to me why it’s come to this and what is the reason for it.“