In the meantime, Christian Drosten should be used to criticism of his Corona statements.
If another scientist replied, his collar would still burst.
Berlin - We are all suffering from the restrictions of the pandemic.
We have fewer social contacts.
Conversations and disputes are shifting to the World Wide Web.
That doesn't seem to leave a star virologist cold either.
On Friday, he reacted unusually unfriendly to the criticism of RKI researcher Kai Schulze.
Christian Drosten tweeted on Thursday about the so-called summer effect and referred to his NDR podcast.
For anyone who thinks that the warmer weather will do the broadcast by itself.
According to estimates that can currently be reached by consensus, the summer effect results in a reduction of approx.
See again Tuesday's podcast on this subject, also with mention of European countries.
https://t.co/MjAne7awDg
- Christian Drosten (@c_drosten) May 27, 2021
Christian Drosten and RKI researcher Kai Schulze: Dispute over the "summer effect":
Here he had warned against overestimating the summer temperatures and their corona-inhibiting effect.
It is not as if anyone has ever claimed that there is no temperature effect, so Drosten in the podcast.
"But it is also not the case that one could assume that the temperature does all of this." According to this, the seasonal effect brings about 20 percent.
Kai Schulze, scientist at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), publicly questioned this 20 percent on Twitter.
Kindly, he referred on Thursday to the numbers from other studies that suggested a 40 percent effect.
Twitter dispute between Drosten and RKI researchers escalates: "Troll you!"
“Dear Christian Drosten” wrote Schulze and refers to an older episode of the podcast in which Drosten himself referred to more optimistic figures.
“In an older podcast you cited a modeling study (Kissler et al.).
Up to 40% are accepted there ”.
Drosten should name the source of his current estimate, demands Schulze and sends a "VG!" Afterwards.
It seemed to Drosten like an attention scam.
His reaction is surprisingly unfriendly and sloppy: “I explained the source and a reason for it to you 2 hours before this tweet by DM.
That you don't care shows me that you're not interested in content.
Troll you! "
The last sentence “Troll you!” Triggered a heated Twitter dispute.
Criticism exploded.
Headlines denounced Drosten's reaction.
Can't someone here deal with criticism?
Drosten apologizes for the dispute reaction on Twitter "Linguistic not OK!"
But as with most good Twitter Zoffs, the public apology followed on Friday. Christian Drosten still finds mild words: “Dear @KaiSchulze_, linguistically yesterday was of course not OK, I'm sorry. In terms of content, it is hopefully clear which data I am referring to (see reference to Kissler) and why. If something is still unclear, please DM. ”The virologist has now removed the troll tweet. In terms of content, the Charité virologist defends his statements.
Kai Schulze is also harmonious and defends the argument between the two as a “productive exchange”.
On Twitter, he criticized an article in the Bild newspaper: “It was a misunderstanding that has now been cleared up.
We are having a productive exchange here, and I think it would be good if this could continue and not make it impossible due to such reporting.
VG KS. "
Virologist dispute about the Corona summer effect: Both sides remain stubborn
So the waves seem to have smoothed out. Even if Schulze and Drosten continue to insist on their points of view. But whether the summer effect is really 20 percent or higher is still a matter of debate. Nobody is completely sure, both agree. Agreement on disagreement: "Different papers have different values."
