The virologist Alexander Kekulé speaks out in his Focus column against the 2G obligation in Hamburg.
A claim by the RKI is completely wrong, according to the scientist.
Hamburg - The 2G model has been in effect in Hamburg since last Saturday.
This provides that corona rules and access restrictions in cafes, restaurants, bars, clubs, hotels and other public facilities are no longer applicable, provided that the operators only allow convalescent and vaccinated people in.
The change has caused mixed reactions, some hosts continue to rely on 3G.
Alexander Kekulé thinks little of the new 2G model, as he
writes
in his opinion column at
Focus Online
.
Kekulé contradicts Robert Koch Institute: "Claim of the RKI completely wrong"
On the homepage of the Robert Koch Institute you can read since the end of August: "From a public health point of view, vaccination appears to reduce the risk of virus transmission to the extent that vaccinated people no longer play an essential role in the epidemiology of the disease." The virologist describes this claim by the Robert Koch Institute as "completely wrong".
"Among experts - at least outside the RKI - it is undisputed that the full vaccination only protects about 50 to 70 percent against infections with the Delta variant," writes the director of the Institute for Medical Microbiology at the University Clinic in Halle (Saale) and refers doing so on several studies.
Kekulé also mentions that vaccinated people can also be contagious with breakthrough infections - without specifying exactly how often breakthrough infections occur.
He then mentions the current data and explains that the immunity lasts longer than six months after an infection and is probably better than the vaccination against Delta. That is why he does not think it is right that those who have recovered have to be vaccinated after six months - and are then no longer allowed in without a vaccination in the 2G model. "In addition, vaccinated and convalescent people tend to behave carelessly, trusting their supposedly safe vaccination protection," continues the scientist - but he does not provide any data for this assessment.
In his view, "a wave of vaccinated people will rush through the population like a stealth bomber." In addition, unvaccinated and vaccinated people would meet outside of the restaurants anyway.
Unvaccinated people would not be protected as a result, but would be exposed to a higher risk of infection due to increasing incidences.
“If the virus then spreads massively among children and adolescents, schools are inevitable.
In the end, it is the little ones who pay for the great freedom of the grown-ups, ”warns Kekulé in conclusion.
Virologist with column: Why Kekulé's communication is controversial
The scientist Alexander Kekulé also shared the post on Twitter, which immediately sparked a discussion.
There were isolated positive as well as negative comments.
Again you have found popular, almost populist, position that is scientifically weak but is making your talk show revenues rise.
You should rather invest your time in your own research and studies on the topic or let those who research it talk to #Corona.
#CoronaSN
- Micha És Punkt (@Micha_Es_Punkt) September 3, 2021
Good science communication is of immense importance, especially in the corona crisis.
One problem is, on the one hand, articles that present scientific findings in abbreviated form, incorrectly or misleadingly, according to the scientist and journalist Mai Thi Nguyen Kim in her YouTube video “Virologists comparison”.
In their view, not only journalists have a responsibility, but also the scientists themselves. In general, people are interested in the question of what a certain study or scientific finding means in concrete terms for their lives and everyday life.
Scientists provide the facts and findings, but personal opinions of researchers should be clearly marked so that laypeople can clearly distinguish between facts and opinions, Nguyen Kim urges her colleagues.
Critical voices on Kekulé's science communication in the media
The scientist Alexander Kekulé gives his personal opinion in a serine column.
That is why it is not possible to find evidence for every statement.
Nguyen Kim criticized Alexander Kekulé's science communication back in April of last year.
“You shouldn't equate media presence with competence.
The greater the range, the more responsibly you have to deal with your science communication and your expert status. "
"Kekulé himself has in fact never published [...] about coronaviruses, [...] that is, he is someone who skillfully uses his authority as a professor to express his own opinion," notes the science journalist Volker Stollerz.
One should not confuse prominence in the media with a seal of quality within research.
“There is one thing that science cannot do,” said Dr. Christian Drosten raised concerns in his podcast last year. “Science does not have a democratic mandate. No serious scientist wants to say things like: [...] This political decision has to be made now. "
Bettina Menzel
