Given Astronomy activity on the amateur level in Arizona is on hiatus except
for that done on an individual basis because of the WuFlu I keep looking for
information to try and understand why this worldwide panic has taken place.
Nowhere have I seen any rational explanation of what is actually happening. Yes
there are plenty of projections of mega deaths from Corona-Chan and
exhortations to use common sense hygiene methods and accept the shutting down
of the economy, but where are the reports on why this “epidemic” is so
different that it requires such a response.
Well I have found two items that give information as to where we actually
stand. The first is a short video by a German Pulmonologist, Dr. Wolfgang
Wodarg.
John
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_AyuhbnPOII ;<https://youtu.be/p_AyuhbnPOI>>
<——click here (Video in German with subtitles.) The colored graph of different
viral types encountered yer by year is eye opening.
Dr. Wodarg’s web site is mainly in German but this article is in English and
mirrors most if not all covered in the video:
1.3.2020 Corona-Hype:
Without PCR-Tests there would be no reason for special alarms.
We are currently not measuring the incidence of coronavirus diseases, but the
activity of the specialists searching for them.
by Wolfgang Wodarg
The corona hype is not based on any extraordinary public health danger.
However, it causes considerable damage to our freedom and personal rights
through frivolous and unjustified quarantine measures and restrictions. The
images in the media are frightening and the traffic in China's cities seems to
be regulated by the clinical thermometer.
Evidence based epidemiological assessment is drowning in the mainstream of fear
mongers in labs, media and ministries.
The carnival in Venice was cancelled after an elderly dying hospital patient
was tested positive. When a handful of people in Northern Italy also were
tested positive, Austria immediately closed the Brenner Pass temporarily.
Due to a suspected case of coronavirus, more than 1000 people were not allowed
to leave their hotel in Tenerife. On the cruise ship Diamond Princess 3700
passengers could not disembark., Congresses and touristic events are cancelled
<https://www.expodatabase.de/de/articles/125882-coronavirus-fuhrt-zu-messeabsagen>,
economies suffer and schools in Italy have an extra holyday.
At the beginning of February, 126 people from Wuhan were brought to Germany by
plane and remained there in quarantine two weeks in perfect health. Corona
viruses were detected in two of the healthy individuals.
<https://deutsch.medscape.com/artikelansicht/4908628_print>
We have experienced similar alarmist actions by virologists in the last two
decades. WHO's "swine flu pandemic" was in fact one of the mildest flu waves in
history and it is not only migratory birds that are still waiting for "birds
flu". Many institutions that are now again alerting us to the need for caution
have let us down and failed us on several occasions. Far too often, they are
institutionally corrupted by secondary interests from business and/or politics.
If we do not want to chase frivolous panic messages, but rather to responsibly
assess the risk of a spreading infection, we must use solid epidemiological
methodology. This includes looking at the "normal", the baseline, before you
can speak of anything exceptional.
Until now, hardly anyone has paid attention to corona viruses. For example, in
the annual reports of the Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI
<https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/Jahrbuch/Jahrbuch_2018.pdf?__blob=publicationFile>)
they are only marginally mentioned because there was SARS in China in 2002 and
because since 2012 some transmissions from dromedaries to humans have been
observed in Arabia (MERS). There is nothing about a regularly recurring
presence of corona viruses in dogs, cats, pigs, mice, bats and in humans, even
in Germany.
However, children's hospitals are usually well aware, that a considerable
proportion of the often severe viral pneumonia is also regularly caused or
accompanied by corona viruses worldwide
<http://file///Users/wwodarg/Documents/SEUCHEN%20:Epidemiologie/Coronaviren/20200205%20Corona%20Artikel%20WW/Origin%20and%20evolution%20of%20pathogenic%20coronaviruses>.
In view of the well-known fact that in every "flu wave" 7-15% of acute
respiratory illnesses (ARI) are coming along with coronaviruses, the case
numbers that are now continuously added up
<https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports/>
are still completely within the normal range.
About one per thousand infected are expected to die during flu seasons. By
selective application of PCR-tests - for example, only in clinics and medical
outpatient clinics - this rate can easily be pushed up to frightening levels,
because those, who need help there are usually worse off than those, who are
recovering at home. The role of such s selection bias seems to be neglected in
China and elsewhere.
Since the turn of the year, the focus of the public, of science and of health
authorities has suddenly narrowed to some kind of blindness. Some doctors in
Wuhan (12 million inhabitants) succeeded in attracting worldwide attention with
initially less than 50 cases and some deaths
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV-2> in their clinic, in which they had
identified corona viruses as the pathogen.
The colourful maps
<https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6>
that are now being shown to us on paper or screens are impressive, but they
usually have less to do with disease than with the activity of skilled
virologists and crowds of sensationalist reporters.
We are currently not measuring the incidence of coronavirus diseases, but the
activity of the specialists searching for them.
Wherever such the new tests are carried out - there about 9000 tests per week
available
<https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.6.2000082>
in 38 laboratories throughout Europe on 13 February 2020 – there are at least
single cases detected and every case becomes a self-sustaining media event. The
fact alone that the discovery of a coronavirus infection is accompanied by a
particularly intensive search in its vicinity explains many regional clustersi.
The horror reports from Wuhan were something, that virologists all over the
world are waiting for. Immediately, the virus strains present in the
refrigerators were scanned and compared feverishly with the reported newcomers
from Wuhan. A laboratory at the Charité won the race at the WHO
<http://wuhan-virus-assay-v1991527e5122341d99287a1b17c111902/> and was the
first to be allowed to market its in-house tests worldwide. Prof C. Drosten was
interviewed on 23rd of january
<https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/neues-coronavirus-diagnostischer-test-aus-berlin-weltweit.676.de.html?dram:article_id=468640>
2020 and described how the Test was established. He said, that he cooperated
with a Partner from China, who confirmed the specific sensitivity of the
Charitè-Test for the Wuhan coronavirus. Other Tests from different Places
followed soon and found their market.
However, it is better not to be tested for corona viruses. Even with a slight
"flu-like" infection the risk of coronavirus detection would be 7% - 15% . This
is, what a prospective monitoring in Scotland (from 2005 to 2013
<https://www.pnas.org/content/116/52/27142/tab-figures-data>) may teach us. The
scope, the possible hits and the significance of the new tests are not jet
validated. It would be intersting to have soe tests not only on airports and
cruising ships but on german or italian cats, mice or even bats.
If you find some new virus RNA in a Thai cave
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21763784-sars-coronavirus-ancestors-foot-prints-in-south-east-asian-bat-colonies-and-the-refuge-theory/>
ore a Wuhan hospital <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S_ZBlk5tQg>, it takes a
long time to map its prevalence in different hosts worldwide.
But if you want to give evidence to a spreading pandemic by using PCR-Tests
only, this is what should have been done after a prospective cross sectional
protocoll.
So beware of side effects. Nowadays positive PCR tests have tremendous
consequences for the everyday life of the patient and his wider environment, as
can be seen in all media without effort.
However, the finding itself has no clinical significance. It is just another
name for acute respiratory illnesses (ARI), which as every year put 30% to 70%
of all people in our countries more or less out of action for a week or two
every winter.
According to a prospective ARI-virus monitoring in Scotland from 2005 to 2013
<https://www.pnas.org/content/116/52/27142/tab-figures-data>, the most common
pathogens of acute respiratory diseases were: 1. rhinoviruses, 2. influenza A
viruses, 3. influenza B viruses, 4. RS viruses and 5. coronaviruses.
This order changed slightly from year to year. Even with viruses competing for
our mucous membrane cells, there is apparently a changing quorum
<https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/216/4/415/3958807>, as we know it from
our intestines in the case of microorganisms and from the Bundestag in the case
of political groups.
So if there is now to be an increasing number of "proven" coronavirus
infections. in China or in Italy: Can anyone say how often such examinations
were carried out in previous winters, by whom, for what reason and with which
results? When someone claims that something is increasing, he must surely refer
to something, that has been observed before
<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.21956>.
It can be stunning, when an experienced disease control officer looks at the
current turmoil, the panic and the suffering it causes. I'm sure many of those
responsible public health officers would probably risk their jobs today, as
they did with the "swine flu" back then, if they would follow their experience
and oppose the mainstream.
Every winter we have a virus epidemic with thousands of deaths and with
millions of infected people even in Germany. And coronaviruses always have
their share.
So if the Federal Government wants to do something good, it could learn from
epidemiologists in Glasgow and have all clever minds at the RKI observe
prospectively (!!!) and watch how the virom of the German population changes
from year to year.
Some questions for the evaluation of the current findings:
Which prospective, standardised monitoring of acute respiratory diseases with
or without fever (ILI, ARI) is used for the epidemiological risk assessment of
coronavirus infections observed in Wuhan Italy, South Korea, Iran and elsewhere
(baseline).
How do the comparable (!) results of earlier observations differ from those now
reported by the WHO? (in China, in Europe, in Italy, in Germany, etc.)
What would we observe this ARI-season if we would ignore the new PCR-testing?
How valid and how comparable are the detection methods used with regard to
sensitivity, specificity and pathogenetic or prognostic relevance?
What is the evidence or probability that the observed corona viruses 2019/2020
are more dangerous to public health than previous variants?
If you find them now, how can you proove, they were not there (e.g. in animals)
before.
What considerations have been made or taken into account to exclude or minimise
sources of bias (sources of error)?
