Apr 22, 2022 7:14 p.m
The decision-making and justification of the Federal Constitutional Court for a complaint model procedure against the so-called federal emergency brake of April 2021 was based largely on a statement from the Berlin Charité. The contents are now examined again, questioned and clearly criticized.
“Children in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Germany. The statement of the Institute for Virology of the Charité in the hearing procedure of the Federal Constitutional Court on the ‘Federal Emergency Brake’ – and open questions.”
This article was written by Prof. Dr. medical Ursel Heudorf, the former deputy head of the Frankfurt am Main health department. The extended article version can be found in the Authors section. At the beginning of the article, the author reminds:
“During the corona pandemic, children and young people in Germany were restricted in their rights and development opportunities for longer and more intensively than in almost any other country in Europe due to school closures, restricted school operations, compulsory wearing of masks and mandatory tests.”
In September 2021, a good two months before the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court, this fact prompted the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe to unequivocally criticize the discrimination against children in Germany:
dr In a new analysis of the events, Heudorf formulates her clear criticism of the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court in November 2021 as two test case selected complaints, demonstrably to have found a statement on the final decision by the Berlin Charité, which was explicitly quoted in the judgement. The reason for the complaint model procedure was the “Fourth Law for the Protection of the Population in an Epidemic Situation of National Relevance”, which has been in force since April 2021, i.e. the so-called “Federal Emergency Brake”, as well as the regulations derived from it, especially for children and young people in Germany. The article states:
“Several articles in the Hessisches Ärzteblatt pointed out the statements by pediatric specialist societies and the German Society for Hospital Hygiene that had already been published in the first few weeks of the pandemic but were practically ignored by politicians, and the measures taken in schools and children’s community facilities were criticized… In two Complaints against this, selected as a model case, came to the conclusion that this regulation was admissible.”
Furthermore, author Heudorf explains the procedure at that time in November 2021, in which “the Federal Constitutional Court initiated a hearing procedure to prepare its decision and, among other things, asked 31 ‘competent third parties’ for professional statements on a multi-page catalog of questions”. For this it says:
“One of the expert third parties was the Institute for Virology at the Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, which submitted a statement well after the deadline set by the Federal Constitutional Court, after all other experts.”
Despite a late submission by the Charité and without an oral follow-up hearing of the other “competent third parties”, the Federal Constitutional Court based its judgment “recognisably on the Charité statement”, according to the statement in the article. In another section, “it is therefore worth taking a closer look at the Charité statement – especially in comparison to the statements of other medical, especially pediatric, specialist societies”. The resulting criticism is more than revealing. The statement by the Institute for Virology at the Charité shows “numerous, in some cases significant, deficiencies”. So it says in the post, this
do not sufficiently take into account the current state of scientific research, incorrectly report the results of the few selected studies that receive attention, make significant methodological errors and draw epidemiologically and statistically incomprehensible conclusions from them.
Another criticism of the Charité’s statement is that it is “based on only a few sources”. For this it says:
“The Charité statement makes do with 17 sources. Only six of these are works that have appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals, four of them in 2020… a reference to a situation report by Robert Koch -Institut RKI, a press release, a short report on a study and a preprint; a last reference (…) could not be traced.”
For comparison, the much more detailed, meaningful and qualitatively and quantitatively more demanding statements are quoted and presented. To sum up this point:
“This comparison alone shows that there was significantly more scientific evidence that should have been taken into account in the Charité’s statement.”
Finally, the author formulates her clear irritation with regard to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court in November 2021 to focus the majority of its judgment on the statement of the Charité. dr Heudorf clearly criticizes:
“According to the above, criticism is also appropriate from a medical point of view. It is incomprehensible how, in the opinion of the author of the present article, such a technically incorrect statement could become the basis for a decision by the Federal Constitutional Court, although other statements cited significantly better evidence and the court was made aware of the deficiencies in the statement.”
According to the author, at the time the verdict was announced in November 2021, “rather, the narrative that still prevails today of dangerous schools and children as ‘virus slingers'” should have come to an end to the detriment of children and young people in Germany.
Here is a good summary of the question because it is up to date: are schools drivers of the 2nd wave, is there superspreading there, what is the study situation like.@DrZoeHyde, expert on children’s Covid: Schools are clusters, driving the pandemic, the study situation is clear. agree https://t.co/AnFwzcNpCv
— Professor Karl Lauterbach (@Karl_Lauterbach) November 24, 2020
Often note that children are becoming increasingly seriously ill and #LongCovid receive. Right, more on that later. Face-to-face classes are also a 0 topic for me. But in elementary schools, alternating classes with masks, tests, vaccination would often be safer than 70% emergency care https://t.co/OlAUnz4Xvi
— Professor Karl Lauterbach (@Karl_Lauterbach) February 6, 2021
(3) Statistically, 7% students and 14% parents get sick #LongCovid based on UK data. The avoidable massive loss of school success, employability and health is not justifiable. Therefore, the school should remain closed from an incidence of 100.
— Professor Karl Lauterbach (@Karl_Lauterbach) April 15, 2021
The consequences of the judgment of both complaint model proceedings would represent clear “omissions at the expense of the weakest in society”. It turns out in the present that:
“Children and young people in Germany are still more restricted today than adults – as far as we know in hardly any other European country.”