9 ms·

According to the Heinsberg Study in Germany, the infection rate was as high as 15% and the mortality rate in the town would be as low as 0.37 per cent. Germany

by fxj 7y ago

According to the Heinsberg Study in Germany, the infection rate was as high as 15% and the mortality rate in the town would be as low as 0.37 per cent. Germany launched the Heinsberg Protocol study to examine the rural town of Gangelt in the region of Heinsberg, where the first virus fatalities occurred. https://www.thenational.ae/world/germany-s-wuhan-has-15-per-cent-infection-rate-and-low-death-toll-1.1004050 https://www.thenational.ae/world/germany-s-wuhan-has-15-per-... During recent weeks, his team completed substantial research conducted through surveys and investigations in homes across the Heinsberg region - where more than 1,400 confirmed cases had been reported. Heinsberg has an approximate population of 250,000 inhabitants and has confirmed 46 coronavirus-related deaths. These research findings have already provided some indication on how the virus works, as Streeck clarified: “There is no significant risk of catching the disease when you go shopping. Severe outbreaks of the infection were always a result of people being closer together over a longer period of time, for example the après- ski parties in Ischgl, Austria.” He could also not find any evidence of ‘living’ viruses on surfaces. “When we took samples from door handles, phones or toilets it has not been possible to cultivate the virus in the laboratory on the basis of these swabs….” “To actually 'get' the virus it would be necessary that someone coughs into their hand, immediately touches a door knob and then straight after that another person grasps the handle and goes on to touches their face.” Streeck therefore believes that there is little chance of transmission through contact with so-called contaminated surfaces. https://today.rtl.lu/news/science-and-environment/a/1498185.html https://today.rtl.lu/news/science-and-environment/a/1498185....

tosh 7y ago
Just to add a bit more context regarding the now often cited study of Gangelt (some questions where raised re methodology and esp the policy conclusions): https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/heinsberg-studie-herdenimmunitaet-kritik-1.4873480 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/heinsberg-studie-herdenim... it is a good start & germany is doing now many more serological studies (also to monitor over time) and hopefully we'll soon gain more confidence re status quo and what it means
- bwb 7y ago
  Spain is doing one now with 30,000 families and Italy should have one finished soon.
Endlessly 7y ago
Any claim without sufficient data and reproducible results that the virus is unable to transfer via a surface, to me, borders on criminal negligence, given real research shows this is inaccurate. As a counter to claim virus is “unable to live on surfaces”: Virus was found 17-days after cabins on a cruise ship were vacated: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm Coronaviruses: How long can they survive on surfaces? https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/coronaviruses-how-long-can-they-survive-on-surfaces https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/coronaviruses-how-... First link is ambiguous as to if the samples taken were “toxic” enough to result in infection, but the second link makes it clear that virus survives on surfaces for days in quantities large enough to infect someone.
- fxj 7y ago
  Here is the link to actual publication (in german): https://www.land.nrw/sites/default/files/asset/document/zwischenergebnis_covid19_case_study_gangelt_0.pdf https://www.land.nrw/sites/default/files/asset/document/zwis...
  - endorphone 7y ago
    It's a two page summary. Note that this, and the accompanying press conference (with professional PR team) are it. That is the entirety of the details they have released.
    - klingonopera 7y ago
      The final bits of text indicate that the full study is to be published as soon as it's available. All statements made in the paper are marked with "vorläufig", which translates to preliminary. Considering the gravity of the situation, I don't think it's bad to provide preliminary results, but that's probably highly debatable.
      - xenonite 7y ago
        I agreee, but I find it highly problematic and even dubious that it’s now taken as factual by the mass media in Germany.
ajross 7y ago
That quote about shopping being safe doesn't seem to have much support, and frankly sounds very dangerous if taken too literally. In fact existing outbreaks COVID-19 are notably NOT solely due to "people being closer together over a longer period of time". Cases of completely untraced community infection are everywhere with this disease. > “To actually 'get' the virus it would be necessary that someone coughs into their hand, immediately touches a door knob and then straight after that another person grasps the handle and goes on to touches their face.” This is just simply not true. Fomite transmissibility was demonstrated back in January. I think what he's trying to say is that the chances of static infectious surfaces seem low and that close proximity to an infected person is still the most common vector. But the way you quoted it makes it sounds like you can't get it from a surface, and we know that's not true. Seriously, wash your hands, folks. And beware of selectively quoted articles telling you not to take obvious mitigation steps.
- fxj 7y ago
  Coronavirus research In early April 2020, Streeck and his team reported that they had "carried out an intensive search of the home of a family infected with the coronavirus but found no trace of it on surfaces."[18] “We did not find any live virus on any surface. Not on cellphones, not on taps, not on doorknobs.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Streeck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Streeck
  - ajross 7y ago
    One study of one family does not a public health policy make, was my point. Again, we know that this virus can be transmitted to surfaces by the infected. We know that it lives there for days and can be cultured. We do not know the fraction of real-world infections that take a fomite route vs. inhalation, and this study seems like evidence (albeit somewhat limited) that the number is very low. No one should be interpreting this as "you can't get sick from touching things". We don't know that. Even given this one study, that's not an appropriately conservative way to understand the disease, given the known stakes. Wash your hands.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
endorphone 7y ago
"According to the Heinsberg Study in Germany" This study and its conclusions have seen close to universal dismissal. It can't even demonstrate that it is actually detecting SARS-CoV-2 immunity (it was claiming results before anyone had even demonstrated effective tests for relevant antibodies), and not any of the many variations of coronavirus that spread during the colder months (yet which offer no immunity to SARS-CoV-2). The claims about shopping are...unsupported and go contrary to an enormous volume of evidence (namely the high R0). It isn't a good example of anything except that junk science has a moment to shine in a crisis. EDIT: LOL, -2. This is the moment I delete my account and find slightly less stupid venues to participate in. Cheers.
- fxj 7y ago
  The guy is not known for junk science: Professor Hendrik Streeck, director of the Institute of Virology at the University Hospital in Bonn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Streeck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Streeck Streeck studied medicine at the Charite University, Berlin and obtained his PhD from the University of Bonn, which he performed part-time at the Partners AIDS Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School. After his graduation Streeck started to work as a postdoctoral fellow at the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard. In 2009 he was promoted to Instructor in Medicine and in 2011 to Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School. In September 2012 he was recruited to the United States Military HIV Research Program, Bethesda, where he became the Chief of the Cellular Immunology Section as well as Assistant Professor at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences and adjunct faculty of the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University.[3] In 2015 he became the Chair for Medical Biology at the University Duisburg-Essen and founded the Institute for HIV Research in the same year,[4][5][6][7] though he still maintains the status of "visiting scientist" with the US Military HIV Research Program. In 2018 Streeck was appointed to the advisory board of the German AIDS Foundation (Deutsche AIDS Stiftung).[8] In April 2020, he was appointed by Minister-President Armin Laschet of North Rhine-Westphalia to a 12-member expert group to advise on economic and social consequences of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Germany.[9] Coronavirus research In early April 2020, Streeck and his team reported that they had "carried out an intensive search of the home of a family infected with the coronavirus but found no trace of it on surfaces."[18] “We did not find any live virus on any surface. Not on cellphones, not on taps, not on doorknobs.”
xenonite 7y ago
I am not sure if it’s even possible to give the fatality rate before everything is over because we don’t know if an infected patient eventually dies from the disease with a long delay. This is why I totally expect a fatality rate that is higher than we can observe today.
- pmontra 7y ago
  Even after it's over we'll probably never know how many people got infected and were never tested nor showed any symptoms.
  - xenonite 7y ago
    Anyhow, in this case it should not count as a SARS-CoV-2 fatality, so this doesn't affect the fatality rate.
    - nitrogen 7y ago
      An asymptomatic infection should still count as an infection, so it should lower the infection fatality rate. I don't have expertise in this area, but I think both infected fatality rate and symptomatic fatality rate are useful.
      - xenonite 7y ago
        For the study, they tested a representative sample that includes asymptomatic cases. Hence, one can assume a known, constant number of infected cases. And to complete the study they should, as far as I understand it, wait until they know how many of those infected die in order to calculate the fatality rate. I don’t think it’s relevant here if further people are infected after testing for the illness, and there shouldn’t be a need to monitor the new cases or even check if they die (it shouldn’t be necessary for the study).
  - rimliu 7y ago
    That's what serological tests are for.
ping_pong 7y ago
The recent case of 45/60 choir members contracting coronavirus after actively practicing social distancing contradicts this unusually confident assertion that it's hard to contract the disease.
- xenonite 7y ago
  Source?
  - klingonopera 7y ago
    https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/coronavirus-choir-outbreak https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/corona...
    - xenonite 7y ago
      Thank you.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- usaar333 7y ago
  Singing for 2 hours in a crowded indoor setting hardly qualifies as social distancing.
- nostromo 7y ago
  When you’re singing loudly, full-throated, with deep breathing... that seems like an ideal scenario for a respiratory illness that might not mean much for the general population.
- gruturo 7y ago
  A choir is literally a spit fest. I'm surprised it's not 60/60.
- gruez 7y ago
  That seems consistent with GP's claim. I'd classify 2.5 hours of choir practice in the same risk category as a ski party, considering that the choir members are standing next to each other, constantly ejecting virus particles, and taking deep breaths.
quaquaqua1 7y ago
>immediately cough into their hand, touch door knob, then someone else touches door knob and then their face Ah yes so the single men's bathroom at my office of 250 people!
morgengold 7y ago
There is substantial criticism mounting directed at the Heinsberg study [1] - Immunity tests used might have shown false positives. So the 15% might be too high. - Results of the highly infected town Gangelt are not transferable to whole Germany with lower infection rates. - The author of the study is inflicted with a marketing agency, which is at least uncommon in science. Own comment: The danger SARS-Cov19 remains in the speed of spreading due to missing herd immunity (in contrast to the common flu). 0.37 per cent is still a lot. USA: 327,200,000*0.37% = 1,210,640. Social distancing remains the single most effective tool. [1] https://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2020-04/heinsberg-studie-coronavirus-hendrik-streeck-storymachine-kai-diekmann/ https://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2020-04/heinsberg-stud...
- guscost 7y ago
  There is always substantial criticism of any minority position in science, it's a subculture full of bullshit politics like any other. Also see my other comment - 15% could just as easily be too low: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22835310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22835310
  - morgengold 7y ago
    Yes, but in this case the criticism comes from the majority position. Not in a harsh way, but still. Regarding your other comment about the 15%. You might have a point. But I'm not into this topic deep enough for any kind of judgement.
blub 7y ago
It took a couple of months for the Robert Koch institute to figure out what masks are good for. Let's give Dr. Streek some time to figure out how fomite transmission works.

by fxj 7y ago

tosh 7y ago

Just to add a bit more context regarding the now often cited study of Gangelt (some questions where raised re methodology and esp the policy conclusions): https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/heinsberg-studie-herdenimmunitaet-kritik-1.4873480 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/heinsberg-studie-herdenim... it is a good start & germany is doing now many more serological studies (also to monitor over time) and hopefully we'll soon gain more confidence re status quo and what it means

bwb 7y ago
Spain is doing one now with 30,000 families and Italy should have one finished soon.

Endlessly 7y ago

Any claim without sufficient data and reproducible results that the virus is unable to transfer via a surface, to me, borders on criminal negligence, given real research shows this is inaccurate. As a counter to claim virus is “unable to live on surfaces”: Virus was found 17-days after cabins on a cruise ship were vacated: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm Coronaviruses: How long can they survive on surfaces? https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/coronaviruses-how-long-can-they-survive-on-surfaces https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/coronaviruses-how-... First link is ambiguous as to if the samples taken were “toxic” enough to result in infection, but the second link makes it clear that virus survives on surfaces for days in quantities large enough to infect someone.

fxj 7y ago
Here is the link to actual publication (in german): https://www.land.nrw/sites/default/files/asset/document/zwischenergebnis_covid19_case_study_gangelt_0.pdf https://www.land.nrw/sites/default/files/asset/document/zwis...
- endorphone 7y ago
  It's a two page summary. Note that this, and the accompanying press conference (with professional PR team) are it. That is the entirety of the details they have released.
  - klingonopera 7y ago
    The final bits of text indicate that the full study is to be published as soon as it's available. All statements made in the paper are marked with "vorläufig", which translates to preliminary. Considering the gravity of the situation, I don't think it's bad to provide preliminary results, but that's probably highly debatable.
    - xenonite 7y ago
      I agreee, but I find it highly problematic and even dubious that it’s now taken as factual by the mass media in Germany.

ajross 7y ago

That quote about shopping being safe doesn't seem to have much support, and frankly sounds very dangerous if taken too literally. In fact existing outbreaks COVID-19 are notably NOT solely due to "people being closer together over a longer period of time". Cases of completely untraced community infection are everywhere with this disease. > “To actually 'get' the virus it would be necessary that someone coughs into their hand, immediately touches a door knob and then straight after that another person grasps the handle and goes on to touches their face.” This is just simply not true. Fomite transmissibility was demonstrated back in January. I think what he's trying to say is that the chances of static infectious surfaces seem low and that close proximity to an infected person is still the most common vector. But the way you quoted it makes it sounds like you can't get it from a surface, and we know that's not true. Seriously, wash your hands, folks. And beware of selectively quoted articles telling you not to take obvious mitigation steps.

fxj 7y ago
Coronavirus research In early April 2020, Streeck and his team reported that they had "carried out an intensive search of the home of a family infected with the coronavirus but found no trace of it on surfaces."[18] “We did not find any live virus on any surface. Not on cellphones, not on taps, not on doorknobs.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Streeck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Streeck
- ajross 7y ago
  One study of one family does not a public health policy make, was my point. Again, we know that this virus can be transmitted to surfaces by the infected. We know that it lives there for days and can be cultured. We do not know the fraction of real-world infections that take a fomite route vs. inhalation, and this study seems like evidence (albeit somewhat limited) that the number is very low. No one should be interpreting this as "you can't get sick from touching things". We don't know that. Even given this one study, that's not an appropriately conservative way to understand the disease, given the known stakes. Wash your hands.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

endorphone 7y ago

"According to the Heinsberg Study in Germany" This study and its conclusions have seen close to universal dismissal. It can't even demonstrate that it is actually detecting SARS-CoV-2 immunity (it was claiming results before anyone had even demonstrated effective tests for relevant antibodies), and not any of the many variations of coronavirus that spread during the colder months (yet which offer no immunity to SARS-CoV-2). The claims about shopping are...unsupported and go contrary to an enormous volume of evidence (namely the high R0). It isn't a good example of anything except that junk science has a moment to shine in a crisis. EDIT: LOL, -2. This is the moment I delete my account and find slightly less stupid venues to participate in. Cheers.

fxj 7y ago
The guy is not known for junk science: Professor Hendrik Streeck, director of the Institute of Virology at the University Hospital in Bonn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Streeck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Streeck Streeck studied medicine at the Charite University, Berlin and obtained his PhD from the University of Bonn, which he performed part-time at the Partners AIDS Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School. After his graduation Streeck started to work as a postdoctoral fellow at the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard. In 2009 he was promoted to Instructor in Medicine and in 2011 to Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School. In September 2012 he was recruited to the United States Military HIV Research Program, Bethesda, where he became the Chief of the Cellular Immunology Section as well as Assistant Professor at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences and adjunct faculty of the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University.[3] In 2015 he became the Chair for Medical Biology at the University Duisburg-Essen and founded the Institute for HIV Research in the same year,[4][5][6][7] though he still maintains the status of "visiting scientist" with the US Military HIV Research Program. In 2018 Streeck was appointed to the advisory board of the German AIDS Foundation (Deutsche AIDS Stiftung).[8] In April 2020, he was appointed by Minister-President Armin Laschet of North Rhine-Westphalia to a 12-member expert group to advise on economic and social consequences of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Germany.[9] Coronavirus research In early April 2020, Streeck and his team reported that they had "carried out an intensive search of the home of a family infected with the coronavirus but found no trace of it on surfaces."[18] “We did not find any live virus on any surface. Not on cellphones, not on taps, not on doorknobs.”

xenonite 7y ago

I am not sure if it’s even possible to give the fatality rate before everything is over because we don’t know if an infected patient eventually dies from the disease with a long delay. This is why I totally expect a fatality rate that is higher than we can observe today.

pmontra 7y ago
Even after it's over we'll probably never know how many people got infected and were never tested nor showed any symptoms.
- xenonite 7y ago
  Anyhow, in this case it should not count as a SARS-CoV-2 fatality, so this doesn't affect the fatality rate.
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    An asymptomatic infection should still count as an infection, so it should lower the infection fatality rate. I don't have expertise in this area, but I think both infected fatality rate and symptomatic fatality rate are useful.
    - xenonite 7y ago
      For the study, they tested a representative sample that includes asymptomatic cases. Hence, one can assume a known, constant number of infected cases. And to complete the study they should, as far as I understand it, wait until they know how many of those infected die in order to calculate the fatality rate. I don’t think it’s relevant here if further people are infected after testing for the illness, and there shouldn’t be a need to monitor the new cases or even check if they die (it shouldn’t be necessary for the study).
- rimliu 7y ago
  That's what serological tests are for.

ping_pong 7y ago

The recent case of 45/60 choir members contracting coronavirus after actively practicing social distancing contradicts this unusually confident assertion that it's hard to contract the disease.

xenonite 7y ago
Source?
- klingonopera 7y ago
  https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/coronavirus-choir-outbreak https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/corona...
  - xenonite 7y ago
    Thank you.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
usaar333 7y ago
Singing for 2 hours in a crowded indoor setting hardly qualifies as social distancing.
nostromo 7y ago
When you’re singing loudly, full-throated, with deep breathing... that seems like an ideal scenario for a respiratory illness that might not mean much for the general population.
gruturo 7y ago
A choir is literally a spit fest. I'm surprised it's not 60/60.
gruez 7y ago
That seems consistent with GP's claim. I'd classify 2.5 hours of choir practice in the same risk category as a ski party, considering that the choir members are standing next to each other, constantly ejecting virus particles, and taking deep breaths.

quaquaqua1 7y ago

>immediately cough into their hand, touch door knob, then someone else touches door knob and then their face Ah yes so the single men's bathroom at my office of 250 people!

morgengold 7y ago

There is substantial criticism mounting directed at the Heinsberg study [1] - Immunity tests used might have shown false positives. So the 15% might be too high. - Results of the highly infected town Gangelt are not transferable to whole Germany with lower infection rates. - The author of the study is inflicted with a marketing agency, which is at least uncommon in science. Own comment: The danger SARS-Cov19 remains in the speed of spreading due to missing herd immunity (in contrast to the common flu). 0.37 per cent is still a lot. USA: 327,200,000*0.37% = 1,210,640. Social distancing remains the single most effective tool. [1] https://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2020-04/heinsberg-studie-coronavirus-hendrik-streeck-storymachine-kai-diekmann/ https://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2020-04/heinsberg-stud...

guscost 7y ago
There is always substantial criticism of any minority position in science, it's a subculture full of bullshit politics like any other. Also see my other comment - 15% could just as easily be too low: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22835310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22835310
- morgengold 7y ago
  Yes, but in this case the criticism comes from the majority position. Not in a harsh way, but still. Regarding your other comment about the 15%. You might have a point. But I'm not into this topic deep enough for any kind of judgement.

blub 7y ago

It took a couple of months for the Robert Koch institute to figure out what masks are good for. Let's give Dr. Streek some time to figure out how fomite transmission works.