How to be a Single Subtritrate Online
Epidemiologist Friedrich Pürner: "Educate the people you vaccinate well"
Epidemiologist and public health specialist Dr. Friedrich Pürner was the head of the health department in Aichach-Friedberg near Augsburg. After he had already expressed himself critical of some points of the corona policy last autumn, an involuntary professional change to the State Institute for Health in Oberschleissheim followed.
Pürner is anything but a corona denier. Rather, he criticizes the handling of the virus from a professional point of view. For example, he does not see a sufficient basis for the official narrative of a "third wave". Across from RT DE he said:
"You have to know that the flu wave is precisely defined. (...) We don't have that with Corona. We test people and the positive laboratory reports are added up. In this respect, there is no clear definition of what a wave is with regard to Corona. (...) A few cases can be graphically represented wonderfully with a wave. I don't like the word 'wave'. There's something so dramatic about it and it just scares people. "
Pürner also does not go along with the constant warning of new virus mutations. Instead, it is actually a good sign when viruses mutate. As a rule, this would make them more contagious, but they would also become less dangerous. "But that will help us to end the pandemic more quickly," he explains. The doctor sees the focus on so-called incidence values as particularly problematic when it comes to deciding on the continuation of lockdowns. Pürner explains:
"That is a political value. The word itself did not exist before Corona either. (...) You simply cannot deduce anything from this value. (...) If we say 50 per 100,000, then that means yes only that we get 50 positive reports (...) per 100,000 inhabitants. But we don't know whether these 50 positives are really sick and how badly they are. So we have no statement at all as to the extent to which the health system is burdened, whether they are Individuals are symptomatic. So, those incidence limits in themselves bring relatively little. "
Statements such as that of Karl Lauterbach in mid-January, according to which without lockdowns up to 0.6 percent of people in Germany (that would be around half a million) would have died, he cannot gain anything. Pürner says:
"That is just another assumption that is made here. And if this assumption does not come true, as it is now, then one speaks of the so-called prevention paradox. In principle, a mistake is made here. Because: It is very unlikely that all people in Germany would be infected (...), especially not at the same time. (...) I cannot support this assumption. "
In this way, Pürner cannot recognize the overburdening of the health system, which is often brought up in the field, apart from isolated stresses in individual hospitals. The "Quality Medicine Initiative" (IQM), for example, "clearly demonstrated in mid-February that the number of ventilated patients in the hospital has decreased compared to the other years". Pürner assesses the obligation to wear face masks as follows:
"The mask alone does not provide protection, but handling this mask also provides protection. And I very much doubt that private individuals can handle the mask in this way. You have to learn something like that. (...) The question is really: Do you need it these masks actually? And then I think: No, you don't need them. Because people can't handle them. And the effectiveness (...) in public spaces or outdoors, I'm relatively skeptical. "
The former medical officer is generally positive about the topic of vaccinations. However:
"We have to be able to tell the people we vaccinate: What are the risks of the vaccination? What are the side effects of the vaccination? And above all: What is the benefit of the vaccination? And then we have to be able to weigh things up and say: This vaccination brings you something or: This vaccination has a disadvantage for you. (...) I can only recommend and advise every doctor: Please educate the people you are vaccinating. "
He gave a clear refusal to consider giving vaccinated people advantages over unvaccinated people. Because this is about fundamental rights. And you generally have that, even without a vaccination. He thinks the debate is "very, very dangerous" and is sure:
"If we keep the [debate] going, it will divide society even further and politics will massively, massively lose trust."
Otherwise, he has received a lot of encouragement from medical colleagues, for example when it comes to assessing the lockdown. However, there are also different approaches to other issues, such as vaccination. However, there is one thing that preoccupies him in the collegial exchange:
"What I find particularly bad is that none of the colleagues really dare to take a public position. Because they are all afraid of being discredited and devalued. And I actually think that now in 2021 is really a very, very ugly process . "
more on the subject - After criticism of Söder's corona strategy: the head of the health department is being transferred as a penalty
- Who is Farrakhan's wife
- Where are Torelli aluminum bikes
- What does pwned words mean
- How to shrink images in Indesign
- How to change the language of the Outlook folder
- Abuelito who poetic device definition
- Chupa Chups mini lollipops wholesale
- What happened to Pastor Connie Madubuko
- Tomix 6421 Binding Instructions
- What is the toggenburg bible 1411
- Riwiera olimpijska grecja przewodnik duchowy
- T125 70d15 specifications howard
- Who is Optik Nadeshot's girlfriend
- Who is actor Lisa Arrindell Anderson's husband
- Esl holistic approach to language activity director
- What does Zin Uru
- What does Arrivederci Bella mean
- Hong Kong Police Shau Kei Wan Wholesale
- How VMware Drs works in the background check
- 22 Clark Drive Howell NJ Patch
- Instructions for tying the Meyster bike carrier
- Big nose Bollywood actors who have died
- The rum diary of what happened to chenault
- Marks the damn Howard stern spot