Whose line is it uk cast anyway

Clemens Heni

From Dr. phil. Clemens Heni, May 17, 2021

Yesterday I sent the letter below privately to Mr. Forgó and Ms. Guérot, who both got back to me yesterday evening. Since I found Mr. Forgó's answer not very productive, I think that in the very small and modest framework of the readers of my blog (compared to the number of hits on the video in question), this letter as an open letter could possibly be stimulating to think about the relationship between numbers, panic, basic rights and democracy.

It should be about evidence-based medicine and this also includes using numbers as rationally as possible and making yourself and others aware of how high or low the de facto risk of developing Covid-19 or even getting seriously ill or even to die.

Even if the risk were great, the question remains whether restrictions on fundamental rights are permissible in a democracy, since it not only ignores but affirms the victims who perish as a result of these restrictions. Merkel and politicians never asked this question and never really discussed it in society.

I had philosophical, metaphysical and other political questions in the epilogue to the volume I edited in mid-October 2020, “Dangerous Address. How government politics, a non-evidence based virology and conspiracy maniacs are tearing up democratic society "

put in words like this:

Epilogue: Even If

Even if Corona were a plague, governments around the world have acted wrong. We could all have come together for one last meal, one last lavish party, one last reading to ourselves, one last sketch, one last piece of music, a soccer game, a theater performance, a dawn, a flat-top soup or a seven-course meal. It would have been bad luck and very sad if a civilization disease or natural disaster had struck us all and there was no salvation like the medieval plague. But just then the human being would have to show itself, which is characterized by culture, art and the exhaustion, waste, the potlatch. That would require mature, self-determined and sovereign people. There is no such thing in patriarchal-capitalist society. The atomized sausages fidget and zap around alone in front of the multimedia devices, look again at “Mutti” or the Bavarian “Crown Prince” and think that everything is “without alternative” and died miserably. Will people ever learn again what it means to be human? Did you ever know

Whether 2.5 million people in the Global South died of hunger, disease, exhaustion etc. by the beginning of 2021 (as a Swedish study and a Swedish film try to show) that were caused by the lockdown policy, that is for almost everyone Not an issue in this country, I recently brought it up again.

This is also a background for the discussion about numbers - because if the people in this country did not have such unprecedented panic - a fear specifically produced by the German government, as we know - then the world would probably look different today. Corona is a danger - but not a greater danger than the lockdown policy. The lockdown policy leads to unemployment, psychological problems of unimaginable proportions and that will lead to many deaths, sooner or later, this also applies to the millions of postponed operations and examinations in Europe and the world.

Almost all of the mainstream ignores that. In the meantime, old people are hardly at risk, because they have been vaccinated or otherwise immune - but the “measures” are more irrational and totalitarian than ever before. If you could travel through Europe without any problems in 2020, it will be almost impossible in 2021 for the self-thinking and non-vaccinated part of the population. If you were able to go to a restaurant in the summer of 2020 without any problems, in 2021 this will be linked to tests or even vaccinations and showing to any block attendant or “security officer” medical documents such as recovery, vaccination, illness, which are subject to the information confidentiality of citizens. If you could go to all kinds of shops in 2020, that will no longer be possible in 2021 without a test, vaccination, etc., should the shops even open again. The danger was greater in 2020 than it is today, but the “measures” in 2021 are even more irrational, authoritarian and aim to lash down the final transition or the toxic amalgamation of the disciplinary society and the control society. Digital capitalism will monitor us 24/7, quasi Chinese conditions, disguised as democratic “measures” for the benefit of all.

And in my opinion that is primarily a result of the unbelievable panic that is very much linked to numbers. Hence this open letter.

It is a pleasure for me as a political scientist that Ulrike Guérot, one of the most famous political scientists in Europe, is taking a counter-position to lockdown fetishism and against the suspension of democracy and advocates vehemently and eloquently for fundamental rights, for critical discourse and for rational risk assessment.

I would also like to refer to another longer interview by Elisabeth Scharang with Ulrike Guérot on May 10, 2021, which is full of content in terms of democratic theory, jurisprudence and legal sociology and awaits a separate critical appraisal.

 

Dear Ms. Guérot,

Dear Mr. Forgó,

I am interested in your discussion

Ars Boni 148 - Assessments of the state of Europe after the pandemic and possible conclusions

watched.

I am a political scientist (Dr. phil., With Prof. Anton Pelinka in Innsbruck, then post-doc at Yale), an expert on political culture in Germany, on right-wing extremism and anti-Semitism. But in the 1990s I also studied with Prof. Ivan Illich in Bremen, one of the most famous medical researchers. Hence my relation to public health. Since March 2020 I have published over 100 texts and so far two books on Corona (May 2020 and October 2020).

In particular, I share many of Ms. Guérot's assessments in your very informative conversation and I find her insistence on fundamental rights, European Citizenship and especially your emphasis on the fact that fundamental rights have not been linked to anything and that you did not have to prove that you are healthy, elementary.

A few comments on the side, such as Ulrike Guérot's skepticism regarding the existence of conspiracy myths about Corona, which do exist and which are dangerous, or your mention that the “Pandora's box” would only now be opened, in my opinion also happened Lockdown one in March 2020, I would discuss critically, but that now led me away from the concern in this letter.

Until now, in a constitutional state or a democracy, you didn't have to prove to someone else whether you were healthy in order to go to a sauna, Ulrike Guérot, rightly. Thank you for these clarifications.

What really irritated me then was a remark from you, Mr. Forgó: When it came to the risk of Covid-19, you said that one in 50 would die from it.

What do you mean? They said literally: “… I have a 1:50 chance of dying from Corona and if I'm over 80, a 1: 2 chance” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ7NatCkH3o (from min . 49:29).

As far as I can see, this is empirically wrong and extremely wrong. They obviously take the whole of society as a basis, and if I stay somewhere, like in a sauna, I would have a 1:50 chance of getting infected and dying there.

Why did you say that? What are your sources?

Do you seriously mean that out of 50 people who are in an indoor swimming pool or sauna, one dies of corona? That would be mathematically complete madness. Because calculated on the total population, so far one in 976 people died “from” or “with” Covid-19 (85,000 deaths out of 83 million inhabitants in Germany). But that is very rough, has nothing to do with mortality from infections (and this will only be the issue) and we will have to refine this calculation of mortality significantly and put it into perspective. We will see how small the probability really is for you as a man in your early 50s of dying from or even with Corona.

So I think you expressed yourself at least unhappy and very confusing.

Even more: 1: 976 is calculated on two flu seasons, because it would be scientifically correct to let a flu wave such as 2017/18 run from autumn to spring. Then a new season begins.

But for reasons that we do not know, Corona has simply counted from March 2020 until today, which has not been done with any flu so far. But only by the way.

Again: your claim that one in 50 would die of Corona - where did you get this number from?

First: In epidemiological research, a distinction is made between infectious mortality (IFR) and case mortality (CFR). The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) only specifies the CFR. But we know from the only relevant study from Germany - the legendary Gangelt-Heinsberg study by Streeck from April 2020 - that the IFR is 0.37 percent. The team at the University of Bonn found this out through antibody tests in the blood and precisely not on the basis of the official “cases”.

In other words: A much larger group than expected had contact with SARS-CoV-2. Hence the IFR of 0.37 percent. Dozens of studies around the world have empirically verified similarly low IFRs. That would be around 23 million "cases" in Germany. I.e. 1: 270 calculated infection mortality. However, this is completely distorting, since the risk for children and young people is as good as zero, for under 60-year-olds also minimal, but exorbitantly higher for old and very old and sick people, but it is not extremely dramatic for the elderly either , since we had almost no excess mortality in Germany in 2020 (according to the Federal Statistical Office, good example: Frankfurt am Main).

The WHO then assumed an IFR of 0.23 percent worldwide in October 2020. Prof. John Ioannidis from Stanford University, published by the WHO, has examined further studies on IFR worldwide and we currently have an IFR of 0.15 percent.

So your statement that the chance of dying from Corona is 1:50, dear Mr. Forgó, is not only dramatically wrong if we relate it to the total population - which you did because you did not differentiate which Population group you base this 1:50 on - no, it is also wrong if we limit the number base to the official numbers of the RKI.

In Germany, even based on the incorrect CFR, only 20.1 percent of those over 80 years of age died "from" or only "with" Corona (57,542 of 285,066 "cases"), although they often have massive previous illnesses, like almost all Covid- 19 deaths (let's remember the first 100 autopsied deaths in Hamburg - the first autopsies of this kind worldwide, Prof. Püschel, where there was not a dead person who did not have several serious previous illnesses).

Your misjudgment regarding going to the sauna is even more drastic, because Ms. Guérot was concerned with that. According to statistics, in 2020 74 percent of all sauna visitors were younger than 60 years and only 10 percent older than 70 years:

https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/272546/umfrage/sauna-und-dampfbadgaenger-in-deutschland-nach-alter/.

And for young people under 60, even the far too high and unscientific case mortality or Case Fatality Rate (CFR) for Corona in Germany is only 0.12 percent, i.e. 1: 800 (3456 deaths “on” or “with” Corona from 2,766,843 “cases”).

https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1103904/umfrage/corona-infektiven-covid-19-in-deutschland-nach-altersgruppe/

Of the official figures from the RKI, there are 1,360,345 cases between the ages of 35 and 59 in mid-May (period: March 1, 2020 to May 14, 2021). Of these, 2592 died “of” or “with” Covid-19, that is 0.19 percent or 1: 520.

Even with these very official numbers of the RKI you are completely wrong with 1:50.

According to international epidemiological research, the scientifically correct and actually more realistic depicting infection mortality (IFR) - it's all about that, not the arbitrary number of PCR tests that were positive and that allow the case mortality to be calculated - is still significantly lower , in which we all, be we lawyers or political scientists, have to work something if we want to say something substantive about numbers and Corona. I don't know whether I, as a non-mathematician, can do it better than you, Mr Forgó, but in my opinion your panic number 1:50 is categorical and extremely wrong, as I am trying to explain.

Numbers are only part of the story, the core - Ms. Guérot points this out again and again, also in your conversation, are fundamental rights and democracy. They are never negotiable or should never have been, but almost all fundamental rights have been suspended since March 2020.

Even in a real crisis one should have acted differently than a democrat - and Corona was medical never a real crisis, mortality is in the range of severe flu (even the RKI admits), the hospitals were never overloaded (even Spahn admits that), not even in Sweden or Florida, where there is no lockdown and never one Mask compulsory and Florida suspended most of the blatant “measures” in September 2020 and has significantly fewer deaths than many hardcore lockdown states such as New York or New Jersey, and Sweden has had up to four for months (in terms of the largest population) Times fewer deaths than Germany and, since March 2020, significantly fewer deaths than Spain, UK, Italy, France, Belgium etc., all mask and lockdown countries. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/; https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/.

But the basic rights are in quarantine, as Heribert Prantl pointedly says. That was Ulrike Guérot's tenor and that was very enlightening, even if you notice that you don't trust it and that you have little argument to oppose it, Mr. Forgó. In addition, I would add, since March 2020 there has been an unprecedented metaphysical helplessness and downright embarrassing death panic of adults who are empirically not at risk at all (you could already know in February 2020 in view of the ship Princess Diamond).

The brutal thing is that an extremely eloquent and ice cold, not evidence-based elite from government, media, Twitter users and the pharmaceutical industry as well as certain medical associations, who are downright subservient to the virological eminence, manage to create a situation that is actually community-based, where minorities and critics * inside did not and do not have the slightest chance. There was and is not a large or small daily newspaper that campaigned against lockdowns, irrational mask madness, the compulsory testing, quarantine of healthy people or even the compulsory vaccination from the beginning or at all, from TV stations or the radio we don't even want to talk.

That's why #allesdichtmachen was such a sensational success and was attacked so insanely primitive by almost all media (ironic this time that the Springer Group was more open to criticism than everyone else).

Above all, however, your panic number of 1:50 is the problem. In other words: Even the RKI's certainly far too high numbers say that of the 35-59 year olds in Germany only one in 520 died “of” or “with” Covid-19, that is, 2592 deaths “of” or “with” ”Corona (Covid-19) of 1,360,345“ infected ”or“ cases ”. 1: 520 and never 1:50.

Even the mainstream speaks of having died “to” or “with” Corona because the cause of death is not clear, only the positive PCR test is available, which in turn is scientifically questionable as long as the Ct value is above 27/28 and no clinical diagnosis of Covid-19 disease is available.

If we take all "cases" from 0 to 59 years, the CFR is even lower, at 0.12 percent or 1: 840 (3456 deaths "on" or "with" Covid-19 out of 2,740,039 "cases") .

So if we use Gangelt's infectious mortality as a benchmark, i.e. 0.37 percent

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19509-y,

then that would mean that we currently have or had approx. 23 million corona cases in Germany with 85,000 deaths “from” Covid-19 or only “with” a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, and not just those official approx. 3.6 million “cases” from March 2020 to mid-May 2021

https://www.corona-in-zahlen.de/weltweit/deutschland/.

At the WHO IFR of 0.23 percent, there would even be almost 37 million in Germany who came into contact with Corona and almost all of them did not notice anything, but have acquired antibody immunity or anyway (according to the University of Tübingen) 80 -percent T cells cross immunity due to previous contact with corona viruses.

So if we assume, as the Gangelt study or the working group around Prof. Matthias Schrappe, the WHO and Ioannidis do, that many more people came into contact with Corona than officially stated, we only take the factor 6, then lies the infection mortality among people aged 35-59 years is 0.03 percent (2592 deaths "from" or "with" Corona of 8,162,070 "infections", that is 6 times the value of the official 1,360,345 "cases") , which means a CFR of 0.19, i.e. a person of 520 - also miles away from your number 1:50).

The infectious mortality of the 35-59 year old group is therefore 3 in 10,000 or 1: 3333 - not 1:50, as you said. Do you understand what I mean? I can be mathematically wrong, then I ask for correction, we all make mistakes at times, that's only human (Such a slogan costs 5 € in the Sparschweinderl), absolutely clear.

In this mega-crisis we have experienced so unspeakable things, so much rejection of evidence-based medicine, so many wrong numbers and wrong bars and diagrams, so much planned incitement to the people (keyword "panic paper" by Horst Seehofer and the BMI, which is part of ' Scientists' like the RKI was appointed in March 2020) and so much non-discussion about the unbelievable collateral damage and collateral deaths of the lockdown policy (which represent a multiple of the coronavirus deaths, especially in the Global South) that we often no longer know what what is really human, what is totalitarian, what is irrational and what is unconstitutional.

Never since 1945 has the world been so irrational, so out of joint as it is today. And the normal state of 2019 was bad enough, but NO comparison with what has happened here and around the world since March 2020. And that is primarily due to contextless numbers. And, in my opinion, in numbers like the ones you put out in this video, Mr Forgó.

So again: How did you get this panic number that one in 50 would die of Corona, Mr. Forgó? What kind of number is that supposed to be?

To supplement that with official figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from the USA: The probability of being hospitalized for Corona is a whopping 3200 times higher for people over 75 than for the reference group of 5 to 17 year olds. For over 85-year-olds, the risk of Covid-19 is 8700 times higher than for 5-17-year-olds. This is also so important because it shows how pointless and perfidious vaccination of children and adolescents is. It only stirs up panic, although almost no child died of Corona (I've written about it).

The 50-64 year olds are 440 times more likely to Covid to be hospitalized as the reference group of young people, according to the CDC. And even for the 50-64 year old, the probability is extremely low.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/older-adults.html

According to the WHO, we already had around 750 million cases in October 2020 and not just 36 million, as it was officially called - currently we have not only 163 million "cases", but probably 2 billion, which shows how relatively harmless Corona is. That is why serious researchers like the Great Barrington Declaration, epidemiological stars of the scene, so to speak, demand protection of the elderly and vulnerable and they oppose lockdowns, mask madness or compulsory vaccination (without vaccination for those who want them and for them reject endangered groups).

For comparison: the 1969/70 Hong Kong flu had an IFR of 0.29 percent in Germany, says the RKI. According to the WHO, Corona has an IFR between 0.15 and 0.23 percent. Doesn't one become skeptical about the allegedly unprecedented situation due to Corona?

Short speech, long meaning, dear Mr. Forgó:

Your statement, “… I have a 1:50 chance of dying from Corona” is, in my opinion, completely wrong empirically. I would ask you to explain this publicly, how you come up with your number and to orient yourself on the epidemiological research and the official figures from WHO and RKI, both of which do not support this panicked number that you are spreading, neither based on the CFR nor the IFR.

Again the WHO:

In people <70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%. -

This is what the WHO, the World Health Organization, says, one in 2000 “infected” people, that is 0.05 percent, dies under the age of 70 “from” or “with” Covid-19.

https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf.

1: 2000 - This is a completely different number, empirically proven and scientifically confirmed, than the panic number of 1:50 you threw into the room.

The mortality from Corona for people under 60 - and that's what we're talking about here - is somewhere between the non-scientific number 1: 520 CFR for the age group 35-59 years (and that is a WHOLE different number than your 1:50 ), 1: 976 based on the total population, 1: 2000 based on the IFR according to WHO for people under 70, and the most realistic number 1: 3333 based on the IFR of 35-59 year-olds of 0.03 percent (your and our age group and your risk, Mr. Forgó, is what your video is all about), extrapolated from the "hard case numbers" of 35 to 59 year olds in Germany.

These are all completely different numbers than what I believe to be non-evidence-based, non-scientific and arbitrary panic number from you of 1:50.

This is the news of the day: 1:3333 instead of 1:50 - this is the realistic probability of dying “from” or “with” Covid-19 as a person under 60 years of age.

Since this number 1:50 has not been contradicted by you, Ms. Guérot, if I have listened correctly (although you know for sure that this number has nothing to do with reality), I wanted to make it clear that this number is completely unscientific and has not been empirically proven or underlines that you, Mr. Forgó, did not make it clear how you came to this number.

Do you understand what I mean, dear Ms. Guérot and dear Mr. Forgó?

With best regards,

Clemens Heni

 

Views: 9