The Flaws of the Covid Narrative — an Overview of the Evidence
It has been almost a year since Covid-19 was declared a pandemic — an event which still continues to affect almost every aspect of our life. The public discourse surrounding Covid-19 has unfortunately barely changed over time — its one-sidedness is threatening to invoke a giant paradigm shift in society, in spite of the mounting scientific evidence which suggests that this is most likely unnecessary and also extremely harmful. This article aims to balance out the discourse by pointing out the flaws of the current widespread narrative of Covid-19 being an exceptionally high public health threat, backed up by numerous scientific sources and arguments.
The blurry beginning of the pandemic
Even today, the alleged beginning of the pandemic remains obscure. The official narrative states that the disease Covid-19 came to be in December 2019 in the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, China. The causative agent of the disease, a virus classified as a beta-coronavirus, back then called 2019-nCoV and now known as SARS-CoV-2 or simply “the coronavirus”, was allegedly transmitted from a mammal to a human for the first time. This idea that the Seafood Market became the “ground zero” of the Covid-19 pandemic in December 2019 is nothing but a fragile speculation aggressively spread by the mainstream media.
An article published in the medical journal The Lancet [1] is usually the basis of this speculation. As stated in the article, by January the 2nd, 2020, out of 41 hospital patients in Wuhan in which the virus was identified, 27 had been at the seafood market while the remaining 14 had no connection to the seafood market at all. Afterwards, on January the 27th, 585 environmental samples have been taken from the market and in 33 of them, fragments of the nucleic acid of the virus was detected [2].
The article by itself does not explicitly state that the first occurrence of the disease Covid-19 in humans happened in December 2019 in Wuhan, but it nevertheless seems to be as the basis of the corresponding global consensus. Various later findings imply that this is highly unlikely the case and that the virus had been circulating the world much earlier.
Besides the political question of the trustworthiness of Chinese authorities, there are numerous factors not taken into consideration. Wuhan is not just a gigantic city with a population of 11 million but also has high air pollution [3,4]. The reliability of the viral detection methods back then was very low. Domestic and wild animals are known to host many other viruses (including coronaviruses) [5, 6], indicating that the detection methods used in the environmental samples may have reacted to those viruses too. Now that it is evident that Covid-19 is no impending doom upon us and that the majority of positively tested individuals have mild symptoms or no symptoms at all [7, 8, 9] and that the symptoms are diverse and hard to distinguish from other respiratory illnesses [10], it is extremely unlikely that the virus was detected soon after the first human ever was infected by it. Since only a minority of infected people require hospital treatment, the virus must spread widely before a noticeable number of hospitalizations occur due to it. Besides these logical implications, there is more concrete evidence suggesting a far earlier spread of the virus. Viral fragments of the coronavirus have been detected in waste water samples in Italy dating back to December 2019 [11], patient respiratory samples dating back to December 2019 in France [12] and the US [13], antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory probes dating back to September 2019 in Italy [14] and even waste water samples from Spain dating back to March 2019 [15].
The questions raised by this evidence are numerous and intriguing. For example, why did the virus wait until March 2020 until it started to “wreak havoc” in some European countries and other parts of the world? How could an allegedly dangerous killer virus remain unnoticed for so long? All this remains unmentioned in the public discourse.
One test to rule them all
Soon after a new coronavirus was identified as the potential causative agent of the illnesses of Chinese patients, Chinese scientists have exchanged data with the controversial German virologist Christian Drosten and his colleagues. Based on information from social media that the new virus was SARS-like and its later-on published genome sequence, Drosten and his colleagues have developed a corresponding RT-PCR test without having actual samples or isolates of the virus. The protocol of the development of was published in the scientific journal Eurosurveillance. [16]
This PCR test is the primary tool authorities worldwide use to justify measures and policies, since practically each “infection” and “death” is merely defined by a positive PCR test result. Even though the wording “this PCR test” might be slightly misleading, since today there are numerous PCR test kits for SARS-CoV-2, Drosten’s test is the first widely used one. Since the test hasn’t been patented, laboratories can develop their own PCR test kits based on it.
Generally, PCR stands for Polymerase Chain Reaction and the method works by exponentially amplifying a specific genome sequence in vitro until they are detectable. The inventor Kary Mullis has been awarded the Nobel Prize for it. However, the PCR test is a great aid for diagnosis but not a diagnosis per se. Kary Mullis himself has warned against misinterpretation of the test results: since there is a plethora of viral fragments in humans, PCR could be used to find practically anything [17]. Most importantly, a positive PCR test result does not imply that the tested person is infectious or sick [18, 19] and viral fragments may be found even long after the disappearance of active (infectious) virus [20]. Actual diagnostic of positively tested individuals barely ever takes place. Another crucial factor is the cycle threshold or the ct-value, that is, the number of amplification cycles required until the virus becomes detectable. The more cycles are needed to detect the virus, the lesser the viral load is and therefore the positive result is less significant. A ct-value higher than 35 is considered to indicate a very low viral load [21], while Drosten and colleagues were working with 45 [16]. Unfortunately, data regarding cycles done by laboratories when testing for SARS-CoV-2 is currently rather sparse. On top of that, no test is perfect. When used on such a large scale, even a small false positive rate can have a significant impact on the overall statistic [22]. A lack of a standardized test usage, differences between the tests used worldwide, incentives for positive results and errors not directly related to the test per se (e.g. mechanical mistakes during usage) skew the statistic. The WHO has recently warned against misinterpretation of positive PCR results, stating how a positive PCR test must be interpreted in a larger context together with clinical observations, patient history and the overall epidemiological situation at given moment [23].
The aforementioned paper by Drosten and his colleagues (also known as the Corman-Drosten paper) has been heavily criticized in the so-called Corman-Drosten Review [24]. The Corman-Drosten Review is an external peer review by 22 renowned scientists, among whom is Dr. Micheal Yeadon, ex vice-president of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. The authors identified 10 fatal flaws in the Corman-Drosten paper, among which are flaws in the test design, a lack of standardization, a remarkably small time window between hand-in and publication (the peer review of the Corman-Drosten paper was done in less than 24 hours, while no other paper published on Eurosurveillance was reviewed and published in less than 20 days [25]), conflicts of interest etc. One of the authors is the CEO and another one a scientific advisor of Tib-Molbiol, a German company producing and distributing PCR test kits worldwide. This conflict of interest was listed 7 months after the paper was published [16]. Also, Christian Drosten himself is an associate editor of Eurosurveillance [26].
The danger to public health
In early 2020, we have all seen those videos from China of people collapsing in public, militaristic street disinfections, draconian curfews, extremely rapid hospital constructions and so on. While the authenticity of those videos is questionable, the intended message behind them was crystal clear: SARS-CoV-2 is an absolute killer-virus. Is it?
What is counted as a Covid-19 death?
The case definition of a “Covid-19 death” varies slightly from state to state, but a general rule of thumb is that each deceased person that was positively tested for Covid-19 is included in the statistic, regardless of the actual cause of death. For example, German [27], Austrian [28] and Italian [29] authorities are straightforward about this on their corresponding websites. Some authorities, such as the United States CDC additionally count “probable cases” as well [30]. Note that these definitions do not imply a causality between a Covid-19 infection and death. Considering the huge number of tests done on a regular basis and the general fixation of public institutions on Covid-19, it is highly likely that many deaths that do not have to do anything with Covid-19 are included in the death count. Additional data suggests it as well, as we will see in further sections. In other words, heart attack, stroke or cancer victims (leading causes of death) which have been previously tested positive for Covid-19 are included in the death count. A so-called “fact checker” received a confirmation from the German Robert-Koch-Institute that even violent deaths are included in the German Covid-19 death count [31].
A cumulative statistic based on such case definition on such a large scale is barely reliable and prone to various errors. Not to mention the various incentives for bloating the death count e.g. financial ones [32, 33], selection bias, technical mistakes done by medical staff, the number of tests done and numerous other issues.
Italy, especially the northern part including the city of Bergamo, is often cited as a place hit worst by Covid-19. The leading Italian public health institute, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, has been regularly publishing reports regarding Covid-19. A report from July 2020 includes a table of comorbidities of 2441 deceased individuals who have previously been positively tested for SARS-CoV-2 [34]:
The table shows that 61.8% of the deceased patients had at least 3 comorbidities. A similar observation has been made by German professor for law medicine, Dr. Klaus Püschel, who performed autopsy on over 200 deceased Covid-19 patients and concluded that most of them were of high age or had severe comorbidities, indicating that Covid-19 may not have been a significant death cause [35, 36].
The aforementioned report form Italy also assesses that the median age of deceased Covid-19 patients is 82. Median ages from other countries are also similar and roughly correspond to the general life expectancy [37].
Estimating the fatality rate
Accurately estimating the fatality rate is a daunting task, as fatality rates fluctuate between regions and depend on the largely unknown number of undetected cases at a given moment, age structure of a population, how cases are classified and other factors. Nevertheless, many decent-quality studies exist. The results give us a reason to breathe a sigh of relief and indicate at least the order of magnitude that we are in when talking about Covid-19 fatality.
Countless seroprevalence studies were done since the start of the pandemic and indicate that the virus was much more widespread than initially assumed which implies a much lower fatality rate as well. A Slovenian antibody study from May 2020 has shown that the number of SARS-CoV-2 cases was at least 45 times higher than the number of officially confirmed cases at that time [38]. Another example is a study conducted in spring 2020 in Heinsberg, Germany (an infection hotspot at that time), which indicated a case number that is 5 times higher than the confirmed cases at that time, resulting in an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.37% [39]. A study of the Ludwig-Maximillian University in Munich concludes that the number of cases was 4 times higher than the official one, resulting in a fatality rate of 0.76% [40]. Danish study based on blood donations estimates the IFR for <70 year-olds to be around 0.08% [41]. A seroprevalence study from northern Iran also indicates a much higher case number than the official one, resulting in an IFR of about 0.1% [42]. The ski-resort Ischgl in Austria was a notorious coronavirus hotspot. A study conducted by scientists of the Medical University of Innsbruck has shown that around 42% of the population of Ischgl had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, thereby indicating that the number of SARS-CoV-2 cases was about 6 times higher than the official number [43]. The resulting fatality rate would thereby also be about 0.23%. It is also remarkable that about 85% of affected individuals had barely any symptoms, if any at all. A study conducted in April 2020 by scientists of the Stanford university, among them the renowned epidemiologist and meta-scientist John Ioannidis, has shown that the number of infected people in Santa Clara County, California was about 50 times higher than the official number, which corresponded to an IFR of about 0.17% [44].
The results of these studies vary and some of them have been criticized (both wrongfully and rightfully). Nevertheless, overall they paint a solid and consistent bigger picture: Covid-19 is not an exceptionally dangerous killer virus, especially when you consider that these studies mostly rely on the official (over)reported Covid-19 deaths, which means the actual fatality rate may be even lower in some cases. This bigger picture is well depicted by a study also conducted by Ioannidis and recently published on the webpage of the WHO, that infers a global median infection fatality rate of 0.23% (corrected) and a global median infection fatality rate for individuals under the age of 70 of 0.05% [45].
Lock step?
Almost all draconic measures against Covid-19, such as lockdowns, are based on the assumptions that there is practically no pre-existing immunity against Covid-19, that everyone will be exposed to it quickly due to its high contagiousness, leading to an overly large number of required hospitalizations and deaths. Practically all epidemiological prediction models used to justify the draconic measures are based on these assumptions, which might be the reason they were off by orders of magnitude [46].
Our society is much more complex and not based on some epidemiological technocracy, which means that an epidemiological argument for lockdowns does not imply that a lockdown should be imposed right away, especially not when that epidemiological argument is incorrect. Since many countries impose similar measures almost at the same time, it is difficult to tell the theoretical effect of those measures apart from the mere natural flow of the epidemic. Fortunately, there are numerous countries and regions where there is not even a mere temporal correlation between lockdowns and a reduction of positively tested individuals, overall hospitalizations or deaths, countries which imposed barely any restrictions and have fared off better than their stricter neighbors and numerous other cases which show that there is barely any evidence that lockdowns make a difference [47, 48]. There are also concrete studies which show that the positive effects of lockdowns are exaggerated [49] and that lockdowns have practically no advantages over less restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions [50]. Some experts speculate that lockdowns and mass isolation may even worsen the epidemiological situation, because the population is less exposed to other milder pathogens which provide some immunity against SARS-CoV-2 [51]. Obviously, some short-term positive effects of lockdowns exist, but even then, lockdowns merely delay outbreaks. Even when exceptionally strict (New Zealand, Australia) or all-out totalitarian measures (China) are imposed, sooner or later, the virus shows up again [52, 53, 54], implying that a lockdown-based strategy works in the long term only if the devastating effects of lockdowns on societal and health aspects (besides the purely epidemiological ones) are disregarded and lockdowns are imposed over and over again for an undetermined period of time to “keep the virus under control”.
No immunity?
The aforementioned “justification” of lockdowns is also based on the claim that there is practically no preexisting immunity against Covid-19 and that immunity deteriorates after a brief amount of time, implying the danger of frequent (re)infections. Numerous studies show a stable and lasting antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 [55, 56, 57]. Reinfections are a rare exception and even known cases are often anecdotal [58, 59]. Therefore, immunity is not just robust, but is most likely more widespread than initially assumed, as shown in the previous chapter regarding the early spread of the virus, since a large (unknown) number of individuals have already been exposed to SARS-CoV-2. “Immunity” is a complex term and does not simply mean that an individual cannot be infected or positively tested. There are multiple types of immunity and the one referred to in this context is first and foremost the resistance to falling seriously ill. Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are not the only type of immunity: so-called cross-immunity also exists, usually obtained by exposure to other coronaviruses, such as common cold viruses. A German study demonstrated T-cell immunity response against SARS-CoV-2 in 81% out of 185 blood samples taken in the range between 2007 and 2019 (therefore, before the official start of the pandemic) [60]. Another study detects a T-cell response in 40–60% of unexposed individuals [61] and numerous other studies also suggest a significant T-cell immunity response and its longevity [62, 63, 64, 65].
What about other infectious respiratory illnesses?
Covid-19 can certainly be dangerous in some cases, leading to severe illness, long-term consequences and in the worst case even death. Due to the extreme media attention Covid-19 has received, it is easy to get the impression that these traits are unique to the novel coronavirus (how novel is it?). This is not the case. An accurate comparison between SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses and respiratory illnesses is difficult. No other virus in history has ever received as much attention as SARS-CoV-2 did, be it in form of media reports or surveillance data. Data regarding other respiratory illnesses is usually based on estimates, but is nevertheless enough to give us a feeling of which “order of magnitude of danger” we are approximately in.
According to the WHO, seasonal influenza viruses (often collectively referred to as “the flu”) can infect up to 20% of the population, leading to an estimate of 650 000 deaths every year. They spread relatively easily, have an incubation period (time between contraction and appearance of symptoms) of about 2 days and groups that are more at risk are children under 59 months of age, pregnant women, elderly individuals and individuals that have severe underlying medical conditions [66]. According to an estimate published in The Lancet, seasonal influenza annually leads to between 10 000 and 105 000 deaths of children under the age of five worldwide [67]. While influenza-induces illnesses are primarily respiratory and short-term, influenza may also lead to various long-term damage on the lungs, the brain, the kidney, the liver, the heart, causing strokes, heart attacks, epileptic seizures, thrombosis, myocarditis and so on [68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83].
The common cold is caused by 200 different viruses (mostly rhinoviruses, coronaviruses and respiratory syncytial viruses) and is usually milder and less severe than influenza [84, 85]. Common cold viruses can nevertheless lead to complications in some cases, especially among the elderly [86] and even death [87]. An outbreak of a common cold coronavirus in an elderly population can have a mortality rate of up to 8% [88]. Studies suggest that there is a large portion of asymptomatic carriers of those viruses [89, 90]. A French study assessed the mortality rate of common coronaviruses in France to be about 0.8% [91] (though not differentiating between deaths directly caused by those viruses or deaths where the virus was no relevant factor, just as it is done with SARS-CoV-2).
According to the WHO, it is estimated that acute lower respiratory infections in general cause about 4 million deaths annually [92]. Almost every year, hospitals worldwide, even in developed countries, are working at maximum capacity or are overwhelmed at times of high activity of seasonal viruses, due to the pathogens themselves, a lack of medical staff and equipment, underfunding of the healthcare system, bad administration, bad management and numerous other factors [93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99].
An interesting addition to this: it appears that many intensive care hospitalizations in Germany labeled as Covid-19 hospitalizations are not directly related to Covid-19 at all. The data of the German intensive care registrar DIVI-Intensivregister (accessed 20.02.2021) shows that the total number of occupied ICU beds in all of Germany has been more or less constant since the 1st of April 2020 with only minor fluctuations. Merely the share of patients which have been positively tested and labeled as “Covid-19 patients” has been fluctuating and had no significant effect on the total number of occupied beds [100].
Findings of a little research conducted by the German national newspapers Die Zeit also suggest that the number of Covid-19 hospitalizations in Germany is exaggerated [101].
Conclusion
The current public discourse and political actions regarding SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19 are based on a flawed narrative of numerous exaggerations of the dangers posed by the virus. Accurate quantification of the danger is difficult, but the bigger picture is clear: SARS-CoV-2 is not an exceptionally large health threat and the official numbers suggesting otherwise are to be taken with a grain of salt. It is a harmless virus to the majority, while leading to serious complications in some cases, as many other diseases and health threats do. The more important question is: are the sacrifices made to “control the virus” worth it? What exactly is sacrificed? Do those sacrifices even have a substantial effect? Even if they do, who has the right to make them?
