Nordrhein-Westfalen Landtag, Plenarprotokoll 17/162, pp. 45-46.
Right honorable Herr President.Right honorable ladies and
gentlemen.
The question of how to well and lastingly protect one who
had overcome a Covid-19 illness against re-infection was for long not
comprehensively researched so that there were some uncertainties which extended
up high in the Federal Ministry for Health. We most recently spoke of that this
morning; there had been some disavowals.
Nevertheless, an administrative court in Berlin has stated
that the shortening [of the recovered status time period] was not legal and
that the RKI [Robert Koch Institute] ought not to decide that, so that now at
the beginning of 2022 perhaps again a look at present studies is required so
that we as parliament are able to occupy ourselves with this.
The studies meanwhile show a quite different picture than
that partially fabricated by the Federal Ministry for Health. According to the
newest, those recovered are not only at least just as effectively protected
against re-infection as persons adequately vaccinated and boostered, the
protection indeed clearly continues even longer. Every subsequent study which
is here consulted numbers the time period at a minimum of eight to 13 months.
A shortening of the recovered status can thus be political to
the max – for me, motivated by pharmaceutical lobbies, not by science, and
urgently needs to be rescinded. On the contrary, an extension to nine months
appears in this situation to be honestly sensible.
Without exception, all former Covid-19 patients in a large
Swedish study for example subsequently developed anti-spike IgG antibodies. The
authors stressed that the protection was independent of the seriousness of a Covid-19
illness and therefore even asymptomatic cases can be protective.
In any case, a few months ago in the U.S.A. a similarly good
immune status of recovered nursing staff had been able to be registered. The
working group around Professor Dr. Michael Rothberg, geriatrician and internist
as well as vice-president of research at the Cleveland Clinic, confirmed not
only that a high but before all a long lasting immunity of those recovered –
even against Delta, by the way – with an 88.2% against symptomatic infections
could in this case be better than a booster.
In a collection of studies from the end of 2021, the
protective effect resulting from a recovered status on the risk reduction rate
is figured at 80.5% to 100%. Although allowed ten months at that time – so it
says in the study – the protection apparently lasts longer. The comparison to
the vaccinated besides comes out on the whole more favorably. Persons after
double vaccinations, in comparison to those who had overcome an infection, had
by a factor of 13.6 a higher risk of suffering a breakthrough infection; and the
vaccinated, thus in this case the twice vaccinated, moreover had an increased risk
of hospitalization in relation to the recovered.
A study from Qatar has in this regard again indicated that
the protective effect against Omicron is very good, moreover with 56%. Compared
with this, according to a report from the Imperial College in London, the
efficacy of an Astra-Zeneca of Pfizer vaccination against Omicron after two doses
is between 0% and 20%, after a booster 55% to 8%, and thus even here the
recovered status is not worse, even with the booster.
It is not least important that recovered children and youth
also are at least just as well if not even better protected from re-infection than
recovered adults.
The greater numbers of researchers meanwhile admonish to make
epidemiological use of the obviously favorable immune status of the recovered.
These people publicly require only later a vaccination which creates time to
further prioritize the vulnerable groups, or still that a single vaccination is
enough so as to consider these persons as completely protected.
Beyond that, to the recovered is due a freedom of movement
status in point of access to public events, to a workplace, in business and in
regards travel options which is at least equivalent to that of persons with a
corresponding vaccination status, thus even with the booster. We therefore
demand of you all clarity in this matter.
Antibody researchers meanwhile may very clearly determine an
antibody titer which steadily protects against infections; under 22 binding
antibodies per unit, one is not protected, between 22 and 44 indicates an
acknowledged gray zone. These can be avoided. Here a safe distance can be
maintained. But with at least 50 binding antibodies per unit, a recovered certificate
can with security be prescribed. Since these tests are very rapid, they are
very propitious. They on the other hand do not have the required labor.
We therefore again demand of you to look into this matter to
improve it. The government of course increasingly conducts itself – it needs
unfortunately be said – far from science. This can no one in fact seriously
want.
We therefore again demand of you to commit yourselves at the
Federal level that the minimally prescribed six months, better yet nine months,
apply for the recovered and similarly as with many other illnesses – known to
you if you work in the medical area, perhaps Hepatitis B or also with other
illnesses – that by means of evidence of antibodies, by means of a titer
determination, can then a certificate of recovery be obtained, and not just by
means of a PCR test which besides has not been suitable, I say to you, as to
whether you have in fact overcome an infection and whether you then also are in
fact protected against further infection.
I am grateful to you for your attention.
[trans: tem]
