Statement by the GfV on public statements made in the Enquete Commission 8/1 of the Brandenburg State Parliament (November 7, 2025)

Statement by Society of Virology GfV) on public statements made in the Enquete Commission 8/1 of the Brandenburg State Parliament (November 7, 2025)

The Society of Virology GfV) welcomes and supports the ongoing parliamentary review of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we note with great concern that scientifically untenable claims are being made in the context of the parliamentary review. For example, a public statement in the Enquete Commission 8/1 of the Brandenburg state parliament contains several scientifically inaccurate, misleading, or already refuted statements on key epidemiological, infectious disease, and immunological issues.

As a scientific association, the GfV would therefore like to clarify the following:

1. Epidemiology and case definitions

Case definitions serve to standardize the recording of diseases. The case definition used by the Robert Koch Institute for COVID-19 was medically correct and in line with the international state of knowledge at the time and also in retrospect.

The statement that there was no data basis in Germany for determining population-related COVID-19 incidences is factually incorrect. Germany had a comprehensive reporting system in place, which may have been open to criticism in some respects, but which nevertheless made it possible to accurately record the incidence of infection and did not in any way lead to misinformation of the public or politicians .

The problem that always arises in disease surveillance, namely that testing only represents a sample of the population and that symptom- or regulation-based testing leads to systematic deviations in the reported incidence compared to the actual infection rate in the population, is a well-known issue that is not unique to COVID-19 and was taken into account in the assessment of the epidemiological situation. This connection was repeatedly explained publicly during the pandemic.

The incidence estimates were also supplemented by mortality statistics, hospitalization data, and population-based studies. This provides an additional plausibility check. The data sources were continuously improved and supplemented during the pandemic by the Robert Koch Institute, the state health authorities, and numerous partners in medical care (hospitals, health insurance companies, and medical associations). Guideline values for population-wide unreported cases were collected during the pandemic through targeted sample studies. However, at no point in this process of continuous quality improvement and plausibility checks was it necessary to correct or reinterpret previously existing information in any relevant way. Overall, according to our assessment, disease surveillance in Germany was reliable.

2. Incidence, testing strategies, and health authorities

The assertion that testing frequency "determines" incidence or that this was the "only" criterion for government action is factually incorrect. Laboratories and health authorities not only check PCR testing for each individual test run, but also monitor plausibility at the population level over longer periods of time. The claim that German health authorities had no knowledge of the burden of disease in the population is also misleading and ignores the extensive data provided by the RKI, DIVI intensive care register, state statistical offices, and national cohort studies, among others.

During the peak of the pandemic (until the emergence of the Omicron variants), PCR testing intensity in Germany ranged from just under 1 to 3 tests per 1,000 inhabitants per day. Despite this very consistent testing intensity, the proportion of positive PCR tests fluctuated between 0 and just under 15% in line with the incidence waves. During the first two Omicron waves, testing intensity was approximately 3–4.5 tests per 1,000 inhabitants per day, with a positive rate of approximately 30–70%. The number of positive PCR results was therefore by no means proportional to the frequency of testing, but rather reflected the incidence of infection, which was confirmed by waves of hospitalizations. Hospital admissions were not based on positive PCR results, but solely on the presence of symptoms of illness.

3. False or misleading statements about COVID-19 and influenza

In the early stages of the pandemic, i.e., before the vaccine was available, COVID-19 had a significantly higher mortality rate among infected individuals than seasonal influenza, as well as a significantly higher transmissibility than seasonal influenza. Misleading comparisons that focus solely on differences in mortality among infected individuals ignore the essential difference between the two diseases in terms of the number of people infected when spread is uncontrolled.

Population immunity to seasonal influenza leads to an end to winter spread after a few weeks. In this case, the number of cases in the population only doubles a limited number of times. This limitation is due to pre-existing population immunity, supported by the transition to the warmer season. Depending on the severity of the respective influenza season, the number of doublings varies, but is usually between 4 and 7 doublings.

The situation was very different in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the lack of population immunity at the beginning of the pandemic, the number of new infections (incidence) would have doubled much more quickly and frequently before the spread of infection was slowed down by the development of at least temporary immunity. Without countermeasures, this could have led to tens of millions of infections in Germany alone in the first half of 2020. The fact that this did not happen is thanks to the sustained reduction in contact among the population, which occurred in all industrialized countries as a result of regulatory measures and spontaneous changes in behavior.

The portrayal of rapid spread of infection ("herd immunity strategy") as desirable in retrospect also contradicts scientific evidence. Industrialized countries that initially allowed the infection to spread in the early stages of the pandemic had a significantly higher disease burden and mortality rate, especially among older people. Under the impact of the overwhelming disease burden, these countries nevertheless had to take measures to control the infection after some time, or the population restricted contact on its own.

4. Vaccinations, immunology, and virological fundamentals

Several statements made during the hearing regarding COVID-19 vaccinations are technically or scientifically incorrect. The portrayal of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein as an unsuitable vaccine antigen is scientifically untenable. This also applies to the claims that surface antigen vaccines are fundamentally "inferior" or that hepatitis B and polio vaccines are not suitable. For all of these vaccines, their immunogenicity and, above all, their significant effect on disease reduction compared to placebo have been clearly demonstrated in large clinical trials.

The statement that the PEI does not provide data on vaccine side effects is equally inaccurate. Not only the PEI, but also European and international authorities maintain publicly accessible databases on potential side effects of vaccines and other medicines.

The claim that intramuscularly administered vaccines offer no protection against transmission or external protection is also false. Studies on measles, polio, and COVID-19 vaccines, for example, clearly refute this. However, the protection against transmission and external protection provided by COVID-19 vaccines has two limitations: 1. Immunity against respiratory pathogens usually lasts only 12-24 months, which is why there are annual waves of infection. 2. SARS-CoV-2 has changed over time, and much more contagious variants have developed, such as the Omicron variants, which have been able to evade the antibodies induced by vaccination or infection. Even though the protection afforded by COVID-19 vaccinations has waned after a few months, the reduction in the transmission rate among vaccinated individuals has significantly slowed the spread of the virus in the population, giving us valuable time to increase the proportion of vaccinated individuals in the population and thus get the burden of disease under control.

5. Herd immunity, mutants, and disease burden

The claim that SARS-CoV-2 variants have "not been investigated in terms of their pathogenicity" is inaccurate. Germany and its international partners have continuously collected clinical, virological, and epidemiological data on the virus variants. Similarly, the statement that herd immunity through vaccination is fundamentally impossible is incorrect. Even if no vaccine prevents every infection, vaccinations can significantly reduce transmission, disease burden, severe disease, and mortality. For COVID-19 vaccines, it has been clearly demonstrated that vaccinated individuals who contract SARS-CoV-2 despite vaccination are less likely to become seriously ill and are less likely to transmit the Omicron variant to contacts than unvaccinated individuals who have been infected. Even if this protection against infection wanes after a few months, this reduction in the transmission rate among vaccinated individuals can significantly slow down the spread of the virus in the population and thus buy valuable time to increase the proportion of vaccinated individuals in the population. Since vaccine protection against severe disease lasts longer than protection against infection, vaccinated individuals who experience mild SARS-CoV-2 infections will sooner or later also develop temporary mucosal immunity, but without being exposed to the increased risk of severe disease.

The most appropriate way to achieve herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2 was therefore to use vaccinations to prevent severe cases and thus avoid overburdening the healthcare system, to gain time to vaccinate a large proportion of the population, and then to build up mucosal immunity through mild breakthrough infections. This then made it possible to focus further booster vaccinations on particularly vulnerable individuals.

The GfV points out that misleading and unscientific statements on scientific issues contribute to public uncertainty and make it difficult to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic in an objective, science-based manner. The GfV considers a critical retrospective analysis to be necessary in preparation for future pandemics and refers in this regard to the statement "Five years of COVID-19: Comments by the Society of Virology the analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany" dated March 27, 2025.

The GfV is committed to providing the public with fact-based information and promoting discussion. It makes its scientific expertise available to decision-makers at all times.

PDF version of the statement