Dr Wodarg’s videos and articles show strong evidence of confirmation bias and fundamental attribution error. He distorts the facts, makes correct but not that important generalisations, attributes commercial motivations (without evidence), and avoids key issues to support his hypothesis. Hidden behind the confirmation bias are some fundamental flaws.

An example of distorting facts, and fundamental attribution error, is his implication that the Chinese government made a meal of the infection to support their ambitions to introduce more surveillance. The opposite is the case because the government initially tried to suppress the reports of the infection, first observed by the late Dr Li Wenliang. The Chinese government have only just issued an apology and paid some compensation to his family.

Examples of correct generalisations, which aren’t that important, are his observation that coronaviruses appear every year, that introducing a new test can distort one’s understanding, and that we are currently working on incomplete and imperfect data. Although all are true, the key question is whether the best-available data shows a more-than-reasonable likelihood that this particular strain is represents a significant new threat. Dr Wodarg only looks at overall, historical coronavirus trends. He does not properly consider whether the current trends are hiding the emergence of a dangerously atypical coronavirus.

The fundamental flaws in his argument can be found in the issues that he avoids, particularly previous pandemics with high mortality rates (such as the 1918 Spanish flu), and the role of R0. He refers only to SARS and MERS, which did not result in mass fatalities. He thereby fails to identify how to distinguish between a devastating pandemic such as Spanish flu and the normal winter progression of infections.

This is where the estimated R0 of Covid19 is important. For normal flu, R0 is around 1.3, but it is usually brought below the critical value of one through vaccinations, a degree of natural immunity, and the natural social distancing behaviour of people who are infected. For SARS and MERS, R0 was brought under one through strategies such as containment and vaccination.

For Covid19, however, the R0 is estimated to be 2.5, with no current vaccination or natural immunity, and for many who are infected the symptoms are so mild that they may not engage in any social distancing even after the onset of symptoms. Although these are provisional facts, they present an urgent existential threat to very large numbers of people. There is nothing in Dr Wodarg’s argument that addresses that particular threat.

Dr Wodarg’s videos and articles show strong evidence of confirmation bias and fundamental attribution error. For example, in his widely shared original video, he distorts the facts, makes correct but not that important generalisations, attributes commercial motivations (without evidence), and avoids key issues to support his hypothesis. Hidden behind the confirmation bias are some fundamental flaws.

An example of distorting facts, and fundamental attribution error, is his implication (in the video) that the Chinese government made a meal of the infection to support their ambitions to introduce more surveillance. The opposite is the case because the government initially tried to suppress the reports of the infection, first observed by the late Dr Li Wenliang. The Chinese government have only just issued an apology and paid some compensation to his family.

Examples of correct generalisations, which aren’t that important, are his observation that coronaviruses appear every year, that introducing a new test can distort one’s understanding, and that we are currently working on incomplete and imperfect data. Although all are true, the key question is whether the best-available data shows a more-than-reasonable likelihood that this particular strain is represents a significant new threat. Dr Wodarg only looks at overall, historical coronavirus trends. He does not properly consider whether the current trends are hiding the emergence of a dangerously atypical coronavirus.

The fundamental flaws in his argument can be found in the issues that he avoids, particularly previous pandemics with high mortality rates (such as the 1918 Spanish flu), and the role of R0. He refers only to SARS and MERS, which did not result in mass fatalities. He thereby fails to identify how to distinguish between a devastating pandemic such as Spanish flu and the normal winter progression of infections.

This is where the estimated R0 of Covid19 is important. For normal flu, R0 is around 1.3, but it is brought below the critical value of one through vaccinations, a degree of natural immunity, and the natural social distancing behaviour of people who are infected. SARS R0 was brought under one through containment.

For Covid19, however, the R0 is typically estimated to be around 2.5, with no current vaccination or natural immunity (ibid.), and for many who are infected the symptoms are so mild that they may not engage in any social distancing even after the onset of symptoms. Although these are provisional facts, they present an urgent existential threat to very large numbers of people. There is nothing in Dr Wodarg’s argument that addresses that particular threat.