A Critical Assessment of Some Recent Work on COVID-19

Jörg Stoye

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.10237

2020-05-26

Abstract:I tentatively re-analyze data from two well-publicized studies on COVID-19, namely the Charité "viral load in children" and the Bonn "seroprevalence in Heinsberg/Gangelt" study, from information available in the preprints. The studies have the following in common: - They received worldwide attention and arguably had policy impact. - The thrusts of their findings align with the respective lead authors' (different) public stances on appropriate response to COVID-19. - Tentatively, my reading of the Gangelt study neutralizes its thrust, and my reading of the Charité study reverses it. The exercise may aid in placing these studies in the literature. With all caveats that apply to n=2 quickfire analyses based off preprints, one also wonders whether it illustrates inadvertent effects of "researcher degrees of freedom."

Applications,Physics and Society,Populations and Evolution

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

This paper aims to re - evaluate two high - profile studies on COVID - 19, namely the Charité study and the Gangelt study. The author Jörg Stoye attempts to verify whether the conclusions of these two studies are robust by analyzing the data in pre - prints and explores the possible impacts of these studies on policy - making. Specifically:

1. **Charité study**: This study was conducted by Christian Drosten's research team and mainly analyzed the relationship between the viral load and age of COVID - 19 - positive patients in the Berlin area. The purpose of the study was to verify the claim that children are less infectious as mentioned in epidemiological and anecdotal evidence. This study received wide attention and was cited as evidence against the reopening of schools.

- **Re - analysis**: The author Stoye believes that the Charité study failed to find significant differences in viral load between different age groups through the method of multiple hypothesis testing, but this method may sacrifice the power of statistical testing. Stoye used a simpler t - test method and found that the viral load in the young group was significantly lower than that in the adult group. Therefore, he believes that the conclusion of the Charité study may be driven by its analysis method rather than the data itself.

2. **Gangelt study**: This study was conducted by Hendrick Streeck and his collaborators and mainly investigated the seroprevalence rate in the small German town of Gangelt. A super - spreading event had occurred in this town. The study estimated that the local infection rate was 15% and the infection - fatality rate was 0.4%, and thus inferred that the number of infected people in Germany was approximately 1.8 million. This result was widely reported by the media and was used to support the claim for partial lifting of lockdowns.

- **Re - analysis**: The author Stoye pointed out that the number of deaths in Gangelt was regarded as a non - random variable, but when extrapolated to the national level, this assumption may not hold. He recalculated the infection - fatality rate by different methods and found that if it was assumed that Gangelt had a higher or more fortunate detection rate, then the national infection - fatality rate might be higher. Therefore, he believes that the conclusion of the Gangelt study may also be driven by specific statistical choices.

In general, this paper attempts to reveal that the conclusions of these two studies may be influenced by the statistical methods chosen by the researchers and emphasizes the importance of transparency and peer review in scientific research.