Heidrun Wiesenmüller
@hwiesenmueller.bsky.social
Librarian and Professor, Libraries and Digital Information at Stuttgart Media University. Cataloging, Indexing. Also things historical, animals. Tweets in German and English
#CovidIsNotOver #MaskUp
#CovidIsNotOver #MaskUp
Reposted by Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Das ist leider ein generelles Problem in der Wissenschaft und zwingt einen dazu, Paper sehr genau zu lesen, selbst wenn sie von reputablen Wissenschaftlern in guten Journals publiziert werden. Die Autoren sind sich der Einschränkungen oft bewusst, aber der externe Druck zu publizieren ist massiv.
December 7, 2025 at 3:32 PM
Das ist leider ein generelles Problem in der Wissenschaft und zwingt einen dazu, Paper sehr genau zu lesen, selbst wenn sie von reputablen Wissenschaftlern in guten Journals publiziert werden. Die Autoren sind sich der Einschränkungen oft bewusst, aber der externe Druck zu publizieren ist massiv.
Danke! Einige Überlegungen von mir zu dieser Studie:
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
Es gibt ausreichend gute Gründe, sich weiter konsequent gegen #Covid Infektionen zu schützen, u.a. die Gefahr von Long Covid und das erhöhte Risiko für Schlaganfälle. Mich irritiert jedoch, wie viele aus #TeamVorsicht davon überzeugt sind, dass das Virus das Immunsystem nicht nur für einen
1/18
1/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:32 PM
Danke! Einige Überlegungen von mir zu dieser Studie:
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
I have read the paper, here are my views.
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
There are plenty of good reasons to continue protecting yourself consistently against #Covid infections, including the danger of Long Covid and the increased risk of strokes. However, I am amazed by how many Covid cautious people are convinced that the virus not only weakens the immune system
1/18
1/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:30 PM
I have read the paper, here are my views.
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
I have read the paper, here are my views.
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
There are plenty of good reasons to continue protecting yourself consistently against #Covid infections, including the danger of Long Covid and the increased risk of strokes. However, I am amazed by how many Covid cautious people are convinced that the virus not only weakens the immune system
1/18
1/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:29 PM
I have read the paper, here are my views.
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
Just curious. Have you actually read the paper? I did.
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
There are plenty of good reasons to continue protecting yourself consistently against #Covid infections, including the danger of Long Covid and the increased risk of strokes. However, I am amazed by how many Covid cautious people are convinced that the virus not only weakens the immune system
1/18
1/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:26 PM
Just curious. Have you actually read the paper? I did.
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
bsky.app/profile/hwie...
Ja, die Menschen sind öfter krank, aber das erklärt sich ausreichend durch das Vorhandensein eines zusätzlichen Virus und die Tatsache, dass das Immunsystem nach jeder Infektion für eine gewisse Zeit geschwächt ist. Auch das ist natürlich ein guter Grund, sich weiter zu schützen.
December 7, 2025 at 3:24 PM
Ja, die Menschen sind öfter krank, aber das erklärt sich ausreichend durch das Vorhandensein eines zusätzlichen Virus und die Tatsache, dass das Immunsystem nach jeder Infektion für eine gewisse Zeit geschwächt ist. Auch das ist natürlich ein guter Grund, sich weiter zu schützen.
My conclusion: This paper is certainly not "proof" that COVID destroys the immune system in the majority of those infected. Of course, I will still keep my mask on to avoid other dangers of COVID.
#Maskup
18/18
#Maskup
18/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
My conclusion: This paper is certainly not "proof" that COVID destroys the immune system in the majority of those infected. Of course, I will still keep my mask on to avoid other dangers of COVID.
#Maskup
18/18
#Maskup
18/18
So if the values for this group are indeed valid and cannot be attributed to other effects (e.g., consequences of the corruption crisis in the Chinese healthcare system, see www.theguardian.com/world/2023/a...), then it only confirms what we already know.
17/18
17/18
China renews crackdown on corruption in healthcare
At least 177 officials reportedly under investigation amid revival of Xi Jinping’s decade-old anti-corruption drive
www.theguardian.com
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
So if the values for this group are indeed valid and cannot be attributed to other effects (e.g., consequences of the corruption crisis in the Chinese healthcare system, see www.theguardian.com/world/2023/a...), then it only confirms what we already know.
17/18
17/18
A comparison with such unbalanced groups cannot really be taken seriously. But apart from that, it is nothing new that infections with COVID-19 or other viruses have a greater impact on people with pre-existing conditions and will impair their immune system more.
16/18
16/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
A comparison with such unbalanced groups cannot really be taken seriously. But apart from that, it is nothing new that infections with COVID-19 or other viruses have a greater impact on people with pre-existing conditions and will impair their immune system more.
16/18
16/18
However, the authors have "helped" a little in Fig. 5 and manipulated the X-axis (6 months were packed into a single data point). The size of the samples for this section is also sobering: “baseline (red, n=174), mass infection (blue, n=195), and post-COVID (orange, n=2,053)”.
15/18
15/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
However, the authors have "helped" a little in Fig. 5 and manipulated the X-axis (6 months were packed into a single data point). The size of the samples for this section is also sobering: “baseline (red, n=174), mass infection (blue, n=195), and post-COVID (orange, n=2,053)”.
15/18
15/18
but people who understand more about this have written that the variances are within the normal range (even for the same person on different days). Now let's take a look at the detailed analysis for people with cardiovascular disease. Here, the curves look significantly worse.
14/18
14/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
but people who understand more about this have written that the variances are within the normal range (even for the same person on different days). Now let's take a look at the detailed analysis for people with cardiovascular disease. Here, the curves look significantly worse.
14/18
14/18
that during this period, some people had a second or third COVID infection or were infected with other viruses. The curves also look more dramatic than the figures in the text. Here you can see that the differences are not very large. I lack the expertise here,
13/18
13/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
that during this period, some people had a second or third COVID infection or were infected with other viruses. The curves also look more dramatic than the figures in the text. Here you can see that the differences are not very large. I lack the expertise here,
13/18
13/18
given that we are dealing with a period with many infections. According to the authors, the average values from the third phase, after that, are still worse than the baseline. However, if you look at the curves, the difference is not that dramatic. It can probably be explained by the fact
12/18
12/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
given that we are dealing with a period with many infections. According to the authors, the average values from the third phase, after that, are still worse than the baseline. However, if you look at the curves, the difference is not that dramatic. It can probably be explained by the fact
12/18
12/18
(which seems rather unlikely to me, in just three months... but never mind). What is not mentioned is that other pathogens were of course also circulating again at this time. This time frame shows a noticeable change, which is not surprising
11/18
11/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
(which seems rather unlikely to me, in just three months... but never mind). What is not mentioned is that other pathogens were of course also circulating again at this time. This time frame shows a noticeable change, which is not surprising
11/18
11/18
do not address such potentially distorting aspects at all. The second time period is December 2022 to February 2023, when the measures were lifted. The authors assume that virtually everyone was infected with COVID during this period
10/18
10/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
do not address such potentially distorting aspects at all. The second time period is December 2022 to February 2023, when the measures were lifted. The authors assume that virtually everyone was infected with COVID during this period
10/18
10/18
It is also likely that during the strict lockdowns, there were certain restrictions on who could even undergo such an examination in a hospital—perhaps fewer poorer and sicker people than later on. This is pure speculation on my part, but it is irritating that the authors
9/18
9/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
It is also likely that during the strict lockdowns, there were certain restrictions on who could even undergo such an examination in a hospital—perhaps fewer poorer and sicker people than later on. This is pure speculation on my part, but it is irritating that the authors
9/18
9/18
However, the situation in China was not normal at this time; instead, there was a strict lockdown in place. This means that, in addition to COVID-19, many other pathogens were not circulating, which certainly had an impact on immune systems.
8/18
8/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
However, the situation in China was not normal at this time; instead, there was a strict lockdown in place. This means that, in addition to COVID-19, many other pathogens were not circulating, which certainly had an impact on immune systems.
8/18
8/18
So we do not know whether there was any variability in the values during this period (which I consider likely). The second problem is describing this period as "pre-COVID" – as if it reflected the normal situation before the pandemic.
7/18
7/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
So we do not know whether there was any variability in the values during this period (which I consider likely). The second problem is describing this period as "pre-COVID" – as if it reflected the normal situation before the pandemic.
7/18
7/18
The average values of the results (from different people) were compared in three time periods, using the average values between 1/21 and 11/22 as the baseline. The first problem with this is that the paper does not break down this period by month, but presents it as a single data point.
6/18
6/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
The average values of the results (from different people) were compared in three time periods, using the average values between 1/21 and 11/22 as the baseline. The first problem with this is that the paper does not break down this period by month, but presents it as a single data point.
6/18
6/18
conducted on *different* groups of people. So, looking at the population of the study, it can be assumed that it is not representative of the general population. Only people who had undergone such an examination in a hospital were taken into account.
5/18
5/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
conducted on *different* groups of people. So, looking at the population of the study, it can be assumed that it is not representative of the general population. Only people who had undergone such an examination in a hospital were taken into account.
5/18
5/18
Reading something like this, one would assume that the immune systems of a certain number of study participants had been monitored over a period of 20 months after infection. However, this is not at all what the authors did. Instead, they compared medical data from lymphocyte tests
4/18
4/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
Reading something like this, one would assume that the immune systems of a certain number of study participants had been monitored over a period of 20 months after infection. However, this is not at all what the authors did. Instead, they compared medical data from lymphocyte tests
4/18
4/18
Let's take a closer look at this study from China as an example: "Persistent Attenuation of Lymphocyte Subsets After Mass SARS-CoV-2 Infection", doi.org/10.1016/j.ij.... The authors' statements sound dramatic, including: "SARS-CoV-2 causes lasting immune dysregulation for over 20 months."
3/18
3/18
Redirecting
doi.org
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
Let's take a closer look at this study from China as an example: "Persistent Attenuation of Lymphocyte Subsets After Mass SARS-CoV-2 Infection", doi.org/10.1016/j.ij.... The authors' statements sound dramatic, including: "SARS-CoV-2 causes lasting immune dysregulation for over 20 months."
3/18
3/18
for a limited period of time, but also "destroys" it. But the more studies I have looked at that are supposed to "prove" this, the less I do believe it. These studies are often hyped up on social media in a clickbait-like manner without any commentary or context.
2/18
2/18
December 7, 2025 at 3:22 PM
for a limited period of time, but also "destroys" it. But the more studies I have looked at that are supposed to "prove" this, the less I do believe it. These studies are often hyped up on social media in a clickbait-like manner without any commentary or context.
2/18
2/18
Die Zahlen geben es aber halt auch nicht her. Wenn die Folgen so wären, wie von der Alarmismus-Truppe erwartet, dann würden wir jetzt schon ein ganz anderes Bild sehen. Ich habe das anfangs auch für plausibel gehalten, aber es ist es nicht.
December 7, 2025 at 2:43 PM
Die Zahlen geben es aber halt auch nicht her. Wenn die Folgen so wären, wie von der Alarmismus-Truppe erwartet, dann würden wir jetzt schon ein ganz anderes Bild sehen. Ich habe das anfangs auch für plausibel gehalten, aber es ist es nicht.