New study: PCR tests significantly overestimated actual infections

A recent scientific analysis sheds new light on the metrics used during the pandemic (DOI: 10.3389/fepid.2025.1592629). Researchers from the universities in Stuttgart, Koblenz and Vilnius (Lithuania) analysed data from the "Accredited Laboratories in Medicine" (ALM), which was collected on behalf of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI). The result: only around 14 per cent - possibly even just 10 per cent - of the people who tested positive were actually infected with SARS-CoV-2, as shown by antibody detection (IgG). The researchers also show that by the end of 2021, over 90 per cent of the population had already had at least one contact with the virus - a figure that is confirmed by the RKI's antibody detections.

On the one hand, the study shows that the equation "positive PCR test = infection" is not scientifically tenable. Nevertheless, it was precisely this equation that became the basis for far-reaching political decisions. The results appear at a time when the Bundestag's Committee of Inquiry into the pandemic has begun its work. They also stand in stark contrast to recent statements, such as those made by Christian Drosten in the Saxon committee of enquiry, according to which every positive PCR test is synonymous with an infection. Particularly explosive: The Infection Protection Act (§22a IfsG) stipulated during the pandemic that only a positive PCR test is considered proof of infection or recovery. Antibody tests that could actually detect an infection were expressly excluded.

Secondly, the scientists criticise the anchoring of the "seven-day incidence" in the Infection Protection Act (§28a IfsG) as a basis for drastic interventions in fundamental rights. "This measure depends solely on the number of tests carried out and is therefore not an objective indicator of the incidence of infection," says Michael Günther from the University of Stuttgart, the lead author of the study. Co-author Robert Rockenfeller from the University of Koblenz adds: "The jump from half a million to two and a half million tests per week creates a five-fold increase in incidence simply due to the varying number - without the actual incidence of infection having to change".

The analysis invites a fundamental question: Were the most reliable data and the most robust concepts really always used to justify far-reaching decisions during the pandemic? The answer to this question will not only be decisive for the historical reappraisal, but also for trust in politics and academia in future crisis management.