On Monday, Berlingske (DK), the Danish daily, reported that figures presented by Statens Serum Institute in March on the spread of the coronavirus were incorrect. On March 30, SSI announced that in the first 12 days of the lockdown the reproduction rate, R0, had fallen from 2.6 to 1.4. On the basis of the data available at the time, the actual levels were 2.1 to 1.3. Berlingske called the error an ”exaggeration” (DK) of both the danger of the virus and the improvement that took place after the government’s lockdown. SSI acknowledged the mistake, which it explained by saying that the figures did not include people who had been infected abroad. The other statistics released by SSI apparently did include those persons. Upon the release of the figures, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen had announced that the country had succeeded in delaying the spread of the virus and that there were grounds for cautious optimism.

Did the mistake influence the strategy?

Allan Randrup Thomsen, Professor of Experimental Virology at University of Copenhagen, says it was a serious error. On the basis of the data available today, the figures for the period in question are even lower, showing a drop from 1.5 to 1.3. Jan Pravsgaard Christensen, Professor at the Institute for Immunology and  Microbiology at University of Copenhagen, says that if the correct figures had been released on March 30, the lockdown might not have been so drastic. But he added that any reproduction rate above 1.0 indicated an accelerating spread of infections, so if the lockdown had not been as strict, the result might have been a longer lockdown period. SSI rejected the description of the figures as misleading.

Yesterday Minister of Health Magnus Heunicke responded (DK) to the report. He said that the error was irritating but that it was a minor “editorial error.” He maintained that the number of hospitalizations in early March was rising sharply and that government’s lockdown was a necessary step to control the crisis.

Independent review

In a related development that may not have stemmed directly from the controversy about the infection figures, a parliamentary majority proposed an independent evaluation (DK) of the government’s handling of the pandemic from the beginning of the year. The Social Liberal Party, which supports the Social Democratic administration, joined four right-wing opposition parties in calling for the appointment of a committee of five persons with diverse expertise who would be given access to all the government’s and the relevant agencies’ documents during the period. The faction stressed the importance of such an evaluation’s being based in Parliament rather than the administration. 

“When you place the entire society on hold, people have a right to know afterward whether it was done on the basis of the correct assumptions,” said Peter Skaarup of the Danish People’s Party. It would be unusual that such an investigation would be managed by Parliament rather than by one of the ministries, but the deviation is warranted, says Mai Mercado of the Conservative Party: “At a time when Parliament has been sidelined, it is very important that Parliament takes charge of determining the model of the evaluation.”

Reopening the rest of country

The administration has invited the other party leaders to a meeting today to discuss the next steps (DK) in the relaxation of the lockdown restrictions. The negotiations will be based on the latest figures from SSI, which the administration expects to receive this morning and to pass on to the party leaders “as quickly as possible.”