I don't agree to be honest re Streeck. He and his team did a study in Heinsberg. I haven't seen the study - in fact, there doesn't exist a manuscript so nobody can see what was done and if it was done correctly. Already two points seem critical to me: They didn't count households but individuals infected with SARS-Cov-2 (so if there are 5 people in a household they counted 5 and not 1), and it seems they used ELISA. Other virologists say this test is not suited to differentiate between SARS-Cov-2 and other coronaviruses (that typically circulate); Streeck claims the manufacturer says it's 99% reliable - that's not a proof for the reliability of the test. But most of all, there should some form of a publication. Everybody is doing non-peer-reviewed publication right now, but at least there is a publication! Talking in front of the media and presenting results as "scientific facts" without proper scientific processes is simply unscientific. What's worse - people, especially some politicians, want to hear it's ok to end the lockdown, and if there comes a "scientiest" claiming he has proof that it's ok, that will create bad blood. And it already does. I think Streeck played that card knowingly. He enjoys being in the spotlight, in my opinion.I saw an interview with Prof Streeck yesterday. Very good research being done in Germany.
I'm really unhappy about Streeck's role in Germany and wish we had more voices of Drosten's caliber (who, in my view, proved to be able to work scientifically, e.g. via peer-reviewed publication; I am aware of the drawbacks of peer-reviewed papers, but it's most often still better than non-peer-reviewed, and definitely better than no publication).