The "A-Status debate" of the Senate could be followed via a live stream. It became clear that the debate was hardly about whether Omicron is actually a Group A disease. Instead, it was about matters such as interim laws, temporary laws, procedures, ministerial regulations, deadlines, promises from the minister and so on. They were formal and governance issues with no direct relationship to reality. There was certainly no review of the validity of laws or considerations.
Below is the first of two posts on this theme.
The Reversal
If our country is attacked by an unknown infectious disease that we know nothing about, the Council of Ministers can give carte blanche to doctors and the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport. The most severe measures are then allowed. The reasoning is: "We may need draconian measures, so we classify this as one of the worst diseases imaginable for the time being". It is sufficient to assign the disease to Group A, which also includes, for example, Ebola, MERS, Dengue, etc., diseases that are more than 1000 times more deadly than, for example, Omicron. For Group A diseases, certain fundamental rights may be affected.
This happened at the beginning of 2020 with Covid-19. Legally, this situation should then be removed (or re-evaluated) as soon as possible because fundamental rights are at stake. It is therefore an undesirable temporary arrangement that must be tested and extended again and again.
After that unexpected initial phase, the reasoning should be as follows:
Determination of disease severity => Falls into Group A/B1/B2C => Permissible package of measures
After doctors have determined the severity of an illness, it is examined which measures are appropriate
In politics, this logic is now simply reversed. On the basis of the desired measures, a disease is assigned a status – as if we have just been attacked and therefore have to fall back on emergency measures!
Desired package of measures => Choose Group A/B1/B2/C => Place disease in desired group
If doctors like to have a lot of room for manoeuvre, politicians decide to give the disease Group A status
Something is not right here. Not to mention the alliance that doctors, VWS and cabinet have forged. And Hugo De Jonge thought it was a good argument too, he said it openly and the House of Representatives listened breathlessly to this circular reasoning.
Ernst Kuipers said exactly the same: "If you vote against this proposal, then I have nothing. Then I'm empty-handed."
It is reminiscent of the House of Representatives that determined by vote that "number of infections" is the same as "number of positive tests".
As long as neither the virologists nor the Chambers do a frequent reality check on severity, measures and proportionality, the A-Status hastily issued in 2020 can be maintained. All that is needed is scare tactics for what misery may be coming. This works all the better if it is supported by doctors who still have a full mandate at that time and find it quite pleasant to work with. So every politician (certainly every fat one) quickly puts his signature, although the threat de facto does not differ from previous years. After all, it is possible to All the time a nasty virus will emerge in the future. This was evident in 2019 when we unsuspectingly went towards the corona crisis.
Covid-19 doesn't even exist anymore, let alone epidemic
The disease caused by the current SARS-CoV-2 virus is no longer "Covid-19". The fact that Covid-19 has now been placed in Group A therefore says nothing about the Omicron disease of two years later. The clinical picture simply does not meet the symptoms by which Covid-19 could be recognized. Please note: the disease is on the A-list, not the virus!
- Omicron disease is not a serious lung disease, it is a mild disease of the throat
- The characteristic Covid-19 symptom, loss of smell and taste, is rare
- Fever and cough has been replaced by pain in the throat
- Hospitalisation is rare (less than with flu)
- Hospital stay is shorter
- ICU admission is normalized (about 10 times less than with the flu)
- Mortality is very low, lower than with flu (about 10x less than with flu)
(See the figures in the Open Letter)
Covid-19 may now finally be on the Group A list, thanks to a delayed procedure, but that is the past precursor of the disease caused by Omicron. Omicron itself causes different symptoms, the treatment is different and the lethality is also of a completely different order of magnitude than Covid-19. There is no question of excessive pressure on healthcare.
Continuing to name the Omicron disease as "Covid-19" is an accounting trick to keep the disease on the A-List so that the tightened control can continue to be justified. However, the Omicron disease does not belong there.
The only ones who can eliminate this crooked, ignorant situation are those who then have to relinquish the power that has just been given to them. That doesn't seem like a good construction to me from an organizational point of view. But then again – I'm not a virologist.
Later this week, the second post will follow in which I will discuss the non-existent A-Status of Omicron in more detail.
Attachments:
Hugo de Jonge did jockey a bit
The House was already falsely informed at the end of 2021, this time by withholding information. Hugo de Jonge writes that "the classification of an infectious disease in group A, in the Public Health Act (hereinafter: Wpg) is related to the question of whether national control is considered necessary by the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport (hereinafter: VWS). If that is the case, then the disease is classified in group A."
Crucial information is missing here. What he describes here is an exceptional, temporary situation that must meet the aforementioned conditions. See also below in the legal texts.
Also remember that Hugo de Jonge repeats here what he also said more than a year earlier about Covid-19, in September 2020. In December 2021, he therefore refers to the early emergency and to the decision scheme as it would have been used later in 2020, as if it would have produced the same outcome. He thinks those extensions are just an annoying formality. He therefore considers a rapidly mutating virus to be a static fact to which the same response must always be given over the years.
Ernst Kuipers has also been jogging a bit
"If the law is not approved, then I have nothing." With this repeated plea (and a misleading mortality rate of 0.9%), he convinced the Senate to accept everything. The entire Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport apparently cannot come up with a strategy without setting aside fundamental rights, because that is what makes that law necessary. The Senate does not think about that either. Kuipers also sees no end point because "it can always happen again with this unpredictable virus". This implies that we will have to permanently distance ourselves from our fundamental rights because the state cannot come up with any means to inform people about self-protection except threat, coercion and coercion. Not really a nice idea to surrender your fundamental rights to such a government.
Paragraphs from the Public Health Act relevant to this article
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0024705/2021-12-04
Article 1e:
Group A:Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), smallpox, polio, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), viral hemorrhagic fever;
[note that Covid-19 is not listed here. This is formally long overdue. That could also have legal consequences, but yes, crisis so go ahead.]
Article 1i:
epidemic of an infectious disease:a rapid increase in the number of new patients suffering from an infectious disease belonging to group A, B1, B2 or C;
Article 1m: infection:the entry and development or multiplication of an infectious agent into the body of humans, which may pose a public health risk;
[Omicron cannot pose a public health risk, as epidemics in unvaccinated areas have shown]
Article 20:
- If the interests of public health so demand and in accordance with the opinion of the Council of Ministers, an infectious disease not belonging to group A, B1, B2 or C, or a clinical picture with a cause unknown according to the state of scientific knowledge, where there is a well-founded suspicion of contagiousness and serious danger to public health, may be classified by order of the Minister. group A, B1 or B2.
- If the interests of public health so require, in accordance with the opinion of the Council of Ministers, an infectious disease belonging to group B1 may be regarded as belonging to group A, an infectious disease belonging to group B2 may be regarded as belonging to group A or B1, or an infectious disease belonging to group C may be regarded as belonging to group A, B1 or B2.
- The regulation referred to in the first or second paragraph shall determine which provisions of this Act, which apply to the infectious diseases belonging to the group in question, apply in that case.
Chapter Va. Temporary provisions for combating the epidemic of COVID-19
Article 58b.
- This chapter applies to the control of the epidemic, or a direct threat thereof.
- The powers conferred by or pursuant to this Chapter shall be applied only to the extent that such application:
- a. serious threat to public health;
- b. is in accordance with the principles of the democratic rule of law; and
- c. in view of the objective referred to in the first paragraph, the exercise of fundamental rights is restricted as little as possible and is proportionate to that objective.
- By way of derogation from the second paragraph, a ministerial regulation adopted pursuant to this chapter may enter into force immediately after its adoption and publication, if there is a very urgent circumstance in which immediate action must be taken to limit the danger. Within two days of its adoption, the Minister shall send the regulation to both Houses of the States General, accompanied by a reasoned statement explaining the urgent circumstance. The scheme lapses by operation of law if the House of Representatives decides not to approve the scheme within one week of being sent.
