I sent the RIVM an email to ask how it works with tracking whether or not vaccinated status in death. It is the most serious side effect of an injection permitted under certain conditions. Strict monitoring is a condition of the manufacturer under these circumstances. The figures with the help of solidly collected figures of reduced or consistent death after vaccination also offers an excellent opportunity to underline the safety of the vaccinations. Yet I hear nothing about it, it should have already signed up, just like the reduction of hospital and IC recordings. What is so different about keeping death dates? Below my mail with the question and below the RIVM answer. They just have no idea.
Related: people keep the status "unaccinated" for up to two weeks after vaccination when they get infected or enter the hospital. Then they do not count as vaccinates. But does that also apply to other non-Covid patients who have happened to something serious, are they also "unaccinated" because within two weeks you died or Tia or brain haemorrhage? And how do they actually make that distinction, where is that kept? What does the protocol look like for hospitals and healthcare institutions?
From: Anton Theunissen
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:53
At: Service post bus Corona Dashboard <DienstpostbusCoronaDashboard@minvws.nl>
Subject: Status “Unvacinated” in the event of infection and death
Dear RIVM employee,
Hopefully you can reassure me. I am worried about the following.
After a vaccination, the immune system needs some time to develop a fully -fledged response. The status of "unavaccinated" up to a few weeks after the date of vaccination (two weeks I believe) therefore applies when finding infections).
Question 1) I would like to know whether this status is being enforced "unaccinated" when registering, for example, deaths. If the cause of death is real COVID-19, that is of course justified: the immune system has not yet been able to help within those two weeks.
However, if there are comorbidities or even "comortalities", then that changes the matter. The status "unaccinated" could then stand in the way of correct data collection because any correlations with the vaccination will not be found when analysis of the data. That status is therefore crucial. Can you refer me to official documentation in which the procedure is described in this regard?
Question 2) Is there a guarantee that the status is not mistakenly applied by death by death? Is there a verification or control system on those registrations, so that the status of patients or deceased people with side effects, within two weeks after vaccination, is changed from "unaccinated" to "vaccinated" if the date of vaccination is shorter than 14 days ago? In this regard, can you also refer me to official documentation in which the procedure is described in this regard?
I'd love to hear from you.
Sincerely,
Anton theunists.
From: Service post bus Corona Dashboard <DienstpostbusCoronaDashboard@minvws.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:27 PM
At: 'Anton theunises'
Subject: Re: status "unaccinated" in the event of infection and death
Dear Anton,
Thank you for your message to the Coronadashboard.
That is not yet being kept up to date. This is mainly due to legal issues and AVG. This is being worked on. We cannot give a definitive answer when that is possible, as said, it is mainly to do whether it is allowed and can do (AVG).
We hope to have informed you sufficiently.
Kind regards,
Team Coronadashboard
Over AVG
What "legal issues", I am curious about that, but this is the now known vagueness that suggests a complexity that can only handle the higher Echalons. Then again see what the Dutch Data Protection Authority says about AVG.
For the person concerned (that is the person whose personal data is processed) it must be proper and transparent how and why the personal data is processed.
Dutch Data Protection Authority
Well, I don't really like how my data is handled for a disease that has since developed into a flu -like, against which everyone can protect themselves well -informed and for which excellent treatments are. So why it happens is not only improper but also not transparent, certainly not now that all the values are below the signal levels.
With the argument "Yes, but the values are below the signal levels thanks to these types of measures" you have maneuvered yourself in an infinite loop. There is then no more signal level to think of because it can always get worse, the state of alarm has become chronic.
Extra strict rules apply to special data, such as about […] Health […].
Dutch Data Protection Authority
What is "extra strict" about if I have to show my face, ID and my medical status at the same time every time I want to go somewhere?
What a strange contradiction. The RIVM is apparently the only one who is hindered by the AVG. The cabinet has a grinding at least.
Strict monitoring?
Pfizer demands strict monitoring with conditional admission of their vaccine. In Europe, the EMA weakens that: doctors are kindly requested to report suspected side effects. However, doctors have no "suspicions" about the side effects (unless you find a wappie doctor), for which they look in the package leaflet whether they read the RIVM site: what are side effects and does that look like this cause of death?
If the relevant condition or cause of death is mentioned in the document in the package leaflet, then there may be a suspicion that it is a side effect: the relationship in this specific case has not yet been demonstrated and that becomes extra difficult in people who are "very old anyway". So it is actually not much more than questions about the well -known road: you only get notifications of things you already knew from the investigations. Only if there is a certain type of reporting spontaneously at Lareb more often than expected, then attention will be paid and the package leaflet may be adjusted. So it should always be reported in the event of "disorder after vaccination" and certainly with "mortality after vaccination".
Without consistent reporting of all deaths after vaccination, it will take a long time before something comes up via CBS. Since the announcement of the vaccines, RIVM has shown little interest in consistent data collection or reporting thereof. And that while the data actually seems to be available to find out or exclude related to mortality:
People know the date of the last vaccination of every Dutch person - after all, the app knows - and they know the date of death of every deceased person. A correlation between the vaccination date and death date is not difficult to find out or exclude. This can be completely anonymized including age information. Ideal to convince people of the safety of vaccines!
RIVM says it unfortunately has no idea of vaccination data in deceased persons and apparently did not think of setting up the monitoring in such a way that such a thing can be spotted in time. Let alone that they have demanded that when announcing the vaccination campaigns, in order to be able to monitor something in this way. And now they come across "Legal issues and AVG" ... I don't know what I am experiencing. Has this always been the normal course of events?
