[ad_1]
Six officials from the Department of Epidemiology of the Ministry of Health indicated that the data related to the covid-19 virus were accommodated at the convenience of the Ministry of Health, this within the framework of the investigation regarding a possible manipulation of the numbers of infected and deceased.
The Minsal officials gave their testimony on October 5 to the North Central Prosecutor’s Office, who come to support what was said by the also former official Andrea Albagli, who said that the Minsal authorities “asked to manipulate the database.”
The situation was reviewed in the constitutional accusation against the former Minister of Health Jaime Mañalich, who criticized Epivigila pointing out that “the compass we used had enormous difficulties, and that compass is called the Epivigila system.”
However, according to data collected by Third, he realizes the testimonies of the epidemiological team in which they admit that the cut-off time of the reports was adjusted, an order that was allegedly imposed by the head of the Health Planning Division (Diplas) of Minsal, Johanna Acevedo.
Another official, Mario Soto, told prosecutor Marcelo Carrasco that he witnessed a call to Acevedo made by the Undersecretary of Health Paula Daza. “I witnessed an indication from Daza to Johanna Acevedo. This indication was given to her by phone and consisted of generating the epidemiological report all over again, but from the laboratory’s database. However, said database has no antecedents epidemiological (…) This report was not made. I don’t know what his objective was, he did not like the data, the form. It was in April, it must have been the second week of April.
Meanwhile, an official from the Department of Epidemiology, Patricia Cerda assured that “she knew that our data had to fit with those reported by the minister, but I do not know where that instruction came from.”
Finally, the statistical engineer Fabio Paredes reported that he made “a graph with the difference between what we produced and what Mañalich communicated.”
“One is the (report) that the minister makes (…) Another is a daily report that we made based on the instructions that he gave us through the headquarters. That caused that sometimes we had more confirmed cases than the that he reported in his report, “he said.
He added that “at first they had to be consistent with the official information. It was a requirement that came from the minister. Everyone knew that within the department (…) he could not explain how both reports were matched if they had different sources.”
[ad_2]
