[ad_1]
Johanna acevedo, head of the Health Planning Division (Diplas) of the Ministry of Health, assured that although the source of notified and suspected cases of Covid-19 is the platform Epivigila, the former minister Jaime Mañalich -resigned in June- He decided to set up a “parallel” system in charge of his chief of staff, Itziar Linazasoro.
Acevedo’s sayings, who had the implementation of Epivigila among his tasks, have a place in his judicial statement, recorded by T13, within the framework of research led by the prosecutor Xavier Armendariz around Mañalich and the deaths from Covid-19 that occurred when he was the head of the Minsal.
In the document, the official, who served as head of the Ministry’s Epidemiology Department, provided details of the creation of the platform that gathers information on the disease. Until his arrival at Diplas, in August 2018, the notification was made through a paper issued by the health professional and then entered in the respective seremis.
The new software was tested, adjustments were made, and went into production on March 2, a day before the first case of coronavirus was confirmed in Chile. During the preparation of the form, Acevedo said, a stock of “minimal variables”, anticipating a risk of poor quality data being entered, since the doctors could be saturated and there were no personnel dedicated specifically to this task.
However, when they asked to consider traceability within the new document, this aspect was not considered “until the change of minister”, assured the official.
Parallel counting
In his statement, Acevedo revealed that former minister Mañalich decided to mount a “parallel” system for counting Covid-19 cases, run by your chief of staff, because the information contained in Epivigila had a “certain lag”, since people were required to be notified.
“So she (Itziar Linazasoro) decided to set up a parallel system to bring public information, which was to call the seremis to inform her of the cases”, he detailed.
Acevedo affirmed that he has a summary of all the emails, since together with this investigation by the Prosecutor’s Office, there is a summary of the Comptroller’s Office for the difference in figures reported by the Minsal. “Technically, at least in my responsibilities, I have complied, always reporting the data to the authority, every day,” he stressed.
Consulted on the criteria with which Mañalich’s chief of staff defined the data that were delivered in the daily bulletin, Acevedo said he did not know them.
The official maintained that the numbers were similar at first, and at times “more up to date than mine”, But everything began to change when infections increased: “I think they realized that they had to go to the official source of the data.”
“I sent the data, I was not very worried about what she said in the public report. But I have evidence of an email from April 29 where the first big difference existed, with 90 fewer cases than those sent by me than the number reported “, he pointed.
It was there that “I began to report all confirmed cases, with PCR (+) that remained suspects and with PCR (+) not notifiedI always gave the complete information, but the information in the public report only included confirmed cases, “he added.
“In March or April the differences (in the number of cases) were minimal and were attributable to the receipt of the information, and that is normal, if there were 2 or 3 it did not matter, because the next day it was compensated. But When they were 90 it was the milestone that marked the beginning of the differences, which began to grow day by day, exceeding 30,000 when Minister Mañalich left the Minsal “, he stressed.
He relates that later the report of the Comptroller’s Office was known, which confirmed more than 30,000 unreported cases: “But Those cases were always reported to the Minsal authority, from the date I indicate, May 19, with the report that we send daily. That is, the gap that the Comptroller’s Office says was in public information, not in the one we handled internally at the Minsal “Acevedo asserted.
“Limited” epidemiological reports
According to Acevedo, the parallel count affected the epidemiological reports, which were “limited” because “they had to be consistent with what was reported by the authority.”
“I don’t know what the minister based his decisions on. As an epidemiologist, I consider that the objective of epidemiology is to show the dynamics of the epidemic curve. So when patients are excluded for administrative reasons, the projection that one can make of the curve is altered and the dynamics of the epidemic, “said the official.
