[ad_1]
Something is wrong. Or it is not so clear. Of course, it will be only the judges of Lazio tar to say who is right and who is not. But the analysis of the defensive memory presented by the State Prosecutor’s Office on behalf of the Ministry of Health, some questions are asked. On December 22 will take place the hearing of the appeal presented by two FdI deputies who ask the administrative robes to oblige the department they head Robert hope publish the anti-Covid “secret plan”. The wait is great. The ministry does not intend to give up. And he made it clear. Therefore, a legal battle is expected that deserves further investigation.
The defensive line dictated by the General State Attorney is outlined, in summary, along three guidelines. First: the ministry maintains that the “secret plan” mentioned by its general director Andrea Urbani in an interview with Messenger Service it was only the study conducted by Stefano merler from the Kessler Foundation. Second: Merler’s analysis “is not a pandemic plan approved by the health ministry, nor an act prepared by a public administration, nor (…) it is in the hands of the ministry.” Third: the analysis is presented by Merler “for the first time on February 12, 2020” to the members of the CTS and only “on that occasion” the ministry also takes “knowledge” of it. For these reasons – affirms the lawyer – the plaintiffs should not have contacted Viale Lungotevere Ripa 1, which does not “have” the document, but with Civil Protection. As if to say: you have the wrong address, call Palazzo Chigi.
Let’s go back to April 21. That day the Messenger Service publishes the interview with Urbani in which the existence of a “classified plan“That would have been” followed “by the experts to manage the first phase of the epidemic. No” vacuum in decision-making “, in short. A few hours later, in the face of the accumulation of controversies that arose (the Regions protest because they did not know nothing), the Ministry of Health publishes a press release on its institutional website that in the intentions should have turned off all boiling. The text says that “during work workgroup on the new coronavirus, established in the Ministry of Health on January 22 ” There was “the need to develop, by the Planning Directorate of the Ministry of Health, the Istituto Superiore di Sanità and the INMI Spallanzani, a study on the possible scenarios of the epidemic and the impact on the national health system, identifying a series of actions to be activated in relation to the development of epidemic scenarios, in order to contain their effects. ”The“ first version of this analysis ”, we read, on February 12 is“ presented to Scientific technical committee for the necessary in-depth analysis “, which will be updated later until March 4.
Now let’s compare the two versions. In defense of tar, the defense maintains that Merler study was presented by the investigator to the CTS on February 12, and that alone on that occasion the ministry would have found out. Okay. The date of February 12 is also mentioned in the April note, but in another way: at that meeting – we read – the trio “ministry-ISS-Spallanzani” presented to the CTS “the first version” of the analysis, the need for which was already emerged in the previous days within the workgroup. And this is where some dilemmas arise. Are the study cited in the April note and Merler’s study the same? If so, then it seems impossible to imagine, as the lawyer wrote, that the ministry He knew nothing about it prior to February 12 and he never saw or approved of it. The two statements (the defense brief and the April note) appear to briefly contradict each other.
If they are not the same document, there are two options: there is a third mysterious file, prepared by Iss, the ministry and Spallanzani, presented to the CTS on February 12 and – as written in the note – updated until March 4. Or that act born of workgroup is the famous “Operational plan for preparation and response to different scenarios of possible development of a 2019-nCov epidemicThen approved by the Committee. As it happens, the Cts minutes say that on February 12 Merler presented his epidemiological studies, immediately after the Cts gave a mandate to a group (made up of Iss, ministry and Spallanzani) to produce an “operational plan” that it was approved on March 2. and updated again on March 4. The same dates as the April note. What if the “study” mentioned in the statement was actually the “plan” approved by the CTS? Then the defensive brief presented before the TAR would be imprecise: the lawyer in fact clearly writes that what Urbani cited is only the study Merler and that there is no other “plan”.
Where is the truth? The only thing for sure, rebuilt in Coronavirus Black Book (read here), is that there is a “Plan” and how. The CTS minutes and the exclusive disclosures reported by the Giornale.it. Not only. Hope saw that “plan” in draft on February 20, when two experts went there to present it with many slides. Now it only remains to know clearly what was the role of the ministry and freely read the content of the minutes to get an idea. Maybe there is nothing scandalous inside. So why not post it and clear the fog surrounding this mystery?
