According to infectiologist Erika Vlieghe, the corona virus could strike so hard during the second wave due to a lack of a sense of urgency, the fragmentation of powers and the great tension between external experts and policy.
Vlieghe said Friday in the special parliamentary committee responsible for the investigation into the approach to the covid-19 epidemic in our country. She also fears there is no solid plan for when another wave breaks out.
Not a captain
As with the first wave, the responses leading up to the second wave were reactive. “There was no bigger plan and it was not clear who the captain of the ship was,” Vlieghe said.
‘Only the hospitals were able to display the necessary flexibility because they had emergency plans ready. If you have completed generic preparations, you will go a long way. ‘
‘Killing factor’: eight health ministers
In addition, according to the professor, there were several stumbling blocks. For example, there is a problem with the structure of the policy, which means that powers are fragmented.
Vlieghe refers, among other things, to the eight Ministers of Health. ‘Despite the goodwill’, this is ‘at best a slowing factor, but at worst it is a killing factor’, according to the infectiologist. She doesn’t want to point the finger of blame to a certain level. Everyone from the regions and at the federal level tried to contribute, but everyone referred to each other. There was no efficiency. “It was like the Echternach procession.”
No sense of urgency
In addition, Vlieghe also noted that politicians lacked a sense of urgency. The reshuffle of the advisory body Celeval did not help. The intention was to open up the body to society. The task of the experts was to teach our country to live with the virus. ‘But the situation was still too explosive’, it sounds.
After the rearrangement, there were too few biomedical experts in the organ, according to Vlieghe. The experts had no experience with an epidemic. They minimized the numbers. “As a result, Celeval 2 was unable to provide strong epidemiological advice,” she says.
‘Moreover, there was little enthusiasm among politicians to take strict measures.’ Anyone who advocated this was dismissed as a panic mower, according to the professor.
Tension field
There was also great tension between the external experts, who tried to think out of the box, and the policymakers, Vlieghe argues. The proposals were often blocked because they were not realistic. When new things were realized, it was often under the impulse of external experts. The government is not innovative enough.
The second wave had come anyway. If action had been taken more quickly, already in September, the second wave would have been smaller and we would already be in calmer waters, says Vlieghe.
No plan
The infectiologist also wonders whether our country will be prepared to take measures quickly and switch quickly in the next wave. According to her, there is again no solid plan.
According to her, people must be permanently working on corona, ‘just as the army is always ready for war’. There must be a strategic stock of medical devices and medication and a generic plan must be ready to scale up, for example, triage centers and contract tracing if necessary again.
Dog grooming salons
“I have never been given a clear mandate,” she added.
Erika Vlieghe was a member of the first scientific committee, in the advisory body Celeval and chaired the GEES. She currently works in the team of the Corona Commissioner Pedro Facon. She works 60 percent for him and combines that with her work at UZ Antwerp. ‘It is the first time that I have a contract’.
During the first wave ‘we never received a clear mandate and it was not clear what was expected of us. In the midst of a crisis, we received questions at Celeval from the Crisis Center about dog grooming salons and garden centers, the infectiologist says. ‘We gave the best possible scientifically substantiated answer. But no strategy had been drawn up. I had the feeling that no one saw the broader picture. ‘
Vlieghe said Friday in the special parliamentary committee responsible for the investigation into the approach to the covid-19 epidemic in our country. She also fears there is no solid plan for when a new wave breaks out. As with the first wave, the responses leading up to the second wave were reactive. “There was no bigger plan and it was not clear who the captain of the ship was,” Vlieghe said. ‘Only the hospitals were able to display the necessary flexibility because they had emergency plans ready. If you have completed generic preparations, you will get very far. ”In addition, according to the professor, there were several stumbling blocks. For example, there is a problem with the structure of the policy, which means that powers are fragmented. Vlieghe refers, among other things, to the eight Ministers of Health. ‘Despite the goodwill’, this is ‘at best a slowing factor, but at worst it is a killing factor’, according to the infectiologist. She doesn’t want to point the finger of blame to a certain level. Everyone from the regions and at the federal level tried to contribute, but everyone referred to each other. There was no efficiency. “It was like the Echternach procession.” In addition, Vlieghe also noted that politicians lacked a sense of urgency. The reshuffle of the advisory body Celeval did not help. The intention was to open up the body to society. The task of the experts was to teach our country to live with the virus. ‘But the situation was still too explosive’, it sounds. After the rearrangement, there were too few biomedical experts in the organ, according to Vlieghe. The experts had no experience with an epidemic. They minimized the numbers. “As a result, Celeval 2 was unable to provide strong epidemiological advice,” she says. ‘Moreover, there was little enthusiasm among politicians to take strict measures.’ Anyone who advocated this was dismissed as a panic mower, according to the professor. There was also great tension between the external experts, who tried to think out of the box, and the policymakers, Vlieghe argues. The proposals were often blocked because they were not realistic. When new things were realized, it was often under the impulse of external experts. The government is not innovative enough. The second wave had come anyway. If action had been taken more quickly, already in September, the second wave would have been smaller and we would already be in calmer waters, says Vlieghe. The infectiologist also wonders whether our country will be prepared to take measures quickly and switch quickly in the next wave. According to her, there is again no solid plan. According to her, people must be permanently working on corona, ‘just as the army is always ready for war’. There must be a strategic stock of medical devices and medication and a generic plan must be ready to scale up, for example, triage centers and contract tracing if necessary again. “I never received a clear mandate,” she added. Erika Vlieghe was a member of the first scientific committee, in the advisory body Celeval and chaired the GEES. She currently works in the team of the Corona Commissioner Pedro Facon. She works 60 percent for him and combines that with her work at UZ Antwerp. ‘It is the first time that I have a contract’. During the first wave, ‘we never received a clear mandate and it was not clear what was expected of us. In the midst of a crisis, we received questions at Celeval from the Crisis Center about dog grooming salons and garden centers, the infectiologist says. ‘We gave the best possible scientifically substantiated answer. But no strategy had been drawn up. I had the feeling that no one saw the broader picture. ‘
– .
