The government and the OMT have a shocking lack of vision and should be held accountable.
Corona is completely innocent for an average Dutch person without comorbidity, without underlying illness. An average Dutch person is not at any risk, especially under 60 years old.
The whole story now costs more than € 90 billion in 6 weeks, which is 1000 euros per week for every Dutch person. So every family has now lost 25-30 thousand euros. The 90 billion wasted could have been used to protect the vulnerable. Now the invulnerables are locked up and the vulnerable are forced into an endless quarantine.
The corona patients are looked at unilaterally and with blinkers, the long-term health consequences of other patients seem completely lost sight of.
As a result of bankruptcies, poverty and debt restructuring, such a loss of health will occur that the number of life years lost will be alarmingly high. Long-term poverty is a much more deadly disease than corona.
In addition, there are also people on the waiting list who are more likely to die due to postponement of treatment.
The psychological complaints, child abuse and other misery in the home due to being locked up are now becoming very distressing.
The total loss of life and loss of quality of life as a result of the lockdown is very high. This loss and lives will be much higher than the small chance of life gain that we might get with the lockdown. (In health care one calculates with Quality Adjusted LifeYears, abbreviated QALY. The use of QALY is the fairest method available. If someone claims that QALY is not a good method to calculate the value of a life, it can be seen as a form. of fascism, because then you weigh the life of a group (the elderly) more heavily than that of another group (the future unemployed).
Initially, the WHO confused the case fatality rate (CFR) with the infection fatality rate (IFR) and spoke of a mortality of 4%. Our government and the OMT did not seem to notice this mistake, in panic imitated other countries and immediately locked the entire country.
Much more important than the CFR is the IFR, this is the real lethality. After a long wait, it became clear in mid-April that the IFR, the mortality was relatively easy, not even a fraction of 4% that the WHO discussed. The flag could be raised but no word about this in the Dutch news, which rather showed images of mass graves. Bad news apparently sells better.
Furthermore, other good news is that it is now clear that there is a lot of comorbidity among the people who have died. The average age at which people die from corona is above 80 years. This is a perfectly normal average life expectancy for someone with comorbidity, even without a corona.
Given the combination of the low IFR and the average age of death, the loss of life years (the QALY) is therefore very limited. The loss of QALY due to the lockdown will be many, many times higher than the gain due to the lockdown.
Furthermore, the goal of slowing down the contamination is already questionable, what do they actually want to achieve if you also want to achieve group immunity? It only makes sense if you want to take the risk of waiting for a working treatment. That chance seems very small in the short term. The number of years of life due to the treatments in intensive care are at most a few 1000 QALY, also negligible compared to the loss of the many tens of thousands of QALY that will cause poverty. Therefore, not overloading healthcare is not a valid argument.
In addition, it is also clear from comparison with Sweden and the federal states in Germany that the added value of a strict lockdown on the transmission (the infectivity or the R0 value) is limited compared to a mild lockdown.
From the beginning of April it was also clear from research that transmission only takes place indoors and not outdoors. This realization does not seem to get through, the tennis courts and football fields are still closed and the police are still enthusiastically issuing fines.
So a lockdown has little effect, and if it does have an effect on the speed of transmission of the virus, it means that you are stretching the problem.
All new IFR and R0 data was available in mid-April. The first panic response from OMT and Rutte in March was perhaps still to be defended. Failure to release the lockdown from mid-April can be seen as a serious crime that has resulted in many deaths.
See also these two links to see that the utility of the lockdown is limited and out of proportion to the measures that are now being taken.
Are you disappointed have you suffered health or financial damage from the long waiting lists or bankruptcy?
Start a disciplinary case or personal injury against the doctors of the OMT.
Download a blank complaint from this site or use the example.
This is the website of the Disciplinary Court for Healthcare
This is the example you can copy and copy directly.
If you do not complain on your own behalf but on behalf of another:
Files a complaint on behalf of all victims of the Netherlands with regard to health, life expectancy and financial damage and personal damage due to….
Complains to the doctor
Name and initials :
The complaint is based on the following facts:
Mr./Mw ……. Has initiated a treatment, namely the lockdown. What he is accused of is not stopping treatment when it became clear that the damage was greater than the profit. The Hippocratic oath has thus been exceeded; primum non nocere, you will not harm in the first place.
I am accusing the accused, in short, that he / she… has advised the government of a treatment which has now become sufficiently clear, or has raised sufficient doubts, that it will cause more damage than it produces.
Initially, much was unclear, but it can now be calculated that more life years (QALY) are lost than are gained. It follows that the treatment, namely the lockdown had to be stopped per acute.
Slowly but surely there is more clarity about the lethality of the virus. Worldwide, lethality, the IFR, becomes clear through random sampling. This is not as bad as initially thought.
In addition, the infectivity, the R-value, is also becoming clear worldwide. This shows that the added value of the lockdown is probably limited to the R value. Factors such as humidity and super spread events have such a great influence that the added value of other obligations such as closing shops is limited.
This is partly due to a comparison with countries such as Sweden, federal states of Germany and various states in America.
Furthermore, the added value of an admission to the IC is slowly but surely becoming known, namely percentages of patients who survive and the expected profit on the QALY. The number of years of life gained by not overloading healthcare can be found in the calculation below.
As a side effect of the treatment, the lockdown, there are the negative side effects on the life expectancy of patients who are now on the waiting list. In addition, there are also effects on the life expectancy of people who will end up in poverty and debt restructuring in the future. It only talks about the economy, rarely about the health effects of a bad economy. The loss of QALY due to the lockdown is not reflected in the reports of RIVM or OMT. There is no solid substantiation of the advice to the government with regard to the side effects.
Since the sum (QALY gained through lockdown - QALY lost through lockdown complications) is plausible or suspected to be negative, treatment had to be discontinued immediately, at least from the date that IFR became known, namely before April 20.
…. has understood or ignored this or insufficiently and thereby caused serious damage to the Dutch population with his advice to the government.
Human life comes at a price. This price is determined daily by healthcare systems based on the Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). The Netherlands is usually willing to spend € 80.000 to extend someone's life for a year. Based on the concept of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY), it is calculated whether a person with cancer is still entitled to immunotherapy or whether an older person is still entitled to a heart transplant, etc.
Since this is the only measure for assessing the lockdown measures, this calculation enables the life expectancy gain from the lockdown to be estimated and compared with the costs.
To this end we need to know a few things:
a) total costs of the lockdown;
b) how many years of life are likely to be lost without the lockdown
c) how many lives are lost, even with a properly executed lock down.
d) how many years of life are likely to be lost as a negative side effect of the lockdown;
The costs per year of life achieved by the lockdown are then: a / (bc -d).
First the costs. The economic loss according to estimates is increasing almost exponentially. Initially, the CPB thought a 1,2-7,7% loss in the economy and the IMF stood at 7,5%. There is now talk of 90 billion. This is partly due to costs within the Netherlands, partly due to problems outside the Netherlands.
To calculate how many years of life are lost without the lock down, we need to know the crude mortality rate (CMR) and the Infectio Fatality rate (IFR). (Until recently, attention has focused only on the Case Fatality Rate, the CFR.)
The first data were recently published, including in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and California. If correct, IFR is between 0,1-1% so far, meaning corona is about 1-10 times more deadly than the flu. At present, mortality is increasingly assumed, an IFR of approximately 0.4%.
Let's also assume that 50% of a country gets infected, because that's what happens with a major flu.
For the Netherlands, this would mean that of the 17 million people, about 34.000 would die. The average age of those likely to die is more than 80 years and the life expectancy of an 80-year-old - given the comorbidity of this population - a maximum of 2 years. So 34.000 x 2 = approximately 68.000 life years are lost by the corona in the Netherlands in total.
The purpose of the lockdown is not so much to save lives directly, but to flatten the curve of corona cases from spreading so that the healthcare system is not overloaded. So about 34.000 lives are lost anyway, only later. People who would otherwise be able to survive using the respirators should be sent home if care is overloaded. In an adequate triage, people with a survival rate of 10% would then not receive hospitalization. Suppose 20.000 people were sent home with a bottle of oxygen and medication, 2.000 of which could otherwise have been rescued by intensive care ventilation. A total of 36.000 instead of 34.000 people die.
However, given the poor quality of their health after hospitalization and intensive care, their QALY is estimated at one year. In short: the lockdown, which prevents overload, makes more hospital admissions possible and thus saves about 2000 QALY.
How many people will die as a negative side effect of the lockdown? We assume that people will become unemployed and in debt restructuring. The lives of poor people are about 6 years shorter than that of rich people. This is because poor people have more stress, an unhealthy lifestyle and suicide cases. For the sake of convenience, let's assume that unemployment decreases two weeks from a person's life expectancy every year. In view of the course in America, unemployment could easily rise to 6%. This means that 250.000 people who have been unemployed for 2 years will lose about 20.000 QALY. In addition, mortality is further added by postponing treatment, at least 10.000 QALY. In addition, a loss of quality of life of 17 million Dutch people who have been locked up for two months. 17 million times x 1% quality loss x 2 months = 28.000 QALY lost.
(International comparators and poverty and health in Europe
BMJ 2000; 321 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7269.1124 (Published November 04, 2000)
Some figures are rough estimates. The goal is to put things in perspective. An additional comparison can therefore be useful. If everyone in the Netherlands quit smoking and losing weight, 1 million years of life would be saved annually. This is 29 times the total expected life years lost by corona. Every year.
Why did RIVM not advise an acute lockdown and detention of people here to lose weight and to stop smoking?
the total costs will now amount to 90 billion. So even if we do not take into account the negative side effects, the costs incurred per QALY gained are approximately € 45.000.000, which is more than the € 80.000 the Netherlands is usually willing to spend for a life year gained. Why? By looking further at the numbers, we can determine that a lockdown will cost more QALY than it will save. It is often said better save then sorry in support of starting the lock down. The reverse is even more true for lifting the lockdown.
… .. neglected these calculations and only paid attention to Corona patients. In my opinion, this is a gross violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
Share and like as much as possible! This is how we break through censorship together!