visitors are also concerned about the rare, but serious side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine and the research into the Janssen vaccine.

Editor-in-chief Gert-Jaap Hoekman explains how the editors take this into account.

If you ask me, the only way to get out of this misery is vaccination, but I also understand that the pressure that comes with it and all the ominous reports of recent times can make you insecure.

'The advantages outweigh the disadvantages', the regulator EMA says soberly.

But that must feel different when you are about to get stung.

Does do enough to reassure those people?

And is that actually our responsibility?

Those questions have been running through my mind for a while.

"Our job is to provide people with the correct information."

To answer that last question right away: our job is not to reassure people, but to provide visitors with the correct information.

So that you can make informed decisions.

We already do that with every news item, but in our reports about side effects, we do three extra things:

1. We provide explanations and context more quickly

We have been creating many explainer stories and videos throughout the corona crisis, but as of this week we are bringing context even faster in reports about side effects.

If possible in the headline, but certainly in the intro of a story.

In clear language, so that everyone understands.

If four reports have been made about possible serious side effects of the Jannssen vaccine, it is good to add that 4.5 million injections have been taken.

And if the 1 in 400,000 chance of dying from the consequences of the side effects of AstraZeneca is estimated, it is important to also write that the chance of a person over 60 dying from the consequences of the corona virus is 35 times greater than that.

2. We also tell you if we don't know something yet

As a journalist you prefer to tell the complete story right away, but that is not always possible.

Take the reports about Janssen: there have been reports of potentially serious side effects, but whether it is really because of the vaccine, we do not know.

You can't wait to publish until you know, because in this case, the reports cause the supply of the vaccine to be temporarily stopped and the EMA starts an investigation.

Then we write that reports have been made, but also immediately that a connection has not yet been demonstrated.

I honestly say: I doubt whether we always do that properly.

Sometimes we better wait.

It sounds like big news when a 77-year-old man dies shortly after his vaccination.

But when two days later it turns out that there is no connection at all between the death and the injection, you have to conclude that it was not news and you may be causing panic for nothing.

The message about the death of the man is also more than three times as often read as the update that there is no connection to the vaccine.

Do all readers of the first message know that now?

3. You can always ask us questions (and we will look for answers)

We did this during AstraZeneca's first puncture break and again when outgoing minister Hugo de Jonge decided to stop injecting sixty-miners at all.

Tomorrow, will be all about the vaccination debate all day.

We answer all your questions and you can respond to statements and participate in the discussion on our response platform NUjij.

Do you think that you can contribute to with your knowledge?

Sign up here.

I believe this is the best way to get the news across.

Of course you have to know for yourself whether you will be vaccinated afterwards.

Do you have a question or comment about this decision, or do you want to say something else about

Mail the editor-in-chief at