From the perspective of the Netherlands giving up most anti-corona restrictions in the next 2 weeks (including the infamous corona pas, at least for now), and on the background of increased hostility and resistance from the population side towards the restrictions and measures in place, a different kind of news appears these days.
Something that not even one month ago was tabu, now it's a brand new game. The leader of RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment here in Holland), mister Jaap van Dissel finds himself in hot waters. Jaap van Dissel is one of the most important voices behind the anti-corona measures, and the Rutte government heavily relied on him (and by extension OMT - Outbreak Management Team) to justify all the actions. But in a strange twist of facts, now Jaap finds himself in the crosshairs.
The Dutch Safety Board (OVV) made some discoveries (that were described at least on this site for months now):
- the OMT and the Cabinet mainly focused on combating the coronavirus
- dominance of this perspective made it more difficult for others to express their opinions
- the Cabinet paid too little attention (and deliberately ignored - n.a.) the social consequences
- the government did not have "an adequate response" to the social consequences (e.g. schools, increased loneliness, restricted fundamental rights, delayed care)
And all these are true. But it's not the whole picture, and I think this is where we have to draw the line.
First of all, these conclusions are not put in a temporal framework. It's obvious that in 2020 anti corona measures should have been more drastic than a year later. Everyone will understand that you have to judge these measures at specific points in time, in a specific context. For example, in the beginning a lockdown made more sense. But overtime, since we gathered more data, we could have reverted that decision to a non-lockdown mode. And so forth. In oppositions, the governments around the world forced their hand, and ignoring field data, they continued policies justified only by their political visions. Authoritarian actions for some of them (Austria, New Zeeland, Australia - China is a special case). Forced vaccination, impossibility to freely move anymore.
So, with this sort of analysis, we have to observe also the timeline. Most of the governments, including here in Europe, ignored that and not so long ago, they were keen to pursue idiotic measures even further. But the increased saturation of the population (with a lot of demonstrations in the streets, like in Canada or France) for this sort of measures, made them do a twist for now and go in the other direction. But, of course, some covering should be in place, and this sort of scapegoating will be probably more used this year.
Secondly, we have to play here devil's advocate for van Dissel. Accordingly to OVV:
... Van Dissel "undermined" the public's confidence in the government's coronavirus policy by openly doubting the usefulness of facemasks.
When the Cabinet made wearing masks mandatory in 2020, first in public transport and later in public spaces, Van Dissel called it a political choice and not a scientific one
Which is completely true at this point. Masks have little to no added value, and there is no real study to prove otherwise. We had here periods when masks were not mandatory, and when they become mandatory: absolutely no change in infection numbers were observed. For a long time now, the majority of population is wearing those masks under the nose, or as a chin support. Or not at all. This is only a symbolic element, and not a really protective one. There are side effects and once the masks are not mandatory anymore, they are just ignored by 99% of the population. That says also something about the trust in them.
So what's the conclusion that OVV wants us to believe in?
Through these statements, government policy was undermined by advisers from the same government...it did not help "maintain support for the announced measures.". Van Dissel "undermined public confidence in government policy."
You know, the last part is actually true, by from completely different reasons! The public confidence dropped lower and lower due to the whole government that pushed these policies to the extreme. Playing the authoritarian hand. Ignoring the reality and treating everyone with hypocrisy. Taking idiotic measures* with no arguments why they might work. And so on.
But throwing the accusation that the public support and confidence dropped due to the mask statements, is complete and utterly bullshit.
Should Van Dissel be held responsible for his actions? Definitely! But this should be done in a correct and non-biased way, not making it a political execution. And by extension, the whole Rutte Cabinet should be in the same accusation box. Since they've been all together in this since the beginning.
* this sounds like an exaggeration, but it's not: for example, most of the restrictions will be lifted, but some will stay in place: like shaking hands, which should be avoided. Because that makes sense.
