Ernst Kuipers, OMT member and chairman of the national acute care network LNAZ, told Op1 that the number of coronavirus infections needs to be reduced quickly. "We really need a reversal in the trend of infections. We've had the chance for face masks and keeping 1.5 meters distance. That no longer works," he said.
That never worked. At least, not as advertised.
Below is a biased analysis over the anti-corona measures, as experienced by the regular citizen. With a personal score of BS (where 5 means max bullshit, when the expected results hardly matched reality).
So in no particularly order:
Face Masks (BS Score: 4/5)
Born as one of the first defense lines in the fight with the virus, they made sense for a lot of people in the beginning. Now they are a symbol of corona fight (and for some, of the oppression). Although they are offering some protection in specific situations (like someone sneezing in your face), most of the time they're quite inefficient. Wearing them in enclosed spaces, like buses, planes for longer periods of time, makes them even less efficient.
Since the government imposes wearing them fully or partially in the social environment, a lot of people are keeping the same mask for weeks at the time stashed in their coats. This is adding to the issue. Different other healthy problems are born following a prolonged use of masks.
There is no correlation whatsoever between the periods with masks on (off) and the evolution of infections. Masks are mostly promoted to induce the idea of protection (since they're really visible).
These days a lot of people are wearing them because they're forced to.
1.5 meters distance (BS Score: 5/5)
The main idea behind this one is to have some distance between you and others, in order to minimize infections. Since a virus needs at least two human beings in order to propagate, that made sense. Notice that 1.5 is an arbitrary distance (some countries has 2 m), which some people took it quite literally.
This is almost impossible to follow in the regular life, but there are some situations where this was implemented: for example stores (e.g. supermarkets, groceries, etc) which were allowed to let inside only X amount of customers at the time. We also had here the situation where you had to book in advance a timeslot of 20 minutes in order to do shopping (e.g. Action). This created some space inside, but moved the queuing (crowding) outside.
This created a lot of discomfort and it was arbitrary applied. It's probably one of the most ignored rule.
Working from home (BS Score: 2/5)
This form of social distancing is probably one of the most efficient way to avoid getting infected, at least for a defined period of time. Unfortunately it has a lot of downsides, it can be applied over long periods of time and it cannot apply to a lot of the jobs.
Working from home will avoid you to commute (especially over public transportation) and getting in contact with other colleagues. But it has as well a direct effect over efficiency, over mental health of the workers, over the issues with homes which are not supposed to act as an office too (kids present, noisy neighbors, lack of space, required investments in workplaces, etc). Some people can adapt better than others, but in the long run, a complete WFH schema is not desirable (although hybrid work will probably be the future for some jobs at least).
So this works at some extent, for some jobs that can actually be done remotely. The advantages dilutes over time, since the humans will interact as well outside the working hours. It's nice though to sleep late.
Learning from home (BS Score: 4/5)
This sucked on so many levels. Children are the least affected by the virus, but the most affected by the lack of human interaction. Plus the pressure over (at least one) of the parents, to be always at home and assist the lessons (partially replacing the teacher duties).
Complete lockdown (BS Score: 3/5)
Defined as everything closed (restaurants, museums, non-essential stores) with only a couple left open. People are allowed to limited mobility. No that much moves anymore.
Since this will lead to the least human interaction, it surely can be seen as one of the successful methods. But the damage is so great, that it shouldn't probably exist in the first place. Given the fact that the whole population is now imprisoned helps no one: the economy is wrecked, the mental health issues are on the rise, the social life of people is ruined (no celebrations, no meetings, no holidays, no nothing).
Stores are closing sooner (BS Score: 5/5)
In the Netherlands for example, supermarkets are closing at 20.00 instead of 22 or 23.00. This to prevent people getting in the same place for less hours. But he same amount of people will chose to go there until the closing time, increasing the density per squared meter of store (and creating an opposite effect).
No booze sold after X hours (BS Score: 5/5)
At some point here, no booze sold after 20.00. Most stores chose to close at the same time, to avoid endless discussions with the customers. Obviously you can buy the same amount of booze before that moment, so it's as stupid as it gets.
Curfew (BS Score: 5/5)
We've been there last winter. After 21.00 no movement outside the house (unless you had a really, really good reason). This was accepted easily by most people, since not a lot are going out at that time during the winter (so minimal impact). This might be associated with no parties allowed rule, but that was enforced separately.
Corona Pas (BS Score: 5/5)
In different flavors (3G/2G, already discussed on this blog). Manages to create separation between social categories, but hardly any difference in numbers of infections. Used mostly as a tool to force people to get vaccinated. Even more, the 2G version allows infected people to go free and infect others, if they are vaccinated.
Vaccines (BS Score: ?/5)
Here there are no final conclusions, although it's clear that the vaccines are at this point overrated.
They were created in a short amount of time, with skipped steps in proper testing and with pharmaceutical companies being protected against liabilities and trials*. It was a race to sell them first. Their great efficiency was touted everywhere, with the main numbers coming from their own manufacturers or governments. Any others opposition voices were suppressed.
Now in a nutshell, officially acknowledged: they don't prevent further infections, only minimize the possibility of a harsh disease. This should be taken with a pinch of salt for older people (over 50 for example). Like any other vaccines, their efficiency wanes over time (around 6-9 months), since the need for boosters. There are (unknown) side effects and deaths.
And recently, an official study discovered that the death situation in the nursing homes is unchanged (compared with pre-vaccines period), despite over 90% vaccinated (old) people.
The Netherlands has a dire situation (as described by the government) this winter (with 85% of adult population vaccinated - around 90% over age of 60) than the last winter (with an insignificant number of vaccines administrated); and we're talking about hospitalizations, not infection numbers which are absolute records.
It took us only one year and twenty something millions doses later to be worse.
* Under the PREP Act, companies like Pfizer and Moderna have total immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.
