Not enough is known about the effects of far-reaching corona measures such as the mask requirement and the curfew because the cabinet has not thoroughly evaluated the measures. This is the conclusion of the Dutch Safety Board (OVV) in a second report on the Dutch handling of the Corona crisis. The study covers the period between September 2020 and July 2021, when the cabinet introduced far-reaching and sometimes controversial measures after a relatively quiet summer.

For example, a lockdown came into effect in December 2020 that included the closure of schools, non-essential shops and sports clubs. A month later, the cabinet introduced a curfew that would eventually last three months. In addition, masks were compulsory in public places during this period and the vaccination campaign started.

Effects hardly evaluated

According to the OVV, the effects of the measures introduced were uncertain in advance, but it is still unclear to what extent the measures have contributed to containing the pandemic. The cabinet has barely “monitored and assessed” the impact, the council says, but has regularly communicated “confidently” about the expected impact. “Despite the uncertain situation of an unpredictable pandemic.”

The council warns against raising expectations that cannot be met and advises the cabinet to assess the measures taken “as soon as possible”. This should also include negative side effects such as loneliness and domestic violence. Ultimately, “better considerations about measures” could then be taken in future pandemics.

In the first OVV report on the corona approach, which dealt with the first months of the pandemic, the council also called for more insight into the effectiveness of the corona measures. At that time, however, what were subsequently considered the most controversial measures, such as the curfew and the closure of primary and secondary schools, had not yet been implemented.

Regarding the vaccination campaign launched in January 2021, the OVV says that the cabinet has focused too one-sidedly on the scenario in which, as with the flu vaccination, mainly general practitioners would carry out the vaccinations. AstraZeneca’s vaccine could have done that.

But in the end, Pfizer’s vaccine came onto the market earlier, which was not suitable for general practitioners’ practices because of the large quantities supplied and the storage temperature of -70 degrees. Because, according to the OVV, the cabinet had not considered this scenario, the GGDs were commissioned to set up vaccination centers very late: in December, while the first vaccination would take place in January.

Vulnerable

The OVV also says some vulnerable people felt disadvantaged during the vaccination campaign because they didn’t fit the Health Council’s definition of ‘vulnerable’. This applies, for example, to people who are eligible for the flu vaccination but were not initially given priority for a corona vaccination.

In a response to the report, the cabinet says it will review the OVV’s findings in the coming weeks. Ministers Kuipers for Health, Helder for Long-Term Care, Yesilgöz for Justice and Security and Wiersma for Primary and Secondary Education wrote to the House of Representatives that “a comprehensive response” would follow.

Second in a row

Today’s report is the second in a series of three. In the first partial report, published in February, the OVV drew a hard line on the Dutch handling of the coronavirus between March and September 2020. According to the Council, the Netherlands were not prepared for a large-scale outbreak of the coronavirus, a new infectious disease and the cabinet was dedicated too little of the situation in nursing homes and home care.

The OVV was also critical of the government’s communication on the Corona crisis. In the Council’s view, it was not transparent and did not take sufficient account of the existing uncertainties, which is also mentioned in today’s report.

In a reaction to the previous report, then Health Minister De Jonge said he disagreed with the OVV’s conclusions. According to him, the Council paid too little attention to the connection between the first corona measures.