Our government is taking reasonable care of the store - opinions are divided and that's how it should be - but it certainly doesn't turn out to be crisis managers there in The Hague. Society succumbs to their good intentions.
The system is undeniably failing in the absence of a correction mechanism for policy errors (see previous post). More built-in dissent is desirable, just as every cabinet also needs a corrective House of Representatives with a strong opposition. The old vaccination mantra ("just keep it quiet a bit, it's really the best for them") is really no longer possible in this day and age and certainly not with interventions with this impact and tangible effects for the entire population. Except for the people who, for one reason or another, don't need to Zoom but instead come together in the Catshuis, for example.
If everyone is really on the same page, as has now been impressively orchestrated by the WHO, it leads to tunnel vision, mass formation, in short: trains hurtling towards the ravine with a tail of lemmings behind them. All possible corrections have been neutralized in advance.
So how do you tackle such a crisis?
Stefan Noordhoek gave a nice setup in a comment on FB, with many questions. A gem that will undoubtedly quickly sink into the jumble of words. With Stefan's agreement, I share that gem:
With every (serious) problem, you would want to use an approach along a logical line. For the 'Corona crisis', I would think of something like the following four simple thinking steps:
- What exactly is the problem
- death?
- Lost years of life?
- capacity of public health?
- fear?
- How big is the problem
- compared to other similar problems?
- With other infectious diseases, viruses such as Influenza A/B, Rhino, other coronaviruses, or with other diseases and other public health risks?
- in historical perspective?
- How do these problems/crises relate to recent times (1-20 years)? How similar are they, what is different, what causes the difference?
- in relation to other problems?
- What other challenges do we have as a society (public health, social, economic, international, humanity, etc.)?
- compared to other similar problems?
- What are possible solutions, in terms of
- Mitigation?
- try to fight the spread through "measures" aimed at the non-vulnerable 98.5% of the population
- vaccines
- adaptation?
- immunostimulation
- Prophylaxis treatments
- Medical treatments
- protection of the vulnerable 1.5%
- acceptance?
- Life involves a risk, being born is a guarantee of dying one day
- Mitigation?
- What is the "cost/benefit" ratio of these possible solutions?
- on mortality?
- on lost years of life?
- public health (now and in the future)?
- for mental health?
- for the economy?
- on entrepreneurship?
- for civil and human rights?
- … etc.
To arrive at a weighted, proportionate and effective approach to the problem based on the interpretation of these 4 points. I'm curious if you agree with me that:
- these 4 steps were actually not taken at all in this logical context?
- the definition of 'the problem' in terms of 'infections' (in reality: positive PCR tests) is not a good, reliable or even remotely relevant choice?
- that the estimation of the impact of 'the problem' based on historical data is still sorely missing (in terms of figures on total occupancy / weekly figures in ICU, on regular beds in recent years) or is not taken into account (excess mortality is not extraordinary if 2018/19 is taken into account and population changes are taken into account)?
- that of all possible 'solutions' only 4.1 (mitigation) has been and is being looked at and all adaptive solutions 4.2 (adaptation) have not only not been considered, but have even been actively opposed?
- Most importantly, that no impact assessment has been made in any way in which the remedy against the ailment has been weighed. Let alone that it is made quantitatively?
Would it matter to you if the measures alone cause 100x (10-1000, and yes there is a lot of uncertainty in that, that's right) more damage to public health than it would yield? Expressed in years of quality life lost/gained?
Would it matter to you if, in the 'fight' against an average (un)dangerous virus, we completely change our rule of law, our fundamental rights and our society to a world in which everyone is guilty (because 'contagious') unless you can prove your innocence (vaccination certificate)?
A society in which we can all lose our most basic fundamental rights from one day to the next, based on panic about the next 'threat'? And all freedoms can be taken away?
So much for Stefan. You have to ask questions. If you don't have an answer to those questions, you have to consult yourself instead of lashing out at the questioner as de Jonge did with van Haga.
As additions - I have not formulated them as a question - I would like to mention:
- Determine the (probably) relevant expertise for finding solutions. These can differ per solution and change over time. Put together a diverse group and possibly form a diverse group. On-the-fly commissions per possible solution.
- A basic function within the group of advisors should always be: monitoring and taking dissent seriously. Whether it is scientifically substantiated or unfounded fear. The advisory group does not have a monopoly on the truth! If they think so, they need to be replaced.
- For heaven's sake, let journalism take its course. First of all, in the current deplorable state, not much serious counterweight can be expected from the Keulemansen cs. If that does happen, it will certainly cause unrest and doubt. However, the covid crisis exposes the disasters that arise as journalism and justice both in the pocket of the government.
- The dysfunctional impotence of the House of Representatives can only be made more competent through voting behaviour.
