Summary: How much damage can you do in one stroke of the pen?
The rules are measured against the yardstick of reasonableness and efficiency: what does it yield, why is it necessary, does it help, what does it cost. Rogier Rumke discusses the side effects and gives alternative solutions.
In italics: quotes from the entered rules. Underneath is always his personal but always substantiated commentary. He is also angry and that is reflected in his choice of words. The heartfelt rant of a rare well-informed citizen.
Keep a distance of one and a half meters at all times
Can one of the policymakers explain to me, with the knowledge of today, how on earth you have to infect someone with that big drop at one and a half meters. Not to mention the fact that study after study has shown that that blob of spit or snot that comes up somewhere does contain RNA from Covid19, but cannot contaminate it. Anyway, how in the whole world can you infect someone by coughing or sneezing at someone. Which scientist can draw it out for me, can explain it to me. It doesn't work. It is not possible, no one in the whole world has ever been infected with Covid that way.
Infection occurs through tiny droplets that penetrate deep into the lungs, in enclosed spaces where an infected person's breath can accumulate to a level where someone else becomes infected.
Specifically, people from the age of 70 are advised (...) to stay one and a half meters away from children.
These people aged 70 and older are vulnerable because of their age, vulnerable because of other ailments, have less resistance. These people can become sicker, are already infected with a smaller amount of virus in the air. Especially with the Omicron variant.
The advice given here will not protect these people. In a room where exhaled air accumulates, the risk of infection is in no way dependent on the distance from the child who asymptomatically adds virus to the air with each breath. This advice therefore knowingly exposes this vulnerable elderly person, this grandfather or grandmother, to the risk of being infected by their well-meaning grandchild, a child who can suffer lifelong trauma if it has infected grandfather or grandmother, resulting in their death. When I read this, with the knowledge I have, I actually find this advice downright criminal. The OMT should know better, that's why they were hired by us, to properly inform us and protect the vulnerable, both the infecting child and the possibly fatally ill elderly person. No excuse whatsoever. This advice is among the worst of all the advice that is given. "Children, put your grandparents in danger, we are not telling you how to infect your grandparents through your contaminated breath. Go ahead, infect them.
Do not receive more than two people over the age of 13 per day and visit another person no more than once a day
If you visit each other less, you reduce the chance of infection, that's true. But without the right instructions on how to make that visit, it is completely empty advice. Make sure you have a room in which the air does not accumulate. Educate everyone through educational films when it is safe at your home. It's not that difficult, and with a CO2 meter of 30 euros it's child's play. And let's face it, every infection is one. So if a vaccinated person, who has no symptoms, but does spread, visits a family once a day under those circumstances, he/she can infect an entire family for at least eight days. That is the engine behind the infections, not the shops, not the catering industry, not the theaters, but precisely these small one-on-one infections from and by people who know no better than that they are neatly following the rules.
And that while people who offer safety within their company, theater or sprat school, are obliged to let their life's work, their company to which they dedicate themselves with heart and soul, be destroyed before their eyes.
At Christmas and during New Year's Eve, four people are allowed to visit
As described in the previous paragraph. Put them together with even more people and the infections can increase exponentially. While if these groups had eaten in the restaurant, they would almost certainly not be infected. And if these people are well informed, they at least have a chance to celebrate Christmas safely.
Outside, a maximum of two people from the age of 13 are allowed to be together
Well, you don't make people sick with this. Or actually? Loneliness, depression, taking away just about everything that makes life fun for young people. On pain of high fines. And that while everyone knows (or can know) by now that the chance of infection outside is nil. Say zero is. So we are talking about a rule that everyone knows is a completely nonsensical rule. A rule that feels like bullying, like teasing, like frustrating. And especially for a growing number of people, there is reason to turn away from the government, or worse, to radicalize.
The risks that the government takes by giving these kinds of instructions that they know add nothing, absolutely nothing to safety, destroy more than you would like. It tends to deliberately make the situation unlivable for young people. It tends to be a punishment without cause. Randomness, that's how it feels, disrespectful and very stressful. That is how psychologists worldwide view this. It leads to major long-term damage.
All non-essential shops are closed
Is there any research behind this? I hear the representatives of SMEs say that they have made an effort to make their shops safe. Has that been investigated, has it been tested, do those shops get a certificate? I see in the overviews of source and contact tracing that there are virtually no infections in stores. Logical, because the time that people are in a room where the air can accumulate – if it contains virus at all – to levels that can make people sick, even with Omicron, that chance is nil. If you know how the virus spreads in the air, you can see it in front of you. It is virtually impossible to get infected in shops. You are there for too short, and the shops are almost unabated. When I make a tour through a shopping center, I hardly find CO2 values above 600 anywhere. With one exception, between the plexiglass screens (at the cash registers) because the air is still there. There it can go up to 2000 PPM. But fortunately, people are only there for a short time. Maybe enough to get acquainted with the virus, maybe just enough to get a little protected by it. Still, I would strongly advise: remove all those screens, tomorrow!
cinemas, museums, theaters, zoos and concert halls are closed
Almost all these bodies have understood it well. They did their own research and were informed.
I have not been to any cinema, museum, theater, zoo or concert hall with my CO2 meter where the CO2 content exceeded 600. Oh, wait a minute, in some rooms there is so much ignorance about the ventilation that, for reasons of economy, they turn it off half an hour before closing time, or that it is not in order in the foyer. Just enough to get the people still present into a super spread event. That people, can be solved by education. Because it's not that difficult to turn off the ventilation when everyone is gone and not a second earlier. It is not always that difficult to make an open connection with the well-ventilated hall and/or the outside air in the foyer, or better yet, to hang a CO2 meter there.
Indoor sports locations are closed
Sports halls are also almost always safe, as are gyms. A high CO2 content makes people drowsy and causes concentration problems, so even without covid there is an interest in providing those rooms with fresh air. And sports are so incredibly important for the resistance to the virus. As a coach, I know that one of the most difficult points to keep up with sports is the beginning. And even more difficult: to pick it up again after an illness, holiday or injury. Rebuilding condition is even more difficult than building it up initially. Closing sports facilities is unnecessary to slow down the virus and causes many side effects. Such as less exercise, more obesity, less joy of life, less resistance and therefore more infection and especially more risk of serious consequences of an infection.
Of all the measures, none is as counterproductive as restricting sports and exercise. Provide safe sports facilities, that should be a task of the government, and if that does not work within a week, then it is still better to let people exercise and let them get a fit infection than to first take away these people's condition and then infect them at home or at an illegal party.
Outdoor sports locations (...) over-18s only exercise with a maximum of two people at a distance of 1.5 meters (...)
Outside, (almost) no one gets infected. That was definitively established more than a year ago.
Take running groups, for example. So they are not allowed to train. Do the policymakers know that two weeks of not running causes a week decline in fitness, and that restarting is so difficult that more than half drop out after such a forced break? And the policymakers know how quickly someone's condition and resistance decreases. This weather is also a measure that causes a lot of extra infections, but especially an increase in cardiovascular disease due to weight gain.
Someone who goes out twice a week with a running group and runs once a week burns around 4000 kcal extra with those 30 km run. If someone stops running abruptly, almost two days of food a week are added, energy that is not used and is therefore converted into fat. This person will have gained kilos within a few weeks with all the consequences that entails.
Face mask obligation
It all seems so simple, if you can't spray someone else with your drops, then you protect that other person with it, right? Nope. Those small droplets just go with your inhaled and exhaled air.
Do those face masks not help at all?
Well. In a room where stagnant air accumulates, it makes a difference of about 10%. Isn't it nice, every little bit helps. But is that true? Realize, it's like this. If someone in a room does not become infected after 10 minutes, it will be with a face mask in 11 minutes. Then think for yourself how much it adds. And in rooms where the air is clean, there is no contamination anyway, so those face masks don't do anything at all.
Nothing? Well, they cause tooth decay and there are many studies that report many disadvantages of improperly wearing unhygienic pieces of fabric. Stop with those environmentally polluting things.
Costs and benefits
How can we weigh the costs against the benefits? Can we try to express it in QALYs? A QALY is a high-quality year of life.
That is very difficult. It takes too many assumptions to give a somewhat reliable number. So let me make an estimate. On average, I think we can say that a month of lockdown results in at least a month of poor quality of life. That assumption therefore involves a loss of at least 1.42 million QALYs throughout the Netherlands.
How much does it yield? I think, given the above and from previous experiences with lockdowns, frankly: nothing at all.
A QALY has an economic value of 80,000 euros. So in monetary terms, it is a capital destruction of 113.333 billion euros. Not to mention the rest of the damage to companies. Another time about half of that amount?
Whether it is compensated or not, it remains capital destruction, and let's face it, a bankruptcy of an essentially healthy company causes much more economic and human damage than the direct loss for the entrepreneur.
Conclusion
This is an economic and human disaster, unnecessary and wrong. Yes, it is necessary to do something about mass illness and mass overload of healthcare. Also in the short term, but then do the right thing. Provide information and facilitate clean air. That's all you need and it can be arranged immediately.
How much public opinion would go haywire if a flood disaster would take place with 1000 deaths, let's say 40,000 QALYs, and an estimated damage of 10 billion. It would be world news for days. But then there is no one you can hold responsible, or yes, but that is what 20 years of research is being done.
A disaster is taking place here with a loss of at least 3000 times as many QALYs and at least 20 times as much economic damage. It doesn't take 20 years to answer the question of guilt, you could see the three people directly responsible yesterday, they held a press conference.
Roger Rumke
Accountability
Here on the site many pieces have been shared with extensive literature references. Of particular importance here are:
- Superspreadevents
https://www.maurice.nl/2021/09/11/het-keiharde-bewijs/ - Tweet series and articles by Jimenez, also about the plexiglass
https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1468370934239272966 - The treatise on viral load with all literature references
https://www.maurice.nl/2021/09/01/het-enorme-belang-van-de-virale-doses/ - Professor Menno Jan Bouwma's articles on microvaccination
https://virusvaria.nl/interview-met-arts-epidemioloog-menno-bouma/
https://virusvaria.nl/vervolginterview-menno-bouma/ - Some literature references about the mental damage caused by the lockdowns in children and young adults
https://www.tijd.be/politiek-economie/belgie/algemeen/veel-jongeren-misten-een-cruciale-stap-in-hun-ontwikkeling/10323059.html
https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/wat-doet-een-nieuwe-lockdown-mentaal-met-jongeren-inmiddels-heeft-1-op-de-3-te-maken-met-hele-slechte-gevoelens/ - Research in Ireland on outdoor sports
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/outdoor-transmission-accounts-for-0-1-of-state-s-covid-19-cases-1.4529036
