Five scenarios were created, from back to the old normal to a worst-case scenario in which there is no vaccine against a new mutation of the coronavirus. In four of the five scenarios, corona measures were still necessary – this was seen as very pessimistic last summer. But now the advice of the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) is more topical than ever.
Navigating and anticipating in uncertain times was released at the beginning of September, when the outgoing cabinet was preparing what should be the last corona press conference. The message was: because many Dutch people have been vaccinated, we are out of trouble and we can get rid of most of the measures.
Two months later, the situation is radically different. A new corona wave is engulfing the Netherlands: the Netherlands has had around ten thousand positive tests a day for a week, Limburg hospitals sounded the alarm on Tuesday that they can no longer handle the influx of corona patients. The cabinet will decide on Friday whether additional corona measures should be added on top of the mask obligation and the distance and home work advice that have been in effect since last week.
Also read this piece from April last year: ‘I saw the first results, and I thought: holy fuck, that timeline’
Not for the first time in this pandemic, the government seems surprised by the speed and capriciousness of the virus. While the WRR and KNAW warned at the beginning of September that politicians must prepare for various, also less positive, scenarios ‘to prevent government and society from being attacked and having to take important decisions ad hoc’. The Netherlands and the rest of the world will probably have to live with corona and its consequences for years to come, they warned.
The lead authors of the advice, professor of general medicine and former WRR chairman André Knottnerus, and professor of sociology Tanja van der Lippe (Utrecht University), are now again arguing for a well-thought-out long-term strategy. They hope that politicians will start thinking more in terms of scenarios.
How did you come up with the idea to write this advice?
Van der Lippe: “That was this spring, when we also noticed that the government and citizens were often surprised by what happened to the virus. It was already clear then that we will be dealing with Covid-19 for years to come and that this will have major consequences for healthcare, but also for many other policy areas. Precisely when it is uncertain where exactly it is going, scenarios are a good means of anticipating.”
Also read: Five scenarios for the future of corona: the ‘old normal’ seems out of sight
Knottnerus: „I always compare it to chess: you cannot predict exactly what the opponent – in this case the virus – will do, but you can check his possible moves and anticipate them. Then you are a better chess player. In the spring we also spoke to fellow scientists who said: won’t you be late with this advice? Sometimes it sounded like: after the summer this will all be over. We thought not at the time and kept going. The report is now much more current than many might have thought.”
Has the government been consistently too optimistic about the end of this crisis?
Van der Lippe: „Yes, decision-making is always based too much on the idea: we have one last hurdle to overcome and then we are done with it. This has been the case with the vaccination coverage in recent months: if it was high enough, it would be ready. Now it turns out not. At the last press conference, the message was: if we improve our behavior, it will be fine.
“The thought always seems to be: we have to do everything we can for a while and that is enough to overcome the virus. While our scenarios show that the virus can be with us for a very long time. The chance of a quick return to the ‘old normal’ seems very small. Politicians must therefore take into account less positive scenarios and associated social challenges.”
The government has always said: we want to offer society a perspective.
Knottnerus: „The tendency to optimism is not wrong at all, but do so with a realistic perspective from the various uncertainties. From a scenario perspective, too much optimism is unwise. The danger of the simplicity of ‘hold on for a while’ is that there are always setbacks and this exhausts people. They will ask themselves: why have we made such an effort, vaccinating and following the rules? Because we’re not there yet. It is extremely important that you indicate communicatively: it is not simple, there will be unexpected developments. There is not enough alertness for that.”
Hospitals are now in trouble again, while in several scenarios Covid-19 returns in winter and greater care capacity is needed. Is this a sufficient priority for politicians?
Knottnerus: „You now see that scaling up is not easy. If we recognize that this can take a few more years, you should start working on the shock resistance of healthcare. Then you have to quickly make a plan and start serious investments, to avoid ending up in the same situation next year and having to postpone regular care again. You have to prepare, not just start the discussion when the storm comes.”
If the crisis lasts so long, can drastic measures still be justified?
Knottnerus: „Intrusive interventions may be necessary, but you have to prepare them well. One of the aspects is: how do you deal with the tensions surrounding fundamental rights, and how long can you sustain those tensions if it takes longer? Suppose you would say: the corona admission ticket becomes a requirement to be allowed to come to work. That has major consequences for unvaccinated people, you can’t just introduce it quickly. It is also likely that such a measure will come back next year when new waves appear. What you decide now has a long-term impact.”
Van der Lippe: “You know that those discussions will come, you should actually start when you start vaccinating. In neighboring countries people even speak in abbreviations: 2G [waarbij een QR-code alleen geldt voor gevaccineerde of genezen mensen], 3G [waarbij ook geteste mensen toegang krijgen]. Something is already being built there. In the Netherlands you often see a discussion that you think should have been held earlier and more often. The trade-offs we face are uncomfortable and complicated.”
Why is it not possible to look further ahead? Last week, a debate on the long-term strategy around corona was moved to discuss the latest measures.
Van der Lippe: „I think that the government and people in general are focused on the short term. If the measures work, you do so and then you move on with your life. That is why you need a government that says: that behavior is important, wash your hands, keep your distance.”
Knottnerus: “This is the dilemma that politicians generally struggle with. The urgency of today and tomorrow sometimes takes away the time for reflection on the long term. The long term is now becoming urgent, which is why it should be on the agenda. I also see that politicians and the government are more willing to do so. Last week I heard Gert-Jan Segers of the ChristenUnie say: ‘We should not only talk about the measures taken now, we should also look ahead.’ Fortunately, those are sounds that you hear more and more often.”
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of November 10, 2021
#advisors #hope #cabinet #follow #scenarios