For example, the OMT wanted to consider a curfew: no longer on the street after 11 p.m. or midnight. A national duty to wear masks in shops and other publicly accessible buildings was also open to the OMT. ‘It adds very little to the models. But if you want to scrape every bit of it, you have to choose this too, ‘says an OMT member. Another: ‘I want to get rid of that discussion. And the general sentiment is heading towards: just do it. ‘
But Monday morning, the advisory team, in what one attendee calls a “terrible meeting,” was confronted with ready-made advice. “There was simply no political will for more measures.” That is against the sore leg of many members, say the scientists who were there. ‘The OMT has been put behind the Catshuis’, one of them says, referring to the place where the cabinet met on Sunday and prepared the package of measures. Another: “It was a predetermined package, and it didn’t feel right. I think we should be able to provide independent advice. ‘
Red Team
The package of measures was not precooked, thinks OMT member Marion Koopmans. ‘And of course it is not the case that all kinds of measures have suddenly been invented: there is a toolbox with measures that we can use,’ she emphasizes. Yet ‘the speed with which it all went, does not deserve the beauty prize’, Koopmans also believes. “It could have been shared a bit earlier.”
Science threatens to become a plaything of politics, according to various OMT members. Irritated, one of the members responds to Rutte’s comment during Monday evening’s press conference that the ‘Red Team’ is also known. This is an informal group of experts and citizens who have been asked to provide the ministry with counterplay to prevent tunnel vision. And on talk show On 1 Mayor Femke Halsema of Amsterdam said she consulted the Red Team for advice on mouth masks.
“If you have to, give my seat to someone from the Red Team,” says the OMT member. “I’ll be shouting that on the sidelines.” After all, many members of the Red Team are active on social media or guests in the talk shows. Another scientist makes a connection with the upcoming elections: ‘Doubt must be sown: how good is the cabinet policy?’ And so the opposition would regulate its own corona science, behind the OMT’s back.
Competitiemodel
‘I think it is a plus that you have different opinions, that is part of science,’ says a professor. ‘But it doesn’t help if you build up a competition model here and say: we’ll see which advice is best. If we think we have to make policy like that, I am very concerned. ‘ Koopmans: ‘I think we should stop polarizing. There is just a job to be done. I’m worried about that. ‘
The OMT members are also very pleased with the measures that have been taken. “The only question is whether it is enough.” The cabinet is aiming for a fourteenth point decrease in the reproduction number R of the virus, so that it would be 0.9. That’s just below the critical limit of 1, between an outbreak that is expanding and one that is gradually extinguishing.
“That is just too grumpy,” says an OMT member. A curfew would have taken an estimated 0.15 percentage point off the R, according to calculations by the RIVM. “I don’t think anyone was against the measures proposed by the cabinet,” said another attendee. “The point was more: why don’t you go straight to 0.8?”
Certainly now that winter is coming, the season in which, according to some studies, the virus will gain more clout again, says another. ‘That seasonal effect has not been taken into account now. And what has been agreed must really be observed very carefully. While we have recently seen that compliance with measures is a problem. ‘
Secondary schools
Some OMT members would also have liked to discuss possible measures in secondary schools. This should concern matters such as rules of the game to better separate pupils from each other – there is no enthusiasm for a new school closure. One of the small adjustments that did come about at the request of the OMT was the maximum number of visitors allowed at home: there are now three, instead of the four that the cabinet wanted.
The pivot between the OMT and the Catshuis discussion is OMT chairman Jaap van Dissel. But once back from the negotiating table, Van Dissel came through, by the way de Volkskrant heard OMT members are hailed as an ‘honest guy’ and a ‘fantastic scientist’, with a package that, in the perception of many members, could not be changed. He came up with a good proposal. But it was immediately: this is the maximum achievable. ‘
There is also great unanimity in the OMT, several stakeholders emphasize. ‘It now seems as if we are rolling down the street, and that is certainly not the case,’ says a professor. ‘But you do want to be able to give advice. The normal order has been reversed. ‘
OMT chairman Van Dissel himself was not available for comment. ‘Because of the confidentiality of the consultation, we cannot make any announcement about what is being discussed in the OMT,’ said a spokesperson.
–
