Now that we are slowly coming out of the lockdown, we asked the various experts from our corona think tank:what did you notice during this pandemic, and what lessons can we learn for the future?
The corona pandemic raises many questions – and it makes sense that researchers are asked if they can provide an answer. But with new insights, new predictions keep coming, which is why we wanted to do things differently. We asked members of our corona think tank to describe how the virus has made them look at the present in a new way. The most important questions were:what did you notice (from your expertise) that you had not expected before? Have you had to say goodbye to certain beliefs? And:what lessons can we draw for the future?
Kenny Meesters, disaster management specialist
“When it comes to information management, it amazes me that we are so reactive. That after such a time we still have trouble keeping up with information. We just stay in crisis mode with the whole group. You would like to free up a group that looks at structural improvements for crisis management itself. And that remains necessary, because the first phase of the crisis may soon be resolved, but the crisis is not over. The difficulty is yet to come. If the time horizon is short for everyone in a team, you cannot make structural improvements and it is also difficult to be proactive.”
“We are now constantly being told:we must prepare for the next pandemic. But who says the next crisis will be a pandemic? It might as well be a cyber attack. Above all, virologists should prepare for a pandemic; cyber experts on a cyber attack. But more broadly, it is precisely a crisis because we do not see it coming. But that doesn't mean you can't prepare. Some elements always come back. The uncertainty, the need for information and decision-making processes. "
“The question is how we ensure that we can quickly deploy good virologists in the event of a pandemic and good cyber experts in the event of a cyber attack. Embrace the fact that you don't know what the next crisis is going to be, but one is coming. We no longer have to talk about how to make a corona app, but how we can make a suitable app faster next time. I don't want to say that everything could have been done faster in this crisis, but let's see how we can identify and implement good information, choices and approaches even better, faster and more effectively. And:during a pandemic, everyone takes on the role of crisis manager. We have to do it together.”
Read the interview with Kenny Meesters of 8 May 2020 here
Els Broens, veterinary microbiologist
“About three quarters of new infectious diseases come from animals. But this is not the fault of the animals, but of man. The way in which we as humans treat animals and nature endangers the animals and ourselves. The corona pandemic is a good example of this.”
“Due to the expansionism of humans, there is more and more contact with wild animals, which means that infectious diseases can be transmitted from these animals to humans. Wild animals are captured for a variety of reasons, and SARS-CoV-2, most likely created in bats, was able to reach humans via an as-yet-unknown intermediate host, after which the virus was able to spread rapidly around the world due to the countless travel movements of people. ”
“Another recent example of human behavior that poses risks of introducing new infectious diseases is the massive purchase of pets during the lockdown. To meet the high demand, many puppies were (illegally) imported from Eastern and Southern Europe. These puppies are not always healthy and they can carry pathogens that can be dangerous for the puppies themselves, but also for people.”
Amrish Baidjoe, field epidemiologist and microbiologist
“Any outbreak of infectious disease or humanitarian crisis always brings with it many lessons that we must and can learn. Often these are the same lessons we should have learned before and every evaluation report is similar to the one before that. I think this pandemic will be no different. Kicking in a lot of open doors, even more scientific consortia and less collaboration where we're going to need more. We will have to conclude that the success of the approach next time will depend on how seriously politicians and professionals take the recommendations and how much investment comes along with the promises to do business better.”
“What I have learned is that we need to have more of the lead by example. Not just talking, but above all showing that things must and can be done better, that we must also dare to make decisions based on uncertainty and inadequate information. Don't be shy about making yourself heard. Silence also has consequences and after all, it concerns human lives.”
“That we've been talking for years about that it doesn't just matter how many 'publications' someone has, but that it is often more important how the person leads people, how they can bring people together and how sometimes they can put their own opinion and insight in the background. can lay. This pandemic was an insight to me that we don't value good leadership, but we don't look for it either."
Read the interview with Amrish Baidjoe from October 9, 2020 here
Esther-Mirjam Sent, economist
“Alarmistic reports about the sustainability of public debt that prompted the austerity measures after the financial crisis have turned out to be largely unfounded. According to economic scientists, a debt between 70 and 90 percent of the Gross Domestic Product is perfectly bearable.”
“At the beginning of the crisis, a dilemma was identified between the economy and health. However, that turned out to be an apparent contradiction. Without the health measures, healthcare, which was creaking under the weight, would have been put under even more pressure. In addition, the damaging effects on the economy would increase further as more and more workers became ill. But even more important is the realization that economy and health should both be seen as means, not as ends. That is the well-being of people here and in the rest of the world, now and in the future.”
“The pandemic shows how vulnerable we are when we depend on the vagaries of the market and market thinking. This is fully geared to creating short-term excessive prosperity instead of healthy buffers for a sustainable future. We have seen how essential it is for a strong government to protect our health and provide economic prospects. Finally, the pandemic shows the dark sides of globalization. Although it is difficult for us to deglobalize, there is more attention for local production, sustainability and fairness.”
Read the interview with Esther Mirjam-Sent of 26 June 2020 here
Enny Das, communication scientist
“There is a lot of attention for misinformation in my field and in the media. On the one hand, this is justified, because we see that fears and unfounded suspicions can spread very quickly via social media. A 'virus wappie' with a very different opinion is more interesting news than the neighbor who neatly adheres to the rules. What has struck me is that in the enormous amount of disturbing messages that we have received in the past year, the average Dutch person has kept a cool head. We've been scared, critical, and angry, but we've also proved resilient.”
“A scientific theory that I think has been underexposed is the Terror Management Theory. This theory states that people prefer to suppress the fact that they are mortal as quickly as possible, and they do so by – simply put – putting a layer of culture over it. The pandemic has brought death closer, but we haven't looked that fear in the eye. Ethical dilemmas surrounding death have so far hardly been addressed, questions such as 'is living longer always better?' So far we have not looked beyond the layer of culture; the number of IC beds, the mouth caps, the vaccinations.”
Read here with interview with Enny Das of October 9, 2020
Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard, anthropologist
“What surprised me the most was how well people complied with the new rules. At the beginning of the pandemic, we all had to get used to keeping 1.5 meters away and not meeting in groups. After the summer we had to wear masks in some public areas, later in all semi-public areas, and in the winter we had to adhere to a curfew. The literature shows that compliance is high when one in three people follow a new rule. Actual compliance with the rules was much higher than that. People changed their behavior overnight.”
“A theory from psychology predicts that we compensate for risk when we are limited. For example, if people wear bicycle helmets, this theory predicts that they will cycle more quickly and recklessly, meaning that a helmet ultimately poses a greater risk to their health. Although the empirical evidence was always weak, the theory was very influential. This became visible in Dutch policy through the resistance to face masks. Our findings repeatedly show that the foundation of this theory is wrong. People are not reckless and selfish individuals, but take their responsibility and at the same time are able to follow different rules.”
“Even in a pandemic where public spaces pose a potential health risk, people are still reaching out to others, but in new ways. People quickly adapt to the new reality and come up with social rules that work for them and the current situation. Public spaces are of great importance, so we have to arrange them in such a way that people can meet each other in a safe way.”
Read here the interview with Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard of September 25, 2020
Marc Slors, cognitive philosopher
Manners have adapted faster than I thought. After a year of not shaking hands, it is much less common than I thought that someone would reach out a hand in an unguarded moment. Some of the new manners I had not foreseen. Take zooming (or skyping or using teams) and the etiquette that arises under practical pressure. Talking through each other is not possible as with zoom. What you now notice is that also in physical meetings, which are now slowly becoming possible again, people allow each other to talk much better and take turns taking the floor. Perhaps that will remain if we continue to meet online on a regular basis.”
“What manner of manners did we say goodbye to? Kissing people all the time as a greeting. The social pressure and fear of being seen as unkind or maybe even rude when you don't kiss is gone. You clearly notice relief in many people that it is. It wouldn't surprise me if the advance of the American 'hug', which had already partly replaced kissing, continues at an accelerated pace after corona."
Read the interview with Marc Slors of June 10, 2020 here
Peter Jan Margry, historian and ethnologist
“Two central observations are paramount. First, the fact that a virus can more or less lock up global society, with enforced personal distancing measures never seen before. Secondly, and this is even more remarkable:that world has been able to absorb that relatively easily. Despite some profound limitations, everyday life has been able to go on relatively well. The vast majority of the concerned humanity has managed to adapt to the new circumstances quite easily in life and work. The combination of both aspects, the drastic nature of the measures and the continuation of (adapted) life is only possible in modern nation states where the internet is the main structure for information exchange.”
“Despite protests here and there, there has been no large-scale resistance. It is striking in the Netherlands that a return to religion, which is common in life-threatening situations, has only been discussed very rarely, a confirmation of the country's secular character. On a limited scale, another 'faith' did present itself, namely an unshakable disbelief in authority and science. The existential threat stimulated irrational actions and thinking and thus the belief in an 'instinctive' own wisdom."
Read the interview with Peter Jan Margry of 22 May 2020 here
Rina Knoeff, medical historian
“What has fascinated me over the past year is the power of history. I studied medical history at Cambridge University, centered on the idea that every historical disease should be understood in its own time. That is of course the case now. We can never compare the medieval plague to Covid-19, if only because that disease was understood completely differently before the discovery of viruses and bacteria. In fact, the plague in 1500 was a different disease than the plague in 2021.”
“But what all historical epidemics do have in common are human responses to disease, mortality, risk and uncertainty. People of the past were people like you and me, with broadly the same fears, basic needs and desires. This ensures that basically everything that happens now has happened before. This does not only concern specific measures such as social distancing and hand washing, but also protests, riots and antivaxers, not to mention solidarity and initiatives to help each other.”
“History is not dusty at all, but super relevant for now. A historical look provides a long-term perspective on the epidemic – by looking far back, we can paradoxically also look into the future at the traces that the pandemic will leave. This allows us to rise above the delusions of the day. That is the strength, and also the consolation of history. A pandemic like Covid is actually not unique. People who write to me after media appearances feel this very well:'we are not alone', that thought gives people something to hold on to in difficult times."
Read the interview with Rina Knoeff of April 28, 2020 here
Marco Varkevisser, health economist
“The coronavirus pandemic has presented incredible challenges to healthcare systems worldwide for more than a year now. This applies both to health care systems without market forces, such as the British NHS, and to health care systems with market forces, such as ours. The often-heard conclusion that the capacity problems that we have encountered in the Netherlands are a direct result of the market forces so detested by some, cannot be drawn. It is simply unaffordable, and therefore very unwise, to structurally create the overcapacity that is needed to be able to cope with extreme peak demand without any problems.”
“Of course, the pandemic has made it clear that we can better prepare for a possible new virus outbreak. Firstly, by making better agreements about central decision-making during a national medical crisis. This is to ensure that rapid and decisive decision-making is possible in our decentralized healthcare system when extreme circumstances require it. Secondly, by designating hospitals in advance as a government that receive extra money in the form of a service provision contribution to be able to realize extra capacity on demand. In line with this, it is also sensible for the government to provide strategic stocks of certain medicines and protective equipment.”
Read the interview with Marco Varkevisser of 3 July 2020 here
Reint Jan Renes, behavioral scientist
“The corona crisis has shown that we move en masse when the need is real. In the beginning – when it was still far away – we all laughed a bit about the virus. But as soon as the threat became tangible due to an increase in Dutch infections and IC admissions and the government declared a state of emergency, we still did what was necessary. This is remarkable, because in recent decades within the behavioral sciences the idea has become more and more manifest that people can be motivated to change behavior mainly through unconscious temptations and with clever tricks and triggers. However, this crisis has shown that people also take action when there are serious concerns, these concerns are recognized by the government and there are very clear instructions on how to act.”
“I have not so much had to say goodbye to a conviction as I have seen something confirmed which I find quite unfortunate:we can't deal with a little bit of freedom. Even though the virus was far from gone after the first wave, as soon as the government relaxed a bit, we went out again en masse. Without external regulation and clear rules, people find it difficult to do what is necessary.”
Read the interview with Reint Jan Renes of 15 May 2020 here
From 17 to 21 May 2021, NEMO Kennislink organized the corona dialogue week. During the event How do we continue after corona? In collaboration with Tilburg University, we spoke with Paul van Tongeren (thinker of the nation), Reint Jan Renes (behavioural scientist) and Katrien Luijkx (endowed professor of elderly care) about the consequences of the corona crisis.
The mini-lectures and the conversation with editor-in-chief Leon Heuts and editor Anne van Kessel can be viewed here.