Inquiry into Dutch COVID-19 Response: Witnesses Offer Little Self-Reflection

During the initial public hearings of the Dutch parliamentary inquiry into the COVID-19 pandemic, former Outbreak Management Team (OMT) chair Jaap van Dissel implied that the government should have more thoroughly considered the societal, economic, and social consequences of its far-reaching measures.

“

It wasn't very explicit yet, but between the lines, the message from Jaap van Dissel seemed clear: the societal, economic, and social consequences should have been considered when making the far-reaching corona measures.

Van Dissel, a key figure during the crisis, clarified that such considerations were outside the OMT's scope, stating, "That was not our expertise." However, he emphasized, "We were very strongly in favor of the cabinet weighing it." When asked if the cabinet had done so sufficiently, Van Dissel deferred, pointing to the establishment of the Societal Impact Team in September 2022, which was tasked with advising on these broader effects. He noted that by then, the pandemic response was already winding down, posing the question: "Who turns off the light when?"

“

Not within the Outbreak Management Team (OMT), he said, the former chairman of that advisory body, because 'it doesn't belong there. That was not our expertise. But we were very strongly in favor of the cabinet weighing it.'

Van Dissel's remarks were among the most critical heard during the early stages of the inquiry. Seven of the 47 witnesses have testified under oath, with eight more weeks of hearings scheduled. Thus far, the proceedings have yielded few groundbreaking revelations or dramatic moments. The testimonies have covered a range of topics, from the role of parliament and the spread of the virus to experiences in the initial crisis zone of North Brabant.

“

At that moment, we were already about to close down. The question was: who turns off the light when?

A recurring theme has been a noticeable lack of self-reflection among the witnesses, even years after the pandemic's onset. Many consistently deflected questions, directing inquiries to other officials. Witnesses frequently distinguished between the knowledge available at the time and "the knowledge of today," with former Minister for Medical Care Bruno Bruins stating, "I prefer to stick to the reasoning of that time. With the information you had at that moment." He maintained that the government had done what was necessary in the early stages, a sentiment echoed by Ernst van Koesveld, then director-general of Long-Term Care at the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, who described the national visiting ban for the elderly in nursing homes as "a very heavy but still sensible decision."

“

I prefer to stick to the reasoning of that time. With the information you had at that moment.