The RIVM lost the battle in Februari not in March, this is was what my initial comment referred to.
Throughout Februari and March they had the following policy:
- Clearly stating and assuming that asypmtomatic people cannot or are extremely unlikely to transmit (had letters sent to schools and events I particpated in, was also on their website). True or not, there was no data to backup this up and an assumption like this has big consequences when false.
- When from risk area AND with symptoms as a policy they didn't test. In general the whole focus was to test as minimal as possible. Causing us to be completely caught off guard of the true scope untill March.
- Clearly trying to sell the idea that masks don't work for normal people, while at the same time trying to claim them for themselves
- As a policy not testing healthcare people, not even with symptoms. First random test of healthcare people with symptoms in the south was only done on the 8th of march, they were shocked by result (and for a long time untill march allowing people to work with symptoms ). https://www.rivm.nl/nieuws/steekproef
- As a policy "non-essentials" healthcare people get no protection unless evidence of covid and hardly get tested. 900 of 2100 healthcare/elderly houses now have the virus with 20 to 30 percent death rate.
- Failed attempt of centralised buying of masks and other protection wear
- Till the end of Februari claiming they had it under control
- etc...
There is more things to point out but Ill leave it at this. The above assumptions and actions are a big part of what made the Dutch ministery fail to deal with the crisis properly and on time. Like many of the Western democracies. If they would have acted in Februari a full lockdown probably could have been prevented or shortened, lives would have been saved and many other treatments wouldn't have been cancelled or postponed.
The article i've linked to above talks about the doctor who did the opposite in the North, and was succesful with it, they even tried to force him to follow their policy.
To come back to your article. The short answer we don't have enough data (yet) to make such conclusions.
It seems reasonable that from the 9th of March the infection rate went down. This was the week all of Europe freaked out and many people started working from home, even if it wasnt official policy except for in the South of Holland (this idea was good, but too late). Certains schools already (partially) closed, partly because not enough teachers were showing up.
Whether or not school en restaurant closure lead to a lower infection rate is not clear from the data. The RIVM's analysis indeed suggests that it only had a small impact. The English analysis of the Dutch data in the same article does suggest a bigger impact. It's telling that the RIVM doesn't trust their own analysis enough to turn in into policy, you can watch the briefing of Dissel of last week, they only very slowly open the elementary schools in a few weeks from and don't open restaurants and high schools till the end of may.
Throughout Februari and March they had the following policy:
- Clearly stating and assuming that asypmtomatic people cannot or are extremely unlikely to transmit (had letters sent to schools and events I particpated in, was also on their website). True or not, there was no data to backup this up and an assumption like this has big consequences when false.
- When from risk area AND with symptoms as a policy they didn't test. In general the whole focus was to test as minimal as possible. Causing us to be completely caught off guard of the true scope untill March.
- Clearly trying to sell the idea that masks don't work for normal people, while at the same time trying to claim them for themselves
- As a policy not testing healthcare people, not even with symptoms. First random test of healthcare people with symptoms in the south was only done on the 8th of march, they were shocked by result (and for a long time untill march allowing people to work with symptoms ). https://www.rivm.nl/nieuws/steekproef
- As a policy "non-essentials" healthcare people get no protection unless evidence of covid and hardly get tested. 900 of 2100 healthcare/elderly houses now have the virus with 20 to 30 percent death rate.
- Failed attempt of centralised buying of masks and other protection wear
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/jos-de-blok-buu...
- Till the end of Februari claiming they had it under control
- etc...
There is more things to point out but Ill leave it at this. The above assumptions and actions are a big part of what made the Dutch ministery fail to deal with the crisis properly and on time. Like many of the Western democracies. If they would have acted in Februari a full lockdown probably could have been prevented or shortened, lives would have been saved and many other treatments wouldn't have been cancelled or postponed.
The article i've linked to above talks about the doctor who did the opposite in the North, and was succesful with it, they even tried to force him to follow their policy.
To come back to your article. The short answer we don't have enough data (yet) to make such conclusions.
It seems reasonable that from the 9th of March the infection rate went down. This was the week all of Europe freaked out and many people started working from home, even if it wasnt official policy except for in the South of Holland (this idea was good, but too late). Certains schools already (partially) closed, partly because not enough teachers were showing up.
Whether or not school en restaurant closure lead to a lower infection rate is not clear from the data. The RIVM's analysis indeed suggests that it only had a small impact. The English analysis of the Dutch data in the same article does suggest a bigger impact. It's telling that the RIVM doesn't trust their own analysis enough to turn in into policy, you can watch the briefing of Dissel of last week, they only very slowly open the elementary schools in a few weeks from and don't open restaurants and high schools till the end of may.