The COVID-19 response, with its authoritarian enforcement characterized by quarantines, curfews, surveillance, and restrictions on freedom, has sparked concerns about its potential drawbacks and harms for societies. While the objective of these measures was to curb the spread of a “novel” coronavirus, it is important to think critically about the negative consequences and unexpected results from this approach.
One of the major issues associated with the authoritarian enforcement of the COVID-19 response is the erosion of civil liberties. Strict surveillance measures, including mass monitoring of individuals' movements and activities, can result in significant infringements upon personal privacy and civil liberties. Curfews, quarantines and other restrictions on freedom of movement encroach upon individuals' rights and autonomy.
Studies have shown that lockdowns and similar measures can lead to increased levels of psychological distress, including depression, anxiety, and emotional exhaustion. The disruption of routines, social isolation, and concerns about infection can contribute to feelings of loneliness and social disconnection, which are known risk factors for poor mental and overall health.
Strict enforcement of such measures also lead to public frustration, resistance, and non-compliance. This resistance has resulted in public backlash and massive protests in various countries including The Netherlands, highlighting the potential for social unrest and political instability. The economic and social costs should also be taken into account as these can have severe economic consequences, resulting in job losses, business closures, supply chain issues, and economic downturns. The burdens of the measures also tend to disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.
The long-term consequences of the authoritarian COVID-response extend beyond the declared public health emergency. It sets a precedent for increased government control and surveillance in other areas of society. The erosion of civil liberties and public trust in the government can have enduring effects on democratic institutions and the overall social fabric of a society.
In light of these concerns and the lack of transparency and accountability that often accompanies authoritarian enforcement, the establishment of a parliamentary inquiry commission can be a valuable and necessary step. Such a commission could serve as formal review body tasked with investigating and scrutinizing the decision-making process, implementation and enforcement of measures related to the policy.
By conducting thorough inquiries, a parliamentary commission can shed light on the criteria used to enforce the measures and determine if they were based on scientific evidence, public health expertise, and respect for civil liberties. This level of transparency is essential for maintaining public trust in the government and its policies. It allows the public to assess the validity and effectiveness of the measures, as well as hold decision-makers accountable for their actions.
Recently it was announced that Zero-COVID advocate Rosanne Hertzberger will be joining the committee representing NSC, the "New Social Contract" party of Pieter Omtzigt. The assigning of a prominent position to a supporter of Zero-COVID policy raises concern, as a proponent of such policy may be inclined to prioritize repressive enforcement of coercive measures over individual rights and civil liberties. This bias can hinder the assessment of the policy's impact.
While the country was under lockdown and an overnight curfew was in effect, Hertzberger advocated for even stricter measures. "I don't want to get COVID-19 because the risk of being seriously ill for a week or two is considerable. I don't know what that's like, I don't like being sick. I don't want to be sick for two weeks and have to isolate. I don't feel like it," she said on February 9, 2021, at De Balie in Amsterdam.
"I want zero-COVID," Hertzberger continued. "I want COVID-19 to disappear by excluding contagious people from society. So I don't want everything to open up. I would be strongly against that because it would lead to a major epidemic among people under 60. I am one of them. No, thank you."
The inclusion of Hertzberger in the parliamentary inquiry committee has sparked widespread criticism and raised concerns among the public. The announcement on X (Twitter) has generated a significant response, with hundreds of replies pouring in, demonstrating a high level of awareness and engagement from the Dutch public. It is evident that people are deeply invested in the issue, actively monitoring developments and expressing their opinions, underscoring the significance and sensitivity surrounding this topic.
"What a travesty. A slap in the face of those harmed by the Corona policy. Fired doctors, people who could not say goodbye to their loved ones, people with vaccine damage etc. This leaves little hope that all avenues will be explored to address these issues." responded Dr. Els van Veen.
"The tone has been set for the parliamentary inquiry into the COVID-19 crisis. And that tone is false. Unbearable. We shouldn't expect anything from this lady. Absolutely nothing," said neurologist Jan Bonte, who believes that 'this horrible person' has no place in a parliamentary inquiry committee.
"So this 'zero-COVID' lady from NSC, who wanted to exclude 'contagious people' from society, is going to join the committee investigating the COVID-19 policies? Sigh..." said Annelies Strikkers.
"Incomprehensible choice given her statements on various talk shows in 2021 where she was actually promoting polarization. There is no way she can make an objective assessment about this situation. I find this choice very disturbing." said Jan Wigman.
Sources:
