At first, the Dutch cabinet’s COVID policy was strongly supported by the population. This was despite the enormous impact of the lockdown on everyday life and the disastrous long-term consequences for the economy. A pandemic threatens the system itself, and apparently we were willing to accept that. However, support for the cabinet’s policy has begun to erode—partly due to the course taken more recently. In safety science, volumes have been written on how to persuade people to comply with rules. Policymakers appear to lack this knowledge. The reversal on face masks, for example, undermines the credibility of the policy—and, by extension, the credibility of the cabinet.
What do the books say?
Since the 1970s, research has examined how to persuade people and influence behavior. By nature, we seek self-confirmation: we prefer to hear what aligns with our existing beliefs and selectively absorb information that fits. People only adjust their views when a trusted source presents information that deviates from their own perspective—but not too much. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky use the metaphor of an anchor. We are willing to move around that anchor, but only as far as the chain allows. The strength of the arguments determines the length of the chain. When we think, “Why didn’t I think of that myself?”, our views naturally shift. Understanding why a rule exists is a basic prerequisite for following it—this is a foundational principle in safety science.
The face masks
There is also an anchor regarding the usefulness of face masks in relation to COVID. Notably, this anchor was largely created by the cabinet itself. Supported by experts from the RIVM, the message communicated for weeks was that face masks were not useful. There are pros and cons, and they cancel each other out. The downsides mainly affect the wearer. An effective mask collects virus particles like a vacuum cleaner, and when removing it, those particles end up on your hands. Reuse—inevitable during shortages—leads to more hand contact with the mask. Therefore, the argument went, masks could be counterproductive. This anchor was reinforced at every press conference and widely amplified by the media.
The reversal and the confusion
Confusion was therefore great when the cabinet announced that face masks would be mandatory on public transport from June 1. Press questions went unanswered. To make matters worse, inconsistent measures were added. The obligation applied only to public transport—apparently masks remained useless elsewhere. Moreover, effective medical masks were not allowed for the public, as they were reserved for healthcare. An inferior mask, a dust mask, or a homemade covering would suffice. To top it all off, RIVM virologists maintained their scientific position that there was no evidence the measure helps.
Credibility
The government campaign began ten weeks earlier with the concept of the “intelligent lockdown”—a powerful slogan that people readily embraced. No enforcement was needed to implement the policy. Even though many recognized the severe long-term economic consequences, nearly everyone complied. When restrictions began to ease, things went wrong. The cabinet forgot that people follow difficult rules only if they understand their purpose—especially rules that threaten their livelihood. People also expect rules to be clear and consistent. The outrage over face masks symbolizes broader public confusion about the chosen course. This leads to civil disobedience and even anger. At that point, enforcement can respond only with repression and punishment. In the public’s eyes, the lockdown could no longer be called “intelligent.”
Restoring trust
The literature on rule compliance is clear. If a rule is not followed, it may be due to convenience—then enforcement is appropriate. In all other cases, you must return to the starting point. Is the rule the right solution to the problem, and is it clearly explained? Are the rules clear regardless of the situation, and are they feasible? Rules that cannot be explained should be scrapped or adjusted. A face mask as part of full protective equipment in an ICU is valuable and essential. A homemade mask on a tram is truly an embarrassment.
So, dear cabinet, retrace your steps. Adjust the policy quickly. Do not create improvised policy; listen to those who have studied this field. Above all, explain clearly why new steps are taken and why differences in application exist. Then trust can still be restored.
Juni Daalmans
May 2020