Abstract

The coronavirus pandemic and the measures taken to control it have had serious consequences for Dutch society and the country’s economy. RIVM has mapped out some of these consequences in a study as a step towards a social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA). Among other things, this study compared scenarios with strict and less strict measures and linked economic modelling and disease modelling for the first time. The main focus of the study was on the effects of the pandemic on disease and mortality due to the coronavirus, on postponed care and on the scholastic performance of children for a variety of income groups.

While the SCBA still requires further development, the model has already yielded some key insights. These insights will enable policymakers to make better-considered choices in the event of another pandemic, particularly when it comes to weighing the consequences for different population groups.

For example, the study revealed that the coronavirus pandemic worsened the existing differences between income groups. Mortality due to the coronavirus was highest among lower income groups. Another finding was that those in lower income groups visited test lanes less often, but were hospitalised with the coronavirus and ended up in intensive care more often than others. Furthermore, they turned out to be slower at ‘catching up’ on postponed care than those in higher income groups.

The study also looked at the differences between population groups in their valuation of health and well-being. It revealed that people value their well-being higher than their health. This insight makes it possible to make more carefully considered choices when it comes to measures that improve health, but harm well-being.

Resilience was valued very highly by all income groups. Those in lower income groups mostly rely on their innermost circle for resilience. In the event of a new epidemic, it will therefore be vital not just to make national policy, but also to get the local population involved. This can be done by disseminating information that filters through to all layers of the population and by encouraging contacts at the district and neighbourhood levels.

A comparison between a number of European countries has shown that extreme measures at both ends of the spectrum – both overly strict and overly relaxed ones – harm public health as well as the economy. It is crucial to strike a positive balance between the timing and the duration and severity of restrictions. The population will get behind measures as long as they are proportional and consistent. Too many changes make those in lower socio-economic population groups less trusting of the government.