Very bad if the scientist of the moment is guilty of goal reasoning. Worse still, he argued that this might have implications for ‘travel’ in the context of corona.
Science should be concerned with science and not with airing opinions. And the top executive of the RIVM should refrain from making such premature statements. It causes enormous damage to the travel sector, financially but mainly in terms of image technology.
The framing that travel behavior is one of the main causes of the spread of the virus is, like Van Dissel’s statement, not based on hard facts. They give a different picture. The figures from the internationally respected Robert Koch Institute (RKI) provide a realistic picture of the role of travel and tourism in relation to corona spread. Only 0.2 percent of infections occur during transport (including flying), 2.5 percent in hotels and more than eighty percent in and around the home and at work. Eighty percent of all infected travelers were infected during family visits in Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Turkey.
The results of the test street were analyzed at Frankfurt airport. Of all tested passengers, 0.76 percent turned out to be positive. Those infected passengers came remarkably few from the top ten holiday countries. Granted; these are German figures, but why should they be different from the Netherlands?
I have been calling for months, and I will continue to do so until proven otherwise, that we do not have a travel or vacation problem together, but a behavioral problem. It doesn’t matter where you are, but how you behave! Partying in Spain or partying in a Leiden student house or singing in a church in Staphorst; the spot is irrelevant if you ignore the corona rules. In fact; the beach on a Greek island was really more harmless this summer than the beach in Bloemendaal. The same was true these summer months for the terrace in Rome compared to the terrace on Leidseplein.