I remember the discourse at the time of the discussions in the Netherlands including discussions about that wearing mask = touching face more = increased risk. Not after, but during the discussions.
Within 24 hours that question could have been answered.
It would have gone something like this:
* Hour 1:. Health minister directs ministry to urgently answer this question, since it will impact policy.
* Hour 2: health ministry contacts 5 university professors to conduct study.
* Hour 3: university professor decides to invite 50 students in (paying them $50 each) to do a study. Email 1000 people, first 50 to reply get invited in.
* Hour 4, professor and assistants go to shop to buy cameras and sticky blue ink.
* Hour 5, study begins. Participants have ink spread over faces and cameras sit recording around the room. Participants are allowed to do whatever they like (study, call friends, watch TV, etc). Half are instructed to wear masks except when eating and drinking.
* Hour 7, study ends. Turns out the ink dried out and didn't work, but footage from cameras is reviewed.
* Hour 9. Exact counts of face touches for each group are produced.
* Hour 10. Preliminary results forwarded to the health ministry and other universities.
* Hour 11. Other university professors review data and method and say "our best guess is the initial theory of 12 hours ago is likely wrong".
* Hour 12: Health ministry gives advice to wear masks.
Afterwards each person in this chain is paid generously for dropping all work to handle this urgent matter.
Not trying to defend the authorities, I still think they were waaay too far from the optimum course. A few weeks in we already had a fair guess that it's more air than touch. But still, it wasn't as trivial to be solved in one afternoon.
My government would be issuing a request for proposals 6 months later, and the actual study results would cost tens of millions of dollars and only be delivered 3 years later.
* week 3-10 wait for research program to open for submission
* week 11 submit
* week 12-20 wait for outcome
* week 21: actually a surprise, it is fundes
* week 22: since this is involving human test subjects: submit to ethic commitee of university
* week 23- 30 wait for reply, approved
* week 30-38: term break (so no students around to ask)
* week 39-80 conduct the study (you need to have billable hours!)
* week 81: result is inconclusive further investigations in a new study needed
They could have bombared us through TV, billboards, online. But nope.
When the RIVM heard of these actions in February, they downplayed the effectivity of masks. Only in March and April, when the crisis hit us (unprepared), reasons had to be given why our supplies of masks were depleted. This is when the media started spinning the story that mask wearing causes increased touching of the face. There is no scientific basis for that claim.
You should never believe anyone outright (including oneself). So yes, you get to choose when to believe them.
The RIVM has traditionally had a very good reputation to its level of scientific research. Nevertheless, this does not entail a good consulting role on policy making, especially under duress.
In conversations I have had with governance experts, the relatively weak political position of the RIVM has come up many times. During normal times, this political position is irrelevant, since the RIVM is merely a reflection of scientific insights. During times of crisis and power struggles, the leadership position crumbles.
That, in and of itself, is the sole reason the RIVM has struggled the last year. Power was not balanced. You can see this numerous times:
- RIVM was forced to make a position on the role of COVID-19 on children. Absence of evidence became evidence of absence.
- RIVM was forced to make a position on face masks. Same thing happened. There simply was not enough strong evidence (according to their own strict rules of peer-reviewed, double-blind research).
Similar miscommunications have happened on the topic of aerosols and schools as an important contributing vector.
Please realise how important this is. This is a large scale and continuing failure of governance.
It is completely untrustworthy and has shown time and again it is willing to lie for political purposes.
RIVM by law is independent. It cannot be forced to take positions. It is by its own choice that it bends over backwards and makes false statements for political purposes.
It is a scientific institution that has failed science. It is rotten to the core, it is less than worthless, it must be dismantled and replaced.