Wijziging van de Wet publieke gezondheid vanwege quarantaineplicht voor reizigers

Reactie

Vraag1

My apologies for not being able to write in Dutch.

I am against this legislative proposal. The main reasons behind my position are:

- the intrusion to the private sphere is disproportionate. The Government tries to regulate people's private life but without being able to show/measure the actual public benefit of the proposed measures.
- the cost of "checking compliance" with such intrusive measures is high, disproportionately high if we compare this cost with the benefits that these measures can bring, which are not quantifiable. There are also recent studies that claim that "locking people" in their homes does not have a direct effect on the transmission of the virus. Not to mention that, restricting people's life, has an impact on people's physical and mental health and this also implies additional costs for the public health services in the long run.
- the costs (in terms of money, but also in terms of disconfort), for private individuals, to comply with the measures proposed are disproportionate as well.
- the legislative proposal assumes a situation where The Netherlands needs to protect itself from other countries... This seems a bit naif. Covid19-related indicators often show similar results or even better results in other countries than in The Netherlands.
- the actual application of the proposed measures make it impossible for people living abroad to visit the Netherlands for a period shorter than 5 days. It seems to me that this goes agains the right of free circulation within the EU.
- introducing new restrictions seems easier than removing them. There are always reasons found to justify a restricitve measure once it is already in place. This is scaring.
- the good /common sense of regulating what can be regulated is being lost. The proposed measures may easily be seen as impracticable. This risks to affect adherence rates to the new rules and also to hinder Government's credibility.