{"id":126104,"date":"2021-04-26T18:06:52","date_gmt":"2021-04-26T16:06:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=126104"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:25:35","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:25:35","slug":"why-fieldlabs-and-other-experiments-are-vital-in-this-phase-of-the-pandemic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2021\/04\/26\/why-fieldlabs-and-other-experiments-are-vital-in-this-phase-of-the-pandemic\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Fieldlabs and other experiments are vital in this phase of the pandemic"},"content":{"rendered":"

As a researcher at Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM), Professor Job van Exel plays a \u2018bit part\u2019 in the current Fieldlab experiments. For example, you could recently find Van Exel among the spectators at Johan Cruijff ArenA, performing research during the match between Netherlands and Latvia. The Fieldlab experiments have caused quite a commotion \u2013 for example, the King\u2019s Day party in Breda was called off after public protests. Van Exel believes the experiments have a strong social relevance, although he is disappointed that the participants aren\u2019t required to all have themselves tested after attending an event.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Job van Exel in the Johan Cruijff ArenA<\/span><\/p>

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOwn archive<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>

The Fieldlabs are government-mandated field trials with public events: a football match, for example, or a conference, theatre performance or festival. Van Exel isn\u2019t directly involved in the events as such. Rather, he\u2019s been working on behalf of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport in the evaluation team for the government\u2019s CoronaCheck app, which is headed by EUR professor Wolfgang Ebbers.<\/p>\n

The team is using the Fieldlab events as an early opportunity to test users\u2019 experiences in a real-life setting. Van Exel: \u201cYou\u2019ve got two apps: the notification app CoronaMelder, which has been live a few months already, and a new one: CoronaCheck. If you\u2019ve received a negative result from one of the testing locations, this app allows you to make a QR code that you can have scanned at the entrance to show you aren\u2019t contagious. During and after the trial events, we ask people about their experiences with the app.\u201d<\/p>\n

Test society<\/h2>

Van Exel explains that the app is actually part of a larger infrastructure that is currently being developed \u2018in anticipation of the test society\u2019. \u201cOf course, we still have to deal with the aftermath of this pandemic, but we should also start readying ourselves for the next one. And who knows: there might be another wave. In a situation like that, you want to have a testing infrastructure in place that allows you to limit the social and economic impact of a pandemic.\u201d<\/p>\n

Fieldlab events are intended to test this technology, says Van Exel. \u201cNormally, a stadium like ArenA fits some 50,000, so it still looks quite empty when you only let in six groups, to a total of 5,000 people. But handling this safely during the Covid pandemic is already quite a hassle. And the question remains: will you also be able to scale this up further \u2013 maybe up to 50,000? These are the kinds of questions that are being researched at the Fieldlabs.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/svg>\n\t\t<\/button>

The 'landing' where Van Exel did his interviews<\/span><\/p>

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\town archive<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>

How do you think the experiment went, in the stadium?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThere were six \u2018bubbles\u2019. Each group had to abide by different rules. I was in Bubble Six. People had to wear a face mask and weren\u2019t allowed to shout or sing, but they didn\u2019t have to socially distance. As researchers we did, incidentally: we had to observe them from some distance. We were only allowed to interview them on the \u2018landing\u2019, keeping 1.5 metres between us and wearing face masks. People were positive about how easy it was to use the CoronaCheck app at the entrance. That\u2019s something you see quite a bit in the Netherlands: people usually don\u2019t mind as long as you make sure everything runs smoothly. But we don\u2019t like things being made compulsory. That\u2019s taking it too far, in a lot of people\u2019s view.\u201d<\/p>\n

What\u2019s your take on the King\u2019s Day festivities being called off in Breda?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cOf course, it feels a bit harsh to organise large-scale public events while our hospital wards are full of patients \u2013 I get why people feel that way. At the same time, it\u2019s easier to test the infrastructure when there\u2019s a concrete risk of infection. It\u2019s a difficult call to make \u2013 which is why it\u2019s extra important that the experiments themselves are tightly controlled. During the football match, spectators needed to test for Covid both beforehand and five days after the event. But the second test wasn\u2019t compulsory, so some people didn\u2019t go. This means that we miss out on very important information: data that we need to properly evaluate the results of the experiment. In the case of the Fieldlab festival in Biddinghuizen, we know it was attended by 3,000 festivalgoers, spread across two days. But I don\u2019t know how many of these people had themselves tested afterwards. And you\u2019re never entirely sure it was in follow-up to the festival.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u2018At first glance, 16 infections on a total of 3,000 attendees sounds like a good result. But you don\u2019t have any data on the people who didn\u2019t have themselves tested again, or why they chose not to\u2019\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

Surely you can still draw some conclusions of value, even if some people didn\u2019t get themselves tested afterwards?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cAt first glance, 16 infections on a total of 3,000 attendees sounds like a good result. But you don\u2019t have any data on the people who didn\u2019t have themselves tested again, or why they chose not to. Potentially, this could mean overlooking hundreds of infections. But you simply don\u2019t know. Which is a crying shame, actually.\u201d<\/p>\n

How are participants currently encouraged to get themselves tested?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cObviously, people do agree to the first test \u2013 you aren\u2019t let in otherwise. And after the event, visitors are urgently advises to have themselves tested again. While I was working at ArenA, I also received a few push messages on my phone, urging me to get myself tested. So they\u2019re definitely nudged. But if I\u2019m not mistaken, they can\u2019t trace whether you actually get yourself tested, or get the result: for privacy reasons. And I don\u2019t think they can make it compulsory either, but then again: I\u2019m not a lawyer.\u201d<\/p>\n

Shouldn\u2019t we simply wait a bit longer before organising these large-scale trial events?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI think that in preparation for the test-based society, the wish to collect data in some way or other is certainly justified. But personally, I felt a number of these mass events came quite soon. And it still isn\u2019t clear what the Fieldlab team did exactly beforehand to evaluate the ethical dimensions. Incidentally, the research into CoronaCheck conducted by the evaluation team has been carefully vetted in this respect.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Lees meer<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t