ClaimsNate Silver

“The Netherlands flirted with using a herd immunity strategy and now their case fatality rate is 7%.”

Nate Silver, on X 29 March 2020 Post by @NateSilver538 on X, 2020-03-29 (X)

Factual Biosecurity

The Netherlands considered a herd immunity strategy and its case fatality rate is now 7% as of 2020-03-29.

Resolved true The record shows it happened or was so.

Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?

The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.

What would count as true or false

The claim has two parts: (a) the Netherlands considered or flirted with a herd immunity strategy, and (b) its case fatality rate (cumulative reported COVID-19 deaths divided by cumulative confirmed cases) was about 7% as of 2020-03-29. Judge it on data available on or around that date, using RIVM figures or a standard tracker (JHU CSSE, Our World in Data, Worldometer) for 28–29 March 2020. Because 'flirted with' is loose, part (a) holds if official statements or credible contemporaneous reporting show Dutch government leaders publicly discussed or floated building herd/group immunity as part of their approach, for example Rutte's 16 March 2020 address. It fails only if no such official discussion occurred. Because '7%' is a rough figure, part (b) holds if the computed CFR is about 6.5–7.5%. True: both parts hold. Mostly true: (a) holds and the CFR is close but slightly outside the band (about 6–6.5% or 7.5–8%). Mostly false: (a) holds but the CFR is clearly off (for example 5–6% or 8–9%). Also mostly false: the CFR is about right but the herd-immunity framing is a substantial distortion, such as no official discussion of the idea beyond a passing remark. Mixed: roughly one part holds and the other clearly fails. False: the CFR was far from 7% (below about 5% or above about 9%) and the herd-immunity point also fails, or the figures show the statement wrong outright. Do not mark the claim down because CFR depends on testing levels or is a poor proxy for lethality. The claim is only about the reported CFR figure and the policy consideration, not that one caused the other.

Set before the research began.

Evidence (4)

  1. E1 [PDF] Epidemiologische situatie COVID-19 in Nederland - RIVM RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) · 28 March 2020

    “Tot en met 28 maart 10:00 uur zijn er in Nederland in totaal 9762”
  2. E2 [PDF] Epidemiologische situatie COVID-19 in Nederland - RIVM RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) · 28 March 2020

    “patiënten opgenomen in het ziekenhuis en 639 overleden.”
  3. E3 Coronavirus: Dutch adopt controversial 'herd immunity' strategy The Irish Times · 16 March 2020

    “The Netherlands will aim to develop immunity to coronavirus among its population by allowing large numbers to contract the illness at a controlled pace, prime minister Mark Rutte announced in a national address on Monday.”
  4. E4 Coronavirus: Full text of Prime Minister Rutte's national address in English NL Times · 16 March 2020

    “we can slow down the spread of the virus while at the same time building group immunity in a controlled way.”

Reasoning

On part (a), Rutte's 16 March 2020 national address spoke of "building group immunity in a controlled way" (E4), and The Irish Times reported that the Dutch were adopting a herd immunity strategy (E3). That meets the criterion. On part (b), RIVM's report of 28 March 2020 gives a cumulative total of 9,762 up to 10:00 that day (E1) and 639 deaths (E2). Reading the 9,762 as reported cases, which the sentence structure strongly suggests but the quoted fragment does not state outright, the case fatality rate is about 6.5%. That is just inside the 6.5–7.5% band, so both parts hold.

Cite this claim

Nate Silver, “The Netherlands considered a herd immunity strategy and its case fatality rate is now 7% as of 2020-03-29.” (said 29 March 2020). Verdict: resolved true. Reliability API, claim c_d2b1225c3814, method 0.1.0+28da144b, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_d2b1225c3814

This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.

Reply to this claim

For Nate Silver, or someone speaking for them: a correction or counter-evidence. Replies are read before anything is shown; an approved reply shows your name, role, date, statement and link. Your email address is never shown and is deleted 30 days after the decision (privacy).

More factual claims by Nate Silver

  1. Resolved true Factual 13 August 2024
    “Millions of people died around the world, life was disrupted in a way that it hasn't been since World War II”

    Millions of people died worldwide in the COVID pandemic, and life was disrupted more than at any time since World War II.

  2. Resolved true Factual 26 June 2021
    “if a very high percentage of people in a certain group are vaccinated, then a fairly high percentage of infections may be among vaccinated people, even if the vaccines are incredibly effective.”

    If a very high percentage of a group is vaccinated, a fairly high percentage of infections may be among vaccinated people even if the vaccines are highly effective.

  3. Mostly true Factual 16 June 2021
    “The risk of a vaccinated young person getting severely ill from COVID is *incredibly* low.”

    The risk of a vaccinated young person getting severely ill from COVID is incredibly low, though not zero.

  4. Mostly true Factual 28 October 2026
    “He's actually not a DSA guy, but sort of a more left populist.”

    Abdul El-Sayed is not a DSA guy but is sort of a more left populist.

  5. Mostly true Factual 23 October 2026
    “Jocelyn Benson’s lead in the Michigan gubernatorial polls is about 4.2 points larger than Abdul El-Sayed’s in the state’s Senate contest”

    Jocelyn Benson's lead in Michigan gubernatorial polls is about 4.2 points larger than Abdul El-Sayed's lead in the Michigan Senate polls.

All of them

Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.