I can understand that language as it would be virtually impossible for the authorities to police individuals quarantining all over the country.
However, it’s far easier to enforce rules at passport control.

Any details on this new law?
The only thing I heard was making the wearing of face-masks compulsory from Dec 1st.
Face-Masks
Is there more to it?

They try their best to make it sound like a requirement because they want people to follow it, but ultimately the fact of the matter is that it is not a requirement.

It's no different than their advice on face masks:

See, same thing: They say you should wear a face mask, but the reality of Dutch law is that they cannot enforce mask wearing until the new coronavirus law is passed on December 1st.

Another example is advice on travel to Dutch residents: They really don't want people traveling outside of the country, but ultimately they have no means to stop people who want to do so anyway.

I don't think anybody disputes that they do not have the means to effectively police these measures. In fact, it's not only the Netherlands but other countries as well - no country can effectively police it.

However, the original point was about their intention and not whether they can successfully police the rules. It could be a wording issue but for me the self-quarantine is very much a requirement but one that you could probably bypass simply because you wouldn't be caught.

Here's some wording from the UK government regarding travelling to the Netherlands which actually suggests you would be able to exit the country in under 10 days. Doesnt change the fact that you need to self-quarantine while you are there, but you wont be in trouble for wanting to come back to the UK in less than 10 days:

"From 13 October 2020, if you’re travelling to the Netherlands from the UK, you should self-isolate for ten days upon arrival in the Netherlands. If you are staying in the Netherlands for fewer than ten days you should quarantine for the duration of your stay "

Regardless of enforcement or not, the wording on the Dutch government website is very clear; it is not a requirement. If the wording is not understandable to you, well then I don't know what else to say.

Oh dear. So you are now saying that because they have used the word "should" rather than "must", and despite the fact that they refer to a series of specific 'rules' , that the wording is "very clear" on self quarantine not being a requirement. I definitely do not know what else to say to you.

Furthermore, as I explained earlier, if you click on the link in the same government note about who is exempt from self-quarantine, they actually use wording such as "when you don't have to" and "when travellers are not required to". Yes, they even refer to exemptions not being a "requirement" - in other words if you are not exempt it is a "requirement". Also, why would they even refer to "exemptions" (free from an obligation) if the whole thing was optional and only recommended?

As I say, if that wording is not understandable to you, I really don't know what else to say.

Rules are not unconditional. In this case, the rules (and everything else on that page) apply to the process of self quarantine, which the page explicitly states you "should do" (not "must do") under certain circumstances, meaning that the rules are applicable to you on the condition that you choose to self quarantine.


Stating that something is "not required" on a specific condition does not logically mean that it is "required" on the opposing condition. Yes, the words are carefully chosen to mislead in carrying that implication (and clearly it has worked on you), but the words do not actually carry that meaning.

Let’s end the semantic argument over the wording of the Dutch advice. It’s getting us nowhere.

If I go, I’ll be in Amsterdam & The Hague.
What’s currently open or likely to open this side of Christmas?
Please put me right were I have bad/out of date info.

Bars & Restaurants - Currently closed? Restaurants likely to open in early Dec (decision expected 8th Dec), bars less likely.
Coffeeshops - Checked 5-6 coffeeshops websites that say they are open. Open or just for buy’n’fly?
RLD Windows - Open as of 19th Nov. How many are in use? Is the RLD operating normally?
Prives - Park 118, Stout & Diane’s seem to be open according to their websites???
Takeaway Food - Open for takeaway only???
Museums - Open as of 19th Nov. Need to pre-book tickets.

Any issues at the supermarket/Albert Heijn?
Other restrictions I could encounter?

I assume Christmas attractions, markets, Oliebollen, etc. are all cancelled??

If that is your interpretation of the wording, I really do worry for you.

Your thought process and logic appear to have deserted you; you appear to be extremely confused by what the wording does imply. On the one hand you are in agreement that the wording does imply that the quarantine is a requirement ("yes, the words are carefully chosen to mislead in carrying that implication") but you then state that "the words don't actually carry that meaning". Either the wording does imply that the quarantine is a requirement or it doesn't, but you are suggesting we should conclude from the wording that it is merely a recommendation when the wording actually implies it is a requirement. On what basis should we conclude that if the words imply differently?

Also, you are resorting to general theories about something not being required on a specific condition not implying that is required on the opposing condition. As a general rule, that can sometimes be the case. However, let us turn to our specific matter in hand and the very specific wording used here. They state "Some travellers are not required to self-quarantine when they arrive". You refer to "logic" - what does that wording logically suggest to you about travellers who are not exempt? I'm not sure many would argue anything other than it being a requirement for those not exempt - especially in the context of a paragraph on exemptions. Doesn't it feel odd that that they would have a whole section on 'exemptions' (i.e. being free of obligations) for something which is merely optional? Also, as I mentioned previously, doesn't it feel odd that they state "when you don't have to self quarantine" for something that is merely optional? I actually think you agree that it does imply that the self quarantine is a requirement - you appear to want to believe it is not despite the wording strongly implying it.

Im with you but it is important in the sense that people should not be mislead into thinking that the self-quarantine is optional. I know the policing is not effective, but that's a different point.

My interpretation of the wording is based on the objective meaning of the words that are explicitly stated. Your failure to comprehend the wording or understand the difference between an implication and an explicit statement is not my problem. The fact remains that you have not cited any explicit statement that self-quarantine is a requirement, under any circumstances, and if such a statement cannot be shown to exist, then it cannot be said to be a requirement.


I think if restaurants open, then bars will probably also open. The decision will be made on 8th December, but implementation of the decision may happen at a later date (I've heard the 15th being mentioned a few times).


Currently take-away only, but I expect they will follow the same rules as bars and restaurants, so they may also be open.


I haven't been to Amsterdam since August. It seemed OK then, and I doubt much has changed (I went on a Monday during the day, so it wasn't too busy anyway). One interesting thing I learned recently is that with many people losing their normal jobs due to the pandemic, many women are seeing this as an opportunity to get into sex work, so there are actually a lot of new girls appearing in recent months.


Yes, most privehuizen are currently open, and it should remain that way unless the government calls for another lockdown.

Check the websites to make sure you're aware of any extra rules. For example, my favorite privehuis requires wearing a mask when entering, and I think it's also common now that you don't shake hands with the girls during introductions. Also be aware that some girls may no longer kiss (I haven't encountered this myself, but I'm aware of at least one girl who has stopped doing it).


No problem. Takeaways have never closed, not even during the March lockdown.


Yes, be sure to book in advance. Capacity is currently restricted, so you need to reserve to make sure they will have a place for you!


Wearing a mask is currently recommend, and will likely be required by December, assuming the supermarket itself doesn't already require it. If you're buying alcohol, be sure you bring ID, since it's much more difficult for the checkout staff to judge your age under a mask (I'm nearly 40 and I got asked for ID last week for the first time in many years!).


Masks are required on public transport and I think also on station platforms. Try to keep at least 1.5m from other people, and walk on the right side of streets. Everything should be pretty obvious anyway once you're there.


I wouldn't necessarily assume that they're cancelled. The normal markets are still operating, so I don't see any reason that the Christmas markets should be stopped.

I am clearly wasting my time with someone who is not only confused but who also believes that use of the wording "you should self quarantine" is a statement explicitly and objectively meaning that self-quarantine is optional. It's even more worrying you believe that in the context of the subsequent wording on exemptions, including explicit statements on when you don't "have to" quarantine and when travellers are not "required to" quarantine.

I would strongly argue that the paragraph which states "when travellers are not required to self-quarantine" is particularly objective in communicating that self-quaranting is a requirement unless you are exempt. If you believe that they should have listed all 7 million reasons when people are required to self-quarantine (everything other than the 2 exempt reasons they list), I would worry even more about your thinking if that is possible. I'm sure the government felt that paragraph was explicit enough.

C’mon guys, keep it classy.
I think such language is fairly typical of Dutch liberal conservativism.

Yes, that is the meaning of the word "should". You should not drink too much (but you can if you want). You should eat healthy (but you don't have to). You should be nice to be people (but you don't have to). You should go to the gym (but you don't have to). etc. etc.

That's how the word "should" works. Welcome to the English language.


A statement that you don't have to do (A) on condition (X) does not say anything about when you do have to do (A).


Your "strong argument" is objectively wrong. A statement of when you do not have to self quarantine does not explicitly say anything about when you do have to self quarantine.

Oh, there goes the difference between an explicit statement and an implication, whooshing right over your head!


All they would need to do is replace the word "should" with the word "must". The fact that they did not do this what makes it clear that it is not required.

If there's one thing I know about the Dutch from 15 years of living in the Netherlands, it's that they aren't shy about being very direct. If self-quarantine really was a requirement, then it would be stated on the website in no uncertain terms. As it stands however, it is not stated to be a requirement at all.

Its lucky you are living in the Netherlands and presumably don't have to speak or understand too much english. Let me define "should" as stated in the Oxford dictionary - "an expression of an obligation or duty". You'll have to excuse me if I don’t agree with your belief that "you should self quarantine" is an objective and explicit statement meaning that it is optional - and in the context of the subsequent wording within exemptions.

You keep resorting to general theories rather than the specific wording within the government note. Which part of the paragraph on 'exemptions from self- quarantine' isn't objective or explicit enough for you? You must have really struggled at school if you are unable to view that paragraph as explicitly highlighting for whom self quarantine is a requirement. At best, your inference skills are weak - there is very little inference required to work out from that paragraph that self -quarantine is a requirement unless you are exempt, but whoosh that went right over your head!

Above you state the wording does "sound like a requirement".



You then later state that wording is "very clear' on it not being a requirement. A little contradictory would you not say? At best you should be referring to the wording as being ambiguous if you believe they make it "sound like a requirement" - certainly not "very clear" on not being a requirement.

I am wasting my time having a debate with someone who is confused, has particularly weak inference skills, and a lack of understanding of words in the english language.

YAWN!

I'm British, and I'm better at English than you are.


Sorry, but "obligation" or "duty" does not necessarily stretch to mean a legal requirement.


Statements of exemptions are not statements of requirements. Show me an explicit statement that self-quarantine is required (you can't, because such statements don't exist).


The wording is clear to those with intelligence and a good grasp on the English language, but may be (possibly intentionally) misleading to those who lack either of these things. There is no ambiguity in the wording, but it may fool some people (you included).

I’m also British and your English is most definitely not better than mine or the majority of others - despite me being no great shakes!


Let me define an obligation from the Oxford dictionary - “an act to which a person is morally or legally bound”. I mean I know your English is not great, but this really is embarrassing.

The fact that you can’t understand the contradictory nature of your statements in initially stating that “it sounds like a requirement “ but subsequently stating the wording is “very clear” on it not being so, is particularly worrying on your part.

As I say, I’m wasting my time attempting to debate with someone so lacking, but I will make one final point even though your weak inference skills probably won’t absorb it; if the whole thing is optional as you say, why would the government bother to highlight the 2 specific circumstances under which people are exempt from the requirement to self quarantine? It seems a waste of space, and defies all logic. I mean if it’s optional for everyone why highlight 2 circumstances under which people are exempt from a requirement?

Anyhow, I shall leave it there as others are yawning and you are struggling with basic understanding and reasoning, together with the English language.