We analyzed the impact of the COVID-19 policy restrictions on mobility patterns and excess mortality at the regional level in The Netherlands between 2020 and 2022. Our analysis combines data on public policies, mobility patterns from the Google Mobility Reports, officially registered COVID-19 cases and deaths, and region-specific measures of excess mortality over a relatively long time period extending beyond the first wave of the pandemic. We modeled the dynamic relationships of these variables as a system in which policy responds to information about the pandemic; mobility reacts both to information about the pandemic and to policy; the number of COVID-19 cases is influenced by changes in mobility and policy; and excess mortality is affected directly by the policy restrictions and indirectly via the impact of policy on mobility. The results confirm that the stringency of policy restrictions increased with the number and growth rates of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Mobility, as reflected in presence in public places (transport hubs, retail, work), decreased while presence at residential locations increased in response to stricter policies and higher COVID-19 case and death counts in preceding weeks. The number of new COVID-19 cases declined when stricter policy restrictions were enacted and reduced presence in public places (following a two-week lag). Excess mortality decreased with stricter policy restrictions (with a five-week lag) and, to a lesser extent, with reduced presence in public places and increased presence in places of residence. Importantly, the effects of policy restrictions and mobility diminished with consecutive COVID-19 waves. Overall, the evidence shows that policy restrictions were effective in limiting the spread of the pandemic and in saving lives. While policies influenced mobility patterns, their impact was not fully mediated by mobility changes.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

The Dutch organization for knowledge and innovation in health, healthcare and well-being (ZomMW): No 104.302.522.100.07 and 104.302.522.200.03.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This study was approved by the Scientific Committee of the Department of Clinical Epidemiology of the Leiden University Medical Center (protocol A0199) with a waiver of participant consent, because it used exclusively pre-existing, de-identified data, which the Dutch Statistics Office (CBS) is allowed to process by law (Wet op het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, i.e. Law for the CBS).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

The data will be made available upon publication on the Harvard Dataverse.