Irish Examiner view: Dozens of covid-19 questions need answers

As the Government struggles to think of pandemic inquiry terms of reference, here are some suggestions

Leo Varadkar at Blair House, Washington DC, during a press conference on the status of coronavirus in Ireland in March 2020. The Taoiseach has acknowledged that the scoping exercise to establish ground rules for Ireland’s inquiry into the covid-19 pandemic has not yet commenced. Picture: Niall Carson/PA

When Taoiseach Leo Varadkar acknowledged that the scoping exercise to establish ground rules for Ireland’s inquiry into the covid-19 pandemic had not yet commenced, some 25 months since we started to move out of lockdown, there was a plaintive quality to his comments.

“I can see across the water, in the UK,” he fretted, “it’s turning into all sorts of things.” That was before Boris Johnson flounced off when he learned that he faced a 90-day suspension from parliament for grievously misleading his colleagues. But enough of him.

Thirty-three months ago, in September 2021, we suggested it might be a good idea to canvass society about issues that could be included in a “lessons to be learned” investigation into what had happened to us since the first “stay at home” order was introduced in March 2020. As the Government struggles to think of terms of reference, here are some suggestions. Readers may wish to add their own contributions.

At heart, this was a matter of public health. We need to understand how many people contracted covid-19; how many deaths have been attributed to it; and how the excess mortality rate — the total of deaths per month over the anticipated average — has been calculated.

We must also tally how many fatalities or other issues arose from delayed treatment, such as for cancer patients. Then there is the ongoing impact of long covid and the number of cases. A module is also required to assess the impact on mental health of the isolation implemented by the Government.

The degree of preparedness within the State is central, as are the impact and effectiveness of the actions introduced to contain and moderate transmission of the virus. Into this we can place the planning and resources that existed prior to outbreak; test and trace; provision of personal protective equipment; the effectiveness and cost of the vaccination programme; travel restrictions; the merits of the compulsory quarantine programme for visitors; our contributions to global vaccine initiatives, such as Covax, and the systems of tendering and contract management to deliver services for the public good.

The support of older people should command a section of its own.

The transfer of patients into private sector homes and the restricted access for families and the risk assessments that informed those decisions must be brought into the open. Other vulnerable groups, and in particular children, who lost significant schooling, were also drawn into the shadows by our response. It is time to audit the scale of what happened.

The implications of the messaging to the authorities and to the public must be assessed. This must include scientific advice and modelling on which decisions were made and how they affected political governance. The influence of groupings such as the National Public Health Emergency Team and other advisory bodies, all unelected, needs more debate if such remits are to be accepted in the future.

The Government, following proposals by the consultancy firm EY, considered setting up a highly intrusive surveillance system that would take information from CCTV, credit card transactions, and mobile phone data to ensure people followed social distancing rules. References from social media were also to be collated. We must have more transparency about how we were monitored and how many people were arrested, charged, and fined for breaches of behaviour.

The economic impact is inescapable and is still with us.

The worst inflation for four decades has been fuelled by what finance ministers and central banks like to call quantitative easing — printing money. The financial supports run into many, many billions. The implications for the taxpayer must be made clear.

The WHO has called for a €30bn-per-annum international effort to watch for new infections and create remedies. It has ambitions to be the umbrella authority. The EU also has opinions about its role in cross-border management. Will our Republic cede control to either when the next pandemic arrives? This subject is worthy of open debate.

Ireland’s lockdown, among the longest in Europe, was a suppression strategy aimed at limiting the virus by changing our behaviours and lives over a medium-to-prolonged period. Can we ever afford to do that again and will people even tolerate it? Research suggests not.

Our politicians may be jittery about what is happening ‘over the water’, but next week former British prime minister David Cameron will be giving evidence in public under oath. He will be followed by his former, and the current, chancellor. Some openness is overdue on this side of the water.