Post by Nadica (She/Her) on Nov 19, 2024 4:03:44 GMT
What we should and shouldn't expect from Ireland's Covid-19 review - Published Nov 18, 2024
By Shamsoddin Shariati
Analysis: Debates still rage over what Ireland did and didn't do during the pandemic so how should the review panel approach its work?
The Irish Government recently announced the formation of a review panel to evaluate its response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This assessment is crucial both for understanding how Ireland managed the crisis and learning valuable lessons that could strengthen the country's capacity to handle future emergencies. With a structured, purposeful approach, the panel can yield valuable insights, while avoiding certain pitfalls will help ensure a productive review process.
What should we expect?
Ireland maintained a low excess mortality rate during the pandemic, ranking among the top seven EU countries, yet debates continue over political decisions, support policies, public trust, economic resilience and social tensions during the pandemic. To improve future pandemic preparedness, the panel should address these critical areas as follows.
Adaptability, capacity, and administration
Responses to a crisis like Covid are not fixed and evolve as conditions change. There must be feedback loops to help the government evaluate and adapt its policies in real time. An effective pandemic response relies on flexible, adaptive governance. The panel should thus explore such questions as:
How did the government gather and analyze data to adapt its policies? Did feedback mechanisms allow for real-time policy adjustments?
What obstacles hindered the adaptability of government structures? Flexibility and learning in real-time are key in managing crises, yet administrative constraints may have limited Ireland’s ability to respond quickly.
How were trade-offs and conflicting interests managed? The pandemic exposed tensions among politicians, interest groups, economists, healthcare experts, civil society, and scientific bodies. Understanding how these dynamics influenced decisions and trade-offs can help streamline future responses.
Were policies equitable in their impact? Evaluating the effect of policies on different societal groups can reveal how government decisions impacted the most vulnerable.
Trust and containment measures
Experience from other countries shows that strict containment measures don’t always correlate with lower pandemic casualties. For example, Denmark, Iceland and Finland implemented moderate restrictions, relying largely on voluntary public compliance and saw some of Europe’s lowest mortality rates. Conversely, countries like Romania and Slovakia experienced high excess mortality despite imposing stringent restrictions on average over a two-year period. The panel should examine:
Could Ireland have achieved better outcomes with fewer restrictions? Exploring the balance between economic impact and public health outcomes could yield important insights.
How did public trust affect compliance? Research underscores the importance of public trust in government and science during the pandemic. When people trust authorities, they are more likely to follow guidelines voluntarily, reducing the need for enforcement. The panel should explore strategies for strengthening this trust.
What are the short and long-term plans for building trust? Data from Ireland indicate that strict containment measures may have increased public distrust. This panel should assess how the government's initial response influenced trust and how these lessons can guide future actions.
What shouldn’t we expect?
For this review to be productive, certain issues should be explicitly avoided:
Politics and blame games
To be effective, the review must remain impartial, focusing on structural insights rather than individual accountability or political battles. The highly politicized UK COVID-19 review, for example, devolved into unproductive debates over private messages and personal scandals, which detract from addressing the structural issues that require attention.
Excessive subpoena powers
Some critics have suggested granting the panel extensive subpoena powers to compel witnesses, government officials and documents. But granting greater authority could turn the review into a battleground for political agendas, exposing it to powerful lobbying by parties and interest groups, which would detract from addressing governance issues. While accountability is essential, it is better suited to a separate inquiry with broader powers, initiated by the parliament or judiciary, rather than a government-led panel.
A platform for justice for bereaved families
While many families lost loved ones during Covid-19, often under tragic circumstances, this review is not the place to seek justice. Its function is to provide expert insights for future policy improvement, not to adjudicate past decisions. Bereaved families may need a separate platform to address grievances, while this panel should focus on preparing for future crises.
How have other countries dealt with the review process?
Several European countries have already conducted official Covid-19 reviews, and their experiences can guide Ireland’s approach. The UK and France held parliamentary inquiries with substantial authority, focusing on accountability. Others, such as Sweden and Finland, opted for expert panels or independent commissions with limited powers to provide a more objective, advisory assessment. The Netherlands combined both approaches, conducting separate inquiries with different agendas: one parliamentary inquiry to hold officials accountable and another expert-led review for comprehensive evaluation and advice.
Initiated by the Government and chaired by an academic, Ireland's Covid-19 review appears well-suited as an advisory panel focused on evaluating administrative structures and governance without leaning towards politicisation. For a thorough, forward-looking assessment, all stakeholders should be encouraged to engage constructively and share data based on mutual trust. A separate parliamentary inquiry with subpoena power could later address accountability, informed by the insights gained from this review. This approach will enable the panel to deliver actionable recommendations, helping to create a stronger, more resilient Ireland prepared to face future global crises.
By Shamsoddin Shariati
Analysis: Debates still rage over what Ireland did and didn't do during the pandemic so how should the review panel approach its work?
The Irish Government recently announced the formation of a review panel to evaluate its response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This assessment is crucial both for understanding how Ireland managed the crisis and learning valuable lessons that could strengthen the country's capacity to handle future emergencies. With a structured, purposeful approach, the panel can yield valuable insights, while avoiding certain pitfalls will help ensure a productive review process.
What should we expect?
Ireland maintained a low excess mortality rate during the pandemic, ranking among the top seven EU countries, yet debates continue over political decisions, support policies, public trust, economic resilience and social tensions during the pandemic. To improve future pandemic preparedness, the panel should address these critical areas as follows.
Adaptability, capacity, and administration
Responses to a crisis like Covid are not fixed and evolve as conditions change. There must be feedback loops to help the government evaluate and adapt its policies in real time. An effective pandemic response relies on flexible, adaptive governance. The panel should thus explore such questions as:
How did the government gather and analyze data to adapt its policies? Did feedback mechanisms allow for real-time policy adjustments?
What obstacles hindered the adaptability of government structures? Flexibility and learning in real-time are key in managing crises, yet administrative constraints may have limited Ireland’s ability to respond quickly.
How were trade-offs and conflicting interests managed? The pandemic exposed tensions among politicians, interest groups, economists, healthcare experts, civil society, and scientific bodies. Understanding how these dynamics influenced decisions and trade-offs can help streamline future responses.
Were policies equitable in their impact? Evaluating the effect of policies on different societal groups can reveal how government decisions impacted the most vulnerable.
Trust and containment measures
Experience from other countries shows that strict containment measures don’t always correlate with lower pandemic casualties. For example, Denmark, Iceland and Finland implemented moderate restrictions, relying largely on voluntary public compliance and saw some of Europe’s lowest mortality rates. Conversely, countries like Romania and Slovakia experienced high excess mortality despite imposing stringent restrictions on average over a two-year period. The panel should examine:
Could Ireland have achieved better outcomes with fewer restrictions? Exploring the balance between economic impact and public health outcomes could yield important insights.
How did public trust affect compliance? Research underscores the importance of public trust in government and science during the pandemic. When people trust authorities, they are more likely to follow guidelines voluntarily, reducing the need for enforcement. The panel should explore strategies for strengthening this trust.
What are the short and long-term plans for building trust? Data from Ireland indicate that strict containment measures may have increased public distrust. This panel should assess how the government's initial response influenced trust and how these lessons can guide future actions.
What shouldn’t we expect?
For this review to be productive, certain issues should be explicitly avoided:
Politics and blame games
To be effective, the review must remain impartial, focusing on structural insights rather than individual accountability or political battles. The highly politicized UK COVID-19 review, for example, devolved into unproductive debates over private messages and personal scandals, which detract from addressing the structural issues that require attention.
Excessive subpoena powers
Some critics have suggested granting the panel extensive subpoena powers to compel witnesses, government officials and documents. But granting greater authority could turn the review into a battleground for political agendas, exposing it to powerful lobbying by parties and interest groups, which would detract from addressing governance issues. While accountability is essential, it is better suited to a separate inquiry with broader powers, initiated by the parliament or judiciary, rather than a government-led panel.
A platform for justice for bereaved families
While many families lost loved ones during Covid-19, often under tragic circumstances, this review is not the place to seek justice. Its function is to provide expert insights for future policy improvement, not to adjudicate past decisions. Bereaved families may need a separate platform to address grievances, while this panel should focus on preparing for future crises.
How have other countries dealt with the review process?
Several European countries have already conducted official Covid-19 reviews, and their experiences can guide Ireland’s approach. The UK and France held parliamentary inquiries with substantial authority, focusing on accountability. Others, such as Sweden and Finland, opted for expert panels or independent commissions with limited powers to provide a more objective, advisory assessment. The Netherlands combined both approaches, conducting separate inquiries with different agendas: one parliamentary inquiry to hold officials accountable and another expert-led review for comprehensive evaluation and advice.
Initiated by the Government and chaired by an academic, Ireland's Covid-19 review appears well-suited as an advisory panel focused on evaluating administrative structures and governance without leaning towards politicisation. For a thorough, forward-looking assessment, all stakeholders should be encouraged to engage constructively and share data based on mutual trust. A separate parliamentary inquiry with subpoena power could later address accountability, informed by the insights gained from this review. This approach will enable the panel to deliver actionable recommendations, helping to create a stronger, more resilient Ireland prepared to face future global crises.