Letters

Review of State’s response to Covid-19 pandemic

A delicate balance is required

Sat Mar 4 2023 - 00:09

Sir, – Paul Reid’s warning against revisionism is timely and correct (”Reid warns against ‘revisionism’ in State’s review of its handling of Covid-19″, News, March 3rd). Necessary decisions were made by the executive and politicians in the heat of battle, under intense pressure and scrutiny and in the absence of complete information. It is certain that decisions were made which, under different circumstances, with more time, might have been different. A review is appropriate to derive lessons which should influence future strategies and tactics. It is also important that the review does not exclusively focus on the executive, but equally considers the political response. A non-confrontational approach which ensures those contributing to the inquiry do not feel the need to retain legal representation (which will be yet another gravy train for that profession) would go a long way to creating the conditions for a productive review. A delicate balance is required and Micheál Martin’s wise use of the word “review” rather than “inquiry”, while the pandemic was still raging, sets the correct tone, which ought to be maintained. – Yours, etc,

PAUL DUGGAN,

Dublin 6.

Sir, – Surely it’s an “evaluation” of our country’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic that’s needed rather than the more punitive sounding “inquiry” that’s being proposed? Every word matters after all. – Yours, etc,

READ MORE

MIRIAM BELL,

Ballygunner,

Co Waterford.

Sir, – Hindsight is wonderful. It helps us feel so knowledgeable and smart. However, it’s important to remember that hindsight gives us knowledge and understanding after the event.

We can now look back at Covid-19 with knowledge and understanding that we did not possess in February/March 2020. The World Health Organisation featured very prominently in the media predicting that millions could die as a result of the pandemic and it was right: millions did die.

Our Government responded quickly and decisively with the knowledge that was available to them at the time. Had they not done that we would now be asking them “why not?”.

Was it difficult for people? of course it was. We were frightened. We listened to the daily announcements from the chief medical officer and his team when they warned us to be careful, to protect ourselves and others, to obey the rules.

As more information became available, rules were modified. People were tested and vaccinated and gradually life returned to some semblance of normality.

Were mistakes made? I am sure there were. We now have the benefit of hindsight and we understand so much more about this virus.

However, I am sure I am not alone when I say I am very grateful to the Government, the medics and all those who were involved in managing the pandemic.

My heart goes out to all those who lost loved ones as a result of the virus.

However, I have no doubt that the number of deaths would have been much higher had the Government not taken the action it did.

An inquiry is essential so that we can learn necessary lessons in the event that we have another pandemic. However, the purpose of the enquiry cannot be to criticise what happened over the past three years. We know so much more now than we did in February 2020 and it is important to remember that. – Yours, etc,

PAULA MOLLOY,

Baldoyle,

Dublin 13.

LATEST STORIES