Report on handling of Covid-19 due by end of the year

SPEAKER_1 (0:00)

The Hard Shoulder, with Ciara Kelly and Shane Colman. On Newstalk, with Ciara.

Leo Varadkar (0:11)

This is a St. Patrick's Day like no other. A day that none of us will ever forget. Today's children will tell their own children and grandchildren about the national holiday in 2020, that had no parties, no parades, but instead saw everyone staying at home to protect each other. In years to come, let them say of us, when things are at their worst, we were at our best.

Our country is making big demands of our health care staff and big demands of every single one of us. Tonight I want you to know why these actions are being taken and what more needs to be done.

Shane Colman (1:00)

Yeah, it still brings a shiver down the spine, doesn't it? Leo Veradker addressing the country on St. Patrick's Day 2020 Now, six and a half years on, the review of how Ireland handled the pandemic has yet to be published. Our chief reporter Barry Whyte joins us now. Barry, you were following the COVID-19 evaluations team final public roundtable discussion today.

We're finally getting close to seeing its findings.

Barry Whyte (1:27)

Hi, Shane. Good evening. Yeah, the COVID-19 evaluation team says it's on track to deliver its final reports by the end of this year. And while it's six and a half, almost seven years since that address we just heard from former T-Shulk Leo Veradker, the evaluation itself has only established in 2024

Since then, it's been hearing from people who made the decisions and people who had to live with them. That includes the current T-Shulk, Leigh Hall Martin, the then T-Shulk Leo Veradker, and former Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Tony Houlihan. But it's also heard from thousands of people about what those years were like for them. Three families, older people, younger people, all with very different experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic. And that's something that can get lost when we look back at the arguments over restrictions. Behind every decision were people whose lives were affected. Now, this isn't a statutory inquiry, which some critics had wanted. It's an independent evaluation, so nobody will be blamed for what we got wrong. Instead, it'll be looking at how Ireland responded and what lessons we should take into the next emergency, if that ever happens. Before the final report, the team also plans to publish two consultation reports on long-term residential care, including the experience shared by brief families.

Here's the chair, Professor Anne Scott, outlining earlier today the evidence that they've gathered.

Anne Scott (2:52)

One of the evaluation's key aims is to look at what worked, what didn't, gaps in the approach, and lessons to be learned to help strengthen decision making for the future. Over the past 18 months, the evaluation has been engaged in quite an extensive program of evidence gathering across multiple sources, including public consultation and engagement, background research and discussions and behind-the-scene work.

Thousands of lived experiences and impacts have been shared with the pandemic evaluation team, both from the public generally and as part of tailored consultation with children and young people and with people impacted by the pandemic in long-term residential care. Each provides a valuable insight into how the pandemic affected people in different circumstances, in different contexts and indeed at different stages of their lives. The long-term residential care consultation is part of a dedicated module of work which includes the experience of bereaved families. Many of these and indeed many members of the public generally carry significant grief and trauma which has still been lived through today.

Shane Colman (4:39)

Okay, Chair, Professor and Scott there. Barry, I suppose another question today was about who makes the decisions in such a crisis. We heard follow the science so often during COVID, but I suppose the question to be answered is, where does scientific advice end and political decisions begin?

Barry Whyte (5:00)

Yes, and that was the point raised by Professor Pete Lund, who heads the ESRI's Behavioral Research Unit.

His argument was that scientists should explain the options and the evidence, rather than tell ministers which decision to make. Because if you present one course of action as a scientific answer, politicians are left choosing between following it or being accused of ignoring the science. He said that puts them in an impossible position with a political price attached. So, in any future pandemic, he wants the advice presented differently, set out the choices, explain what the evidence tells us, and leave the decision then to politicians. This is what Professor Lun had to say earlier.

Pete Lunn (5:42)

My primary expertise as a behavioral scientist is about decision making, how people make decisions. I think in any future pandemic, we really need to ask the question, does it make sense for ministers in the government to be presented with a, say, the science says this is what you should do, minister type decision. Because in my view, the answer to that is no, because it frames the decision as either I'm following the science or I'm not following the science, which comes with a political price.