How well did Ireland deal with Covid? Patterns emerge ahead of final report

In just under six months, Ireland’s Covid evaluation panel is due to conclude its work examining the State’s handling of the pandemic.The independent assessment was established in 2025 to examine the response across hospitals, the community and nursing homes, along with wider economic and societal impacts.It is different from those seen internationally, including in the UK, in that it has been approached in a nonconfrontational manner. It also lacks statutory powers to compel the release of materials or the attendance of witnesses.The evaluation is designed to compile a factual account of the pandemic from January 2020 to February 2022, to identify lessons, and guide future decisions. READ MOREWith €960,000 having been spent on it until the end of May, according to data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, an image is beginning to emerge of the challenges experienced by society during that time, as well as the consequences of some of the public health measures. The panel, chaired by Prof Anne Scott, has conducted three public consultations: a wide-ranging general one, another on children and young people, and one on on long-term residential care facilities for older people.[ Covid inquiry to conclude work before the end of the year, Cabinet toldOpens in new window ]The general consultation has found that civil liberties, human rights and trust had the highest proportion of reported negative impacts.In the consultation on young people, however, the area reported as being most negatively affected was education and development. The evaluation said this aspect had the highest proportion of reported negative impacts by a “considerable margin”.The findings from the consultation on nursing homes painted a stark image of grief and upset.Nursing homes were acutely affected by the pandemic, with visitors significantly curtailed as well as a high number of deaths in various centres. More than 400 responses were received in relation to this consultation, and a number of key issues arose, including some respondents highlighting a “failure” to adequately prepare despite “warning signs” from other countries.Some respondents maintained that their loved ones received a good level of care and some suggested that issues in nursing homes should not be attributed to staff but rather the “slow” government response. Other respondents described incidents where they believed their relatives failed to receive an adequate level of care. Relatives described how their loved ones’ nursing homes did not get sufficient personal protective equipment. “There was a general feeling that nursing homes were left behind and hospitals were the priority, including for testing, and that transferring patients from hospitals demonstrated this, along with understaffing. Many respondents wrote about a lack of staff in nursing homes,” an update on its work to date said.Respondents also expressed frustration with the level of discretion homes were given to implement restrictions.Some believed that restrictions were interpreted “to best suit the home, not the resident”, which had wide, varying impacts on residents and families.“Some respondents believed that the concept of a home and rights did not hold up and more effort should have been made to allow in-person contact,” the update said.The panel also held closed sessions with families who lost loved ones. The update said these accounts were “harrowing”.It received more than 500 documents, running to about 4,850 pages from 18 government departments and the HSE. It also requested and received government memorandums.According to the panel’s update, these documents paint a picture of a “comprehensive, multifaceted response that necessitated the rapid introduction of legislative, regulatory, advisory, financial and operational measures to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on health, society and the economy”.“They show how the response evolved and changed over time, from the initial emergency response with short-term measures, through to the more medium- and longer-term response as the pandemic progressed and the challenges evolved.” Overall, it said, the process is arriving at “deeper insights” of the pandemic management, through more detailed analysis of material and triangulation with other sources of evidence, as well as private sessions with officials and decision-makers.While the public health emergency has been over for some time, the work of the evaluation team to date suggests the effects for many people have remained long after the restrictions were lifted.