Sir, – I endorse the conclusion that we need a review in Ireland of actions taken during the pandemic (Paul Cullen, “Review needed to resolve Covid death figures anomalies”, Analysis, January 3rd).
This is long overdue, notwithstanding the news that according to recent OECD research, we had no excess deaths and that our mortality rate was the fourth lowest. While we may take some reassurance from this, confirming that we got some things right, we need to consider the impact of measures on mental health, education and other areas within society. Such a review or inquiry is long overdue, and the longer we leave it, the more difficult it becomes.
We need to reflect on the decisions taken that were appropriate and those that were wrong.
It is always important to learn from mistakes but it is also very valuable to reflect on successes and why they were so. Any review or inquiry should focus on listening and learning and not be an opportunity for scapegoating of politicians or others in an overly theatrical format, as has been the case to date in the UK.
However, at least our neighbours are well in to their review process. Here in Ireland, we do not yet have a start date, possible duration, terms of reference and any sense of the likely format.
Undoubtedly, we made mistakes but generally with the best of intentions in mind. Hence, our review or inquiry should be sensitive, nuanced and sympathetic to all those contributing, many of whom had a stressful and torrid experience, including the loss of loved ones. While any inquiry must be thorough and serve the public, it needs to be completed in a reasonable timeframe. Thus the Minister should cease procrastinating and get on with it. – Yours, etc,
HILARY HUMPHREYS,
Emeritus Professor
of Clinical Microbiology,
Royal College of Surgeons
in Ireland University
of Medicine and Health
Sciences,
Dublin 2.
Sir, – Your article of January 2nd claims that the preliminary OECD report into Ireland’s death rate during the pandemic was produced by “uninterested” experts.
I doubt if the authors were uninterested.
I’m of the view they carried out their research in a disinterested manner, ie that they approached their work without self-interest.
In this age of misinformation, disinformation and whatever version of the truth you’re having, there is a value in preserving the earlier meaning of “disinterest”, as it acknowledges that there are people who approach their work impartially. After all, there are plenty of other words to succinctly describe those motivated by self-interest and bias. – Yours, etc,
TREASA MURPHY,
Tralee,
Co Kerry.