This in the Examiner was not unexpected to anyone who has been following the particular commentator and his output across the pandemic, but it's a perfect example of how a politically right wing world view combines with a sort of soft-Covid denialism to specific political end.

For in supporting an inquiry in the pandemic it is crafted towards the fulfillment of political goals and shaped by a very specific, and arguably minority, political viewpoint.

Few would disagree with the necessity for an inquiry. Few, though would tackle the issue with such an enthusiasm for what appears to be a rather punitive take on matters.

For example - some of the complaints are frankly strange given this was a novel coronavirus.

"We knew little [at the start] of this virus and its potential to wound or kill us.

Since then we have endured a rollercoaster of ups and downs, new variants, closures, cancelled holidays and family gatherings, not being able to mourn our dead properly, and on and on.

More than €32bn in Covid-19 spending, all borrowed money, by the way, has been extended to react to the impact of such closures."

Indeed he writes:

The Taoiseach and his ministers trot out the line that of course mistakes were made during the pandemic but that any inquiry should not be a witch hunt.A shudder runs through me when I hear that, as such an approach means that ultimately punches will be pulled, as happened in the past, or that those who made mistakes will escape any sort of accountability.

The implication is that this money was wasted, yet while without question some may have been the vast bulk of it was in keeping the economy and health services afloat in the face of - well, a novel coronavirus.

And it goes further, that it wasn't just a matter of inefficiency or waste but something else. That the handling of the crisis was somehow wrong.

It has been argued again and again that Ireland, by comparison with many countries, has had a good pandemic in terms of the State's response.

This is based on the low number of deaths, relatively speaking, the absence of repeated surges on our hospital system, and that our economy has proven to be remarkably resilient, notwithstanding the wallop inflicted upon it.

But what is largely absent from such spin is the horrendous cost caused by prolonged infringements on our personal liberties.

Note how he moves from waste and inefficiencies into something much more nebulous. How does one count these supposed 'costs'? And the line only makes sense if one believes that those costs were unnecessary.

As he clearly does.

In other words this is an exercise in bad faith because he has already decided that the management of the response to the pandemic was not merely a problem but was unnecessary in all or part. As he outlines in the rest of the article which argues that:

The use of lockdown as the default mechanism during the two years is certainly open to question, both in terms of the length of such lockdowns and their severity.

Or:

In terms of money, the huge waste in buying personal protective equipment, circa €375m, and no questions asked is worthy of a book in its own right. The levels of fraud in people getting the pandemic unemployment payment and allowing companies in receipt of State support to pay themselves large dividends are all matters worthy of investigation.

Of course these should be investigated but it's not as if they've not been mentioned previously. And note the collapsing of arguably fraudulent behaviours with errors driven by the dynamics of the early weeks and months of the pandemic.

And what about this?

However, the most politically sensitive issue for this and the previous government to answer for will be the decision to open up over Christmas 2020, which had a profoundly negative impact on policy-making in 2021. The decision to close schools was also a major mistake, and several ministers already have conceded that point privately. Ministers also fear the fallout from what happened in nursing homes and their failure to address that properly at the time in 2020.

But who was driving the government to reopen? Why commentators in the media, some of who had explicitly argued that restrictions were unnecessary, in tandem with certain business interests (indeed this columnist in November 2020 was already in full flight about excessive restrictions, who even as the surge in 2020 surged was questioning the restrictions on foot of it, ) The government didn't make that decision in a vacuum (indeed he argues later that NPHET was too tightly drawn and insufficiently cogniscent of other interests, including business ones. Some might find that a contradiction with his thoughts on Christmas 2020). And it's not entirely clear that the impact was as negative as is made out given the reality that for much of the time vaccines were not yet available, nor was Delta anything to take lightly and then at the end of the year Omicron was an essentially unknown quantity.

 

Then there's this:

Civil/public service: While many manned the front lines, the current backlog in the passport office is a telling example of how in places the system was allowed to fall apart. Many departments/agencies that were public-facing stopped operating efficiently or at all. This needs to be examined and we need to ensure a better solution.

This seems to be an exaggeration. The Passport Office is one thing, other departments appear to have functioned more than well enough.

And this:

Society: It will only be in the coming weeks and months that we will learn the full extent of the toll this pandemic has taken on the Irish people. Again the lack of elderly voices or those advocating for the rights of children during the past two years has done real damage. Also, there needs to be a human rights assessment on the emergency legislation and the reduction in our freedoms.

Again, and unfortunately this seems to have been a long running problem with this commentator, it appears that there are certain aspects of the overall situation that he simply does not appreciate. The 'reduction in our freedoms' has been rolled back, time and again actually, and given the severity of the situation, it is remarkable to hear this as a serious complaint. But the reduction was not perverse or a whim, it was as a function of a pandemic - which by the by continues. Furthermore it was very strongly supported throughout by public opinion. 

And there's more

What others did: This is a critical element to consider in any review. We must get a full understanding of what other countries did and why. The obvious one was the frustration felt here during 2021 when we remained largely locked up when most, if not all, other EU countries were open for business.

Again, the general population appears to have been even ahead of the government in terms of supporting a somewhat more rather than less restricted environment with relation to the pandemic. He may disagree but that is a reality. There's a further aspect which is by being somewhat more cautious the worst effects of Delta were, it would appear, avoided, while preparing (albeit unknowingly) to reap the positive effects of Omnicron.

 

But wait, I've missed something for there was this too...

Some in my industry may not like this, but the role of the national media must also be examined. For example, it is a legitimate criticism as to why we continue to publish daily case numbers when their relevance to the overall picture is greatly diminished. Another aspect to examine is the spending of large sums of money by the Government in advertising in newspapers, TV, and online and what impact it had if any on editorial decision making.

This line about Government spending has been made before. The idea that with the media replete with Covid sceptical voices from the get go reflected a simple Government line is risible.

But even more risible... A journalist, of all people, particularly one who rails against restrictions, one who is demanding an inquiry - albeit one for which he has already arrived at numerous conclusions. Demanding transparency and openness from the government. Demanding heads on plates. And yet would simultaneously argue that the media should not report basic factual information about the course and dynamics of a pandemic simply because, well, for all the talk of freedom, and the supposed reduction in same, someone's clearly entirely happy with shaping narratives as and when it suits his political and ideological inclinations...