Already for two and a half years, the Covid-19 pandemic has been sending shockwaves through our healthcare system, our democratic institutions, our economic and social fabric, our scientific community, our media.

​

Given the scale of this crisis, it is understandable that the response was to a large extent improvised, with some good and some less good aspects. Many people have done their best in very challenging circumstances. After two and a half years of Covid-19, however, a global independent evaluation is necessary. Not as a reckoning or value judgment on the people involved, but to learn and adjust, in order to face the future better armed.

​

Indeed, measures that were taken to control the virus in the short term also incur indirect long-term effects. And sometimes these effects turn out to be more serious than many expected. Mental wellbeing has taken a hit. The learning deficit is undeniable, especially among the more vulnerable, with long-lasting effects on their prosperity and health. Elderly people have spent precious time in loneliness, sometimes to the point of death. Our healthcare system has become more fragile. And so we can go on and on.

Could more have been done to protect the elderly and the vulnerable, both from illness and isolation? Has there been sufficient thought about if, when, and how a government can enforce social behavior and suspend civil rights? Have data and models been used in a smart way, taking account of their limitations? Has the precautionary principle been applied adequately - regarding the virus, but also regarding collateral damage of unprecedented measures? Did we have appropriate procedures to weigh up the short-term epidemiological goals against the broader well-being in the longer term? And above all, has enough thought been given to the overall aims that we want to pursue for our society?

​

Certainly, partial evaluations of aspects of the Covid-19 response have already taken place,* even in the various parliaments in our country. These were useful, but insufficient. To begin with, they were premature: the main evaluations dealt almost exclusively with the first phase of the pandemic. Partly because of this, they were also too narrow: strongly focused on the virological and epidemiological aspects. The broader political, ethical and legal questions that transcend the technical level, the explicit or implicit trade-offs across policy domains, thus received insufficient attention. Moreover, they were often strongly politically filtered, fragmented according to the division of policy domains across the various governments, and insufficiently rooted in data. Therefore, their impact remained limited: the overarching policy recommendations of the evaluation in the Flemish Parliament, for instance, have not even been published, and the other evaluations have barely been followed up.

An independent evaluation of the processes and results of past pandemic policy is not only needed, it is also possible. Creditable efforts are being made in our neighboring countries. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Safety Board is leading an ongoing evaluation with far-reaching powers. A concrete result of this is the establishment of a Societal Impact Team, at the same level of the Outbreak Management Team (OMT). In Germany, the Evaluation of the legal basis and measures of the pandemic policy was very recently published by an interdisciplinary evaluation committee. In Sweden, a Corona Commission that was established specifically for that purpose concluded a three-part evaluation in February 2022. And across the Channel, the UK Independent Covid Inquiry was launched, an independent body that operates in total transparency and with substantial resources and authority. We can also learn from the imperfections of those foreign examples: the German report regrets the too narrow focus of the requested evaluation, a shortage of personnel, the lack of additional data collection, and the short evaluation period. The Swedish evaluation emphasizes that it was only able to draw up an interim evaluation, and that subsequent evaluations remain necessary.

Meanwhile, in Belgium, ‘the GEMS’ (Group of Experts for Management Strategy of COVID-19) was renamed to ‘the SSC’ (Strategic Scientific Committee), with almost identical composition. There is no question of broadening or turnover, and there is little enthusiasm for an evaluation among politicians and policy advisors. Yet, such an evaluation is a requirement for good governance, to draw lessons for future challenges. It is not something to fear, but to look forward to. Moreover, it can be healing, and a start for the necessary recovery from the dramatically increased polarization during the pandemic. Let’s work together to make it happen.

​​