1.       Introduction

The Microbiology Society is a membership charity for scientists interested in microbes, their effects and their practical uses. Microbiology is the study of a huge and diverse variety of life forms that are generally invisible to the naked eye, including algae, archaea, bacteria, fungi, protists and viruses.

Founded in 1945, with the Nobel Prize winning discoverer of penicillin Sir Alexander Fleming as its founding President, the Microbiology Society today brings together 6,000 scientists from more than 100 countries. The Society is also a non-for-profit publisher, with publishing revenue reinvested into the community , including the annual award of over 500 grants and the organisation of around 25 events each year.

Since its founding, the Society has represented microbiologists in Ireland. It has an active Irish Division, which brings together the microbiology community from across the island of Ireland. As of March 2026, it has more than 290 members in the Republic of Ireland, based in universities, industry, hospitals, research institutes, government and other organisations.

In July 2025, the Society submitted to Ireland’s Independent COVID-19 Evaluation, highlighting the crucial contributions of microbiologists during the COVID-19 pandemic. This submission drew on reflections from five Society governance members based in the Republic of Ireland.

The submission also offered to broker a relationship between the Evaluation and the collective microbiology community of Ireland.

In March 2026, the Evaluation requested a full submission from the Society on behalf of the collective microbiology community in Ireland. Our submission reflects the views expressed by twenty three microbiologists based in the Republic of Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic, including thirteen members of the Microbiology Society and ten respondents from the wider microbiology community, who responded to our call for input. We present the evidence provided by respondents and provide recommendations where appropriate.

2. Contribution to COVID-19 pandemic response

The microbiology community in Ireland played a key role in supporting the Irish government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This contribution was driven not only by virologists, but by microbiologists across the discipline, drawing on a strong collegial culture and shared core skills. Collectively, microbiologists provided expertise and capacity across diagnostics, surveillance, infection prevention and control, clinical care and public health policy, with examples outlined below.

1. Microbiologists provided expertise and resources to support the development and delivery of diagnostics (such as molecular, antigen and antibody tests) to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection or immune response in individuals. This enabled reliable testing at scale to identify cases and limit transmission of COVID-19. Their contributions included:

• Evaluating rapid molecular and antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
• Assessing rapid antibody tests to detect neutralising antibodies, supporting monitoring of vaccine efficacy.
• Developing saliva- and aerosol-based diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2.
• Supporting the Health Service Executive (HSE) COVID-19 Laboratory R&D Product Solutions Group through evaluation of novel diagnostic technologies.
• Providing critical diagnostic reagents and equipment to HSE laboratories during supply chain disruptions.
• Training a large cohort of laboratory technicians to deliver PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.
• Building digital infrastructure to support symptom screening and enhance diagnostic capacity.
  
  b. Microbiologists established surveillance and monitoring systems to detect and track SARS-CoV-2 in local and national settings. This informed decision making and coordinated responses to control the spread of COVID-19 at the population level. Their contributions included:
• Establishing the Irish Coronavirus Sequencing Consortium to identify and track variants of SARS-CoV-2.
• Establishing national and local wastewater testing platforms to detect community levels of SARS-CoV-2.
• Establishing a national platform for COVID-19 detection, testing and support across universities, enabling safe return to campus for students and staff.
• Establishing a COVID-19 detection and monitoring platform in meat processing plants to track outbreaks and identify key risk factors.
• Establishing national contact tracing infrastructure, including setting up call centres, designing protocols and conducting contact tracing activities.
  
  c. Microbiologists provided expert scientific advice to inform national policy and enhance government and public understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic. Their contributions included:
• Liaising with the Minister and Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science (DFHERIS) on university COVID-19 surveillance.
• Advising the Department of Health’s National Public Health Emergency Team (NPHET) for COVID-19.
• Providing scientific briefings for the Minister and Department of Health.
• Providing research and diagnostic advice to the medical community and professional bodies.
• Engaging with national, local and digital media (radio, television, print and social media) to communicate scientific insights and public health guidance.
  
  d. Microbiologists delivered front-line clinical microbiology and infectious disease expertise to support patient care and the management of COVID-19 in hospital and community settings. Their contributions included:
• Advising on antimicrobial treatment for COVID-19 patients on intensive care units and general wards.
• Leading and advising on infection prevention and control (IPC) measures in hospital and community settings.
• Acting as COVID-19 clinical leads within hospital groups, coordinating diagnosis, treatment, IPC and laboratory response.

2.1.1  Lessons learned for future pandemic preparedness

1. Grow and sustain a strong microbiology community in Ireland through continued support and engagement, including attracting and retaining international talent.
2. Ensure continued prioritisation of microbiology education, training and research to advance pathogen science and support effective pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
3. Expand microbiology-led training beyond academic and clinical settings to build community capacity, including skills in sample collection, diagnostic workflows, contact tracing and infection prevention and control, to strengthen preparedness for future pandemics.

3. Experience of the COVID-19 pandemic

3.1 Expert engagement

1. When asked how well microbiology expertise was used in the Irish Government’s COVID-19 response, 39% of respondents expressed a positive view, 22% expressed mixed views, 22% expressed negative views and 17% indicated that they did not know.
2. Respondents expressing mixed views highlighted effective use of microbiology expertise in some aspects of the pandemic response, such as through contributions from the National Virus Reference Laboratory (NVRL), but felt it was insufficiently integrated in other areas, such as in strategic advisory roles to government.
3. Several respondents also noted that microbiologists were underutilised in public and media engagement during the pandemic, with greater visibility often given to experts from other disciplines when virologists would have been more appropriate.

3.1.1 Lessons learned for future pandemic preparedness

1. Maintain active engagement with the microbiology community to ensure specialist pathogen expertise is recognised in advance and can be rapidly integrated into crisis response.

3.2 Impact on professional development

1. Respondents were asked about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their professional development, with 70% reporting that they experienced some level of impact.
2. Thirty percent of respondents highlighted the impact of the transition to online university teaching. Many noted that the consequences are still being felt, as students who experienced prolonged periods of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic are now entering university and struggling to adapt to in-person study. Reported challenges included poor attendance, lower academic performance, difficulty adjusting to in-person exams and increased pastoral needs. Addressing these challenges places a significant additional demand on academics’ time.
3. A further 30% of respondents cited the impact of restricted access to research laboratories. They reported that this led to delays in the completion of research projects and the publication of findings, which subsequently affected researchers’ ability to secure funding. Respondents felt that early career researchers were most impacted.
4. A small number of positive impacts were highlighted. Two respondents noted that the move to online conferences enabled attendance at a wider range of events, while a further two respondents highlighted the benefits of increased remote and flexible working.

3.2.1 Lessons learned for future pandemic preparedness

1. Prioritise the education and wellbeing of young people in any future pandemic, with university closures used only as a last resort.
2. Where restrictions are necessary, maintain on-site attendance in small groups to support learning and social development.

4. Views on management of the COVID-19 pandemic

4.1 Overall impression

1. When asked for their overall impression of the Irish government’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic, all respondents expressed either a positive (39%) or mixed (61%) assessment.
2. Those expressing mixed views noted that the early response to the pandemic was strong and decisive, especially given the uncertainty and lack of knowledge and data at the time. However, they felt that as the pandemic progressed, government action became less clearly informed by evidence and overly cautious.
3. Several respondents also highlighted regular and clear communications from the government throughout the pandemic.

4.1.1 Lessons learned for future pandemic preparedness

1. In the instance of a future pandemic, continue to provide consistent and transparent public communications
2. Remain flexible, recognising that lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic may not be directly transferable to future pandemics, as causative pathogens may differ in pathogenicity, mortality and affected populations.

4.2 Initial response (1 January – 27 March 2020)

1. When asked how well the Irish government managed the initial response between the 1 January 2020 and the announcement of the ‘stay at home’ order on the 27 March 2020, 39% of respondents expressed a positive view, 17% expressed mixed views, 35% expressed negative views and 9% indicated that they did not know.
2. Some respondents felt that developments in China and Italy should have prompted a more robust response during this period, and that opportunities were missed to strengthen national preparedness, including increasing stockpiles of personal protective equipment (PPE) and educating the public on infection prevention and transmission.
3. Other respondents felt that the national ‘stay at home’ order could have been introduced sooner, while recognising that this assessment is informed by hindsight and that significant unknowns at the time complicated clear decision-making.

4.2.1 Lessons learned for future pandemic preparedness

1. Maintain a permanent national, multidisciplinary expert group, bringing together government and academic representatives, to monitor outbreaks and emerging threats.
2. Maintain a strategic national stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE).
3. Build substantial additional capacity within hospitals, including intensive care units and laboratory services.

4.3 Infection prevention and control measures

1. When asked how well infection prevention and control measures, including lockdowns and restrictions, were implemented and managed across the pandemic period, all respondents expressed either positive (35%) or mixed (65%) views.
2. Many respondents felt that initial lockdowns and restrictions were implemented decisively and were well adhered to by the population.
3. One respondent suggested that the management of older and vulnerable people during the early stages of the pandemic could have been improved, particularly in relation to the decision to discharge large numbers of individuals from hospitals into nursing and residential care settings to free up hospital capacity. They noted that this was done without full consideration of the risks posed by asymptomatic transmission, which subsequently contributed to high rates of infection and mortality within these settings.
4. Later restrictions imposed by the Irish Government were perceived as being less clearly informed by evidence, with respondents questioning their effectiveness in reducing the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Examples cited included the requirement for hospitality venues to serve a ‘substantial’ meal costing more than €9 and time limit customer visits. Whilst it is understood that there was a need to support a struggling economy, these measures appeared insufficiently grounded in scientific evidence on transmission risk and instead seemed arbitrary, with inconsistent underlying rationale.
5. The decision to ease restrictions in winter 2020 to allow a “meaningful Christmas” was also criticised, given established virological evidence indicated that coronaviruses spread more effectively during winter months and that a vaccine was likely to become available soon. One respondent described this decision as the result of a combination of factors, including sustained pressure on government following a prolonged lockdown, limitations in how risk was communicated to government by the National Public Health Emergency Team (NPHET) and gaps in the information used for NPHET’s modelling.
6. Around a quarter of respondents felt that later lockdowns and restrictions were protracted and too strict, with their negative social impacts judged to outweigh the public health benefits.

4.3.1  Lessons learned for future pandemic preparedness

1. Establish a framework for integrating multidisciplinary expertise to ensure it systematically informs policy development and decision-making in any future pandemic.
2. In the event of future pandemic, rapidly identify and protect the most vulnerable through targeted, proportionate public health measures.
3. Improve scientific and health literacy across the Irish population to empower individuals to understand public health advice and act appropriately during pandemics.

4.4 Diagnostics

1. When asked how well the use of diagnostics within the national COVID-19 testing strategy was implemented and managed across the pandemic period, twelve respondents expressed a positive view (52%), eight expressed mixed views (35%), two expressed negative views (9%) and one respondent indicated that they did not know (4%).
2. Five respondents felt that national testing was slow to commence, while three respondents acknowledged the rapid development and deployment of new testing assays.
3. Respondents commented that once established, PCR testing was implemented effectively and was generally accessible to the population.
4. Several respondents felt that antigen testing using rapid lateral flow tests (LFTs) was underutilised as a tool to control the spread of COVID-19 and at home testing could have been promoted more effectively by the government as part of the public health response.
5. Although LFTs were considered widely available, their cost was cited as a barrier to equitable access across the population by some respondents.

4.4.1  Lessons learned for future pandemic preparedness

1. In the event of a future pandemic, make effective use of antigen testing, alongside PCR testing, to enable timely and accessible community and point-of-care diagnostics.
2. Strengthen research infrastructure across universities and industry to enable rapid diagnostic assay development in the event of a future pandemic.

4.5 Surveillance

1. When asked how well the surveillance strategy for SARS-CoV-2 was implemented and managed across the pandemic period, fourteen respondents expressed a positive view (61%), three expressed mixed views (13%), four expressed negative views (17%) and two respondents indicated that they did not know (9%).
2. Some respondents highlighted that COVID-19 surveillance data, such as number of infections, was clear, regular, and publicly available.
3. However, other respondents identified shortcomings in hospital-based surveillance infrastructure for SARS-CoV-2, particularly limited capacity for genomic sequencing and, consequently, for variant tracking.
4. In addition, there was a perceived difficulty in coordinating surveillance between hospitals and other institutions, due to sample handling and differences in methodologies.
5. The move towards wastewater surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 was viewed positively.

4.5.1  Lessons learned for future pandemic preparedness

1. Develop and implement a national pathogen genomics strategy, with dedicated investment in genomic surveillance capacity.
2. Maintain, expand and improve wastewater surveillance of pathogens to enable early detection of pandemic threats.

4.6 Vaccines

a) The COVID-19 vaccination programme was unanimously considered to have been very well implemented and managed by the Irish government, with high vaccination uptake cited as clear evidence of its success.

4.6.1 Lessons learned for future pandemic preparedness

1. Ahead of any future need, build and sustain public trust in science, including through proactive efforts to counter vaccine misinformation, particularly on social media platforms.

Appendix A: July 2025 Submission

Dear COVID-19 Evaluation Panel,

The Microbiology Society is a membership charity for scientists interested in microbes, their effects and their practical uses. Founded in 1945, with the Nobel prizewinning discoverer of penicillin Sir Alexander Fleming as its founding President, the Society brings together scientists across a range of microbiological disciplines. Microbiology is the study of a huge and diverse variety of life forms that are generally invisible to the naked eye, including algae, archaea, bacteria, fungi, protists, and viruses.

The microbiology community in Ireland played key roles in supporting the Irish government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Their contributions include, but are not limited to:

·       Diagnostics

• Evaluated rapid molecular and antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
• Evaluated rapid antibody tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies, enabling monitoring of vaccine efficacy.
• Developed saliva- and aerosol-based tests for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
• Supported the Health Service Executive (HSE) COVID-19 Laboratory R&D Product Solutions Group by evaluating novel diagnostics.
• Provided critical test reagents and equipment to HSE laboratories during supply chain disruptions.
• Trained a large cohort of laboratory technicians to perform PCR diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2.
• Built digital infrastructure to support symptom screening and enhance diagnostic capabilities.

·       SARS-CoV-2 surveillance

• Established the Irish Coronavirus Sequencing Consortium to identify and track variants of SARS-CoV-2.
• Established national and local wastewater testing platforms to detect community levels of SARS-CoV-2.
• Established a national platform for COVID-19 detection, testing and support across universities, enabling safe return to campus for students and staff.
• Established a COVID-19 detection and monitoring platform in meat processing plants to track outbreaks and identify key risk factors.
• Established national contact tracing infrastructure, including setting up call centres, designing protocols and conducting contact tracing activities.

·       Advisory roles and public communications

• Liaised with the Minister and Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science (DFHERIS) on university COVID-19 surveillance.
• Provided expert advice to the Department of Health’s National Public Health Emergency Team (NPHET) for COVID-19.
• Provided scientific briefings for the Minister and Department of Health.
• Provided research and diagnostic advice to the medical community and professional bodies.
• Engaged with national and local media (radio, television, print and social media) to communicate scientific insights and public health guidance.

The Society is well placed to support the COVID-19 Evaluation panel in engaging with the microbiology community in Ireland. Since its founding, the Society has always represented microbiologists in Ireland. It has an active Irish Division, which brings together the microbiology community from across the island of Ireland. As of June 2025, it has more than 250 members in the Republic of Ireland, based in universities, industry, hospitals, research institutes, government and other organisations. Most recently, the Society engaged with its community of microbiologists in Ireland to inform the development of Ireland’s National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (iNAP3). Input was gathered through a survey and two in-person workshops held in Ireland, representing over 150 microbiologists in Ireland. The insights gathered were compiled into a comprehensive report Harnessing the Irish microbiology community to tackle AMR, which has been submitted to Irish policymakers.

The Society wishes to extend a strong message of support to the COVID-19 Evaluation Panel in its aim to take forward Recommendations from the COVID-19 pandemic. As a conduit for the vast wealth of expertise within the microbiology community that we represent, the Microbiology Society would welcome the opportunity to assist the Panel by brokering a relationship with the collective microbiology community of Ireland. We have no fixed view of the format that such input might take but if the Evaluation Panel would find a submission from the Society as a collective voice of the microbiology community in Ireland or if the Panel was interested in meeting Irish microbiologists as a group, we would be delighted to help.

Should the Evaluation Panel wish to explore this further, please do not hesitate to contact us at policy@microbiologysociety.org.

Sincerely,

Dr Peter Cotgreave Chief Executive

Appendix B: Survey questions

COVID-19 Evaluation Survey of Microbiologists in Ireland

Background questions

1. Please check the box below to confirm your eligibility:
   
   – i confirm I was in the Republic of Ireland during the period 01.01.2020 – 28.02.2022
2. Please check the box below if you’re happy to have your contact details shared with Ireland’s COVID-19 Evaluation Panel.
   
   – I consent to my contact details being shared.
3. Name
4. Are you a member of the Microbiology Society?
   Yes/No
5. Area of expertise
6. Current role
7. Role(s) during the period of 01.01.2020 – 28.02.2022
8. Were you actively involved from a professional standpoint in any element of the COVID-19 pandemic response in Ireland, if so how?

General feedback

9. What were your overall impressions of the management of the COVID-19 pandemic by the Irish government?
10. In your opinion, what key lessons should be learned for any future pandemic?

Feedback by topic

11. In your opinion, how well was expertise from the microbiology used in the Irish response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
12. In your opinion how well was the initial response managed between the 1st of January 2020 and the announcement of the ‘stay at home order’ on the 27th of March 2020?
13 In your opinion, how well was the use of diagnostics within the national testing strategy implemented and managed across the pandemic period?
14. In your opinion, how well was the surveillance strategy for SARS-CoV-2 implemented and managed across the pandemic period?
15. In your opinion how well implemented and managed were infection prevention control (IPC) measures including lockdowns/restrictions across the pandemic period?
16. In your opinion, how well was the vaccination programme implemented and managed across the pandemic period?
17. Did you experience any impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on your professional development (e.g. funding or employment changes or online learning) that could be better managed in future pandemics?

Open text box submission

18. Please provide any further comments you would like to be included in the submission to the Evaluation Panel.