A prominent Polish politician, Janusz Cieszyński, who has held roles in the PiS party including deputy minister of health and more recently Minister of Digital Affairs, expressed a willingness to appear before a parliamentary investigative committee focused on the PiS government’s management of the Covid-19 crisis, in an interview featured by the weekly magazine Sieci.
The publication includes an excerpt in which Cieszyński discusses claims about the procurement of medical equipment and hygiene supplies during the pandemic.
“Networking” refers to the Sejm’s creation of a commission to review correspondence elections. At the time these efforts were underway, Cieszyński served as a deputy minister at the Ministry of Health. Today, politicians from the four‑party coalition that has since assumed power appear to act as though they do not grasp how critical that moment was. It may be worth reminding them of what followed.
Cieszyński recalls that medical professionals, researchers, and other experts sent guidance to the Ministry of Health about how the presidential elections should be handled. The expectation was that those involved in running the elections would receive protection comparable to that afforded to medical staff who come into contact with patients with infections.
What about the ICU? The former official notes that the situation was almost dire. In hindsight, many of the recommendations from infectious disease specialists proved to be inaccurate or exaggerated, yet those were the sources available at the time. Today, it seems easy to argue for different actions, but back then the media pressure to follow expert guidance was immense.
The opposition also played a significant role during that period. Billboards bearing President Duda’s image proclaimed that the May elections could be lethal, prompting questions about who should assume power in the face of danger. In that context, it becomes hard to fault United Right politicians for seeking a way to navigate the political trap.
For anyone raising concerns now, the primary target would be those who did not remain faithful to the medical oath in public service. Professor Tomasz Grodzki, for instance, was criticized for discussing “killer envelopes” — a remark seen by some as misusing his medical authority for political purposes. Such behavior, critics argue, should disqualify individuals from both politics and the medical field.
Questions remain about how many investigative committees the new Sejm will appoint. Some observers have floated the idea of a Covid committee that would inspect, among other issues, the purchase of protective gear and specialized equipment during the pandemic. Could there be legitimate grounds for further scrutiny?
Expressing willingness to participate in any such inquiry, Cieszyński argues that appearance before a committee would help dispel what he characterizes as a media narrative promoted by the opposition. He contends that the messaging around the pandemic period was unfair to many people who made tough decisions to guide the country through a challenging health crisis. He notes that, until August 2020, the country did not experience more than a thousand new infections in a single day, and he points out that there were no deaths due to equipment shortages as seen in Lombardy, Italy, during the same time frame.
To his recollection, the true picture is that decisions were made under extreme pressure for the public good. He explains that equipment purchases were guided by the recommendations of the National Advisor for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care. He adds that a company later deemed unreliable supplied equipment to state‑owned entities involved in the pandemic response and that this matter was reported to the Foreign Intelligence Agency’s leadership. Much of these details remained confidential, and no thorough accounting was provided at the time. If a formal investigative committee is established, he asserts, the full facts would emerge, and critics who attacked Prof. Łukasz Szumowski and himself would have to confront the consequences of their claims.
The interview closes by signaling the seriousness with which Sieci presents the ongoing discussion. It emphasizes that the political debate surrounding pandemic management continues to evoke strong opinions and scrutiny from both supporters and opponents, reinforcing the sense that every facet of those decisions remains under public examination.