Dublin appears to have performed very well as compared to various scenarios for COVID-19 mortality amongst homeless and drug using populations. The experience, if borne out by further research, provides important lessons for policy discussions on the pandemic, as well as broader lessons about pragmatic responses to these key client groups irrespective of COVID-19. The overarching lesson seems that when government policy is well coordinated and underpinned by a science-driven and fundamentally pragmatic approach, morbidity and mortality can be reduced. Within this, the importance of strategic clarity and delivery, housing, lowered thresholds to methadone provision, Benzodiazepine (BZD) provision and Naloxone availability were key determinants of policy success. Further, this paper argues that the rapid collapse in policy barriers to these interventions that COVID-19 produced should be secured and protected while further research is conducted.

Using the case of the campaign to establish a Supervised Injecting Facility (SIF) for people who use illicit drugs in Dublin, Ireland, this paper makes three related contributions to contemporary literatures. First, by detailing the history of the campaign and paying particular attention to the ways it was influenced by learning from models elsewhere in the world, the paper adds a spatial perspective to research on the intersections of public health and politics. Second, the paper addresses the policy mobilities literature's minimal engagement with the role of counterhegemonic ideas and national states in shaping inter‐local policy circulations. It provides detailed empirical analysis of the influence of counterhegemonic ideas and how activists reference those ideas through appeals to empathy, expert evidence, and experience as they build coalitions to influence formal state institutions, including the legal system and the national government. This discussion supports a call for engagement between policy mobilities and counterhegemonic social movement literatures. Third, the paper addresses ongoing discussions of ‘failure’ in policy‐making by arguing for a critical, contextual approach to the spatialities and temporalities of attempts to change entrenched policy and regulatory models. The case study is based on one author's direct involvement in the campaign for a SIF and on semi‐structured research interviews with 12 key actors conducted since 2015. The research also involved an analysis of relevant documentary materials spanning the period 2012–2021 and both authors' participation in a drug policy forum in Dublin in January 2017, involving local and international actors.