
The Barbarity of the School Closures
Another book on COVID? Yes, but the author David Zweig has written one for the ages, a definitive account of the school closures from March 2020 through the following year and extending in many places. It's called '
This policy affected everyone without exception. We are going to live with its devastating consequences for the remainder of our lives. It's already here among the under-30 population, in the form of ill-health, illiteracy, innumeracy, digital addiction, substance abuse, emotional immaturity, psychmed attachments that ruin lives, astonishing intellectual superficiality, deep and dark cynicism, and philosophical nihilism.
Does it seem like we should know something about how this happened? Why did this happen? You might think so but the subject is not really part of public debate. The legacy media ignores it. It's also hard to discuss with friends, family, and neighbors because most people supported it at the time.
This is why this book—I seriously doubt a better one will come along—is so crucial. The research is in depth. It is brilliantly written. It examines every facet of the policy, from its origins, its fake science, its implementation, and why it continued on as long as it did. Every page has a shocker. As much as I knew, and as much as I opposed what was unfolding from the start, this one really rattled me.
The cruelty. The disregard of evidence. The sheer barbarity of it all.
Related Stories
4/25/2025
4/24/2025
I've long followed Zweig's work as a journalist. His craft begins with intense curiosity and a special focus on features of the social and economic world others overlook. We long shared an interest in structural issues of work life. He has already written a great book on what he calls the 'invisibles,' workers who make everything in society function but seek neither fame nor fortune.
I met him in person for the first time during the height of lockdown, in October 2020 because he was one of only a few journalists who answered a call I put out to meet three famed epidemiologists to speak about the policies that had gripped the world. The subject was the lockdowns, closures, and crazy rules about distancing to separate every person from every other.
He asked excellent questions at that event (he was brave to defy the conventions by even showing up!). The result of that experience became the
The story is important to underscore the point. Zweig is not just a laptop journalist. At a time when so many others were hunkered down, hiding from the invisible enemy, he dared to get out, investigate, and learn. It's hard to recreate those strange times from just five years ago, but these were days in which people were practically bathing in sanitizer and looked upon their fellow man as disease vectors. Not Zweig. His passion for the truth motivated him to dig deeper than most others.
He said at the time that he was thinking about writing a book about the unfolding disaster. There are so many features of the pandemic response that merit discussion. Oddly, comparatively little attention has been paid to the school closures and the imposed regime of online learning. Industry loved it but families and taxpayers not so much.
I would rather you pick up the book than trust my summary. Still, one has to summarize. He observes that not just one factor caused the prolonged wreckage. It was a combination: bad science, bad information, awful media messaging, political hysteria, labor union power, a disregard for the well-being of kids, no exit plan, and general bureaucratic scoliosis that prevented adaptation to new evidence.
The power of the book is the narrative evidence. There are so many shocking facts, such as how scientific forecasters living on government money were consistently outdone and outsmarted by private-sector programmers and management consultants. He further scrubs off the veneer of a vast amount of claims from academic journals and presumptions of the expert class.
You cannot finish this book with a shred of respect for what's called Public Health. It is not only misnamed; it is antonymously named.
What effect has this had on the culture of education? It has fed a dark loathing that is just under the surface.
The public schools in this country are backed by a kind of social contract. We pay taxes, mostly property taxes. Those with kids in school think of these as a fee for service, a forced tuition for the use of the schools. Everyone else is told that good schools are essential for great communities, so it is in their interest to pay also. Vast amounts of community life revolve around them.
In mid-March 2020, the unthinkable happened. Local officials all over the country suddenly shut them down. The excuse: an 'abundance of caution.' The kids were never in danger themselves but they were suddenly regarded as disease vectors. If we were going to stop the spread, we had to keep the kids away from each other. It's in the interest of those who were actually vulnerable. Thus were the interests of the kids sacrificed for the interest of the aged and infirm.
In theory. In reality, there was never a shred of evidence that school closures stopped any transmission and lowered any death rates. European schools opened quickly. Most schools in the world did too. Very early on, all these governments and their health departments were reporting no deleterious consequences from the decision.
The data was all there: opening schools did nothing to increase the dangers of the disease to the public.
In the United States, it was different. The international research was not reported by mainstream media. It was wholly ignored. The closures went on and on, even as fatalities plunged and the virus mutated again and again to less virulent strains.
An ethos had grabbed hold in which those who pushed for opening were seen as Trump-aligned; even the closures had begun during the last year of his first term. As a means of social and political signaling, all elite circles rallied around keeping the kids spinning in despair at home, staring at laptops, and pretending to learn with online assignments. They were given fake grades while being forcibly prevented from in-person activities and socializing.
Homeschooling went from a legally suspicious practice to one that became mandatory overnight, much to the astonishment of people who had pushed for this for decades. But the impact on home life was devastating. Moms and dads left work and became tutors while also trying to keep their kids up on schoolwork and otherwise keep them entertained.
It was all impossible, so of course parents acquiesced to allowing more screen time that they had previously discouraged. The online classes required the use of video sites that had been previously restricted. The result was intellectual and moral corruption, and the full waste of one or maybe two years of precious time in the lives of millions.
Even after having read Zweig's definitive account, I'm still left with a sense of astonishment that this ever happened, and retain some sense of puzzlement about it all.
The public schools in this country, as shabby as many of them have been for a long time, have been the pride and crowned jewel of Progressivism for longer than a century. One might have supposed that the people who are progressively aligned would defend them no matter what, and certainly not permit them to be closed for a year and longer.
I knew at the time that disaster would result. More than that, I knew that change would come to the entire sector.
Here we are today and the Department of Education is eviscerated, homeschooling is ubiquitous, private schooling has never been more popular, and states are considering completely eliminating the funding source of public schooling, namely property taxes.
There it is: the blowback. Still no refunds on taxes and tuition and precious few apologies but at least we see some change of direction.
The damage simply cannot be undone. Look around today at young people and you know it. There is vast amounts of work that the remaining adults in the room must do to reverse the calamitous edicts of the expert class that wrecked life and education for an entire generation of kids.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Gabbard to slash offices, nearly half of staff at ODNI
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard plans to slash 40 percent of the agency's staff by October in a move she said would help transform the head of the intelligence community into 'ODNI 2.0.' Gabbard's cuts would reassign roles or eliminate various centers within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), including those that monitor foreign efforts to influence Americans, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including biological weapons, and a team monitoring for cyberattacks. A fact sheet from ODNI boasts the department has already slashed 500 jobs and that the future cuts would save an estimated $700 million from the agency that helps coordinate among the 18 different agencies that make up the sprawling U.S. intelligence community. Targeted in the restructuring is the Foreign Malign Influence Center, which has dedicated itself to tracking the efforts of U.S. adversaries to influence the U.S. public through social media and disinformation campaigns designed to sow division and shift votes. The Trump administration argues the center has been used 'to justify the suppression of free speech' and cited its work in responding to the Hunter Biden laptop. ODNI also accused the Foreign Malign Influence Center of 'falsely alleging Putin 'aspired' to help President Trump win the 2016 election,' though that conclusion is shared by most reports that have evaluated Russia's efforts in the 2016 contest, including in a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee. Gabbard argued that other elements of the intelligence community already monitor foreign influence campaigns, 'making FMIC redundant' — the same argument used for the National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center. The fact sheet argues it biosecurity mission is no longer needed after the COVID-related national emergency. 'It has become apparent that taking action to address global health issues falls well outside of ODNI's core mission,' ODNI states. Gabbard said the need for the shift was part of 'ending the weaponization of intelligence and holding bad actors accountable.' 'Over the last 20 years, ODNI has become bloated and inefficient, and the intelligence community is rife with abuse of power, unauthorized leaks of classified intelligence, and politicized weaponization of intelligence,' Gabbard said in a statement. 'ODNI and the IC must make serious changes to fulfill its responsibility to the American people.' The shift comes a day after Gabbard revoked the security clearances of 37 current and former intelligence officials, many with ties to prior Democratic administrations. Even as a top Democrat agreed ODNI could use a revamp, he argued Gabbard was not the person to deliver it. 'Twenty years after it was established, there is broad, bipartisan agreement that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is in need of thoughtful reform. The Intelligence Authorization Act directs Director Gabbard to submit a plan to Congress outlining her proposed changes, and we will carefully review her proposals and conduct rigorous oversight to ensure any reforms strengthen, not weaken, our national security,' Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. 'But given Director Gabbard's track record of politicizing intelligence — including her decision just yesterday to revoke security clearances from career national security officials — I have no confidence that she is the right person to carry out this weighty responsibility.' Mark Zaid, a longtime national security lawyer, said the redesign was a clear effort to cut staff that might push back against the Trump administration 'This isn't about reform. It isn't about strengthening our intelligence agencies. It is about the Installation of loyalists & getting rid of anyone who opposes the patrimonialistic/authoritarian policies of Trump, regardless of whether DEM or GOP,' he wrote on X. Gabbard also proposes eliminating a number of other offices she accused, without evidence, of leaking intelligence of political biases. Among those slashed is the External Research Council, which Gabbard said amounted to 'politically appointed partisans who brought their external biases,' as well as the Strategic Futures Group, responsible for long-term forecasting on threats, which Gabbard accused of being used 'to push a partisan political agenda.' It's not entirely clear how many staff work at ODNI, but that figure has been a target of Senate Intelligence Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) who earlier this year said the office had nearly 2,000 staff. 'The ODNI staff is measured in the thousands, when it should be measured in the dozens, maybe a few hundred,' Cotton said at a hearing at the beginning of the year. 'I promise, that's going to change.' Cotton on Wednesday praised the move, even as he referenced the need for congressional review. 'Congress created the ODNI to be a lean organization that used small staffs to coordinate across the Intelligence Community and execute specific, important tasks. Today's announcement is an important step towards returning ODNI to that original size, scope, and mission. And it will help make it a stronger and more effective national security tool for President Trump,' he said in a statement. 'I look forwarded [sic] to working with Director Gabbard to implement these reforms and provide the ODNI with the legislative relief necessary to ensure our Intelligence Community can focus on its core mission: stealing secrets from our adversaries.'
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Turnover among election officials reaches new high, report finds
Election workers process ballots at the Davis County Administrative Building in Farmington, Utah, during November's election. Research from the Bipartisan Policy Center shows turnover among election workers reached a new high in 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps/Utah News Dispatch) Election officials turned over at the highest rate in at least a quarter century during the last presidential election, according to new research from the Bipartisan Policy Center. An analysis of shifts in election officials published Tuesday found nearly 41% of election officials administering the 2024 election were different than those in 2020. Turnover has accelerated over the past two decades, rising from about 28% in 2004 to 40.9% last year. The growing percentage of departing election officials comes after years of challenges. They navigated the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, as well as harassment and false conspiracy theories surrounding stolen elections that persist today. The analysis released by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C.-based group that seeks to foster policy cooperation across party lines, represents an updated version of a report that previously examined turnover from 2004 to 2022. The new research, which extends the data through 2024, shows the turnover rate continued to climb. Wanted: Poll workers. Must love democracy. The change means that, over time, election officials have less experience. The research found that the share of chief local election officials with six or more years in their role has dropped from 60% in 2006 to 47% in 2024. But last year, 60% of election officials had previously overseen the administration of a presidential election in their jurisdiction. 'Despite increasing turnover and loss of experience, the majority of chief election officials still have experience running at least one presidential election cycle,' the analysis said. 'This is important because presidential elections typically see the highest turnout and are the most visible elections administered.' The analysis found that over the long term, election official turnover rates have been rising gradually in small jurisdictions, defined as areas with fewer than 100,000 voting-age residents. But large jurisdictions have experienced a more sudden jump in turnover. Small jurisdictions had a 27% turnover rate in 2004 that had risen to 40% in 2024. But large jurisdictions enjoyed a turnover rate as low as 31% in 2018 before climbing rapidly to nearly 46% last year. Stateline reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Solve the daily Crossword

Politico
7 hours ago
- Politico
Mistrust in CDC shooting's wake
AROUND THE AGENCIES More than 750 Health and Human Services staffers signed a letter sent to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress this morning, warning that he's 'endangering the nation's health by repeatedly spreading inaccurate health information.' A shooting at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Atlanta headquarters on Aug. 8 was not random, the letter says. The suspected shooter, who law enforcement said was motivated by his distrust of the Covid-19 vaccine, fired multiple rounds into four buildings on the CDC's Atlanta campus. No CDC employees were injured. The shooter died at the scene after shooting and killing a DeKalb County police officer. 'The attack came amid growing mistrust in public institutions, driven by politicized rhetoric that has turned public health professionals from trusted experts into targets of villainization — and now, violence,' the letter warns. Kennedy's actions endanger public health, they argue, pointing to Kennedy referring to the CDC as a 'cesspool of corruption,' saying mRNA vaccines failed to effectively protect against Covid-19 and the flu and then canceling $500 million in mRNA vaccine development projects, and disbanding the CDC's panel of vaccine experts and appointing replacements, some of whom have expressed skepticism about vaccines. 'These dangerous and deceitful statements and actions have contributed to the harassment and violence experienced by CDC staff,' the letter says. In addition to HHS staffers who signed anonymously or with their full names, former CDC officials joined the letter, including Dr. Anne Schuchat, a former top official' James Mercy, who directed the CDC's violence prevention division; Tom Simon, who led scientific programs for the violence prevention division; Jay Butler, former deputy director for infectious diseases; and Dr. Barbara Marston, who helped lead the agency's Ebola response. HHS did not respond to POLITICO's request for comment on the letter. Key context: The letter comes after hundreds of NIH staffers sent Director Jay Bhattacharya a letter in June, laying out their concerns about the delay and termination of grants, staff firings and a spending slowdown since President Donald Trump's inauguration. Nobel laureates, former NIH Institute and program directors and other leaders in the scientific community also signed the missive. Bhattacharya, who has said that free speech is among his policy priorities, met with a small group of staffers in July to hear their concerns. At the meeting, he pledged not to retaliate against those who signed the letter, which was modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration that Bhattacharya co-authored in 2020 to protest pandemic lockdowns. What's next: Staffers' request to Kennedy: Stop spreading misleading information about vaccines and affirm the CDC's scientific integrity. They also want Kennedy to guarantee the safety of the HHS workforce by ensuring HHS has fully functional emergency procedures and alerts. Kennedy should also take 'vigorous action to remove high-profile online material targeting the federal workforce, such as the widely seen 'DEI watchlists,'' they added, referring to a website run by the conservative nonprofit American Accountability Foundation, which posts names and photos of federal employees online. The foundation says the watchlist highlights the prevalence of diversity, equity and inclusion roles in government. Critics say it invites online harassment of private citizens. The HHS staffers asked their boss to take action by Sept. 2. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. AI scribe companies promise to help doctors bill more. The result will likely be higher health care costs that trickle down to patients, Stat News reports. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. FUTURE THREATS The artificial intelligence boom is ushering in chatbots that act — more and more — like people, our POLITICO colleague Aaron Mak reports. OpenAI's GPT-4.5 can ace the Turing Test, which evaluates whether a machine can fool a user into thinking it's human. The bots also serve as therapists, and, at least in one case, a bot got engaged to a human. Increasingly lifelike large language models are both a technological marvel and a conundrum for laws designed to regulate flesh-and-blood people. With growing worries about AI's harms, from emotional manipulation to addictiveness, how do you assign liability to something that seems to have so much autonomy? The anxieties were brought to a head last week when Reuters reported that Meta's internal policies permitted its AI to 'engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual.' Where Congress stands: The revelation triggered a bipartisan furor in Congress, POLITICO's Morning Tech reported this week. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said Meta 'has failed miserably' to protect children, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) accused the company of being 'morally and ethically off the rails.' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) also launched an investigation into Meta on Friday. The company did not respond to POLITICO's request for comment. But all these calls for regulation raise the question: Who or what, exactly, do you regulate? It might not seem obvious that a company should be liable for its chatbots — each AI 'personality' adapts its responses based on interactions with a user, so they can act in unpredictable ways. But if you view chatbots as products instead of synthetic people, the regulatory problem becomes a bit more familiar. Even if a company doesn't have an explicit policy allowing chatbots to engage in unhealthy conversations with children, for example, you can still require safety features to proactively mitigate such behaviors. Ava Smithing, advocacy director at the Young People's Alliance, a youth advocacy group, told POLITICO, 'It's not about regulating a fake person, it's about regulating the real people who are deciding what that fake person can or cannot say.' Congress hasn't proposed any laws to regulate AI companions. In the meantime, advocates are trying to apply existing product liability laws to restrain these anthropomorphic chatbots. In the courts: In a landmark case that will set a major precedent in AI law, a Florida family is suing over a chatbot that allegedly formed a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old boy, leading to his suicide. Matthew Bergman, the family's attorney, is tackling AI by adapting product liability strategies he picked up representing asbestos victims. Bergman makes a novel argument in the suit that intentionally designed its chatbots to be so lifelike that they could emotionally exploit users to get hooked on its service. He's also contending that it was foreseeable that the bots would threaten young users' mental health. A federal judge in Florida rejected bid to dismiss the suit in May. The company declined to comment on the litigation but told POLITICO that it's implemented new safety measures for young users. The court held a discovery hearing in the case last week. In the states: Without a serious effort from Congress, states have been taking the lead on chatbot regulations. New York enacted a law in May requiring an AI companion to send regular reminders that it's not human and refer users to crisis centers if they're at risk of hurting themselves. California is considering a bill to prohibit companion chatbots from rewarding young users at unpredictable intervals, a trick that slot machines use to keep gamblers addicted. Lawmakers in Hawaii are also looking at legislation to restrict chatbots that mimic humans for advertising.