logo
The Disaster of School Closures Should Have Been Foreseen

The Disaster of School Closures Should Have Been Foreseen

Yahoo17-04-2025

Of the many mistakes made in the COVID era, none were as glaring as prolonged school closures. The damages go beyond loss of learning, a dire consequence in its own right: Millions of families, both children and parents, still carry the scars of stress, depression, and isolation.
The closures began at a time of understandable panic, but that was only the beginning of the story. On February 25, 2020, Nancy Messonnier, the director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, led a press conference to address the developing coronavirus crisis. Messonnier warned the public that, without vaccines, non-pharmaceutical interventions—things like business closures or social-distancing guidelines—would be the most important tools in the country's response. 'What is appropriate for one community seeing local transmission won't necessarily be appropriate for a community where no local transmission has occurred,' she said. The school closures that would be implemented the following month—and that endured through the end of the school year in nearly all of the roughly 13,800 school districts in the United States, in regions that had wildly different infection levels—showed this directive was not followed.
At the time of the initial closures, in mid-March, COVID was spreading quickly, but large areas in the U.S. were absent any known cases. Still, to the extent that a planned response to influenza was an appropriate universal pandemic guide, these closures were aligned with the CDC's most recent update to its pandemic playbook, released in 2017. According to that document, an initial two-week closure of schools would be sufficient to fulfill a first objective of buying authorities time to assess the severity of the pandemic. Given the news being reported of care rationing in northern-Italian hospitals, following this plan was not unreasonable—and, as part of broader stay-at-home orders, it may have had some effect on disease transmission.
'Italy spooked us,' Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at the Brown University School of Public Health, told me. 'We did not want to be Italy. The governors all saw China and Italy lock down and decided to follow their example.'
Indeed, had China not locked down, perhaps the rest of the world might not have done so either. China, governed by an authoritarian regime that rules the country with tremendous top-down power, does not share the same attitude toward personal liberties as Western democracies. And neither the CDC's pandemic playbook nor the pre-2020 consensus within the public-health field favored a lockdown of society of the breadth that we would experience. On a countrywide scale—from both an epidemiological perspective and a human-rights perspective—closing all nonessential business, closing all schools, prohibiting most social interactions and nonessential travel, and so on, was not considered feasible or wise. Because we initially lacked the ability to test, Nuzzo said, shutting schools, along with other facets of society, did make sense at first. The problem, in Nuzzo's mind, was not closing down in March; it was that there was no plan beyond that. By 'no plan,' Nuzzo was referring to two interrelated problems: all the potential harms of closures, and the challenge of unwinding interventions after they'd been implemented.
In Messonnier's press conference, she mentioned the CDC's 2017 pandemic report directly, said that school closures were part of the plan, and recognized that they were likely to be associated with unwanted consequences such as missed work and loss of income. 'I understand this whole situation may seem overwhelming and that disruption to everyday life may be severe,' she advised. 'You should think about what you would do for child care if schools or day cares close.' There was no mention of how the government might aid families during school closures, or, for example, about what a single parent with a job as a cashier in a grocery store and a 4-year-old at home was supposed to do. Rather, in just one line amid a lengthy speech, people were told to simply 'think about' it. To government officials and many others at the time, this was a regrettable but entirely reasonable approach—a presumed temporary loss of wages and child-care issues were lower-order concerns compared with the coming onslaught of a pandemic.
Yet what was positioned as a secondary issue—a mere abstraction, warranting just a brief mention—led to catastrophic consequences for millions of children, and their families. A year later, my kids, along with tens of millions of other students, were still trudging through remote learning, either as their exclusive form of schooling or through so-called hybrid schedules during which they could attend classes only part time. (Meanwhile, bars, restaurants, and all manner of other businesses had long since reopened, as had many private schools.) Teachers in much of the country had been prioritized for vaccines—making them eligible for protection before some other, more vulnerable populations—yet schools in half the country still weren't open full time, and in many places weren't open at all.
While federal public-health officials made recommendations regarding schools, the actual closures were carried out at the state and local levels, in response to misplaced public fears and aggressive campaigning by teachers' unions. Randi Weingarten, the high-profile head of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a February 8, 2021, New York Times article that she hoped things would be 'as normal as possible' by the following fall. Class-action lawsuits in multiple states had been filed on behalf of children with special needs on the claim that the conditions of IDEA—a federal law that requires certain services (such as physical and occupational therapy, supplemental aids and equipment, etc.) for children with disabilities—were not being met in remote-learning models.
[Read: Where all the missing students?]
Opinion pieces with titles such as 'Remote School Is a Nightmare. Few in Power Care,' had been appearing in major news outlets since the previous summer. Working parents, especially mothers, were dropping out of the workforce in staggering numbers because of child-care obligations during the pandemic. An analysis by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that nearly 60 percent of parents who had left the workforce had done so for this reason. The psychic toll on parents and children was never—and can never be—calculated. It won't show up in statistics, but it was real for millions of families. And millions of children, especially those without resources for tutors or parents to oversee them during the day, were losing ground with their academics. Worse, they were suffering from isolation, frustration, and, for an increasing number of them, depression from spending their days alone in front of an electronic screen. Untold numbers of other children became 'lost,' having dropped out of school entirely. Those in power who advocated for school closures were not adequately prepared for these consequences, which were still pervasive a full year into the pandemic.
But they should have been.
The damaging effects of school interruptions were not unforeseen. They were explicitly warned about in the academic literature. Exhibit A is a 2006 paper called 'Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza,' in the journal Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, written by Nuzzo; her mentor (and global eminence on disease-outbreak policies), D. A. Henderson; and two others. 'There is simply too little experience to predict how a 21st century population would respond, for example, to the closure of all schools for periods of many weeks to months,' these authors wrote. 'Disease mitigation measures, however well intentioned, have potential social, economic, and political consequences that need to be fully considered by political leaders as well as health officials. Closing schools is an example.'
The authors went on to warn that closures would force some parents to stay home from work, and they worried about certain segments of society being forced to bear an unfair share of the burden from transmission-control policies. They wrote:
No model, no matter how accurate its epidemiologic assumptions, can illuminate or predict the secondary and tertiary effects of particular disease mitigation measures … If particular measures are applied for many weeks or months, the long-term or cumulative second- and third-order effects could be devastating.
Nearly a decade and a half before the pandemic—in a stark rebuke to the approach championed by the CDC, White House Coronavirus Response Task Force coordinator Deborah Birx, and other powers that be—the paper had called out the major harms that would come to afflict many families in our country as a result of school closures. Yet, from the spring of 2020, health officials who directed our pandemic response ignored many of the consequences they must have known to expect. Or, at the very least, they failed to provide adequate information about them to the public. The officials had opened a bottle of medicine while disregarding the skull and crossbones on the warning label.
And the portents were not just in Henderson's and Nuzzo's paper. A 2011 paper by researchers from Georgetown assessed the decision making behind—and the consequences from—several hundred brief school closures enacted during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. The authors noted that the child-care costs to families were substantial, and that hardships from closures were inequitable. 'Officials considering closure must weigh not only the total amount of disruption but also the extent to which social costs will be disproportionately borne by certain segments of society,' the authors wrote. Even the CDC playbooks themselves warn of some of these issues. Both the 2007 original and the updated 2017 report cautioned that school closures could lead to the secondary consequence of missed work and loss of income for parents who needed to stay home to take care of their school-age children. This effect, the latter report noted, would be most harmful for lower-income families, who were also hit hardest by COVID in the first place. With prescience, and comic understatement, the authors noted that school closures would be among the 'most controversial' elements of the plan.
Meanwhile, the second of Nuzzo's points—that unwinding interventions is often incredibly difficult, and there must be a plan on how to do so—was also a well-established phenomenon. Just as public-health experts are biased toward intervention, they, along with the public, are also biased toward keeping interventions in place. This is a known phenomenon within the literature of implementation science, a field of study focused on methods to promote the adoption of evidence-based practices in medicine and public health. Westyn Branch-Elliman, an infectious-diseases physician at UCLA School of Medicine with an expertise in implementation science, told me that de-implementation is generally much harder than implementation. 'People tend to err on the side of intervening, and there is often considerable anxiety in removing something you believe has provided safety,' she said.
There also is a sense of inertia and leaving well enough alone. It's not unlike legislation—oftentimes repealing a law, even an unpopular one, poses bigger challenges than whatever barriers existed to getting it passed. Although the initial school closures may have been justifiable (even if off-script in many locations), there was no plan on when and how to reopen. Officials repeated a refrain that schools should open when it was 'safe.' But 'safe' was either pegged to unreachable or arbitrary benchmarks or, more often, not defined. This meant there would be limited recourse against a public that had been led to believe this intervention was a net benefit, even long after evidence showed otherwise. The lack of an exit plan—or an 'off-ramp,' as many health professionals would later term it—would prove disastrous for tens of millions of children in locations where social and political pressures prevented a reversal of the closures.
[Read: The biggest disruption in the history of American education]
Without sufficient acknowledgment of the harms of school closures, or adequate planning for unwinding this intervention, officials showed that their decisions to close were simply reactive rather than carefully considered. The decision makers set a radical project in motion with no plan on how to stop it. In effect, officials steered a car off the road, threw a cinder block on the accelerator, then jumped out of the vehicle with passengers still in the back. No one was in the front or even knew how to unstick the pedal.
This article was adapted from David Zweig's book An Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and a Story of Bad Decisions.
Article originally published at The Atlantic

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

PlushCare Launches Enhanced Online Weight Loss Program to Expand National Access to GLP-1 Prescriptions Through Board-Certified Doctors
PlushCare Launches Enhanced Online Weight Loss Program to Expand National Access to GLP-1 Prescriptions Through Board-Certified Doctors

Yahoo

time40 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

PlushCare Launches Enhanced Online Weight Loss Program to Expand National Access to GLP-1 Prescriptions Through Board-Certified Doctors

Secure Online Access to GLP-1 Weight Loss Medications Like Semaglutide Now Available Nationwide Through PlushCare's Updated Virtual Health Platform San Francisco, June 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- PlushCare, a leading virtual healthcare platform, has announced a significant upgrade to its online Weight Loss Program, enabling greater access to GLP-1-based prescription treatments such as semaglutide through board-certified physicians. This development marks a critical milestone in the company's mission to provide affordable, clinically supervised weight management across the United States. Accessible at the updated platform streamlines the process for eligible adults to consult with licensed physicians, receive lab work if necessary, and access customized treatment plans—all from the comfort of their homes. 'We're committed to making evidence-based weight loss solutions more accessible through modern telehealth,' said a PlushCare spokesperson. 'Our program is designed to connect people with experienced doctors who can evaluate eligibility for medications like GLP-1s and deliver a personalized plan that fits their health goals.' Expanded Features for 2025 The revamped Weight Loss Program now includes: Nationwide Access to medical providers via secure telehealth appointments Eligibility Evaluation for FDA-approved medications, including semaglutide Personalized Plans tailored to each user's metabolic profile Optional Lab Testing with integrated results for precision treatment Transparent Pricing with no insurance required The platform is optimized for mobile and desktop users, offering a seamless experience from appointment scheduling to prescription delivery. Addressing a Growing National Health Concern According to the CDC, over 40% of U.S. adults struggle with obesity, with rising demand for effective clinical support. PlushCare's integrated virtual care model delivers a scalable solution that removes traditional geographic and scheduling barriers. Patients can typically get started in under 15 minutes by completing an intake form and booking a same-day appointment with a licensed doctor. If clinically appropriate, a prescription is sent to their preferred pharmacy. About PlushCare PlushCare is a virtual primary care and mental health platform that connects patients with top U.S. medical professionals through its secure telehealth platform. With a commitment to quality care, convenience, and evidence-based treatment, PlushCare is redefining access to modern healthcare. For more information, visit Media Contact:PlushCare Media RelationsEmail: press@ 345 California Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94105, United States SOURCE: PlushCare Disclaimer: This release contains forward-looking statements and should not be considered medical advice. All treatments are subject to clinical evaluation and provider discretion. CONTACT: Email: press@ in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Trump administration vs. mRNA vaccines
Trump administration vs. mRNA vaccines

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Trump administration vs. mRNA vaccines

The Big Story President Trump once heralded the speedy development of an mRNA vaccine, but his new administration is casting doubts and fostering speculation over their use. © AP The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in late May canceled $766 million awarded to Moderna through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to develop a potential mRNA vaccine for bird flu. This came soon after HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced COVID-19 mRNA vaccines would no longer be recommended for children and pregnant women, though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) kept the shot on its schedule of childhood vaccinations. The vaccines marked a breakthrough in medical technology, drastically reducing the timeline for development of targeted vaccines and even showing promise in cancer research. Trump called mRNA the 'gold standard' when he rolled out the first COVID-19 vaccines. In remarks in December 2020, the same month the first COVID-19 vaccines were deployed, Trump praised Operation Warp Speed's ability to develop a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at a 'breakneck speed,' adding, 'the gold standard vaccine has been done in less than nine months.' According to Joseph Varon, president and chief medical officer of the Independent Medical Alliance, the concerns for mRNA vaccine skeptics are the expedited timeline and the conditions in which the COVID-19 vaccine was approved. 'The biggest concern is that this rushed treatment still remains in use, even under an Emergency Use Authorization in some cases. It needs to be sent back through proper studies and vetting,' Varon told The Hill. In a move that could prevent future mRNA vaccines from receiving approval, Kennedy on Tuesday announced he was removing every member of the independent panel advising the CDC on vaccines. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he wrote, 'A clean sweep is needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science.' Welcome to The Hill's Health Care newsletter, we're Nathaniel Weixel, Joseph Choi and Alejandra O'Connell-Domenech — every week we follow the latest moves on how Washington impacts your health. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will be impacting the health care sector this week and beyond: Senators grill NIH director in budget hearing: 4 takeaways National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya faced questions from senators during an Appropriations subcommittee hearing Tuesday, as the federal government agency has taken hits to its staffing levels and grant-making ability since under President Trump. Senators focused on the Trump administration's requested 2026 budget, which calls for cutting NIH's funding by $18 billion from 2025 levels. … States sue 23andMe over genetic data sales More than two dozen states, along with the District of Columbia, are suing biotechnology company 23andMe over plans to auction off personal genetic information without their customers' knowledge or consent. 'The Pitt' actor Noah Wyle to make push for health care workers at Capitol Noah Wyle is heading to the pit of political power, with a visit to Capitol Hill to push for funding for programs aimed at improving mental health services for health care workers. 'The Pitt' and former 'ER' star will touch down in Washington on Thursday to lead a panel discussion at the Cannon House Office Building focused on the 'daily mental health, financial, and bureaucratic challenges for … In Other News Branch out with a different read: Collins calls Kennedy's firing of vaccine experts 'excessive' Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on Monday called Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s firing of all 17 experts on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) vaccine panel 'excessive,' but she cautioned she needs to learn more about the decision. Kennedy announced the decision in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, catching many GOP lawmakers by surprise. 'I did not know that that had happened,' … Around the Nation Local and state headlines on health care: What We're Reading Health news we've flagged from other outlets: What Others are Reading Most read stories on The Hill right now: Judge declines to block Trump's Corporation for Public Broadcasting firings but allows board members to stay Correction: A previous version of this article gave incorrect names of the fired CPB board members. They are Laura Ross, Diane Kaplan and Thomas Rothman. … Read more Newsom asks judge for emergency intervention in Trump troop deployment in LA California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) asked a federal judge to immediately intervene on Tuesday to limit President Trump's deployment of the National … Read more You're all caught up. See you tomorrow! Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here

Former, current CDC employees call on RFK Jr. to resign
Former, current CDC employees call on RFK Jr. to resign

Axios

timean hour ago

  • Axios

Former, current CDC employees call on RFK Jr. to resign

Current and former employees of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are calling on Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to resign, warning that job cuts and proposed funding reductions will hurt the agency's ability to protect the public from future health outbreaks. Why it matters: The Atlanta-based CDC has long been the unbiased hub Americans turn to for facts about health topics, including sexually transmitted infections, maternal and infant health and respiratory infections. Driving the news: Carrying a large American flag, dozens of current employees at the facility walked out in protest of the cuts and joined people rallying in support of the department. Tuesday's protest attracted more than 100 people who packed the sidewalk along Clifton Road across from the CDC's headquarters. What they're saying: Sarah Boim, a member of Fired But Fighting, a grassroots group of former CDC employees who were terminated this year, told Axios the organization holds rallies each Tuesday in support of people who still work at the agency. "It's really hard to put into words how horrible this experience has been, not just for us, but it's going to really affect everybody in America," she said. Eric Mintz, another former CDC employee, told Axios proposed cuts to the CDC, National Institutes for Health, Food and Drug Administration and Medicaid will take away resources needed to protect people from illnesses. "It's not waste, it's not abuse, it's not fraud," Mintz said. "It's hard-working people with expertise trying to protect the American citizens." Catch up quick: The Health and Human Services Department in March announced about 2,400 positions would be eliminated from the CDC. HHS has said reducing its workforce from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees will cut costs from the agency's nearly $2 trillion budget. On Monday, RFK. Jr. removed all 17 members from the expert panel that makes vaccine policy recommendations to the CDC. He said in a statement the agency is "prioritizing the restoration of public trust above any specific pro- or anti-vaccine agenda." Questions are still being raised on who runs the CDC, as there is no public health official or designated point person leading the agency. State of play: Trump's fiscal year 2026 budget also recommends cutting $3.59 billion from the CDC. The budget, which was approved by the U.S. House, is still lingering in the U.S. Senate. Threat level: Anna Yousaf, an infectious diseases doctor at the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, called Kennedy a "domestic health threat" who has dismantled programs ranging from lead poisoning prevention to maternal and infant health monitoring.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store