Latest news with #DavidZweig
The Hill
18-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Actually, research supports the COVID school closures
When the COVID lockdowns began and our schools closed down, '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,' says journalist David Zweig. Ben Austin, founding director of Education Civil Rights Now, writes that United Teachers Los Angeles 'wielded its considerable power' to 'trap' students and keep them home 'indefinitely.' And Corey DeAngelis of the CATO Institute says teachers' unions 'def[ied] evidence' on the virus, instead 'prioritizing union demands over kids.' Listening to critics of teachers' unions, you'd never guess that all we were trying to do during COVID was protect our students and their families. That the COVID school closures were wrong and that teachers' unions were to blame is now a fundamental tenet of modern conservatism. Yet a considerable body of research has emerged that supports the basic contentions teachers' unions have been making all along. Critics' principal assertion is that closing schools was unnecessary because children were at little risk of serious harm from COVID. Teachers' unions asserted that, because students in large public school districts are disproportionately low-income, they often live in apartments with extended families and multiple generations, leaving these families particularly vulnerable to the virus, even if their school-age children were asymptomatic. A cohort study of over 165,000 American households containing both adults and children confirms this assessment, finding that among all 'household transmissions … 70.4 percent started with a pediatric index case.' The authors of the study, published in the American Medical Association's 'JAMA Network,' conclude: 'We discerned an important role for children in the spread of viral infection within households during the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened when schools were in session, supporting a role for school attendance in COVID-19 spread.' Teachers' unions also pointed to racial disparities in relation to school closures, for which critics, to this day, give us considerable grief. The student body at public schools is heavily minority, and we asserted that COVID would hit minority groups harder than whites. The study 'COVID-19–Associated Orphanhood and Caregiver Death' confirms this view. Published in 'Pediatrics,' researchers found that from April 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, over 140,000 American children 'experienced the death of a parent or grandparent caregiver,' and that the frequency of such losses was significantly higher among 'children of racial and ethnic minority groups compared with non-Hispanic White children' — in some instances as much as 4.5 times higher. Another common criticism is that the school closures were ineffective. Research contradicts this, demonstrating that school closures did play a significant role in reducing the spread of COVID. The 'Estimating the impact of school closures on the COVID-19 dynamics in 74 countries' study found that school closures 'reduced peak hospital occupancy pressure in nearly all countries, with 72 out of 74 countries (97 percent) showing a positive median estimated effect.' That study, published in 'PLOS Medicine,' a peer-reviewed medical journal from the Public Library of Science, also found that while results of school closures varied from country to country, 'school closures achieved moderate to significant [COVID] reductions in most settings over the period 2020 to 2022.' Similarly, the study ' School closures during COVID-19: an overview of systematic reviews,' published in the British Medical Association's 'BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine,' found both 'school closures and in-school mitigations were associated with reduced COVID-19 transmission, morbidity and mortality in the community.' Critics also assert that unions shut the schoolhouse door on protesting parents. Austin accuses us of 'bullying' parents into submission, while Zweig, author of ' An Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and a Story of Bad Decisions,' states, 'parents were really kept out of the decision-making process.' The facts contradict this narrative. A year after COVID hit, two nationally representative polls found that between two-thirds and three-fourths of parents believed their children were receiving the proper type of instruction. 'Chalkbeat,' an education-oriented news organization that analyzed the data, explained, '[P]arents' preferences are varied, with the largest group wanting their child to learn from home full-time.' The organization noted that most parents wanted to continue with the type of instruction their children were then receiving — 'an indication that schools nationwide have been responsive to families as they craft their instructional plans.' In March of 2021, I conducted a written survey of my own students and learned that only 15 percent of their parents wanted them to return to school, which was consistent with these studies' findings. Had schools opened in the face of this parental disapproval, many students would not have attended, and we'd have faced the disruptive chaos of classes split between in-school and at-home learners. Moreover, if schools are open, state law obliges educators to enforce attendance requirements. Schools would then have been in the position of demanding that parents send students to school even though the parents, believing this could endanger their families, may have resisted. Zweig, Austin and others are correct that students' learning loss from the closures was considerable. Did the benefits outweigh the costs? Unlike our critics, I do not presume to know what history's verdict will be. I do know that, in the context of the time, what we did was not unreasonable, and that we acted in good faith to protect our students, their families and their communities.
Globe and Mail
06-07-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
How knowledge theft is quietly disrupting workplaces
This is the weekly Work Life newsletter. If you are interested in more careers-related content, sign up to receive it in your inbox. It's the gut punch that comes in a meeting when your idea is echoed by someone else and suddenly applauded, as if you never spoke at all. It's the moment your manager takes a bow for work you did. It's a silent breach of trust that changes how you show up at work. It's knowledge theft. And a new study co-authored by David Zweig, a professor of organizational behaviour and human resources at the University of Toronto Scarborough and the Rotman School of Management, is pulling back the curtain on this pervasive workplace issue. Defined in the study as 'the deliberate act of claiming unjustified ownership of the work contributions of another,' knowledge theft is distinct from plagiarism or miscommunication – it's about intent. And it's far more common than people might think. 'When we started asking people to describe their experiences, 91 per cent of the participants said they'd either experienced it, seen it happen or they did it themselves,' Prof. Zweig says in an interview. 'That's a really high base rate of a really negative behaviour.' The implications of knowledge theft go far beyond bruised egos. Prof. Zweig's research found that when employees feel their intellectual contributions are stolen, they're less likely to share knowledge in the future. 'We respond by holding back our best ideas because we don't want them stolen,' he says. 'We become silent or even hide knowledge from each other because we're worried anything we say or do is going to get credited to someone else.' This breakdown in collaboration and trust can undercut the very heart of innovation in an organization. From defensive silence to counterproductive work behaviours, the study found that victims of knowledge theft often engage in actions that can stifle productivity and erode team dynamics. Prof. Zweig was first drawn to the subject after witnessing a colleague share an idea in a meeting, only for it to be ignored … until another person repeated it and received praise. 'No one acknowledged the original contribution. That really struck me,' he says. While the issue is widespread, competitive environments tend to be particularly vulnerable. 'Where people are fighting for limited rewards and promotions, this is going to be rife,' he says. Still, knowledge theft showed up across industries and job levels, signaling it's not just a cutthroat office problem, it's systemic. But there's hope. Prof. Zweig's ongoing research shows that having allies in the workplace, especially leaders, who call out credit-stealing behaviour can make a difference. 'That gets rid of all the negative stuff – the hiding, the silence, the resentment,' he says. 'When you see it, say something. That kind of allyship works.' Prof. Zweig is now turning his attention to the personalities and motivations behind knowledge thieves. 'We're trying to understand what drives someone to take credit for others' work,' he says. Ultimately, the research serves as a reminder to workplaces: recognizing people's contributions isn't just good manners, it's critical to maintaining trust and productivity. 'As leaders, we have to make a conscious effort to acknowledge our team's work,' says Prof. Zweig. 'If we model that behaviour, we make it less acceptable for others to steal credit.' 86 per cent That's how many people who left and later re-joined the workforce identify as primary caregivers, according to a survey from global professional services company, Accenture. Read more A worker agreed with their employer on a 14-month notice period for their retirement. They're wondering what rights they have if their employer decides to have them leave before that time is up. Experts say it is best to always have this type of agreement in writing. Unless the employer has expressly agreed to the 14 months, technically they can fire them before the expiry if it's cheaper to pay them out what they are owed, either under the appropriate minimum standards legislation or common law. Read more 'So to bring us full circle, the hustle culture that we've been entrenched in for too long is being taken over by a generation of workers that are prioritizing work-life balance. The Gen Zs have completely run away from the hustle culture, yet the millennials are still stuck in it. It's two sides of a spectrum. But what if the sweet spot is actually in the middle? This means we hustle when we need to, because goals do require hard work. And we prioritize balance and boundaries when we need to because we must rest, recharge and reconnect with others,' Tarveen Forrester, who oversees workplace culture at Kickstarter, says in a TEDTalk. In her talk, Ms. Forrester addresses hustle culture and shares practical strategies for protecting your time and cultivating your ambition in a sustainable way. Read more The Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (CORE), established in 2019 to investigate human rights and environmental abuses by Canadian companies abroad, has been without a permanent leader for more than a year. The watchdog's future is currently under government review, leaving its operations in uncertainty. Read more
Daily Mail
09-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
NPR reporter says she was censored by boss during Covid lockdowns
Advertisement An NPR reporter says she was censored by a boss at the public radio network after suggesting they report on anti-lockdown proposals during COVID. Meghna Chakrabarti, host of On Point, said earlier this week that she wanted to do a show on the Great Barrington Declaration in 2020 as the pandemic raged. The declaration dismissed most lockdown and social distancing measures as superfluous. But Chakrabarti says an unnamed boss shut the idea down. 'There was a point in time where I wanted to actually do a show on the Great Barrington Declaration,' the NPR longtimer revealed. 'I wanted to do a very just a rigorous analysis... [and] try to bring some evidence to scrutinize it [either] positively or negatively... 'There was one person in particular that was a colleague of mine, who just said, we cannot talk about it,' she said of the declaration. 'That even talking about it in a rigorous objective manner is spreading misinformation. 'I'll never forget that,' she continued - leading Zweig to remark: '[The] hairs on the back of my neck just stood up.' 'But this person is someone I deeply respect and admire, and their decisions are top notch, highly, highly intelligent,' Chakrabarti went on to explain. '[But] I wanna bring up this story,' she asserted. 'I wanna bring up this story specifically because fear.' Chakrabarti did not name her colleague, but discussed the incident during a chat with New York journalist David Zweig about the harmful effects of lockdowns five years on. Zweig, Chakrabarti's guest, has written extensively on the US' COVID-19 response for publications for like Atlantic, New York Magazine, and The New York Times . His coverage has been critical, framing the closures of public schools and other social distancing measures as 'one of the worst American policy failures in a century'. Chakrabarti said she was troubled by school closures during fall 2020, around the time three doctors created the Great Barrington Report, which was slammed by most in the liberal media. She then brought up how figures like Francis Collins - the then director of the National Institutes of Health - 'wanted to squash the declaration' perhaps prematurely, on the basis it was 'a bad idea.' Penned by Harvard's Martin Kulldorff, Oxford's Sunetra Gupta, and the NIH's Jay Bhattacharya it preached the notion of 'focused protection', and that those most at risk of dying should only undergo measures to be kept safe - no one else. Collins, 75, left his post in December 2021, and Anthony Fauci - a figure who also framed the well-cited open letter as 'nonsense and very dangerous' - resigned a year later. Both played integral roles in the US government's widely ridiculed pandemic response, which Chakrabarti said created 'political pressures' in NPR's newsroom. She added how the anecdote proved Americans, at the time, could not have 'certain conversations', as fears permeated during the pandemic's early days. Many have since accused members of the media of perpetuating that fear - all at the behest of the federal government. World Health Organization (WHO) director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus - who still holds his position - bashed the herd immunity concept proposed in the Great Barrington Declaration as 'scientifically and ethically problematic.' David Nabarro, a special envoy of the health agency, claimed lockdowns could only be avoided 'if governments [first] impose some reasonable restrictions like social distancing and universal masks and install test and trace strategies.' Such a response - the one the government ultimately went with - has since been questioned by a steady stream of scientists. Others have slammed the government's decision-making process at the time, saying it negatively affected healthy citizens who were at lesser risk of infection. 'Herd immunity against COVID-19 should be achieved by protecting people through vaccination,' the WHO continues to maintain on its website. '[N]ot by exposing them to the pathogen that causes the disease.'
New York Post
05-05-2025
- Health
- New York Post
Medicaid reform, now or never, GOP savings may cost NY $5B and other commentary
From the right: Medicaid Reform, Now or Never 'Republicans would be making a terrible blunder to let' Democrats' fear-mongering about Medicaid reform 'intimidate them from fixing the program,' warns The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. Under the ObamaCare law's Medicaid expansion, the feds pay states more for eligible 'prime-age adults' than 'for pregnant women, the disabled and other low-income populations.' Huh! 'You won't find many voters who think the federal government should focus scarce health resources on working-age men over poor children and pregnant women. Yet that is what the perverse financing formula encourages.' Fact is, 'the GOP can make the strong and accurate argument that fixing this bias in federal payments is shoring up the program to better serve the vulnerable,' and 'Republicans may not get another opening for decades to fix the core problems in Medicaid.' Eye on NY: GOP Savings May Cost State $5B The stakes for New York 'are high' as Republicans eye Medicaid savings from targeting the 'so-called expansion population,' notes the Empire Center's Bill Hammond. These are under-65, non-disabled adults 'with income up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.' ObamaCare made them Medicaid-eligible, with the feds funding 90% of the costs, instead of the 50% it pays for most Medicaid recipients in New York. Republicans may make the feds' share 50% for these people as well, which could cost New York state 6% of its funding, or $5.3 billion, based on 2023 numbers. Amazingly, such changes 'would be unlikely to reduce' federal Medicaid spending for New York 'in absolute terms.' They'd merely 'slow growth compared to current trends.' Ed desk: The School-Closures Obscenity Teachers and administrators simply 'didn't care about having kids in school' during COVID, David Zweig recalls at New York magazine; 'a series of falsehoods' related to risk birthed the 'fantastical list of demands' from teachers unions and others around reopening. Recall too that the American Academy of Pediatrics was 'very strongly in favor of getting kids into schools, but as soon as Trump came out in favor of reopening, they completely reversed their position.' 'Childhood is achingly brief.' The pandemic saw little kids miss a year or more of 'running around in a playground with friends' as they were forced to wither away 'in the gray light of their Chromebooks.' The idea that this 'wasn't a tremendous harm is absurd.' Space beat: The Trouble With Hubble 'Without question, the Hubble Space Telescope is a marvel of technology,' gushes Mark Whittington at The Hill. The last mission to the 35-year-old instrument was in 2009; it 'has been operating ever since then without a servicing mission.' Now 'not only is Hubble's orbit starting to decay,' but just 'two of its six gyroscopes are functioning.' Yes, 'the Hubble was designed to be serviced by a space shuttle orbiter.' But the option of 'using a SpaceX Crewed Dragon' to 'boost the telescope's orbit,' after which 'spacewalking astronauts would perform repairs and enhancements,' risks 'the astronauts breaking the space telescope.' Bigger-budget ideas: a SpaceX Starship could simply 'lift huge space telescopes with many times the Hubble's capabilities' into orbit. Libertarian: Ax Regs That Limit US Workers 'At the core of Trump's economic vision is sincere worry about the decline in prime-age male labor-force participation,' observes Reason's Veronique de Rugy. That decline 'has real social consequences' as 'economic insecurity among non-college-educated men fuels declining marriage rates, weaker communities, and more public health crises.' Yet the issue is 'more complicated than Trump's 'China stole our jobs' narrative,' and is 'rooted in problems that tariffs and industrial policy won't fix.' A 'thicket' of government regulations has erected 'huge hurdles to interstate mobility, effectively locking people into stagnant local economies.' 'We must remove the obstacles and perverse incentives that make living with economic stagnation too rational a choice for too many people.' The key to 'restoring work force participation' would be 'tearing down barriers' erected by the government. — Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
Epoch Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
The Barbarity of the School Closures
Commentary 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.
