Dr. Ioannidis notes the 1918 flu pandemic that killed millions and adds: “One can only hope that, much like in 1918, life will continue. Conversely, with lockdowns of months, if not years, life largely stops, short-term and long-term consequences are entirely unknown, and billions, not just millions, of lives may be eventually at stake.
“If we decide to jump off the cliff, we need some data to inform us about the rationale of such an action and the chances of landing somewhere safe.”20
Fortunately, Covid is not as deadly as World War II. But shutdowns enacted in response to Covid are similar to warfare in that they ask disproportionate sacrifices from young people. Kids are at little risk of Covid, but they have been forced to bear most of the cost.
If all schools in the country are shut down, we rob America’s children of about $1.6 billion per day of education, an expense they will pay over time in reduced earnings. That’s according to University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan, who tells us that additional life lessons learned at school (beyond those that raise earnings) would go on top of the $1.6 billion.21
The Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California Berkeley notes a recent cost-benefit analysis of school closures coauthored by its graduate Rob Moore.22 The study focuses on the possibility of closing K–12 schools in Ohio for four months this fall. According to Mr. Moore’s firm, Scioto Analysis, the shutdown would have a disproportionate impact on kids’ future earning potential: “Overall, the cost-benefit analysis found that total costs in lost wages outweigh benefits measured in risk of death reduction by a factor of 14 to 1.”23
“More than nine out of ten COVID deaths in Ohio are among people age sixty and up…,” says Moore. “Meanwhile, the average student loses out on $12,000–$27,000 in lifetime earnings by losing four months of schooling. School closings are in essence an intergenerational transfer.”24 As noted earlier, the state of Ohio reports that the median age of those dying with the virus was eighty.
Some have argued that teachers face too great a risk conducting classes in person this year. One may wonder why they are not considered essential workers, even as states like New York and New Jersey apply the label to the staff at liquor stores. Whether essential or nonessential, teachers aren’t at great risk of contracting Covid. In July the Times of London reported: “There has been no recorded case of a teacher catching the coronavirus from a pupil anywhere in the world, according to one of the government’s leading scientific advisers.
“Mark Woolhouse, a leading epidemiologist and member of the government’s [Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies] committee, told The Times that it may have been a mistake to close schools in March given the limited role children play in spreading the virus.”25
The report created a rather awkward moment for U.S. teachers’ unions and their media friends. That’s because it arrived just after the New York newspaper called the Times (no relation) published an op-ed from a teacher named Rebecca Martinson who opined: “Every day when I walk into work as a public-school teacher, I am prepared to take a bullet to save a child. In the age of school shootings, that’s what the job requires. But asking me to return to the classroom amid a pandemic and expose myself and my family to Covid-19 is like asking me to take that bullet home to my own family.”26
Perhaps a bit overstated? Charlotte Hays of the Independent Women’s Forum calls Ms. Martinson’s op-ed “An Emotional Plea to Play Hooky” and observes:
“The most prominent fact cited is that 75 ‘school-based’ employees of the New York City Department of Education lost their lives to COVID-19 between March 16, 2020, and June 22. While each of these losses is undeniably tragic, to make these numbers meaningful, we need to know which ones contracted the infection because of their jobs. New York City’s public schools began shutting down in mid-March.”27
The Times report from the United Kingdom suggests that the number is zero. The London paper quoted Professor Mark Woolhouse, chairman of infectious disease epidemiology at Edinburgh University, saying that school-age kids are “minimally involved in the epidemiology of this virus.” He added that youngsters are “vanishingly unlikely to end up in hospital or to die from it” and “rarely transmit” the virus to others.28
The Times also reported: “Dr Gabriel Scally, president of the epidemiology and public health section of the Royal Society of Medicine, said that reopening schools should have been one of the top priorities of lifting the lockdown. ‘It is a real indictment of our society that we can manage to open pubs and nail bars but we can’t open schools,’ he said.”29
The Times of London report followed a June statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics that notes the negative impact of lockdowns as well as the relatively small Covid risks faced by children. The organization says it “strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school. The importance of in-person learning is well-documented, and there is already evidence of the negative impacts on children because of school closures in the spring of 2020. Lengthy time away from school and associated interruption of supportive services often results in social isolation, making it difficult for schools to identify and address important learning deficits as well as child and adolescent physical or sexual abuse, substance use, depression, and suicidal ideation. This, in turn, places children and adolescents at considerable risk of morbidity and, in some cases, mortality” (emphasis in the original).30
When the shutdowns began in the spring, the cost imposed on the mental health of young people was barely considered by politicians and infectious disease experts in their rush to address the Covid risk. “Suicide, help hotline calls soar in Southern California over coronavirus
