A hypothetical: Suppose it were a fact that one million Russian soldiers were actively invading our shores and heartland. Suppose further that 130,000 citizens had already died at the hands of these invaders. Finally, suppose that the invasion was sporadic, in that different parts of the country experienced the invasion in a bell curve of waves. Would you be sending your children to school under these circumstances? Would you be going to the movies? To work? I expect not.
Now replace Russians with COVID-19 and you get my point. The only difference is that we, as lay people, have the means to stop this invasion, to stop the virus.
I have little interest in responses to my hypothetical that the reality is more complex than I present. My response would be “tell that to the 130,000 dead from the virus, more than double the number that died in the Vietnam War.”
I have taken informal surveys of friends and others in regards to whether they think their child’s school should open this fall. I have yet to find anyone who agrees with me that they should remain closed unless and until we’ve gotten a handle on this virus either by vaccine, masks or quarantine. Those who still think that the wearing of masks will not stop the spread of this virus are just not in tune with the mainstream position of just about every disease specialist in this country.
The most common response to my informal question about opening school this fall is “My kids are bouncing off the walls at home,” “They will be cognitively or academically affected if we don’t open the schools” and, finally, “My kids have run out of Netflix shows to watch.” It amazes me how many learning and behavioral specialists we suddenly have in Teaneck! One would think if not for our current method of learning, civilization could not have advanced to where
we are today.
A 2009 article in Health Affairs by Alexandra M. Stern, Martin S. Cetron and Howard Markel, titled “Closing the Schools: Lessons from the 1918-1919 U.S. Influenza Pandemic,” and a 2007 article in The Journal of the American Medical Association by Howard Markel, Harvey B. Lipman and Alexander Navarro, titled “Nonpharmaceutical Interventions Implemented by US Cities During the 1918-1919 Influenza Pandemic,” give us insight into a very analogous disease and response.
Both articles found that “school closures in 1918-1919 did help to reduce the incidence of influenza and mortality from both influenza and related diseases. The authors studied 43 cities over 24 weeks of 1918-1919. Their study found that cities that closed schools and banned or limited public gatherings significantly decreased the number of deaths due to influenza. Those that did so early fared better than those that did not.”
The articles further address the cynics among us (could otherwise have been myself) who would argue that things are radically different today: “Because of better communication and advances in health care, we are much better off today than we were in 1918-1919. However, schools are less prepared than they were in the past. In 1918, the United States was in the middle of the Progressive Era, a period of social reform and activism aimed at helping the poor and working-class families become healthier and wealthier. Progressive Era reforms had, by 1918, put nurses into schools. Also, most experts agree that this was a period when Americans had a strong sense of the need for common action. This made it easier for people to accept difficult actions like school closing.” It is remiss today that there is no commonality among the states and even their towns (read:Teaneck) in regards to the method for dealing with this virus.
The articles go on to note that there are further similarities between our time and over 100 years ago: “There are also similarities between the two eras. In both cases, schools faced a patchwork of regulations and laws that make it difficult to know who really has the authority to close schools. Families—especially those without financial resources—faced difficulties managing adult work schedules, childcare, and even providing food for kids who would normally receive school-provided breakfasts and lunches.”
According to Navarro, “school closures are one of the more useful non pharmaceutical interventions a city can enact.” However, he noted that “closing a school proactively is a “difficult thing to do. It’s hard to tell a community that doesn’t see cases or very few cases circulating in the wider community, perhaps none in schools, to say ‘yeah, we need you to close, and we’re going to close down all these schools for a lengthy period of time.’ It’s very disruptive to parents and children.”
There is no doubt that the issue of keeping schools open or closing them provokes serious debate. I am just shocked at the excuses used for opening them that are not justifiably health related.
By Jeffrey Rubin
