
Science Amid Chaos: What Worked During the Pandemic? What Failed?
So The New York Times asked experts to revisit the nightmare. Of the most significant public health measures introduced during Covid, which have held up scientifically, and which turned out to be wrongheaded?
The question is particularly important now, because pandemics that could upend American lives are inevitable. One candidate has already surfaced: bird flu.
Perhaps the biggest lesson learned, several experts said, is that recommendations during any pandemic are necessarily based on emerging and incomplete information. But during Covid, federal agencies often projected more confidence in their assessments than was warranted.
Next time, the scientists said, officials should be more forthright about the uncertainties and prepare the public for guidance that may shift as the threat comes into clearer focus.
Rather than promote preventive measures as infallible solutions, they should also acknowledge that no single intervention is perfect — though many imperfect measures can build a bulwark.
If you venture out in a 'huge, heavy rainstorm, your umbrella alone is not going to keep you from getting wet,' said Linsey Marr, an expert in airborne viruses at Virginia Tech.
'You need your umbrella; you need your boots; you need your waterproof pants and jacket; and you would probably try to avoid the puddles,' she said.
Vaccines
The mRNA vaccines were, in a sense, victims of their own unexpected success in clinical trials in 2020. Those results were spectacular: The shots warded off symptomatic illness caused by the original version of the coronavirus at miraculous rates.
But government officials had to walk back their enthusiasm as breakthrough infections with the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021. Americans were told to get boosters. Then again, and again.
Federal health officials should have acknowledged at the start that the long-term effectiveness was unknown, said Natalie Dean, a biostatistician at Emory University.
Mistrust over the safety and effectiveness of the Covid vaccines is now taking a toll on other immunizations, including those targeting childhood diseases like measles.
'Making claims early on that this was going to prevent all infections was, I think, a little bit of an overpromise' that eventually undermined public trust, said Saskia Popescu, an infection prevention expert at the University of Maryland.
Still, the vaccines saved an estimated 14 million lives just in the first year after their introduction.
Airborne Spread
Disagreements among scientists about how the coronavirus traveled had profound ramifications for how Americans were told to protect themselves.
Early on, health officials insisted that the virus was spread through large droplets that were coughed or sneezed out by an infected person onto other people or objects. The 'fomite' theory led to protocols that made little sense in retrospect.
Remember the plexiglass barriers during the Presidential debates? The face shields? Schools closed for cleaning days midway through the week. People were scrubbing down groceries and mail.
'The whole hygiene theater was terribly unfortunate,' said Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota. It wasted millions of dollars and gave people a false sense of security.
Health agencies took months to admit that the virus was carried aloft by tiny droplets, called aerosols, that could be exhaled, traveling long distances indoors. Sadly, that insight initially led to another overreaction.
Some states closed down beaches and parks, and forbade interactions outdoors, even though 'there's good scientific evidence that outdoor events are lower risk,' Dr. Dean said.
Eventually, understanding that the virus was primarily floating indoors prompted the Biden administration to earmark funds for improved ventilation in schools.
Masking
As the pandemic spread in the United States, masking morphed from a public health intervention into a cultural flashpoint.
Assuming that the coronavirus traveled like the flu and worried that hospitals might not have enough resources, federal heath officials at first told the public that masks were not needed.
That advice was suddenly reversed once scientists learned that the coronavirus was airborne. Even so, officials initially recommended cloth masks — which are not very effective at keeping out airborne viruses — and did not endorse more protective N95 respirators until January 2022, well after much of the public had stopped using cloth masks.
Dozens of studies have shown that when used correctly and consistently, N95 masks or their equivalents can prevent infected people from spreading the virus and protect wearers from contracting it.
Unfortunately, several flawed studies and the politics of personal freedom created a culture war surrounding the use of masks, especially by children, said Bill Hanage, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
In the event of another respiratory outbreak, 'I feel quite anxious that a whole constituency has already discarded masks,' he said.
Children in Asia routinely wear masks, especially during respiratory virus and allergy seasons, some experts noted.
'I wish we could infuse more infection prevention into especially elementary schools during respiratory virus season,' Dr. Popescu said. 'It seemed like a really great way to get children back in schools.'
Herd Immunity
For nearly two years after the pandemic began, experts talked of reaching herd immunity once enough of the population had acquired protection either by being ill or getting vaccinated.
That was a mistake, experts said. Herd immunity is only possible if immunity is sterilizing — meaning it prevents reinfections — and lifelong. Immunity to most viruses is neither.
Seasonal coronaviruses change rapidly enough that people undergo repeated infections throughout their lives, said Jeffrey Shaman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who insisted early on that the new coronavirus might also cause reinfections.
Once vaccines arrived, officials at first presented the shots as a way to stay safe from the virus forever, rather than as a means to lessen the severity of infections.
'There was a lot of confusion and misconceptions about herd immunity — that the toothpaste was going back in the tube somehow,' Dr. Dean said.
School Closures
Few aspects of the pandemic provoke as much rancor as school closures. In many parts of the country, test scores never recovered and absenteeism has become an intractable problem.
But experts said it was the right decision to close schools in the spring of 2020, when a poorly understood pathogen was sweeping across the country. Ideally, schools would have reopened that fall, but with measures — improved ventilation, testing, masks — to mitigate the risks.
'And of course, we didn't really have any of those things,' Dr. Hanage said.
By early fall in 2020, it was clear that schoolchildren were not driving community transmission significantly. Still, many schools stayed closed for months longer than they needed to, forcing children to muddle through remote learning and causing some to fall irrevocably behind.
'It's a really difficult one to Monday-morning quarterback,' Dr. Shaman said.
'We don't have the counterfactual, that alternative scenario to see how it really would have played out.'
If bird flu turns into a pandemic, it would be foolish to base school policies on how the coronavirus behaved, he and others warned. Other respiratory viruses, like the flu, tend to be deadlier among young children and older adults.
'We have every reason to think that a future flu pandemic would be far more dangerous to young people than Covid was,' Dr. Hanage said. 'I think we should talk about what we could do to mitigate transmission in schools.'
Lockdowns
The pandemic destroyed local businesses, sent unemployment rates soaring and increased household debt. Many people now feel that lockdowns were to blame for much of the damage — and that their harms outweighed any benefits.
Many scientists see it differently. 'The economy got shut down by just the pure force of the pandemic,' said Dr. Osterholm.
No American state's policies neared the strictness of those in China, India, Italy or Jordan — where people were not allowed to leave home at all — and much of the work force and societal activities continued because they were deemed essential, he noted.
By the end of May 2020, indoor dining and religious services had resumed in much of the country, if they had been paused at all, although many cities continued to institute temporary bans as virus levels rose and fell.
The shutdowns may have been unpopular in part because they were introduced with no clear explanation or end in sight.
Instead, Dr. Osterholm said, health officials could have instituted a 'snow day' concept. People stayed home when hospitals were overwhelmed, as they do when roads are snowed under, but their behavior returned to normal when the situation eased.
The shutdowns eased the burden on hospitals and slowed the transmission of the virus, buying time to develop a vaccine. Studies from multiple other countries have also shown that stay-at-home orders and restrictions on mass gatherings were the most effective measures for curbing transmission of the virus within communities.
'Whatever people did in 2020, before folks were vaccinated, saved millions of lives,' Dr. Hanage said. 'If we had done nothing, truly done nothing at all, things would have been much, much worse.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alcohol-related liver problems escalate in Wisconsin, especially for women, young people
Deaths from liver diseases that result from consuming too much alcohol are escalating dramatically in Wisconsin, and even more alarming, such diseases are showing up more in younger people. The numbers mirror national trends described in a June 11 study in JAMA Open Network, which found a "significant acceleration" in alcohol-associated liver disease deaths during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Nationwide, such deaths increased nearly 9% annually between 2018 and 2022. In Wisconsin, deaths from cirrhosis of the liver — one of several liver diseases tied to alcohol consumption — rose 35% between 2019 and 2023, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It's well-documented that Americans began drinking more during the pandemic, and coupled with Wisconsin's deeply entrenched drinking culture, experts worry about the toll they're seeing on people's physical health. Alcohol-related deaths generally, which include myriad other causes besides liver problems, increased three-fold in Wisconsin between 1999 and 2020, a January analysis from the Journal Sentinel found. But experts say multidisciplinary treatment, reduced stigma around alcohol use disorder, and a renewed emphasis on education and prevention could improve the situation. "I think the narrative often in Wisconsin is just, 'Oh, we're just big drinkers,' and that's all there is," said Maureen Busalacchi, director of the Wisconsin Alcohol Policy Project at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "The message is not that you can't drink at all. It's more, really think about it, and just drink less." More: Wisconsin's alcohol-related deaths more than tripled since 1999: See the data U.S. dietary guidelines for alcohol urge people of drinking age to limit consumption to one drink or fewer per day for women and two drinks or fewer per day for men. When people consume significant amounts of alcohol over a prolonged period of time, fat begins to turn up in the liver, and then scar tissue, which can lead to cirrhosis, said Dr. Rita German, a transplant hepatologist at UW Health in Madison. Many times, German said, liver disease symptoms such as jaundice, fever and confusion don't show themselves until the disease has progressed, making it harder to treat. Nearly 3,000 Wisconsinites died from alcohol-related liver diseases from 2019 to 2023, CDC data show. The large majority — 2,072 — were from cirrhosis. Deaths from most types of liver diseases due to alcohol consumption increased in those years, including alcoholic fatty liver and alcoholic hepatic failure in addition to cirrhosis. Deaths from alcoholic hepatitis fell slightly. Busalacchi called the numbers a huge concern. Most of these deaths are preventable, she contended. Doctors used to think of alcohol-related liver diseases as affecting people past middle age, German said. But increasingly, that age is dropping. At UW Health's multidisciplinary clinic for patients with such diseases, she said, the average age is now 45, and she's treated some as young as 25. More: Alcohol-related deaths in Wisconsin tripled since 1999. Will a new warning from the surgeon general slow the trend? That may seem to conflict with recent research showing young people, particularly Gen Z, drinking less. But while some are cutting back, those who do drink are drinking more heavily, Busalacchi said. And while alcohol use among Wisconsin high schoolers has generally decreased in recent years, more than one in 10 reported binge drinking in the last 30 days on the state's most recent Youth Risk Behavior Survey, done in 2023. The JAMA study noted, in particular, increases in alcohol-related liver disease deaths among adults ages 25-44. Deaths among women also increased disproportionately. Women absorb more alcohol into their bloodstream because they're generally smaller than men and because women's bodies have less gastric alcohol dehydrogenase, the enzyme that breaks down alcohol in the stomach, German said. Thus, they're at greater risk for liver damage. The Medical College of Wisconsin's liver transplant team reports younger and younger women needing transplants due to alcohol consumption, Busalacchi said. More: US to drop guidance to limit alcohol to one or two drinks per day, sources say To catch alcohol-related liver diseases earlier, German said, it's critical that patients be forthcoming about their alcohol use at the doctor's office. And for that to happen, she said, doctors must view alcohol use disorder for what it is — a disease, not a personal failing. People who are concerned about their alcohol consumption may also request an ultrasound of their liver, German said. From there, they can begin treatment if need be. She also sees the benefits in treatment that is comprehensive. At UW Health's clinic, patients not only see doctors like German who attend to the liver, but addiction specialists and counselors to treat underlying mental health conditions that can drive alcohol use. The clinic has treated between 250 and 300 people since it began in 2021. If it's caught in time, fat and scarring in the liver can be reversed by abstaining from alcohol, German said. Busalacchi's work continues to focus on changing societal perceptions on drinking culture. She sees encouraging signs around the state from communities that are offering more education about the consequences of excessive drinking, especially for youth. Some are taking a harder stance on age compliance checks for alcohol sales. Madeline Heim covers health and the environment for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Contact her at 920-996-7266 or mheim@ This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin deaths from alcohol-related liver diseases sharply rise


UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Medicaid cuts would leave the working class more vulnerable
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7.8 million Americans across the United States would lose their coverage through Medicaid -– the public program that provides health insurance to low-income families and individuals -– under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act making its way through Congress. Photo by Jonathan Borb/ Pexels The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7.8 million Americans across the United States would lose their coverage through Medicaid -- the public program that provides health insurance to low-income families and individuals -- under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act making its way through Congress. That includes 248,000 to 414,000 of my fellow residents of Michigan, based on the House Reconciliation Bill in early June 2025. There are similarly deep projected cuts within the Senate version of the legislation. Many of these people are working Americans who would lose Medicaid because of the onerous paperwork involved with the proposed work requirements. They wouldn't be able to get coverage in the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces after losing Medicaid. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs are likely to be too high for those making less than 100% to 138% of the federal poverty level who do not qualify for health insurance marketplace subsidies. Funding for this program is also under threat. And despite being employed, they also wouldn't be able to get health insurance through their employers because it is either too expensive or not offered to them. Researchers estimate that coverage losses would lead to thousands of medically preventable deaths across the country because people would be unable to access health care without insurance. I am a physician, health economist and policy researcher who has cared for patients on Medicaid and written about health care in the United States for more than eight years. I think it's important to understand the role of Medicaid within the broader insurance landscape. Medicaid has become a crucial source of health coverage for low-wage workers. Michigan removed work requirements from Medicaid A few years ago, Michigan was slated to institute Medicaid work requirements, but the courts blocked the implementation of that policy in 2020. It would have cost upward of $70 million due to software upgrades, staff training, and outreach to Michigan residents enrolled in the Medicaid program, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Had it gone into effect, 100,000 state residents were expected to lose coverage within the first year. The state took the formal step of eliminating work requirements from its statutes earlier this year in recognition of implementation costs being too high and mounting evidence against the policy's effectiveness. When Arkansas instituted Medicaid work requirements in 2018, there was no increase in employment, but within months, thousands of people enrolled in the program lost their coverage. The reason? Many people were subjected to paperwork and red tape, but there weren't actually that many people who would fail to meet the criteria of the work requirements. It is a recipe for widespread coverage losses without meeting any of the policy's purported goals. Work requirements, far from incentivizing work, paradoxically remove working people from Medicaid with nowhere else to go for insurance. Shortcomings of employer-sponsored insurance Nearly half of Americans get their health insurance through their employers. In contrast to a universal system that covers everyone from cradle to grave, an employer-first system leaves huge swaths of the population uninsured. This includes tens of millions of working Americans who are unable to get health insurance through their employers, especially low-income workers who are less likely to even get the choice of coverage from their employers. More than 80% of managers and professionals have employer-sponsored health coverage, but only 50% to 70% of blue-collar workers in service jobs, farming, construction, manufacturing and transportation can say the same. There are some legal requirements mandating employers to provide health insurance to their employees, but the reality of low-wage work means many do not fall under these legal protections. For example, employers are allowed to incorporate a waiting period of up to 90 days before health coverage begins. The legal requirement also applies only to full-time workers. Health coverage can thus remain out of reach for seasonal and temporary workers, part-time employees and gig workers. Even if an employer offers health insurance to their low-wage employees, those workers may forego it because the premiums and deductibles are too high to make it worth earning less take-home pay. To make matters worse, layoffs are more common for low-wage workers, leaving them with limited options for health insurance during job transitions. And many employers have increasingly shed low-wage staff, such as drivers and cleaning staff, from their employment rolls and contracted that work out. Known as the fissuring of the workplace, it allows employers of predominately high-income employees to continue offering generous benefits while leaving no such commitment to low-wage workers employed as contractors. Medicaid fills in gaps Low-income workers without access to employer-sponsored insurance had virtually no options for health insurance in the years before key parts of the Affordable Care Act went into effect in 2014. Research my co-authors and I conducted showed that blue-collar workers have since gained health insurance coverage, cutting the uninsured rate by a third thanks to the expansion of Medicaid eligibility and subsidies in the health insurance marketplaces. This means low-income workers can more consistently see doctors, get preventive care and fill prescriptions. Further evidence from Michigan's experience has shown that Medicaid can help the people it covers do a better job at work by addressing health impairments. It can also improve their financial well-being, including fewer problems with debt, fewer bankruptcies, higher credit scores and fewer evictions. Premiums and cost sharing in Medicaid are minimal compared with employer-sponsored insurance, making it a more realistic and accessible option for low-income workers. And because Medicaid is not tied directly to employment, it can promote job mobility, allowing workers to maintain coverage within or between jobs without having to go through the bureaucratic complexity of certifying work. Of course, Medicaid has its own shortcomings. Payment rates to providers are low relative to other insurers, access to doctors can be limited, and the program varies significantly by state. But these weaknesses stem largely from underfunding and political hostility - not from any intrinsic flaw in the model. If anything, Medicaid's success in covering low-income workers and containing per-enrollee costs points to its potential as a broader foundation for health coverage. The current employer-based system, which is propped up by an enormous and regressive tax break for employer-sponsored insurance premiums, favors high-income earners and contributes to wage stagnation. In my view, which is shared by other health economists, a more public, universal model could better cover Americans regardless of how someone earns a living. Over the past six decades, Medicaid has quietly stepped into the breach left by employer-sponsored insurance. Medicaid started as a welfare program for the needy in the 1960s, but it has evolved and adapted to fill the needs of a country whose health care system leaves far too many uninsured. Sumit Agarwal is an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely the views of the author.


Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Bald Eagles Are Thriving. Could Trump Change That?
It was only a few decades ago that the bald eagle, which has long been an American icon, was on the brink of extinction. Its comeback is largely credited to the Endangered Species Act, a 1973 law that established protections for threatened species—including the bald eagle. 'The bald eagle has been a poster child for the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act,' says Bill Bowerman, professor of wildlife ecology and toxicology at the University of Maryland. It was only on Christmas Eve last year that the Biden Administration officially designated the bird as America's national bird. But now, as the Trump Administration proposes a rule change that would alter the definition of 'harm' under the act, the Endangered Species Act's power to preserve habitats and protected species around the country could be at risk. The goal of the Endangered Species Act is to provide a framework for saving threatened animals and their environments. The act ended up recovering the bald eagle, considered near extinction in the 1960s, with only 417 known nesting pairs recorded in the lower 48 states in 1963. Now, the bird is no longer under threat; they were delisted from the Endangered Species Act in 2007. Today, there are over 71,400 nesting pairs of bald eagles in the wild. These birds of prey seem to be thriving. Many might not know, but bald eagles are migratory birds. While some choose to live in the same region year-round, others travel far distances during the year. And their range is expanding with our changing climate; during their migration season, the birds are now moving further north than in previous years, and are laying their eggs earlier. Scientists say they are keeping an eye on these changes, though. While they are not yet impacting the bird's reproduction or food sources, they are seeing new challenges emerge. 'This year, at the end of March in Michigan, there was a three day freezing rain event, and it put up to one inch thick ice on trees,' says Bowerman. 'So it brought down some nest sites.' During their migrations they also rely heavily on National Parks—many of which have been facing cuts under the Trump Administration. 'When they migrate, it appears that they use state, national, county, federal parks, or protected lands as stepping stones,' says Scott Rush, associate professor the department of wildlife, fisheries, and aquaculture at Mississippi State University. 'If we lose some of these areas, we don't have the support mechanisms for these birds over these large places.' It's not just the likely elimination of protections to National Parks, however, that could impact the birds. Opening up more forests to industry is also a potential threat to their habitats. In April, the Trump Administration proposed a rule change that would continue to prohibit actions that harm or kill endangered species, but rescind protections for their habitats. Habitat destruction is the greatest threat to endangered species—and could put others at risk. The move is part of the administration's plan to increase drilling and logging in the United States. Regardless of whether these changes come into effect, our daily habits could also be impacting bald eagles. These days, one of the leading killers for bald eagles is electrocution from power lines. 'As temperature changes, whether it be hotter or colder, there's a greater need for more electricity, and a lot of bald eagles nest on utility towers, and some of the issues with utility towers is that the birds can get electrocuted or they can cause outages,' says Rush. Bowerman says that it serves as a reminder that we should be doing more, not less, when it comes to protecting the species that live alongside us. 'We need to have greater appreciation for species and learn about them before we discount them and just write them off.'