“No Consistent Patterns”: Scientists Find No Evidence That Closing Schools Materially Reduced Transmission

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

For years, scientists and commentators who questioned COVID policies were censored, blacklisted, and canceled across the country. Many of these dissenting views have since been vindicated from the lab origins theory to the lack of efficacy of surgical masks to the opposition to the closure of schools. Now, a new study in the Journal of Infection further undermines the once orthodox views of the pandemic, concluding that “reopening schools did not change the existing trajectory of COVID-19 rates.”

In other words, we shut down our schools, without any demonstrable benefit to the country. We did, however, succeed in reducing free speech in the name of combating “disinformation.”

The report is based on one of the comprehensive studies to date on the pandemic:

“Data were extracted from government websites. Cases and COVID-19 hospitalization and death incidence rates were calculated during the Delta and early Omicron periods in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom, for two weeks preceding and six weeks after schools reopened. We summarized stringency of public health measures (GRI), COVID-19 vaccination rates by age and SARS-CoV-2 testing rates.”

In comparing these different countries, the scientists found no significant differences in reported cases: “No consistent patterns in cases, hospitalizations or deaths despite school re-openings or changes to public health measures,”

The suppression of the lab theory and the targeting of dissenting scientists show the true cost of censorship and viewpoint intolerance.

The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory.

In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.

Some experts questioned the efficacy of surgical masks, the scientific support for the six-foot rule and the necessity of shutting down schools. The government has now admitted that many of these objections were valid and that it did not have hard science to support some of the policies. While other allies in the West did not shut down their schools, we never had any substantive debate due to the efforts of this alliance of academic, media and government figures.

Not only did millions die from the pandemic, but the United States is still struggling with the educational and mental health consequences of shutting down all our public schools. That is the true cost of censorship when the government works with the media to stifle scientific debate and public disclosures.

Many still hope that Congress and the incoming Trump administration will conduct a long-needed investigation into the origins to allow for a more credible and open debate. That hope was increased by the nomination of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the organizers of the Great Barrington Declaration, to be the next head of the National Institutes of Health.

One of the most lasting costs was born by our children who have shown both educational and psychological harm from the shutting down of schools. The study confirms what dissenters said all along: there is no evidence that this was necessary or had any benefit to society:

“Our findings show that there were no consistent patterns to case, hospitalisation or death rates in each country or jurisdiction, irrespective of whether schools were open for onsite learning or changes to PHSM. School closures were adopted by many countries as part of a suite of PHSM but in the future should only be implemented where there is strong evidence of effectiveness. Predesigned and approved study protocols, along with scenario-based planning for schools are needed to prepare for the next pandemic. The negative consequences on child health and development are profound, so understanding the role of schools in SARS-CoV-2 transmission should be a priority for pandemic preparedness and response.”

In my recent book, I explore the suppression of dissenting voices in higher education as the true cost of censorship. The media joined the government, corporations, and academia in labeling these experts as extremists, conspiracy theorists or, in the case of the lab theory, racists. As a result, we never had a robust debate that might have curtailed the massive costs from the pandemic policies. It now turns out that it may have been these censorship advocates who were spreading disinformation in the name of combating disinformation.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”