New York Times Lies about Science to Push School Closures

Introduction

Last spring, schools were closed in all 50 states in the US due to the growing epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Only two states, Montana and Wyoming, reopened schools prior to the end of the academic year.

While schools in many areas of the country have now reopened, closures persist. In Washington, DC, in-person learning is still prohibited. The governments of Iowa, Arkansas, Texas, and Florida have ordered schools to be open for in-person learning, but in other states, school closures persist either due to state governments mandating closures for certain regions or certain age groups or due to that decision being made at the local level.

According to the New York Times, the view that schools should be reopened is radical and dangerous because of the risk of children transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Science, the Times would have us believe, strongly supports the continuation of school closures to help stop the spread of the virus.

After Dr. Scott Atlas, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, joined the Trump administration’s coronavirus task force, the Times published an article slamming him as a dangerous idealogue whose opinion about the need to reopen schools is contrary to the view of infectious disease experts and unsupported by science.

The fact that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), too, had called for schools to be reopened did not hinder the Times in its characterization of Atlas’s view. The Times explained this away as an instance of the CDC having caved to political pressure rather than following the science.

Similarly, the fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) had also advocated reopening schools did not hinder the Times in so explaining the CDC’s guidance.

So, who is right? Does the New York Times accurately report the science? Do the data suggest that keeping schools closed is an effective and necessary measure to reduce transmission and prevent deaths from COVID-19?

These questions can be answered by carefully examining the Times’ arguments and the sources it provides to support its opposition to schools reopening. Doing so reveals that it is the New York Times whose position is extreme and unsupported by scientific evidence. The corollary is that the Times is more interested in advocating continued lockdown measures than in doing journalism.