Optimal pandemic control strategies and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions in the United States, 2025, Irons et al.

[Chandelier]

Optimal pandemic control strategies and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions in the United States - BMC Global and Public Health

Background Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a trade-off between the health impacts of viral spread and the social and economic costs of restrictions. Navigating this trade-off proved consequential, contentious, and challenging for...

bmcglobalpublichealth.biomedcentral.com

Abstract​

Background​

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a trade-off between the health impacts of viral spread and the social and economic costs of restrictions. Navigating this trade-off proved consequential, contentious, and challenging for decision-makers.

Methods​

We conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of NPIs enacted at the state level in the United States (US) in 2020. We combine data on COVID-19 cases, deaths, policies, and the social, economic, and health consequences of infections and interventions within an epidemiological model. We estimate SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, transmission rates, effects of interventions, and costs associated to infections and NPIs in each US state. We use these estimates to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy and gross impacts of the policy schedules implemented during the pandemic. We also derive optimal cost-effective strategies that minimize aggregate costs to society.

Results​

We find that NPIs were effective in substantially reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, averting 860,000 (95% CI: 560,000–1,190,000) COVID-19 deaths in the US in 2020. Although school closures reduced transmission, their social impact in terms of student learning loss was too costly, depriving the nation of $2 trillion in 2020 US dollars (USD2020), conservatively, in future Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Moreover, this marginal trade-off between school closure and COVID-19 deaths was not inescapable: a combination of other measures would have been enough to maintain similar or lower mortality rates without incurring such profound learning loss. Optimal policies involve consistent implementation of mask mandates, public test availability, contact tracing, social distancing orders, and reactive workplace closures, with no closure of schools. Their use would have reduced the gross impact of the pandemic in the US in 2020 from $4.6 trillion to $1.9 trillion and, with high probability, saved over 100,000 lives.

Conclusions​

US COVID-19 school closure was not cost-effective, but other measures were. While our study focuses on COVID-19 in the US prior to vaccines, our methodological contributions and findings about the cost-effectiveness and optimal structure of NPI policies have implications for the response to future epidemics and in other countries. Our results also highlight the need to address the substantial global learning deficit incurred during the pandemic.

 

[Chandelier]

Were school Covid closures worth it? Not really, new UW study finds

Covid-era school closures caused the U.S. significant economic and educational loss while being less effective than other transmission interventions, according to new research.

www.kuow.org

AI Summary:

New Study Questions the Value of U.S. School Closures During Covid Pandemic

A new study from the University of Washington and Oxford University concludes that school closures in the U.S. during the Covid-19 pandemic were not as effective as other public health measures and came with a massive long-term economic cost.

Researchers estimate that closing schools reduced Covid transmission by just 8%, while causing $2 trillion in future economic losses — including declines in national GDP and personal income due to students' lost learning and productivity. In contrast, mask mandates were found to reduce transmission by nearly 20% at a far lower cost.

The study analyzed 11 non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as social distancing, testing, contact tracing, and workplace closures. Overall, these interventions saved nearly 900,000 lives and reduced the death rate by about 70%. However, school closures were among the least cost-effective strategies, despite preventing an estimated 80,000 deaths.

Lead author Adrian Raftery noted that the cost per life saved from school closures was approximately $26 million — and that each American effectively lost $6,000 in economic potential as a result. He described these figures as conservative, pointing out that the study optimistically assumed online learning was 90% as effective as in-person instruction.

In reality, other research shows that students in the U.S. — particularly in Washington state — suffered substantial academic setbacks. Between 2019 and 2022, the average student lost more than five months of learning in math and three months in reading. These losses were greater in high-poverty districts.

Beyond academic achievement, the closures also caused economic strain on parents and school staff, adding to the total cost.

Raftery emphasized that the study is not intended to blame policymakers. He acknowledged the limited data and urgent conditions under which decisions were made at the time. Instead, the findings aim to guide more balanced, cost-effective decision-making in future public health emergencies.

 

[rvallee]

The $2T price tag, blamed on lost learning, seems entirely fanciful to me. Especially as it's placed alongside other measures that were always available yet not competently rolled out anywhere, so most of this seems imaginary to me:

Optimal policies involve consistent implementation of mask mandates, public test availability, contact tracing, social distancing orders, and reactive workplace closures, with no closure of schools. Their use would have reduced the gross impact of the pandemic in the US in 2020 from $4.6 trillion to $1.9 trillion and, with high probability, saved over 100,000 lives.

None of the alternatives listed are free, and they were not implemented anywhere in a coherent manner mostly because things are more complicated than that. There is this idea of having it done "just right", basically what the Great Barrington Declaration was all about, that is just pure fantasy. None of this takes into account how chaotic everything is. Not was, is. We are living in an area of pure chaos.

Holy crap is the next pandemic going to be bad, though. It's enshittification everywhere all the time with everything now. It's hard to feel any optimism for the future of this sorry species.

 

[Utsikt]

Holy crap is the next pandemic going to be bad

Don’t worry, we’ve become really good at washing out hands. Everything will be fine.