Analysis & Opinions

Juliette Kayyem argues that although the emergency social-safety provisions helped those most in need, the use of Title 42 was a brutal and unforgiving policy that essentially ended asylum in the United States.

Syra Madad writes that it's impossible to know what impact the COVID-19 virus will have next, but with signs of increased flu activity ahead of the holiday season, coupled with the increasing burden of RSV, healthcare systems should be bracing for more impact to come. She urges everyone to do their part and help reduce the spread of RSV, get vaccinated against seasonal flu and stay up-to-date with their Covid-19 vaccination.

Juliette Kayyem writes that to treat the crisis phase of the pandemic as complete is not the same as declaring that the country's battle against COVID is over or that many Americans' unmet needs are irrelevant. It is to say that many of the persistent systemic problems revealed by the coronavirus can be addressed, if elected representatives choose, without requiring a declared emergency as a pretext for action.

Juliette Kayyem writes that deliberately accepting some risks, and then being prepared when disaster strikes, will serve human societies better than pretending that perfect safety is achievable. We cannot prevent an earthquake or a tsunami, but we have control over how much death and destruction it causes.

Juliette Kayyem argues that the decision to move on to the recovery phase needs to be made by politicians, not scientists.

Juliette Kayyem argues that people who opt out of shots shouldn't expect their employers, health insurers, and fellow citizens to accommodate them.  

Juliette Kayyem explains that rather than mandating COVID-19 vaccinations, institutions are shifting burdens to unvaccinated people—denying them access to certain spaces, requiring them to take regular COVID-19 tests, charging them for the cost of that testing—rather than imposing greater burdens on everyone. 

We may never reach the point when viral spread stops, but a strategy of minimizing risk—not eliminating it—can help Americans reclaim normalcy.

H. Holden Thorp interviewed Juliette Kayyem for an editorial on lessons for science communication from the COVID-19 pandemic.

With vaccines slowly being rolled out across the United States, it appears the nation may be close to a turning point in the coronavirus pandemic. However, the daily case rate remains high, and new, highly contagious variants threaten to create clusters of fresh infections in the coming months. This makes it more important than ever that states bolster non-vaccine strategies — specifically, supported quarantine and isolation — in order to mitigate viral transmission.

Apart from vaccinations, quarantine (keeping exposed people away from others) and isolation (keeping sick people away from others) are the best ways to stop transmission of the virus. After a surge of infections early in the pandemic, South Korea adopted an aggressive policy of testing, contact tracing, and “supported” isolation and quarantine. This included identifying those exposed to the virus and providing support services so that it was feasible and affordable for them to stay apart for seven to 10 days. The government delivered grocery supplies and paid financial compensation to those in isolation and unable to work. They provided people who needed it access to quarantine facilities, with twice-daily check-ins to monitor their health.

The results have been spectacular. While the United States recently passed 500,000 COVID-19 deaths, South Korea — one-sixth of the US population — has experienced just 1,600 fatalities, without a single vaccination. Schools have mostly stayed open, and the South Korean economy has remained largely intact. If the United States had the same death rate as South Korea, we would have lost 10,000 Americans rather than over half a million.