Toggle Menu

Biden’s Coronavirus Plan Will Not Prevent Death and Devastation

Our best option is a short-term shutdown of nonessential activity, with generous economic support.

Justin FeldmanAbigail Cartus and Seth J. Prins

February 3, 2021

A patient is brought into a Brooklyn hospital that has seen a high number of Covid-19 patients on January 27 in New York City. (Spencer Platt / Getty Images)

At long last, the United States has a president who appears to understand the threats posed by Covid-19. The incoming administration also has the popular mandate and legislative power to address the crisis. As Americans, we are relieved and, for the first time in many months, cautiously optimistic.

But as epidemiologists, we are concerned that President Joe Biden’s current pandemic strategy will not be enough to avert further disaster. To prevent unnecessary deaths and give the vaccine a chance to succeed, Biden must encourage states to enact four- to six-week shutdowns by offering generous economic support to people and businesses.

The Biden team has inherited an incredibly difficult situation. The coronavirus is circulating at uncontrolled levels in almost every US community. More transmissible variants, such as the B.1.1.7 strain first identified in the UK, are here and could become the dominant strains sometime in March. To date, some 440,000 people have died from Covid-19 in the United States, with the heaviest death tolls borne by people of color. By mid-February, we may reach half a million deaths.

Even under Biden’s vaccination plan, only a small fraction of Americans—perhaps one in eight—would receive both vaccine doses by May. It is risky to allow high levels of viral transmission before vaccinations are widely administered. First, hundreds of thousands more people could die as the virus spreads unabated. Second, gradual vaccination places selective pressure on the virus, increasing the likelihood that new mutations could weaken the vaccines’ effectiveness. Suppressing transmission is the best way to reduce opportunities for the coronavirus to mutate during vaccine rollout, and the best way to suppress transmission is to implement policies that make it possible for large numbers of people to avoid face-to-face contact with other people.

Current Issue

View our current issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

The White House’s 200-page strategic plan for the pandemic response doesn’t go far enough. It includes mask mandates, testing programs, and targeted restrictions. But an emphasis on masking, for instance, will yield limited returns, since a large share of Americans—73 percent according to a recent poll—already wear masks whenever they leave the home. The directive to issue new workplace safety regulations is important, but must be contextualized: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has limited enforcement powers and fewer than 900 inspectors to cover the entire country.

As written, the strategic plan will not enable what it calls a “safe reopening” of businesses, schools, and travel. A premature, large-scale return to shared indoor spaces, with only piecemeal mitigation measures, runs the risk of worsening the pandemic and further pushing our buckling health systems past the point of collapse. For example, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo plans to permit resumption of indoor dining at 25 percent capacity on Valentine’s Day. This poses a reckless and unnecessary risk to restaurant workers, diners, and the vaccine rollout. Similarly, California Governor Gavin Newsom lifted stay-at-home advisories on January 24. Closing nonessential businesses to bring transmission under control is a prerequisite for being able to open schools safely; these governors’ moves represent steps in the wrong direction. Strong federal guidance is needed not only to reduce transmission but also to guide prioritization of permitted in-person activities during vaccine rollout.

Earlier this winter, many countries had hoped to control the pandemic through targeted measures of the sort that the Biden administration is proposing. But country after country—the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Israel—has found that curbing the virus requires stay-at-home orders combined with broad closures of nonessential businesses and other institutions. These public health measures are not only effective; they also poll well with the public: Sixty-one percent of Americans support closing nonessential businesses, while only 32 percent oppose closures. Stay-at-home orders enjoy similarly high support.

Despite public support, President Biden has backed away from the broad public health measures he initially supported. In August, then–presidential candidate Biden responded to an interviewer’s question about whether he would support a national shutdown if scientists supported it by saying, “I would shut it down. I would listen to the scientists.”

But in November, a member of the president-elect’s coronavirus task force, Michael Osterholm, proposed a national shutdown of four to six weeks to bring transmission under control, while covering losses to workers, businesses, and state and local governments. President-elect Biden was quick to distance himself from Osterholm’s views, saying, “I’m not going to shut down the economy, period. I’m going to shut down the virus.”

Osterholm’s proposal was correct in November, and it’s even more correct now. While candidate Biden stated he was “prepared to do whatever it takes to save lives,” President Biden’s rejection of shutdowns could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.

While federalism prevents Biden and Congress from ordering sweeping, national public health measures by decree, the White House is far from powerless. The president can make the case for statewide and regional shutdowns. The Democratic-controlled Congress can provide generous economic and logistical support that allows nonessential workers to stay home and keeps businesses afloat during temporary closures. Congress can also pass federal legislation to pay workers at nonessential businesses to stay home during a public health emergency, even if some governors choose not to cooperate.

Independent journalism relies on your support


With a hostile incoming administration, a massive infrastructure of courts and judges waiting to turn “freedom of speech” into a nostalgic memory, and legacy newsrooms rapidly abandoning their responsibility to produce accurate, fact-based reporting, independent media has its work cut out for itself.

At The Nation, we’re steeling ourselves for an uphill battle as we fight to uphold truth, transparency, and intellectual freedom—and we can’t do it alone. 

This month, every gift The Nation receives through December 31 will be doubled, up to $75,000. If we hit the full match, we start 2025 with $150,000 in the bank to fund political commentary and analysis, deep-diving reporting, incisive media criticism, and the team that makes it all possible. 

As other news organizations muffle their dissent or soften their approach, The Nation remains dedicated to speaking truth to power, engaging in patriotic dissent, and empowering our readers to fight for justice and equality. As an independent publication, we’re not beholden to stakeholders, corporate investors, or government influence. Our allegiance is to facts and transparency, to honoring our abolitionist roots, to the principles of justice and equality—and to you, our readers. 

In the weeks and months ahead, the work of free and independent journalists will matter more than ever before. People will need access to accurate reporting, critical analysis, and deepened understanding of the issues they care about, from climate change and immigration to reproductive justice and political authoritarianism. 

By standing with The Nation now, you’re investing not just in independent journalism grounded in truth, but also in the possibilities that truth will create.

The possibility of a galvanized public. Of a more just society. Of meaningful change, and a more radical, liberated tomorrow.

In solidarity and in action,

The Editors, The Nation

Biden’s proposed $1.9 trillion pandemic bill offers much-needed aid, but it is primarily intended as an economic stimulus, not as a tool for enabling public health measures. Moreover, Biden has reportedly decided to work with Republicans rather than pass the bill through reconciliation, a process that would not require bipartisan support. These negotiations may delay the bill, narrow its scope, and reduce its funding. This unnecessary, preemptive compromise will lead to many more needless deaths.

It has been a year since the first confirmed Covid-19 death in the United States. With Trump out of office and a new Democratic-majority Congress, there is no excuse for tolerating upward of 4,000 Covid deaths per day. Americans don’t actually want to risk exposure and death, and wouldn’t if their incomes and health care didn’t force them to. The science is clear: A short-term shutdown of nonessential activity, with generous economic support, can curtail the pandemic. Biden’s Covid-19 plan and relaxed restrictions at the state level will cause death and devastation, just when we’re so close to being safe again.

Justin FeldmanJustin Feldman, PhD, MPH, is an epidemiologist and a Health and Human Rights Fellow at the Harvard FXB Center for Health and Human Rights.


Abigail CartusAbigail Cartus, PhD, MPH, is a perinatal epidemiologist.


Seth J. PrinsSeth J. Prins, PhD, MPH, is an assistant professor of epidemiology and sociomedical sciences at Columbia University.


Latest from the nation