Specialisation: COVID-19

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Global and the US Economy


The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted economies worldwide, including that of the United States. The virus, which first emerged in Wuhan, China, quickly became a global pandemic, affecting millions of people and significantly impacting economies worldwide. The pandemic has caused a sharp decline in economic activity, leading to significant job losses, business closures, and economic contraction. The impact of the virus has been felt across various sectors of the economy, resulting in major changes in the housing market, international trade between countries, international oil prices, and drastic changes in the job sector.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the housing market in the United States, leading to both short-term and long-term effects. Before the coronavirus pandemic struck, the housing market thrived with low-interest rates and few homes for sale. Home sellers enjoyed the benefits of a solid market and many homeowners watched their homes appreciate, increasing their home equities. However, when the pandemic began, the housing market almost reached a standstill as buyers and sellers grew warier about actively engaging in real estate transactions due to economic uncertainty brought by the lockdown measures. In 2020, real estate sales dropped by 8.5 percent from 5.8 million in February to 5.27 percent in March (Glink and Tamkin 1). By April, real estate sales had dropped 18 percent to 4.33 million (Glink and Tokin 1). With home sales falling, the construction of new homes dropped by 15 percent to the lowest rate of new construction in almost seven years (Glink and Tamkin 1). The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in numerous Americans losing their jobs, contributing to the housing market’s decline.

Nevertheless, as the pandemic persisted, the housing market began to rebound. One of the most notable impacts of COVID-19 on the housing market has been the shift in housing preferences. With many people working remotely and spending more time at home, the housing market saw an increased demand for larger homes and outdoor space. According to Glink and Tamkin, there was an apparent mass relocation from urban centers as people moved from condos and rental units heading into the suburbs to acquire bigger and spacious homes with outdoor facilities by June and July (1). Additionally, with historically low mortgage rates, many buyers became incentivized to enter the market, leading to a surge in demand for homes in suburban and rural areas. In effect, home prices started to rise. Since the pandemic, real estate prices have risen 14.3 percent, with new home listings dropping by 27 percent and homes taking less time to sell (Glink and Tamkin 1). Due to the pandemic, fewer new homes were being put up for sale. In 2021 more people were looking to buy homes than there were, making it harder for people to find homes. As a result, home prices were projected to increase by a further 10 percent (Glink and Tamkin 1). Another effect of the pandemic contributing to fewer home listings in the housing market is the low mortgage rates that allow homeowners to refinance and stay in their homes instead of selling (Glink and Tamkin 1). All of this meant fewer homes were for sale, making it harder for people to find homes to buy.

Overall, the impact of COVID-19 on the housing market has been complex, with both short-term disruptions and long-term changes in housing preferences and transactional behavior. In the early stages of the pandemic, the housing market experienced a significant decline in activity. Buyers and sellers alike hesitated to engage in real estate transactions due to economic uncertainty and lockdown measures. As people continued to work remotely and spend more time at home, the for larger homes and outdoor space increased. Further, as the pandemic persisted, the housing market began to rebound, with many factors contributing to shifts in the market.

The COVID-19 pandemic has also significantly impacted globalization and international trade between countries. The pandemic has caused widespread disruptions in global supply chains, resulting in critical goods and services shortages. Travel restrictions, border closures, and quarantine measures have also impacted the movement of people, goods, and capital across borders. In their article, Nový and Jarý analyze the expected effects of COVID on individual globalization factors affecting the supply and demand sides of selected national economies and economic units. The COVID-19 pandemic affected the institutional preconditions of globalization, meaning governments became more involved in regulating international trade. National governments introduced stricter health and safety standards to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, which became barriers to international trade (Nový and Jarý 7). Additionally, the pandemic led to the closure of national borders, completely paralyzing the internationalization of businesses.

In the globalized economy, national governments often had to work with many interest groups to make decisions, but their actual influence on budgeting was minimal. However, COVID-19 temporarily weakened the power of interest groups, including transnational corporations, due to the closure of national economies, making lobbying or financing election campaigns by transnational corporations ineffective (Nový and Jarý 7). As a result, transnational corporations lost their ability to influence individual governments. Additionally, the COVID-19 mitigation measures imposed in individual countries resulted in the reassessment of cost-effective sectors of the economy. Therefore, governments reevaluated their expenditures on strategic reserves to support domestic production and achieve economic self-sufficiency. For instance, the pandemic highlighted the importance of domestic pharmaceutical and medical device production (Nový and Jarý 7).

The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on international oil prices. The lockdowns and travel restrictions imposed by many countries in response to the pandemic caused a massive drop in global oil demand, leading to a surplus of oil and a sharp decline in prices on a short-term basis. According to Malliet et al., the drop in demand was further exacerbated by the pre-existing imbalances in the global oil markets, including poor coordination between OPEC and non-OPEC producers (873). Additionally, a price war between major oil producers, Saudi Arabia and Russia, further fueled the decline in oil prices. As a result, international oil prices were projected to drop by 50 percent in 2020 (Malliet et al. 873). As businesses shut down and people stayed home during the pandemic, the demand for transportation fuels, such as gasoline and jet fuel, plummeted. This significantly dropped crude oil prices as producers struggled to find buyers for their excess supply.

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted the job sector, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and self-employment. The pandemic led to widespread business closures and reduced economic activity, resulting in job losses and reduced working hours for many individuals. According to Belitski et al., the social distance containment measures mainly affected the job sectors that relied on physical proximity, such as self-employed individuals and small businesses (594). Thus, the pandemic directly influenced self-employed individuals and small businesses more than employed individuals and large businesses in the United States and Europe. Despite this difference, the pandemic increased unemployment rates globally. In the US, there was a three million increase in first-time unemployment beneficiaries in the first week of May 2020, bringing the total number of applications to 33.5 million during the first three months of the lockdown (Belitski et al. 594). Furthermore, the number of active business owners in the US dropped from 15 million to 11.7 million between February and April 2020 (Belitski et al. 594). The situation was similar in the UK, as the pandemic affected employment. According to Belitski et al., the UK saw its unemployment rates reach its highest level since 2017 (594).

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant shift in the nature of jobs, with a large number of Americans now working from home part-time or full-time. The change was driven by lockdowns and social distancing measures implemented to prevent the spread of the virus. However, the fact that 71 percent of Americans want to continue working from home even after the pandemic ends suggests that this shift may be more long-lasting (Glink and Tamkin 2). The pandemic forced companies and individuals to adapt to remote work and digital communication, and many have found that they prefer this new way of working.


The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the global and United States economy, leading to significant changes in the housing market, international trade between countries, international oil prices, and drastic changes in the job sector. Understanding the impact of the pandemic on different sectors of the economy can provide insights into how various industries and businesses have been affected and how they might recover in the future. This information can be useful for policymakers, investors, and businesses as they make decisions about allocating resources and developing strategies to navigate the ongoing economic challenges posed by the pandemic.

Works Cited

Belitski, Maksim, et al. “Economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on entrepreneurship and small businesses.” Small Business Economics 2022: 594–609. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00544-y.

Glink, I., and S. Tamkin. “Challenges and opportunities in the COVID-driven housing market.” The Washington Post (2021). ProQuest, https://login.proxy189.nclive.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/challenges-opportunities-covid-driven-housing/docview/2502075025/se-2?accountid=15152.

Malliet, P., Reynès Frédéric, Gissela, L., Hamdi-Cherif Meriem, & Saussay Aurélien. (2020). Assessing short-term and long-term economic and environmental effects of the COVID-19 crisis in France. Environmental and Resource Economics, 76(4), 867-883. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00488-z.

Nový, Miloš, and Čestmír Jarý. Economic and Social Impacts of COVID 19 on National Economies from the Point of View of Economic Theory. vol. 92, EDP Sciences, 2021. ProQuest, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20219201036.

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Extroverts and Introverts: Coping Mechanisms, Social Anxiety, and Mental Health

People in every region of the world have been significantly impacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has brought about a great deal of change in our day-to-day lives, including adjustments to our jobs, social lives, and general routines. The pandemic has affected people with more outgoing personalities differently than people with more reserved personalities. This paper will discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected extroverts and introverts, including their coping methods, social anxiety, mental illness, and other things. This paper aims to discuss how the pandemic has affected extroverts and introverts.

Extroverts are known to be social butterflies who thrive on social interactions and have a high need for stimulation. They have a high need for stimulation because of their high need for stimulation. Carvalho et al. (2020) say that the pandemic has made things harder for them because it has made it harder for them to interact with other people. Because of lockdowns and rules for social distance, extroverts have had to adjust to a new way of life, leading to several problems. On the other hand, introverts have not been forced to adapt to a new way of life. During the pandemic, being alone is one of the biggest problems extroverts have faced. For extroverts, being unable to participate in social activities has been a source of much stress. (Carvalho et al., 2020) found that many extroverts feel lonely, depressed, and anxious when they do not have enough chances to interact with others. Those who live alone or are separated from their families and friends have had a challenging time with this.

During this pandemic, extroverts have also experienced challenges at work. Workplaces encouraging teamwork and social interaction are great places for many outgoing people to do well. On the other hand, extroverts have needed to adapt to a new way of working because many businesses have been forced to have their employees work from home (Shokrkon & Nicoladis, 2021). This has been very hard for people working alone or in an environment with few chances to talk to others. Many outgoing people have had to learn new skills, like video conferencing tools and instant messaging platforms, to stay in touch with their coworkers virtually. According to Shokrkon and Nicoladis (2021), working from home, on the other hand, has allowed some extroverts to focus more on their work without distractions and interruptions from others. It has also given them more flexibility and control over their work schedule, which may benefit some people. However, the long-term impact of the pandemic on extroverted people and their work is unknown.

On the other hand, studies have shown that introverts do best in peaceful environments where they can be alone. They are more comfortable interacting in intimate or one-on-one settings and frequently feel overwhelmed when in social settings. Compared to extroverts, introverts have specifically suffered from the pandemic (McMaster, 2021).

Introverts have been able to benefit from the pandemic in one way by working from the comfort of their homes. Because of this, they can now work in an atmosphere that is more solitary and quieter, which is something that most introverts prefer (McMaster, 2021). Also, introverts say they feel less pressure to join social activities, which has made many people feel better.

On the other hand, introverts have been confronted with unique difficulties due to the pandemic. Kunkalikar (2022) says that anxiety in social situations has been one of the hardest things to overcome. Many introverts now experience more anxiety in social situations, especially around people they do not know. This is due to the pandemic’s fear and uncertainty. Because of this, it is hard for them to do things they need to do, like buy groceries and make doctor’s appointments (Kunkalikar, 2022).

Extroverts have also significantly declined their mental health due to the pandemic. As a result of the lack of social interactions and stimulation, many extroverts have reported feeling anxious, depressed, and stressed out (McMaster, 2021). Due to the lack of routine and structure in their lives, extroverts have also reported that it is not easy to manage their mental health. On the other hand, people who say they are introverts say they are less stressed and anxious because of the pandemic. However, the fear and uncertainty caused by the pandemic have caused some introverts, particularly those who already struggle with social anxiety, to experience increased levels of anxiety and depression.

On the other hand, people who say they are introverts say they are less stressed and anxious because of the pandemic. However, the pandemic has caused fear and uncertainty, making some introverts, especially those with social anxiety, feel more anxious and depressed (Carvalho et al., 2020). Even though introverts have less stress overall, some say that the increased expectations of virtual communication and remote work make them feel overwhelmed. Since video calls and online meetings are becoming more common, it is hard for introverts to balance their need for alone time with the pressures of maintaining social connections. (Carvalho et al., 2020) Also, introverts may have felt confused and uneasy because their daily routines and ways of life changed. On the other hand, some introverts have said that the pandemic has given them a chance to think about themselves and grow as people. Overall, the pandemic has affected introverts and extroverts in different ways. This shows how important it is to understand personality differences during a crisis.

In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected people of all kinds of personalities, both outgoing and quiet. The problem of social isolation and a lack of social interaction has been a problem for extroverts, while the problem of increased social anxiety has been a problem for introverts. On the other hand, the pandemic has presented opportunities for both groups to acquire new knowledge and develop their skills. While extroverts can pick up new skills like working from home, introverts can connect with others virtually. It is vital to realize that the pandemic will cause different problems for outgoing and shy people. It is just as essential to offer support and resources to help these people deal with these problems.

Also, it is essential to know that the pandemic affects both extroverts and introverts in ways beyond their mental health and into other parts of their lives. Work-life balance, for example, has become a major concern for both groups, with remote work blurring the lines between work and personal life. Also, the pandemic has caused a significant change in how people think about social interactions and relationships, affecting both extroverts and introverts for a long time to come. Policymakers and public health officials must consider people’s different needs and personalities when making policies and programs to lessen the effects of the pandemic on mental health and well-being.


Carvalho, L. de F., Pianowski, G., & Gonçalves, A. P. (2020). Personality differences and COVID-19: are extroversion and conscientiousness personality traits associated with engagement with containment measures? Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy42(2). https://doi.org/10.1590/2237-6089-2020-0029

Shokrkon, A., & Nicoladis, E. (2021). How personality traits of neuroticism and extroversion predict the effects of COVID-19 on the mental health of Canadians. PLOS ONE16(5), e0251097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251097

McMaster, G. (2021, August 31). Pandemic isolation is harder on introverts than extroverts, study suggests. Www.ualberta.ca. https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2021/08/pandemic-isolation-harder-on-introverts-than-extroverts-study-suggests.html

Kunkalikar, B. (2022, May 30). Researchers investigate COVID-19 mortality among introverts and extroverts. News-Medical.net. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20220530/Researchers-investigate-COVID-19-mortality-among-introverts-and-extroverts.aspx

Unemployment After COVID-19

The COVID-19 outbreak created numerous global issues, including health, business, and increased unemployment rates. Multiple political issues significantly facilitate these issues. Therefore, unemployment insurance is the political issue to be discussed in this paper. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, unemployment rates reached an all-time high (Blustein et al., 2020). Outside the essential workers, millions of individuals applied for unemployment insurance to assist with the living costs while on temporary (permanent for some) leave. Thus, the ability to make money while not working forced many people to refuse to work. This caused a labor shortage. There are different views regarding this topic. The nurturing power model typically addresses situations like this with a “handout” approach and most likely views this as a method to combat recession. I feel it was beneficial to a certain extent, which is where the Strict Father Model comes to play. This model stresses the idea of working hard, and if they discuss several individuals with ample jobs available yet refuse to work, they are viewed as lazy. There are multiple ways in which unemployment insurance facilitated increased unemployment rates after the COVID-19 pandemic.

As stated earlier, unemployment insurance is one of the primary political factors contributing to unemployment after the COVID-19 pandemic. This factor means that individuals were provided with financial aid that motivated them not to seek employment opportunities, resulting in a labor shortage. During the pandemic, congress enacted various critical changes in unemployment insurance since many people had lost their jobs to the closure of companies to observe the COVID-19 rules enacted by the government (Lechler & De Vreese, 2019). Unemployment insurance was instrumental in providing various benefits to unemployed individuals and other people who had lost their jobs. This aid was based on financial support to help individuals cater to their daily basic needs. Perhaps, these people were provided with financial support on a weekly basis.

Initially, unemployment insurance was implemented by congress to help individuals during the hard times of the economic recession in the United States. It was instrumental in compensating for the closed business operations due to the economic recession. However, due to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, congress was forced to enact a sequence of extraordinary measures to help the affected individuals. The implemented programs included; Pandemic Unemployment Assistance and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation. According to the report released in 2021, the FPUC provides financial aid to the affected individuals weekly. Perhaps, between April and July 2020, the FPUC gave a weekly supplement of $600 (Congressional Research Service, 2022). However, this supplement was reduced to $300 by January 2021, which went all through to September. On the other hand, PUA provided unemployment insurance to people who could not work due to various issues related to COVID-19 (Congressional Research Service, 2022). This department spent a total of $131.2 billion to provide financial aid to the affected people.

As a result of the implementation of FPUC and PUA by congress, the country’s unemployment rate was witnessed since many people were unmotivated to look for employment opportunities. It is also evident that people received unemployment insurance for free with additional lower thresholds, which made many people unwilling to accept job offers in the market hence increasing the spells of unemployment in the country. In comparing the benefits of unemployment during COVID-19 and the other previous recessions, unemployment insurance during the COVID-19 time drove many people to reject job offers (Congressional Research Service, 2022). This resulted in decreased unemployment rates.

In this case, two metaphors have been applied in the construction of the frames. These metaphors are the nurturing parent model and the strict father model. The nurturing parenting model appeals to the parenting style. A good application of nurturing parent model plays a fundamental role in raising children to acquire positive roles and responsibilities as they prepare to become responsible adults (Béland, 2019). Perhaps, parents want their children to sympathize with others and acquire various skills to help them care for themselves and others. The metaphor of the nurturing model is applied to address the issues related to unemployment after the COVID-19 pandemic. Various measures enacted by congress after the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate the application of nurturing parent model. Perhaps, the government seemed to have applied the nurturing parent model to cater to its people through the implementation of unemployment insurance. Since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, many businesses and companies have been closed, resulting in a loss of employment. Therefore, the government’s actions to enact unemployment insurance through congress meant that the government wanted to care for and raise its people until the closed businesses and companies were reopened.

However, the nurturing parent model did not work perfectly for all people. Since nurturing parent model teaches empathy and responsibility, many people did not demonstrate these values during the COVID-19 pandemic (Vos & van Rijn, 2021). Perhaps, unemployed people depended on unemployment insurance for survival. Many people were unwilling to look for employment opportunities since they received financial support that could cater to their basic needs. Occasionally, people could also reject job offers to continue receiving unemployment insurance. This means that the nurturing parent model did not work effectively since unemployed people did not take responsibility for looking for job opportunities that could sustain their needs after COVID-19. We can also say that the nurturing parent model was essential in influencing the well-being of individuals who could not work due to COVID-19-related issues. Some people could not work because they were mandated to isolate themselves. This means they could not get funds elsewhere to sustain their needs other than relying on unemployment insurance funds.

The metaphor of a strict father has also been used to construct frames. The model of a strict father supports the values of strict discipline enacted by the father in parenting. Fathers use this model to communicate with their children (Brugman et al., 2019). The strict father model supports discipline and morality. The primary teaching from the strict father model is that if children are disciplined, they can enter the world and succeed in everything they do. Conversely, if people are not disciplined, they cannot have the values of morality; hence they deserve to live in poverty. Children learn some moral values through the strict father model through reward and punishment. Perhaps, when they perform their duties well, they are rewarded and encouraged to continue with the same spirit. On the other side, if children perform wrong actions, they are punished to ensure that their behaviors are corrected. The strict father model can be related to people’s behavior after the COVID-19 pandemic. It can be predicted that some people violated the strict father model after COVID-19.

The actions of people to reject employment opportunities demonstrated a lack of discipline, which means that these people violated the strict father model. Perhaps, they would live in poverty if it were not for the unemployment insurance passed by congress (Brugman et al., 2019). As earlier stated, unemployment insurance was high at the beginning and kept on dropping as the cases of COVID-19 kept on decreasing in 2021 and 2022. This means that the financial aid received by unemployed people in 2021 and 2022 could not sustain all their needs. Thus, it justifies the rule of the strict father model, which depicts that if people are not disciplined, they are not moral; hence they live in poverty. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some people could not work because of issues related to COVID-19. However, these people were disciplined since they adhered to the guidelines hence benefitting much from unemployment insurance.

In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic was greatly associated with negative aspects such as unemployment and health issues. Since many businesses and private companies were closed during the pandemic, many people were left unemployed. This forced them to apply for unemployment insurance that was passed by congress to provide financial aid to unemployed people. Many people learned that they made money without working and this drove them towards refusing to work. However, this was a big problem since people never understood that the government would cancel unemployment insurance after enacting measures to control the spread of the disease that would result in resuming of normal activities. Perhaps, the acts of people rejecting job opportunities mean that they will remain jobless in the future.


Béland, D. (2019). How ideas and institutions shape the politics of public policy. Cambridge University Press.

Blustein, D. L., Duffy, R., Ferreira, J. A., Cohen-Scali, V., Cinamon, R. G., & Allan, B. A. (2020). Unemployment in the time of COVID-19: A research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior119, 103436.

Brugman, B. C., Burgers, C., & Vis, B. (2019). Metaphorical framing in political discourse through words vs. concepts: A meta-analysis. Language and Cognition11(1), 41-65.

Congressional Research Service: June 24, 2022, how did covid-19 unemployment insurance … – congress (2022). Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12143 (Accessed: October 29, 2022).

Lecheler, S., & De Vreese, C. H. (2019). News framing effects: Theory and practice (p. 138). Taylor & Francis.

Vos, J., & van Rijn, B. (2021). The evidence-based conceptual model of transactional analysis: a focused review of the research literature. Transactional Analysis Journal51(2), 160-201.

Impact of the Schools Closure on New York City and the Mentally Disabled


In the COVID-19 era, school closures that last for an extended period are a major source of disruption. Children’s and families lives have been turned upside down due to school closings, and educators have had to figure out how to provide distance learning. Health and mental health services, food assistance, obesity prevention and intervention in situations of homelessness and abuse are all critical non-academic supports provided by schools (Gracy et al.12). Schools closing and students losing access to non-academic resources have a toll on students’ physical and mental health, which is the topic of this article. Each year’s COVID-19 epidemic focuses on the importance of schools in serving the non-academic needs of students. Researchers believe that when students return to school, the need for non-academic services and support will be more severe and widespread.


According to theory and data, schools closing or restricting social connections between children and adolescents may harm students in many ways. Students’ access to school services, including food, health care, and menstrual hygiene products, is negatively impacted when schools close. Reduced monitoring for child abuse and neglect may be linked to the loss of schools as another aspect of the safety net that protects children (Reimers and Schleicher 6). Other factors include a decrease in social interaction between children and adolescents and relevant adults, such as teachers; this separates adolescents from social support and diminishes cognitive and social growth possibilities. The loss of familiar and cherished activities and the protective benefits of being connected to school may have direct correlations with mental health and well-being, in addition to the decline in social interactions (Gracy et al. 9). The absence of physical exercise from school sports and active transportation may also give rise to various associations in the student population.

Challenges face both governments and educational institutions when it comes to meeting children’s social and emotional needs and ensuring that those pupils who are most at risk continue to get supplemental services (Belhadjer et al. 432). When schools are closed, numerous nations have made efforts to meet the well-being requirements of a variety of student populations who are particularly vulnerable. With online technologies like Zoom, students may keep in touch with classmates for educational and social purposes (National Association of School Psychologists 1). Social isolation may be particularly harmful to students from broken or abusive homes, in foster care, hungry, or lack a secure home.

Gendered Impacts

Students who do not have the support of their families or communities may have a difficult time obtaining the necessary hormones and emotional or psychological support, which may have a problematic effect on their academic performance. In providing this assistance, it is critical to consider the crisis’s gender component (Reimers and Schleicher 6). For example, when schools are closed, females face more threats than boys. In addition, men and women are more likely to experience gender-based violence and sexual assault as a result of greater home obligations (Belhadjer et al. 4329). All of these things may have differing effects on the well-being of boys and girls.

A healthy social life outside of school may also be challenging for immigrant or refugee kids who have not yet completely assimilated into their new communities (Gracy et al. 9). This is because they lack the opportunities provided by their school lives. In addition, this lack of socialization, or socialization that is mediated by online tools, may result in specific difficulties for students with SEN (National Association of School Psychologists 1). This is particularly the case for students with social and communication issues, such as autism spectrum disorder or learning difficulties.

Mental Impacts

Across the country, children and adults alike are stressed out by various social and family upheavals. These stressors include family member death or illness, social isolation, unsettling news, parental job stress or loss, and parents forced to teach while working from home or delivering important community services. Moreover, even after a pandemic has been handled, students’ physical and mental well-being demands will be even more severe because of the concurrent social, emotional, and financial strains that will continue for some time after the crisis is over.

As a result of the COVID-19 issue, schools can no longer play an important role in helping children establish a pattern of going to school and interacting with their classmates and teachers in a secure setting. This involves making sure that students have easy access to necessities like food and medical care and recognizing any risks to their safety. The lack of access to education experts for children and teenagers and the closure of safe places in the home might raise the risk of neglect, deprivation, abuse, and maladaptive psychosocial effects due to the prolonged absence of schooling. Face-to-face education has declined in importance, and governments in the area, via their Ministry of Education (MoE), are responding to the demands of the region’s youth through the provision of MHPSS to students, their parents or caregivers and instructors.

Minority Communities

School closures due to COVID-19 will have a detrimental effect on diverse categories of pupils. With these additional COVID-19 pressures, low-income Americans, particularly those from minority groups like Blacks, Hispanics or Native Americans, are experiencing much more stress than they currently do. Moreover, many schools in economically challenged communities already had fewer resources to address children’s needs before COVID-19. As a result, students will disproportionately feel the effect of school closures. In addition, blacks and Native Americans are more likely to develop and die from COVID-19 than other Americans, mostly because of the greater frequency of concomitant health disorders such as diabetes, heart disease, and asthma in these populations. People from low-income neighbourhoods and ethnic minorities, for example, may be more affected by COVID-19.

Student’s Dependent on School Mental Programs and Services

Children from low-income families, obese children, and children at risk of abuse and neglect rely on school-based medical and mental health care (Belhadjer et al. 432). Non-academic needs of kids are being met as best they can during this time of school shutdown, although their capacity to do so is restricted. Disruptions in the health care that school-aged children get from school nurses and school health centers are inevitable. It’s the same for children who get mental health treatment in the school setting. When schools are closed, school nurses may support families and remain in touch with pupils with medical issues. Many school nurses work with local hospitals and health boards, testing, contact tracing, and direct treatment. If required, school-based health clinics may coordinate treatment with additional clinicians. They may also utilize telemedicine to perform normal and mental health services, including refilling medicines, arranging psychiatrist visits, and providing psychotherapy sessions (Reimers and Schleicher 12). School psychologists, counselors, and social workers may also employ this technology, although to what extent is uncertain. During COVID-19, professional groups will provide resources and guidance on delivering school-based mental health services, including telehealth.

Family Impacts

The lack of structure at home, lack of activity, and easy access to food during the protracted school closure may put children at higher risk for unhealthy weight gain than during the school year. Children who lack food are more prone to obesity than their peers who have enough (Gracy et al. 10). School districts have created food distribution facilities to help kids’ families. The USDA has given several states permission to provide meals to all children under 18, not just those formerly qualified for free lunches. During school cancellations, school districts may be able to help some hungry children, but not everyone. The demand for food assistance from local pantries has expanded due to enormous job losses caused by school closures.

Closing schools in COVID-19 would inevitably increase family violence and child abuse. During this stressful time, primary caregivers spend time with children. More than ever, school districts encourage parents to act as educators and help teachers deliver lessons. Also, losing control, work uncertainty, job loss, and job stress associated with being vital burdens parents/caregivers (Reimers and Schleicher 8). Due to social distance, teachers, daycare providers, extended family members, and babysitters cannot assist parents. At the same time, mandatory reporters like school personnel cannot identify, monitor, and connect homeless teens to crucial services and assistance. Finally, the pandemic’s economic effects are expected to increase the number of homeless pupils, making it even more vital for schools to aid and accommodate these youngsters. These characteristics will likely increase the number of students needing mental health and social help.

Recommendation and Policies

School closures during COVID-19 have left students with greater barriers to learning than they had before COVID-19. This pandemic focuses on the necessity of schools to support children’s non-academic needs and the need for proper resourcing for these programs in the aftermath of this epidemic and continuingly during normal periods (The World Bank, UNESCO and UNICEF 4). A new window of opportunity has opened up for programmatic and policy improvements to serve better students, particularly low-income ones, who need non-academic services and assistance.

The need for school-based health and mental health experts will rise after COVID-19. Schools must recruit enough staff to meet returning pupils’ physical and mental health needs. In the United States, only a small number of school districts have access to on-site health care services. As previously stated, school nurses are in short supply, and there is a shortage of mental health workers. When students are reintegrated into school, school mental health doctors must first engage with teachers and other school officials to identify those who need support. They must then offer to counsel and collaborate with community-based providers to coordinate the required services (Dalton et al. 345). This means that telemedicine may now be utilized daily to give youngsters physical and mental health help due to the widespread use of smartphones. Using telehealth services to reach children in far-flung regions should be a priority. Broadband Internet access will have to be developed first for telehealth to be widely available.

More resources are needed in times of crisis to promote equality, inclusion, and general well-being for vulnerable kids. If implemented, it can improve the lives of children from low-income families and prevent educational inequities from worsening. Several governments, notably the United States, have developed initiatives to give financial aid to these kids, frequently in collaboration with community groups and using emergency money (Dalton et al. 345). Many children have benefited from these initiatives, whether they could return home to their families safely or were able to receive some of the necessities provided by their school, such as free meals.


The provision of essential non-academic services and support by educational institutions has had a significant role in lowering the number of obstacles faced by students. Because of the protracted school closures brought on by COVID-19, the lives of millions of families have been turned upside down, including the loss of access to this essential aid. As a result of their absence, COVID-19 has highlighted the significance of non-academic services and support for children’s overall health and happiness. As a result of COVID-19, children and their families will return to school with even greater needs than before their time in COVID-19. To meet this impending challenge and provide better care for America’s future generations, state, federal, and local politicians must provide schools with the necessary training and funding.

Work Cited

Belhadjer, Zahra, et al. “Acute heart failure in multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children in the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.” Circulation 142.5 (2020): 429-436.

This article outlines the current health stats of students during the school closure period and what needs to be done to keep students active and mental health.

Dalton, Louise, Elizabeth Rapa, and Alan Stein. “Protecting the psychological health of children through effective communication about COVID-19.” The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health 4.5 (2020): 346-347.

The article indicates the importance of students’ mental health and how school play a major role in protecting it. In addition, it offers information on how the community, teachers, and parents can help students maintain mental and physical health during the school closure.

Gracy, Delaney, et al. “Health barriers to learning: A survey of New York City public school leadership.” Sage Open 4.1 (2014): 2158244013520613.

The articles offer education states before the pandemic that help understand the drastic changes and how to handle the current state of schools and pandemic impacts.

National Association of School Psychologists. “Virtual service delivery in response to COVID-19 disruptions.” NASP Online (2020).

The article is essential in understanding the education shift to the online platform and students’ view of the changes and their impacts.

Reimers, F., and A. Schleicher. “Schooling disrupted, schooling rethought.” How the COVID-19 Pandemic is Changing Education. Retrieved December 14 (2020): 2020.

The article offers the information necessary to understand the school closure, its impacts and recommendation on the way forward.

The World Bank, UNESCO and UNICEF. “The State Of The Global Education Crisis: A Path To Recovery.” (2021). https://www.unicef.org/media/111621/file/%20The%20State%20of%20the%20Global%20Education%20Crisis.pdf%20.pdf

This report from the World Bank, UNESCO and UNICEF outline the state of education during and after the emergency of COVID19. In addition, the report offers detailed information on actions taken by education institutions, their results and government intervention.

Ethics Behind Preparedness, Planning and Response to a Health Pandemic


This analysis affords an overview and distinct approach to healthcare ethics behind preparedness, planning, and response to a health pandemic. Specifically, it gives descriptive research on the latest world pandemic, COVID-19. The analysis considers the kind of activity entailed by health pandemic preparedness. Moreover, it feels the ethical goals that ought to angle an activity of that kind. It contends that pandemic preparedness should be comprehended as a form of “civic practice,” an activity involving private persons’ rights and interests and the common good without discriminating. Thus, it highlights the values and responsibility of society at large. The analysis also comprehensively discusses specific domains of pandemic preparedness and response. That concerns susceptible populations, professional and personal obligations, and public trust.


The national response to the COVID-19 pandemic highly depends on the national preparedness systems. These systems ought to be perfectly understood as an element of the global public health emergency preparedness systems governed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The COVID-19 pandemic raised the question of why countries in standard public health regimes governed by a similar approach had different responses to the pandemic threat. Expert research conducted in three countries, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, with a standard public health regime, indicates the significant differences in planning and preparedness and their impacts on the response to the pandemic. COVID-19 raised many ethical issues for the parties involved. These parties include policymakers, public health specialists, and responders. Thus, this analysis provides relevant information on ethical issues in planning and preparedness to reduce risk before, during, and after a pandemic.

Background Information

Reinforcing pandemic preparedness systems is the primary course of action for moderating the impacts of a pandemic on critical social functions. The COVID-19 pandemic troubled the capacity of the already existing preparedness doctrines and institutions to properly negotiate global health emergencies in many countries (Laage-Thomsen, & Frandsen, 2022). Studies conducted on how different governments have comprehended and acted upon minimizing the effects of the pandemic have highlighted significant differences. As a result, mortality rates and economic repercussions for these countries. Prominently, such policy variances have crystallized regardless of the World Health Organization’s determination to build up and harmonize national pandemic preparedness since the 1990s. The ineffectuality of preceding assessments of pandemic preparedness in forecasting COVID-19 efficacy has by now been documented, for instance, in the 2019 Global Health Security Index (GHSI). The united states were ranked first, and the United Kingdom second regarding their capabilities before the pandemic. However, there has been immense criticism of these ranks due to the initial responses in the US and the UK (Laage-Thomsen, & Frandsen, 2022). Thus, this is a clear illustration of the issues of pandemic preparedness systems coordinated by the WHO.

The initial point of exploring such issues is comparing the preparedness systems configured and governed globally—the International Health Regulations by WHO are active for countries with similar health regimes. Nonetheless, during the first wave of the pandemic, these countries responded differently to the COVID-19 pandemic even though they possess similar health infrastructure and expenditures (Laage-Thomsen, & Frandsen, 2022). The analysis seeks to explore this divergence in response among comparable countries. A study in three countries, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, indicates that differences in the use of face masks, lockdowns, and implementation of response strategies facilitated the difference amidst similar biological threats.

In evaluating the policy process, studies conducted on policy have long recognized expert-based information as the most influential aspect when explaining policy outcomes. Understanding the sources of policy advice in and out of bureaucracies is essential, as different advisors do it over time (Claeson & Hanson, 2021). Thus, policy influence is conceptualized as a function of location in the offered system. The straightforward indication is that the arrangement of policy subsystems, well-defined as the decision-making complexes structured around policy issues, impact the influence and access of several sources of policy advice in imperative ways. The relevance of policy advice is typically salient in the policy subsystem of pandemic preparedness (Baral et al., 2021). Experts lodge influential places within the subsystem, such as in public health agencies and advisory committees, where they take part in framing biological threats and outlining policy measures and procedures to respond to them. This renders them imperative gatekeepers for comprehending variation between the otherwise esoteric and practical national policy subsystems activated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies conducted before the pandemic also indicate that experts’ norms for understanding distinct national responses to health pandemics are essential in influencing pandemic preparedness. In that case, expert advisors endorsed ideas about the pandemic threat established during preparedness planning and from experience that molded policymaking.

Notwithstanding, public health policy in the Nordics traditionally being labeled as what might be called a ‘unitary subsystem,’ with unified authority in public health agencies overriding policy images. Coordinated through the WHO and great intra-coalition belief alignment, responses to the first wave of the pandemic witnessed contradictory expert visions and advice for the most appropriate national response strategy to the COVID-19 pandemic (Laage-Thomsen, & Frandsen, 2022). The presence of contradictory COVID-19 policy advice nurtures the question of the degree to which pandemic response discrepancies between countries belonging to the same public health regime are due to the alterations in the ideas, approaches, and policy preferences of national expert clusters. The question is answered in light of the comparison of the three Nordic countries. Policy divergence is more of a result of politico-administrative factors than preferences among national expert clusters (Laage-Thomsen, & Frandsen, 2022). To best define pandemic preparedness systems, they are established guidelines to respond to infectious disease and mitigate its effects on the vital functioning of society. Thus, they cannot mainly stop a pandemic or catastrophic events from happening, which entails being ready to mitigate the consequences. So, it requires identifying vulnerabilities by the activity of imagined cases and developing plans to handle the potential emergency beforehand through investment in capacities and equipment.

Areas of Ethical Concern

The initial area of concern is equitable access to healthcare during a pandemic. A key issue is how COVID-19 vaccines and hospital beds must be allotted for COVID patients. Moreover, the question is how healthcare resources should be allocated between the needs of the.COVID-19 effort and other health needs. A connected, more precise question is whether it is suitable to alter the criteria for approval of vaccines or drugs for a pandemic because of the insistent public need. The subsequent area of concern is the ethics of public health actions taken in response to a pandemic, including the scrutiny of animal and human pathogens occurrences and the distribution of outbreak information (Baral et al., 2021). For COVID-19, measures for preventing transmission through partings, such as quarantine, isolation, social distancing, and regulation of international travel and borders, are partially in response to the new WHO International Health Regulations.

The next area of ethical concern is the obligations of healthcare workers during a pandemic and the responsibilities of society to them in return. As Dr. Heymann highlighted, a prominent piece of many of the outbreaks he studied was the risk and mortality among the healthcare professionals working during attacks, counting those who were giving treatment and those who were merely monitoring the outbreak (Baekkeskov & Rubin 2014). One can take up that if healthcare personnel is at greater-than-ordinary threat of getting infected due to the nature of their jobs. Then their natural capacity to reduce exposure would contradict their professional responsibilities to discrete patients and society at large. Their recognition of this threat in performing their duties would bring them mutual obligations on the part of society.

Considering the duties of healthcare professionals are possibly most abundantly articulated by physicians but unquestionably recognized by other professionals as well. It is important to note that those responsibilities originate from their distinctive training and position as licensed, independent professionals. On the other hand, they mirror the point that they have a set of skills that are principally needed in the settings. As several ethical issues concerning the role of healthcare workers are unclear, the social-contract prototype could be valuable in determining whether to give these groups special status when allocating prophylaxis and treatment for the COVID-19 pandemic (El Bcheraoui et al., 2020). The reasonableness of concluding that they ought not to get distinctive treatment on the circumstances when these threats essentially arise is reinforced. Precisely because the threats are explicit in their training, they are responsible for taking care of individual patients and society in such circumstances.

The last area of ethical concern cores on responsibilities amid countries and the responsibilities of intergovernmental organizations. That is, different ways that governments should steadily exercise their duties to their populaces as well as the duties to other countries and populaces. Additionally, identifying their role to international organizations, in this case, WHO, in lecturing the cross-border threats and obligations (Baekkeskov & Rubin 2014). The first question raised is closely related to that of vaccine allocation approaches. What are the determinants for the strategies taken up by decision-makers on time to release a particular portion of the medicine, both preventive and curative? Is it appropriate for a state to release scarce supplies to another state when the other state faces the threats of a pandemic other than keeping for its population just in case they face similar threats in the future? When the response is affirmative, the question of at what point the release should be made arises. Suppose the first state holds back, and the epidemic is contained. In that case, the decision-makers will appear as not having responded as required by humanitarian guidelines and maybe human rights responsibilities. They could be held responsible for the death of people who could have been avoided otherwise.

On the other hand, if the decision-makers decide to offer the supplies and the pandemic strikes their country hard, they will face legitimate questions on whether the needs of the second country come before their country arrives in full force in their own country. On the same note, it would be a proactive approach to mitigating spread by offering scarce supplies to a low-resource country. This is an indication of how intricate the issue of policymaking during a pandemic is.

Recognizing Relevant Ethical Principles

Deliberations on these four ethical issues by the WHO and its consultants have fashioned settlement on some elementary principles to motivate planning responses to a pandemic. The first ethical principle is the principle of utility (Baekkeskov & Rubin 2014). The principle highlights taking on the actions that bring forth the greatest good. The principle faces standard criticism on whether the greatest good is fairly distributed or the greater good is to a small group of people. The other principle is the principle of efficiency. This principle calls for minimizing the resources required to yield a particular result or exploiting the outcome generated from a specific set of resources. Following is the principle of fairness, which is typically articulated in a formal way as treating similar cases alike. To expound this principle prevents healthcare workers from acting in unfair discrimination on the grounds of irrelevant characteristics of an individual or group. Thus, it protects the patients and society from this discrimination. The last principle is the principle of liberty. This principle dictates that one is expected to enact a minimum burden on personal self-determination essential to attain a genuine goal.

Simply put, one is not obligated to trade all their freedom for security. These principles appear to be commonsensical and precise. However, guidelines are imperative when the public is involved in a particular process. The policies should be readily accessible, align with people’s sense of how they lead their lives, and offer them a chance to participate. Conclusively, the principles give the general expectations from the public on how the government should respond to arising issues, in this case, a pandemic. These principles must apply to the professionals and government public health strategies.

Ethical Issues in Access to Healthcare Services

In examining the four areas of ethical concern, we look to see how the issues arise and, in turn, how the four principles apply. Commencing with the issue of access to healthcare services, the primary problem is a fair distribution of healthcare resources. The relevant point of consideration is what it means to have an equitable distribution. There are two approaches to justice, in this case, procedural justice. This entails the characteristics of a fair process. In situations where there is difficulty in achieving a comprehensive social agreement, the process will be termed as appropriate if the results are justified and it treats people’s interests. In practicality, the decision results are likely to be more acceptable even if it was not popular. The second aspect of justice is the basis of comparison, whether overall maximization of well-being or economic and social costs. This concept is further discussed below to indicate how the principles played out during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ethical and Legal Issues in Public Health Interventions

The ethical concern encompasses public health interventions, such as the quarantine of exposed individuals, isolation of infected individuals, social distancing among the general population, border control, personal hygiene, et cetera. One ethical query that has to be probed is whether we genuinely discern how to quantify the advantages of any of these interventions. This is a principally significant issue if one is in the quest of balancing the confines of personal liberty versus the worth of accomplishing a valid public goal that could not be achieved in any less intrusive approach. If there is no model to measure these benefits, it would be imposing on the public’s self–determination. That makes it clear that the decision-making process is critical at this point. The bottom line is that decision-makers should choose the least intrusive alternative whenever some public health intervention.

Obligations of and to Health-Care Workers

Healthcare workers possess unique skills that create certain obligations to provide needed care. They carry specific ethical responsibilities towards patients and society, and a pandemic is no different as recognized by oaths and professional codes. The question is whether the obligations have a limit. There are two approaches to this question. First, is it their choice to take on the added risk of exposure to the pandemic, or are the healthcare workers obligated to act since their code of conduct dictates so? Thus, planners need to highlight early on the professional ethics implications and the actions expected during a pandemic as a way of preparedness.

Ethical Aspects of International and Intergovernmental Obligations

These two issues are undoubtedly interrelated because national governments will give the principal international response. Since the effects of a pandemic will be global, international action will be necessary. International disease scrutiny is being organized under the new International Health Regulations that expect several standards, including ethical standards, by providing a structure for an internationally coordinated response. Regardless of an international agreement, difficulties still arise from the contracts. The arrangements are mainly commitments of laudable goals to offer specific steps that are supposed to be taken while focusing on the long-term development of a rapid response to a pandemic. A significant concern is the human rights obligation to maintain focus on the most vulnerable. However, in the case of COVID-19, vulnerability is determined by both biological and political issues. Say, a citizen from a country with a disorganized response to a pandemic is more vulnerable than one country with a well-organized response to a pandemic. Under human rights conventions, countries with a well-organized response system are obliged to those at risk simply on moral grounds. In sum, a society’s ability to respond appropriately depends on the awareness of the problem and the threats it poses. Moreover, possessing the knowledge, expertise, and technology to control the emergency and having the financial and administrative capacity to do so.

Recommendations and Conclusion

Having deliberated on some ethical theories and the diverse models of pandemic preparedness they may result in, it is essential to highlight some forthright, practical recommendations that ethicists would agree with. One of the fundamentals of an ethically accountable and fitting response is advanced planning which encompasses communication. Communication entails openly conceding the inescapable reality of the scarceness of life-preserving resources, giving rise to the necessity of collective action and personal responsibility.

Practically, the chances of implementing a successful pandemic response plan are influenced by the general population aware of and involved in the crisis. This is undoubtedly true for the COVID-19 pandemic because mitigation of spread and consequences depended on the cooperation of the general public with its requirements. Thus, planners need to engage in realistic planning efforts encompassing emergency simulation. In sum, ethical dilemmas result from choices between one good and another. Dissimilar to human-rights situations, they do not violate one person in favor of another. That’s what makes ethics behind preparedness and response a complex issue in healthcare. Therefore, it is essential for ethical and practical reasons that decision-making involves public opinion. And results might be different with communities. What matters is that decisions can be ethically justifiable. Pandemic preparedness is not only about protecting a populace but also strengthening civic society and sustaining it. Successful pandemic planning proves a preexisting civic responsibility, awareness of justice, and concern for others. Most importantly, emergency preparedness and response meet the ethical obligations of healthcare and are more likely to have effectual practicality.


Baekkeskov, E., & Rubin, O. (2014). Why pandemic response is unique: powerful experts and hands-off political leaders. Disaster Prevention and Management.

Bal, R., de Graaff, B., van de Bovenkamp, H., & Wallenburg, I. (2020). Practicing Corona–Towards a research agenda of health policies. Health Policy124(7), 671-673.

Baral, S., Chandler, R., Prieto, R. G., Gupta, S., Mishra, S., & Kulldorff, M. (2021). Leveraging epidemiological principles to evaluate Sweden’s COVID-19 response. Annals of epidemiology54, 21-26.

Claeson, M., & Hanson, S. (2021). COVID-19 and the Swedish enigma. The Lancet397(10271), 259-261.

El Bcheraoui, C., Weishaar, H., Pozo-Martin, F., & Hanefeld, J. (2020). Assessing COVID-19 through the lens of health systems’ preparedness: time for a change. Globalization and Health16(1), 1-5.

Laage-Thomsen, J., & Frandsen, S. L. (2022). Pandemic preparedness systems and diverging COVID-19 responses within similar public health regimes: a comparative study of expert perceptions of pandemic response in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Globalization and health18(1), 1-18.

Mental Health and Illness During COVID-19 Pandemic Among Teens in the United States


We live in trying times, and mental health is not only essential but critical, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Only one component of mental health is the presence or absence of a mental condition. It’s a crossroads of emotional, psychological, and physical well-being. This year has seen a number of people dealing with serious mental health challenges. In addition to the disease’s clinical impacts, COVID-19 has led in enhanced feelings of despair, isolation, sadness, worry, and depression. It has also led to increased emotions of helplessness, loneliness, grief, anxiety, and depression, as well as alienation from family and friends, quarantine, and movement limitations. As a result, more people are suffering feelings of helplessness, isolation, sadness, anxiety, and depression. As a result, the demand for health-related services has increased dramatically. To address these issues and expand the capacity and availability of help, governments, local communities, and civic organizations must increase resources dedicated to reducing psychological suffering now and after the epidemic has passed.

Mental illness, often known as psychological disorders, is a broad term that encompasses a variety of mental health issues that impact mood, thought, and behavior. Depression, anxiety disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders, and addictive behaviors are just a few examples. Mental health is a concern from time to time as many people have it but do not realize it. When recurrent signs and symptoms create regular stress and impair your ability to function, a mental health condition becomes a mental disease.

Mental health is the foundation for emotions, thinking, communication, learning, resilience, and self-esteem. Good mental health is required for relationships, personal and emotional well-being, and making an impact in society. Mental health has always been a significant concern as it affects everyone irrespective of their gender or age. Many people are not fully informed of the implications of mental illness, and many don’t even realize they have it. This illness is quite dangerous, as many know it has taken a toll on them when it is too late.

A pandemic is more than just a medical catastrophe; it has far-reaching consequences for people and society, resulting in turmoil, anxiety, stress, stigma, and xenophobia. The dynamics of a pandemic, including the severity, flow, and aftereffects, are heavily influenced by individual behavior as an organizational unit or a community. Anxiety, distress, social isolation, and an abusive environment can all have a short or long-term impact on a child’s mental health.

Article reviews:

The pandemic has affected the everyday livelihood of people, both socially and emotionally. Most businesses were shut down, and many people were either forced to work from home or stay at home with nothing to do. People were affected differently: others succumbed to depression and loneliness while others saw business opportunities majorly online. The pandemic mainly dealt a big blow to the economy, leaving many with nothing to live off as there were no jobs to earn enough to put money on the table. Schools were closed for a very long-time, leaving children, mainly teens, with nothing to expose them to all kinds of environments that may affect them negatively or positively. Most of them had to stay home with nothing to do due to the pandemic restrictions placed by the government. Living as a teenager is already challenging without including a deadly global pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 on their health is irrefutable.

Despite the COVID-19 crisis being one of the factors of psychological illness, the crisis had very much predated the pandemic. Although recent data show a rise in these numbers during the pandemic, the numbers have increased over the last decade, even before the pandemic. Anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts, which are all effects of mental health, have been in existence before the pandemic. The number of patients who have mental illness increased during the pandemic. The pandemic just uncovered what was underneath and shed light on the issues that are a challenge to the children (Adrianna, 2022). Many people blame the COVID-19 pandemic since it is the only reasonable conclusion at the time, which is a form of anchoring bias since they are basing their judgements on the information ready at hand without collecting enough data on the matter.

Data from 2009 to 2019 shows that the number of high-schoolers who seriously considered committing suicide has increased by an average of one percent every two years. Roughly the exact percentage is seen between the years 2019 and 2021; 1.1 percentage. The reports on suicide attempts are similar, clearly showing that people were still struggling with mental illness before the pandemic. The numbers have increased since 2009, but also it has increased in recent years. The use of past data to justify the current events in mental illness is a form of hindsight bias. Despite data collected during the pandemic, data collected in the past years is relied on to justify the recent insights into mental illness. Though some researches and surveys exhibit confirmation bias, there is no denying that the pandemic has increased this numbers in recent years, almost making the condition another pandemic.

Through interviews with students at Lincoln High School by the U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy, young Americans acknowledged severe mental health challenges before the pandemic. Most of the students associated mental illness with a lack of proper attention and care regarding the well-being of one’s mental health. Murthy called for action stressing young mental health. It would be successful in addressing young mental health. Issues of bullying and racism add to the problems that increase the risk of mental illness in high schools. In an interview, Dr Ariana Hoet, clinical director of “On Our Sleeves,” quoted, “racism in adolescents can hurt their self-identity and their feelings about themselves (Gary, 2022). When children experience a lot of racism at school, they experience rejection of their home culture and race, and they end up wishing they were not a part of that family or home because of the insults they receive.

In a recent newspaper article in The New York Times Magazine, C.D.C. reported a high number of girls having mental illness compared to boys. Girls tend to socialize differently than boys, thus explaining the difference in numbers between them. Many of them are affected by social media presence, especially during the pandemic, due to most of them staying indoors and having only their phone to keep them company. It will be easy to blame the pandemic for the recent mental health crisis. Still, before COVID-19, between 2013 and 2019, A.D.H.D. and anxiety were the most common mental disorders among children between 3 to 17 years old, with each condition affecting one in eleven children, according to C.D.C. More than one child in five 12 to 17 years old has experienced a major depressive episode. Yet, in 2019, there were children, fewer than 15 percent, between the ages of 5 and 17 who received some kind of mental-health treatment (Tingley, 2022).

COVD-19 has some harmful consequences, even if the pandemic’s effects are ignored. However, when it comes to resolving the problem, it’s critical to identify the underlying causes. It has had an unmistakable impact on the kids’ well-being. According to research issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2021, more than a third of high school students stated that their mental health suffered during the COVID-19 epidemic, with 44 percent reporting being chronically depressed or hopeless during the previous year. According to data acquired by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention from the Adolescent Behaviors and Experiences Survey, more than half of high school students report instances of psychological abuse by a parent or other adult at home, such as being put down or insulted. Physical abuse was claimed by 11% of participants. Almost 30 percent reported that a parent or guardian lost a job and they are at home. This has led to financial stressors caused by the pandemic, making emotions flare up the place to the people living in the house.

The pandemic led to schools’ closure, which left a lot of children out of their everyday lives. Students who felt linked to peers and teachers at school were far less likely to feel depressed or hopeless, making them more vulnerable to mental illness. School programs often have provided the connections that some students need in addressing mental health, and lack that, some may lack the proper care they need and pave the way for the depression epidemic, which is now overwhelming the school kids. School attachment is always a key to talking about youth hardships, especially in difficult periods such as the pandemic. As it turns out, staying connected to your friends and teachers is usually life and death.

The recent data also raises concern about a feared rise in suicides. Although the numbers have been rising in the past decade, 20 out of a hundred of high school teens said they extremely considered committing suicide in the prior 12 months. 14 percent felt connected to such thoughts. Six percent of those who felt connected made attempts when it comes to attempts. The kids were twice as likely to attempt suicide if they felt disconnected. Financial pressures, school closures, social isolation and family loss and illness due to the pandemic have led many children to depression, and cases of mental illness have been on the rise.

The pandemic has also led to the closure of some health facilities which help in monitoring the children’s mental health. This has dramatically affected the children’s mental health as many can’t get help as soon as they need it. There is also a lack of proper institutions to offer surveillance and monitor students’ mental health, thus not being able to prevent the inevitable. When children fail to get their mental health checked when an episode comes about, it will only endanger the child’s life more. Children have to be checked once in a while to ascertain their mental health. Health should be a priority in one’s life, especially if it involves a child.

Various newspapers, such as the New York Post, blamed recent mental illness cases on the C.D.C. They report that the C.D.C primarily created the stressors caused by the pandemic. Remember that the agency was the sanctioning authority for a series of public-health policies that were completely ineffective. School closures may likely be the ones with the most severe and long-term implications of all. The measures brought about mixed reactions and separation from friends and love through lockdowns and school closure. Many of the officials have made no acknowledgement of the manifold of errors the C.D.C. and other bodies made.

Despite the many negative impacts, COVID-19 has, it has some positive effects. In an article about Dr Murthy in the Washington Post, one boy in an interview saw the lockdown as a positive because he had more freedom at home than in school. Students in school who were either abused or bullied by their classmates got relief when the schools were closed. Many were able to have peace of mind and retain their mental health to a stable and sound state. So, in a way, the pandemic reduced mental illness but from another perspective. Also, it has brought many families together as parents got to spend more time with their children and monitor their mental health to the maximum (Talal, 2022).

Parents have to be more vocal with their children, especially with matters concerning mental health. They should engage their children in asking about how they feel and ask about suicide in order to remove any chance of them having the idea planted in their heads. Opening a dialogue with children about their feelings and listening without judgment are critical.

Nationally, a recent survey in Annals of Family Medicine found out that 85 percent of primary care practices are having difficulty accessing evidence-based mental health care for children. Some children are waiting six months to a year for help, which is very alarming. Also, they lack adequate mental health care because of its cost.

Article Biases:

In this study, I have found interesting facts and issues concerning mental illness in teens before and during the pandemic. From the above articles, data on mental illness has been collected from the past to the present time, during the pandemic. Mental illness cases had been there before the pandemic began. The pandemic has shed more light on matters concerning mental illness, which has taken a toll on children. Without guidance, many children have succumbed to mental illness by having depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts. Quite a number have tried committing suicide, which should never be the case in the first place. From the articles, we can see different forms of bias exhibited by the writers, basing their arguments based on their findings and understanding of the matter. All articles use a standard organization, C.D.C., to obtain the data on mental illness in the country among teens who show similarities between them.

The articles confirm the presence of a mental health state that needs to be addressed, for it is taking a toll on children. Children are often left out on matters concerning mental health as adults are the first to be paid attention. The child is left at the mercy of school institutions which often lack proper channels to address this issue. Children often go through a lot, and many lack appropriate channels for talking about their feelings. Many end up keeping to themselves what they go through later, leading them to a mental breakdown. Parents should frequently check up on their children to avoid scenarios where their child is in a critical mental state. Mental health affects all parts of fitness as many confessed to not eating food due to sadness. Teens are often left on their own to figure out their feelings which is not a commendable thing to do. Formal institutions and facilities should be put in place to accommodate the rising number of mental illnesses.

Out of the twelve types of biases, biases such as hindsight bias, anchoring bias, availability bias and confirmation bias are exhibited in the articles. In some of the articles, the writers show confirmation bias as they judge the current state of mental illness on the past data, which they were there all along in the end was inevitable. In this type of bias, they sought information to confirm that mental illness was there all along and not brought about by the pandemic, which is true. We have seen data predating the pandemic showing existing mental illness cases and the cases increasing each year before the pandemic.

COVID-19 is not the initiating factor or cause of mental illness. It is one of the many factors that has brought the discussion of mental illness in teens. The pandemic confirmed the information at hand, but many quickly point to the pandemic as the primary cause. It has been put in the spotlight by the pandemic since parents have spent more time with their children and gotten to understand what they are going through. Though this type of bias involves ignoring recent data from disapproving of their knowledge, many writers widely see it.

Another type of bias seen in these articles is hindsight bias, as the writer tends to predict events more after they happen. They used the mental health cases data and started to perceive the outcomes after the events had come to pass, which was the pandemic. The writers tend to have the knew-it-all-along notion as they communicate to their readers. This can lead to overconfidence in their ability to predict future outcomes. A writer needs to be open to all information and views from their readers to come to a final and reasonable judgement.

Anchoring bias is another form of bias that writers mainly see. Writers tend to rely too heavily on the first piece of information they receive. They base all their subsequent judgements or opinions on this fact. From these articles, writers are seen basing conclusions and arguments on the recent data collected during the pandemic, discarding the fact that mental illness vases existed before the pandemic began. Relying too much on current information may hinder coming up with better solutions in solving the problem at hand. Mental illness was just illuminated by the pandemic, bearing in mind cases were there before, but no serious discussions took place to prevent more casualties. Many had blamed COVID-19, and most would say it was a problem before the pandemic happened.

The pandemic has brought many views to attention as the cause of mental illness in the United States. Many view the C.D.C. as the cause of the rise in mental illness due to its mandatory restrictions and regulations. C.D.C. should have chosen a proper but safe alternative to their rules to ease the already burden on cases on mental health. Certain regulations such as lockdowns and movement restrictions have been the leading cause of the surge in mental health patients.

Other articles view the pandemic itself as a cause as it is labelled to be at the centre of the recent economic crisis and unemployment. The pandemic disrupted all which was expected and left behind a crisis that no one knows when we will recover from. A significant number of people blame the pandemic on everything wrong happening today as its impact. The pandemic has changed the lives of many people in many ways. In specific sectors, the number of employees has increased, while in others, employees have been reduced to minimize losses gained during the pandemic. The views of the writers and the students interviewed are valid since they based their argument on the data collected by C.D.C. and other trusted institutions and the experiences of those that have gone through the experience of having a mental health crisis.

Mental health should act to avoid losing children to this disorder. What will it require for our communities and schools to prepare our youth for the COVID-19 epidemic and beyond? As the pandemic continues to disrupt teenagers’ lives, health professionals feel that schools, families, and neighborhoods must work together to offer them educational, social, mental, and physical health services. It’s crucial to engage youngsters in a conversation about their feelings and listen to them without passing judgment.

Efforts to standardize the measuring of mental health care quality are making painfully slow progress around the world. Measuring and reporting the quality of care on a regular basis enables for quality assurance at the provider, clinic, and health system levels, as well as accountability measures like public reporting and monetary penalties and rewards. However, evaluating the quality of mental health care around the world is difficult because it depends on how services are organized. Ways of tackling mental illness have been implemented to cool down the situation. Volunteering has been shown to be an effective method of assisting others. Volunteer work not only draws people together and assists those in need, but it also gives participants a sense of purpose, which can help them feel better and think more positively. Due to the pandemic, many people around the world have used technology, volunteerism, and relying on one another to combat isolation and improve mental health.

Staff, training, facilities, and policies in health care that facilitate measurement-based care are crucial to achieving high-quality treatment. While appropriate structure measures offer the framework for assessing on processes and outcomes as well as undertaking improvement activities, they do not provide sufficient detail to evaluate whether quality services are given as intended (fidelity) or with acceptable results. Many health care centres still have a difficult time providing mental care to their patients as some don’t have access due to some located far away and medical prices being way too high. The establishment of institutions tasked with talking about mental-related issues in the U.S. has not fully materialized. Monitoring mental health in kids should be the priority since it is at the stage where children mould their life. Therefore, proper channels of mental health management should be put in place, especially in schools where children mostly spend their years.

The U.S. government has put measures to improve kids’ mental health, increasing mental health care funding and creating more community centres and inpatient facilities. Broadening our potentials for early psychosocial programs for children by building on creative and community-based child mental health services is essential in preventing future burdens on mental health systems, rather than continuing the worrying trend of the ever-increasing use of psychiatric medication on children.

In this study, states have neglected children in matters of mental health care. As a result, they should pay special attention to children’s and teenagers’ mental health, not least due to the general great burden that the COVID-19 crisis has placed on them. They have been stripped of their normal routines more than any other group, subjecting them to seclusion and an increase in violence and abuse. We must recall that childhood and adolescence are key times in one’s life for mental wellness. Mental illness that strikes during a person’s early years, such as a result of hardship or trauma, has an impact on brain development as well as the ability to form healthy relationships and learn life skills. As a consequence, children and adolescents need non-bureaucratic, minimally invasive access to mental health care as soon as possible, with no stigma attached.


According to evidence, it would be impractical to consider mental health promotion and prevention to be only the job of mental health professionals. Integrated and multidisciplinary services are required to expand the variety of viable interventions, reduce the likelihood of a bad long-term outcome, and save money in the healthcare system. On the other hand, mental health experts have the scientific, ethical, and moral obligation of directing all social, political, and other healthcare bodies involved in the process of satisfying mental health needs in children and adolescents.

The future is seen to be in jeopardy, and great care should be offered to them since they are the leaders of tomorrow. Apart from studies, mental health check-up should be important to the kids since it assures the parent of a normal and healthy outcome for the child in terms of growing up and how they mature. Before the pandemic, mental health had always been an issue, but due to the lack of proper measures and reforms, none of the targeted mental health measures has significantly changed. Mental illness cases are still on the rise, and if not dealt with, they may escalate into an epidemic in the new future, which will significantly disrupt the future of teenagers. Children should also be offered a space to open up about their feelings without any discrimination and actions taken to help them through this tough time.

The continuity of youth mental health requirements from their early years appears to go past what is within the capabilities and duties of mental health practitioners, putting the epistemic status of psychiatry in jeopardy. One of the privileges of the mental health care industry is the provision of suitable therapies from the early stages of illness to long-term illnesses. However, it is becoming progressively clear how important it is to give consistent early intervention at all phases, including preclinical, in order to avoid sporadic support and the reversal of initial benefits. Therefore, the only way to counter mental health will be before the matter escalates to an illness. This will require the government to come up with measures to prevent this illness in kids from an early stage to avoid an increase and deaths related to mental illness due to suicide in the coming years.


Ansari, Talal. “Teens’ Mental Health Suffered During Covid-19 Pandemic, CDC Study Finds.” Wall Street Journal (2022).

Blake, Aaron. “Kids’ mental health is getting worse. But that predated the pandemic.” The Washington Post (2022).

MasterClass. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-identify-cognitive-bias#what-is-cognitive-bias. Sunday, November 2020.

Rodriguez, Adrianna. “‘A cry for help’: More than a third of high schoolers report poor mental health during COVID, CDC study finds.” USA Today (2022).

Tingley, Kim. “There’s a Mental-Health Crisis Among American Children. Why?” The New York Times Magazine (2022).

Warth, Gary. “Surgeon general discusses mental health with Southern California high school students.” Los Angeles Times (2022).