Confused guidance from public officials, unheeded warnings, delayed decision-making, and political infighting severely hampered New York’s initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a detailed investigation by The New York Times (NYT). The state, which became the epicenter of the outbreak in the United States, struggled to contain the virus early on, and experts now suggest that implementing social distancing measures earlier could have dramatically reduced the death toll by as much as 50% to 80%.
Within just a month of the first detected case of coronavirus in New York City, the outbreak had spiraled out of control. More than 140,000 people were infected, and over 5,500 lives had been lost by early April. The virus spread rapidly, overwhelming the healthcare system and leaving officials scrambling to contain the damage. Now, a closer look at those crucial early weeks reveals that both New York State and City authorities failed to keep pace with the escalating crisis.
Missed opportunities
Health experts believe that widespread social-distancing measures, such as closing schools, stores, and restaurants, could have made a significant difference if implemented earlier. By March 1, the first confirmed case—a 39-year-old woman who had recently returned from Iran—was reported in New York City. However, for days after, officials maintained that the virus could be contained, offering reassurances about the strength of the city’s healthcare system.
Both New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio projected confidence in the city’s preparedness, assuring residents that the state’s hospitals were among the best in the world and that plans were in place to handle any surge. After all, New York had faced previous health crises, such as Ebola and Zika, as well as the September 11 terrorist attacks. But, as the NYT report revealed, behind the scenes, New York’s response was marked by confusion and delays.
Initial efforts were hampered by conflicting guidance from state and city officials, as well as delayed decision-making on essential social-distancing measures. Many officials appeared to believe that the virus had not fully arrived in New York until the first confirmed case, when in reality, it had likely been spreading undetected for weeks.
The impact of delayed social measures
Despite growing concern from health experts and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), New York was slow to adopt aggressive social measures. While cities like San Francisco and states like Ohio closed schools and implemented stay-at-home orders by mid-March, New York City did not follow suit until several days later, even as cases were climbing rapidly.
San Francisco, for example, closed schools on March 12 when the city had only 18 confirmed cases, while Ohio did the same with just five cases. In contrast, New York waited until March 15 to close schools, by which time the city had 329 confirmed cases. Similarly, California implemented a statewide stay-at-home order on March 19, whereas New York’s statewide order didn’t go into effect until March 22.
Thomas Frieden, former head of the CDC and former commissioner of the New York City Health Department, stated that the virus had likely been spreading widely in New York City long before the first confirmed case. “You have to move really fast—hours and days, not weeks. Once it gets a head of steam, there is no way to stop it,” Frieden told the NYT. He emphasized that if the state and city had acted a week or two earlier, thousands of lives might have been saved.
Political infighting and federal shortcomings
Political disagreements between state and local leaders, particularly between Cuomo and de Blasio, also played a role in the delayed response. While de Blasio initially reassured the public that the city could contain the virus, Cuomo asserted that New York had been “ahead of this from Day 1.” This lack of coordinated messaging sowed confusion among residents and delayed the necessary drastic measures.
More Read
Moreover, the federal government’s chaotic and slow response compounded the state’s difficulties. President Donald Trump initially downplayed the severity of the virus and clashed with his own medical experts, delaying the full mobilization of federal resources. New York officials were left to make critical decisions without adequate federal assistance, particularly when it came to expanding coronavirus testing, which would have helped officials better understand the scope of the outbreak.
Former New York City deputy health commissioner Isaac B. Weisfuse noted that New York was late in implementing vital public health measures. “New York City as a whole was late in social measures,” Weisfuse said. “Any after-action review of the pandemic in New York City will focus on that issue.”
Inadequate preparations
Despite early reassurances from hospitals and healthcare leaders, few organizations made significant preparations before the pandemic hit. Many hospitals had not greatly increased their stocks of ventilators or personal protective equipment, relying instead on government stockpiles. When the virus began spreading at an unprecedented rate, these resources quickly proved insufficient.
Ultimately, New York City and its surrounding areas became the epicenter of the pandemic in the U.S., with more cases than many countries. As the NYT investigation highlights, delayed decisions, political infighting, and inadequate preparations turned what might have been a manageable crisis into a full-blown catastrophe.
