ALL INPredictions
Last updated Nov 29, 2025
Episodes / E38: Bestie brawl, Robinhood's $70M fine & S-1, Delta variant, future of the political parties, FTC takes losses against big tech & more
Back
Sacks @ 00:41:47Ambiguous
healthgovernment
In the upcoming 2021–2022 school year, many U.S. public schools (especially in places like California) will not offer full five-day-a-week in-person instruction under normal conditions. Instead, they will either fall short of full-time in-person learning or will impose stringent measures such as mandatory masking for children, strict social distancing, and segregating unvaccinated children (e.g., making them sit at separate tables).
So I think you could be in a situation where we do not have they will call it school reopening, but we will not have five day a week in-person learning. And the schools, the public schools that have it are going to have all sorts of insane restrictions and conditions, like making kids who really aren't at risk for Covid, even even the Delta variant. They're going to force them to wear masks. They're going to enforce this ridiculous social distancing. They're talking about making the kids who aren't vaccinated sit at a separate table like the outcasts.View on YouTube
Explanation

Key parts of the prediction diverged:

  1. Five-day in-person instruction:

    • National data from the U.S. Department of Education’s NCES show that by fall 2021, almost all public schools were offering full-time in‑person instruction and about 99% of 4th- and 8th‑grade public school students were attending school full-time in person. (nces.ed.gov)
    • California’s own data in June 2021 reported that 99% of school districts planned to fully reopen for in-person instruction in fall 2021, and large districts like LAUSD and SFUSD explicitly announced five‑days‑a‑week, full‑day in‑person schedules for 2021–22. (gov.ca.gov)
    • So the literal claim that “we will not have five day a week in‑person learning” in many public schools, especially in California, did not come true.

  2. Stringent mitigation measures (especially in California):

    • California’s K‑12 guidance for 2021–22 explicitly framed its goal as safe and full in-person instruction but required universal indoor masking for students and staff as a condition of that reopening, with enforcement protocols and quarantine/testing rules layered on top. (cdph.ca.gov)
    • CDC guidance at the same time recommended universal indoor masking for all K‑12 students and staff nationwide, regardless of vaccination status, to enable in‑person learning. (cdc.gov)
    • Many districts (e.g., SFUSD) reopened full‑time but with mandatory indoor masking, self‑screening, ventilation upgrades, and other COVID protocols—i.e., not “normal conditions” in the pre‑pandemic sense. (sfusd.edu)
    • Thus, the part of the prediction that said public schools that did open in person would impose strict measures like mandatory masking and other COVID safety protocols was broadly accurate.

  3. Segregating unvaccinated children (e.g., separate tables):

    • There were documented cases of schools requiring unvaccinated students to eat separately or follow distinct lunch arrangements (for example, a Jesuit high school in Boston that required unvaccinated students to eat behind plexiglass and California schools with specialized protocols that had unvaccinated or younger students eat in separate outdoor areas). (lifesitenews.com)
    • These policies existed but appear to have been isolated or localized, not a standard practice across “many” U.S. public schools.

Why “ambiguous”:

  • The quantifiable core of the prediction—that many U.S. public schools, especially in California, would not have five‑day in‑person instruction—was wrong, since the dominant reality in 2021–22 was full‑time in‑person schooling.
  • However, the conditional framing in the normalized version (“either fall short of full-time in-person or impose stringent measures”) is partially satisfied, because many schools—particularly in California—did operate full-time but under exactly the kind of stringent mitigation he described (especially universal masking and other restrictions).
  • Because the original quote leans strongly toward broad failure to restore five‑day in‑person learning, while the normalized paraphrase emphasizes the presence of strict conditions, and reality clearly supported one part but not the other, the overall accuracy is best characterized as mixed/ambiguous rather than cleanly right or wrong.