[BostonCard]

Nice report here: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

(perhaps ironically it was published in the CDC's Journal Emerging Infectious Diseases)

We monitored 59,073 contacts of 5,706 COVID-19 index patients for an average of 9.9 (range 8.2–12.5) days after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was detected (Table 1). Of 10,592 household contacts, index patients of 3,417 (32.3%) were 20–29 years of age, followed by those 50–59 (19.3%) and 40–49 (16.5%) years of age (Table 2). A total of 11.8% (95% CI 11.2%–12.4%) household contacts of index patients had COVID-19; in households with an index patient 10–19 years of age, 18.6% (95% CI 14.0%–24.0%) of contacts had COVID-19. For 48,481 nonhousehold contacts, the detection rate was 1.9% (95% CI 1.8%–2.0%) (Table 2). With index patients 30–39 years of age as reference, detection of COVID-19 contacts was significantly higher for index patients >40 years of age in nonhousehold settings. For most age groups, COVID-19 was detected in significantly more household than nonhousehold contacts (Table 2).

One thing to note, if you look at table 2, the proportion of household contacts who got COVID-19 when the index case was under 10 was just 5.3%, which is about half the overall rate (11%).  So, young kids maybe don't transmit the virus as well (those age 10 - 19 do, however, at 18.6%)

BC

[BostonCard]

Nice report here: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

(perhaps ironically it was published in the CDC's Journal Emerging Infectious Diseases)

We monitored 59,073 contacts of 5,706 COVID-19 index patients for an average of 9.9 (range 8.2–12.5) days after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was detected (Table 1). Of 10,592 household contacts, index patients of 3,417 (32.3%) were 20–29 years of age, followed by those 50–59 (19.3%) and 40–49 (16.5%) years of age (Table 2). A total of 11.8% (95% CI 11.2%–12.4%) household contacts of index patients had COVID-19; in households with an index patient 10–19 years of age, 18.6% (95% CI 14.0%–24.0%) of contacts had COVID-19. For 48,481 nonhousehold contacts, the detection rate was 1.9% (95% CI 1.8%–2.0%) (Table 2). With index patients 30–39 years of age as reference, detection of COVID-19 contacts was significantly higher for index patients >40 years of age in nonhousehold settings. For most age groups, COVID-19 was detected in significantly more household than nonhousehold contacts (Table 2).

One thing to note, if you look at table 2, the proportion of household contacts who got COVID-19 when the index case was under 10 was just 5.3%, which is about half the overall rate (11%).  So, young kids maybe don't transmit the virus as well (those age 10 - 19 do, however, at 18.6%)

BC

[burger]

Nice report here: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

(perhaps ironically it was published in the CDC's Journal Emerging Infectious Diseases)

We monitored 59,073 contacts of 5,706 COVID-19 index patients for an average of 9.9 (range 8.2–12.5) days after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was detected (Table 1). Of 10,592 household contacts, index patients of 3,417 (32.3%) were 20–29 years of age, followed by those 50–59 (19.3%) and 40–49 (16.5%) years of age (Table 2). A total of 11.8% (95% CI 11.2%–12.4%) household contacts of index patients had COVID-19; in households with an index patient 10–19 years of age, 18.6% (95% CI 14.0%–24.0%) of contacts had COVID-19. For 48,481 nonhousehold contacts, the detection rate was 1.9% (95% CI 1.8%–2.0%) (Table 2). With index patients 30–39 years of age as reference, detection of COVID-19 contacts was significantly higher for index patients >40 years of age in nonhousehold settings. For most age groups, COVID-19 was detected in significantly more household than nonhousehold contacts (Table 2).

One thing to note, if you look at table 2, the proportion of household contacts who got COVID-19 when the index case was under 10 was just 5.3%, which is about half the overall rate (11%).  So, young kids maybe don't transmit the virus as well (those age 10 - 19 do, however, at 18.6%)

BC

I think you've buried the lede in your last paragraph there.  If 10-19 year olds do spread the virus at the same rate as adults, then you can't safely open schools until infection rates are much lower than now for most of the US.  Doing so would put other kids, their families, and their teachers/school staff in danger.  This study is probably the best one to date looking at whether or not kids can spread the virus, and it suggests the answer is yes.

[burger]

Nice report here: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

(perhaps ironically it was published in the CDC's Journal Emerging Infectious Diseases)

We monitored 59,073 contacts of 5,706 COVID-19 index patients for an average of 9.9 (range 8.2–12.5) days after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was detected (Table 1). Of 10,592 household contacts, index patients of 3,417 (32.3%) were 20–29 years of age, followed by those 50–59 (19.3%) and 40–49 (16.5%) years of age (Table 2). A total of 11.8% (95% CI 11.2%–12.4%) household contacts of index patients had COVID-19; in households with an index patient 10–19 years of age, 18.6% (95% CI 14.0%–24.0%) of contacts had COVID-19. For 48,481 nonhousehold contacts, the detection rate was 1.9% (95% CI 1.8%–2.0%) (Table 2). With index patients 30–39 years of age as reference, detection of COVID-19 contacts was significantly higher for index patients >40 years of age in nonhousehold settings. For most age groups, COVID-19 was detected in significantly more household than nonhousehold contacts (Table 2).

One thing to note, if you look at table 2, the proportion of household contacts who got COVID-19 when the index case was under 10 was just 5.3%, which is about half the overall rate (11%).  So, young kids maybe don't transmit the virus as well (those age 10 - 19 do, however, at 18.6%)

BC

I think you've buried the lede in your last paragraph there.  If 10-19 year olds do spread the virus at the same rate as adults, then you can't safely open schools until infection rates are much lower than now for most of the US.  Doing so would put other kids, their families, and their teachers/school staff in danger.  This study is probably the best one to date looking at whether or not kids can spread the virus, and it suggests the answer is yes.

[teejers1]

Nice report here: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

(perhaps ironically it was published in the CDC's Journal Emerging Infectious Diseases)

We monitored 59,073 contacts of 5,706 COVID-19 index patients for an average of 9.9 (range 8.2–12.5) days after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was detected (Table 1). Of 10,592 household contacts, index patients of 3,417 (32.3%) were 20–29 years of age, followed by those 50–59 (19.3%) and 40–49 (16.5%) years of age (Table 2). A total of 11.8% (95% CI 11.2%–12.4%) household contacts of index patients had COVID-19; in households with an index patient 10–19 years of age, 18.6% (95% CI 14.0%–24.0%) of contacts had COVID-19. For 48,481 nonhousehold contacts, the detection rate was 1.9% (95% CI 1.8%–2.0%) (Table 2). With index patients 30–39 years of age as reference, detection of COVID-19 contacts was significantly higher for index patients >40 years of age in nonhousehold settings. For most age groups, COVID-19 was detected in significantly more household than nonhousehold contacts (Table 2).

One thing to note, if you look at table 2, the proportion of household contacts who got COVID-19 when the index case was under 10 was just 5.3%, which is about half the overall rate (11%).  So, young kids maybe don't transmit the virus as well (those age 10 - 19 do, however, at 18.6%)

BC

I think you've buried the lede in your last paragraph there.  If 10-19 year olds do spread the virus at the same rate as adults, then you can't safely open schools until infection rates are much lower than now for most of the US.  Doing so would put other kids, their families, and their teachers/school staff in danger.  This study is probably the best one to date looking at whether or not kids can spread the virus, and it suggests the answer is yes.

And "much lower" equals . . . ?

There has to be an algorithm or formulas that can at least attempt to come up with an "acceptable" infection rate. Of course, I still think it has to be tied to you know what - because hospital capacity should be the driving force in making policy.  And staff resources is certainly a component of hospital capacity.

"We want to ensure that we have sufficient hospital resources for those who need it" is a policy that makes sense, is easily understood, and can (you would think) be subject to a formula, given certain assumptions (informed by experience) re: number of positive tests ==> number of hospitalizations ==> number of deaths.

"'High' infection rates and death are bad" is not really something you can base policy on . . . unless you're a SiP-at- all- costs warrior (as you and others may be).  It's nebulous, subjective, and not particularly useful for setting policy (again, beyond "we must all SiP till further notice).  

Ultimately, "acceptable level of risk" is a policy decision.  Period.  And that's true even if you assume you can get consensus on some basic "scientific truths" about Corona virus.

[teejers1]

Nice report here: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

(perhaps ironically it was published in the CDC's Journal Emerging Infectious Diseases)

We monitored 59,073 contacts of 5,706 COVID-19 index patients for an average of 9.9 (range 8.2–12.5) days after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was detected (Table 1). Of 10,592 household contacts, index patients of 3,417 (32.3%) were 20–29 years of age, followed by those 50–59 (19.3%) and 40–49 (16.5%) years of age (Table 2). A total of 11.8% (95% CI 11.2%–12.4%) household contacts of index patients had COVID-19; in households with an index patient 10–19 years of age, 18.6% (95% CI 14.0%–24.0%) of contacts had COVID-19. For 48,481 nonhousehold contacts, the detection rate was 1.9% (95% CI 1.8%–2.0%) (Table 2). With index patients 30–39 years of age as reference, detection of COVID-19 contacts was significantly higher for index patients >40 years of age in nonhousehold settings. For most age groups, COVID-19 was detected in significantly more household than nonhousehold contacts (Table 2).

One thing to note, if you look at table 2, the proportion of household contacts who got COVID-19 when the index case was under 10 was just 5.3%, which is about half the overall rate (11%).  So, young kids maybe don't transmit the virus as well (those age 10 - 19 do, however, at 18.6%)

BC

I think you've buried the lede in your last paragraph there.  If 10-19 year olds do spread the virus at the same rate as adults, then you can't safely open schools until infection rates are much lower than now for most of the US.  Doing so would put other kids, their families, and their teachers/school staff in danger.  This study is probably the best one to date looking at whether or not kids can spread the virus, and it suggests the answer is yes.

And "much lower" equals . . . ?

There has to be an algorithm or formulas that can at least attempt to come up with an "acceptable" infection rate. Of course, I still think it has to be tied to you know what - because hospital capacity should be the driving force in making policy.  And staff resources is certainly a component of hospital capacity.

"We want to ensure that we have sufficient hospital resources for those who need it" is a policy that makes sense, is easily understood, and can (you would think) be subject to a formula, given certain assumptions (informed by experience) re: number of positive tests ==> number of hospitalizations ==> number of deaths.

"'High' infection rates and death are bad" is not really something you can base policy on . . . unless you're a SiP-at- all- costs warrior (as you and others may be).  It's nebulous, subjective, and not particularly useful for setting policy (again, beyond "we must all SiP till further notice).  

Ultimately, "acceptable level of risk" is a policy decision.  Period.  And that's true even if you assume you can get consensus on some basic "scientific truths" about Corona virus.

[BostonCard]

I think I would leave some amount of decision making to individual teachers and families.

I also don't think we are appropriately pricing in the cost of the lockdown on kids.  It's one thing for someone like me to be locked down.  Or even my brother, who was laid off because his job entailed sales to bars and restaurants.  That is tragic, but was almost unavoidable.

But here are some of the issues with keeping kids at home:

https://www.economist.com/international/...ens-health

The pandemic is harming children’s health. Not that they are dying in large numbers of the virus itself, which seems to affect them only mildly. And not only because of a growing body of evidence suggesting that lockdowns harm their mental health. It is also because life under confinement in rich countries has been making children fatter and more sedentary. These effects may well last much longer than the restrictions designed to curb the disease.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/0...e-benefits

However, the costs of missing school are brobdingnagian. Children learn less, and lose the habit of learning. Zoom is a lousy substitute for classrooms. Poor children, who are less likely to have good Wi-Fi and educated parents, fall further behind their better-off peers. Parents who have nowhere to drop their children struggle to return to work. Mothers bear the heavier burden, and so suffer a bigger career setback. Children out of school are more likely to suffer abuse, malnutrition and poor mental health.

This estimate is striking:

The World Bank estimates that five months of school closures would cut lifetime earnings for the children who are affected by $10trn in today’s money, equivalent to 7% of current annual gdp.

Just as we wouldn't think of forcing grocery stores or hospitals closed because of the pandemic, we should consider education in the same vein, an essential activity.  It still chaps my hide that we sacrificed in school education in order to open friggin bars (and again, I say that even with my brother's livelihood dependent on it).

BC

[BostonCard]

I think I would leave some amount of decision making to individual teachers and families.

I also don't think we are appropriately pricing in the cost of the lockdown on kids.  It's one thing for someone like me to be locked down.  Or even my brother, who was laid off because his job entailed sales to bars and restaurants.  That is tragic, but was almost unavoidable.

But here are some of the issues with keeping kids at home:

https://www.economist.com/international/...ens-health

The pandemic is harming children’s health. Not that they are dying in large numbers of the virus itself, which seems to affect them only mildly. And not only because of a growing body of evidence suggesting that lockdowns harm their mental health. It is also because life under confinement in rich countries has been making children fatter and more sedentary. These effects may well last much longer than the restrictions designed to curb the disease.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/0...e-benefits

However, the costs of missing school are brobdingnagian. Children learn less, and lose the habit of learning. Zoom is a lousy substitute for classrooms. Poor children, who are less likely to have good Wi-Fi and educated parents, fall further behind their better-off peers. Parents who have nowhere to drop their children struggle to return to work. Mothers bear the heavier burden, and so suffer a bigger career setback. Children out of school are more likely to suffer abuse, malnutrition and poor mental health.

This estimate is striking:

The World Bank estimates that five months of school closures would cut lifetime earnings for the children who are affected by $10trn in today’s money, equivalent to 7% of current annual gdp.

Just as we wouldn't think of forcing grocery stores or hospitals closed because of the pandemic, we should consider education in the same vein, an essential activity.  It still chaps my hide that we sacrificed in school education in order to open friggin bars (and again, I say that even with my brother's livelihood dependent on it).

BC

[Mick]

I think I would leave some amount of decision making to individual teachers and families.

I also don't think we are appropriately pricing in the cost of the lockdown on kids.  It's one thing for someone like me to be locked down.  Or even my brother, who was laid off because his job entailed sales to bars and restaurants.  That is tragic, but was almost unavoidable.

But here are some of the issues with keeping kids at home:

https://www.economist.com/international/...ens-health

The pandemic is harming children’s health. Not that they are dying in large numbers of the virus itself, which seems to affect them only mildly. And not only because of a growing body of evidence suggesting that lockdowns harm their mental health. It is also because life under confinement in rich countries has been making children fatter and more sedentary. These effects may well last much longer than the restrictions designed to curb the disease.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/0...e-benefits

However, the costs of missing school are of immense proportions. Children learn less, and lose the habit of learning. Zoom is a lousy substitute for classrooms. Poor children, who are less likely to have good Wi-Fi and educated parents, fall further behind their better-off peers. Parents who have nowhere to drop their children struggle to return to work. Mothers bear the heavier burden, and so suffer a bigger career setback. Children out of school are more likely to suffer abuse, malnutrition and poor mental health.

This estimate is striking:

The World Bank estimates that five months of school closures would cut lifetime earnings for the children who are affected by $10trn in today’s money, equivalent to 7% of current annual gdp.

Just as we wouldn't think of forcing grocery stores or hospitals closed because of the pandemic, we should consider education in the same vein, an essential activity.  It still chaps my hide that we sacrificed in school education in order to open friggin bars (and again, I say that even with my brother's livelihood dependent on it).

BC

Suffice to say, I agree with you.

[Mick]

I think I would leave some amount of decision making to individual teachers and families.

I also don't think we are appropriately pricing in the cost of the lockdown on kids.  It's one thing for someone like me to be locked down.  Or even my brother, who was laid off because his job entailed sales to bars and restaurants.  That is tragic, but was almost unavoidable.

But here are some of the issues with keeping kids at home:

https://www.economist.com/international/...ens-health

The pandemic is harming children’s health. Not that they are dying in large numbers of the virus itself, which seems to affect them only mildly. And not only because of a growing body of evidence suggesting that lockdowns harm their mental health. It is also because life under confinement in rich countries has been making children fatter and more sedentary. These effects may well last much longer than the restrictions designed to curb the disease.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/0...e-benefits

However, the costs of missing school are of immense proportions. Children learn less, and lose the habit of learning. Zoom is a lousy substitute for classrooms. Poor children, who are less likely to have good Wi-Fi and educated parents, fall further behind their better-off peers. Parents who have nowhere to drop their children struggle to return to work. Mothers bear the heavier burden, and so suffer a bigger career setback. Children out of school are more likely to suffer abuse, malnutrition and poor mental health.

This estimate is striking:

The World Bank estimates that five months of school closures would cut lifetime earnings for the children who are affected by $10trn in today’s money, equivalent to 7% of current annual gdp.

Just as we wouldn't think of forcing grocery stores or hospitals closed because of the pandemic, we should consider education in the same vein, an essential activity.  It still chaps my hide that we sacrificed in school education in order to open friggin bars (and again, I say that even with my brother's livelihood dependent on it).

BC

Suffice to say, I agree with you.

[burger]

I think I would leave some amount of decision making to individual teachers and families.

I also don't think we are appropriately pricing in the cost of the lockdown on kids.  It's one thing for someone like me to be locked down.  Or even my brother, who was laid off because his job entailed sales to bars and restaurants.  That is tragic, but was almost unavoidable.

But here are some of the issues with keeping kids at home:

https://www.economist.com/international/...ens-health

The pandemic is harming children’s health. Not that they are dying in large numbers of the virus itself, which seems to affect them only mildly. And not only because of a growing body of evidence suggesting that lockdowns harm their mental health. It is also because life under confinement in rich countries has been making children fatter and more sedentary. These effects may well last much longer than the restrictions designed to curb the disease.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/0...e-benefits

However, the costs of missing school are of immense proportions. Children learn less, and lose the habit of learning. Zoom is a lousy substitute for classrooms. Poor children, who are less likely to have good Wi-Fi and educated parents, fall further behind their better-off peers. Parents who have nowhere to drop their children struggle to return to work. Mothers bear the heavier burden, and so suffer a bigger career setback. Children out of school are more likely to suffer abuse, malnutrition and poor mental health.

This estimate is striking:

The World Bank estimates that five months of school closures would cut lifetime earnings for the children who are affected by $10trn in today’s money, equivalent to 7% of current annual gdp.

Just as we wouldn't think of forcing grocery stores or hospitals closed because of the pandemic, we should consider education in the same vein, an essential activity.  It still chaps my hide that we sacrificed in school education in order to open friggin bars (and again, I say that even with my brother's livelihood dependent on it).

BC

I guess you don't know when you've lost the argument.  Newsom is not reopening schools.  Mosts of the major school districts in CA are going online only.  School teachers have already said they will not go back into classes when it is not safe.  And teachers in Florida have sued DeSantis over his reopening.  Even if they lose the court case, I would expect a strike.  In CA at least, this debate is over.

More generally, asking teachers to risk their lives for a few months of education is monstrous and disgusting.  Read this article and tell me that this is fair: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/opini...afety.html  Even if we let teachers individually choose, do their families get a vote?  Do the coworkers of their family members get a vote?  You know which parents will be most likely to send their kids to school in person?  The ones who think the virus is a hoax.   It's clear that a substantial proportion of Americans are either ignorant ofthe risks of covid or are making a political choice to downplay those risks.  Should we empower these people to make decisions about the health of others?  No.  Let the experts decide.  And they have--school districts all over CA have looked at the evidence and decided to keep schools closed.

As for online educatino, we have barely tried to do ioso far, and people are already saying it's impossible. That's bullshit.  The argument for "permanent" losses due to poor education is bullshit also.  No one has ever been through this on a mass scale before.  Kids are resilient.  And it is totally possible that we can invest more in education as we come of out of covid to make up for any shortcomings now.  Send kids to summer school.  Hire more teachers.  Hire tutors.  I am not an education expert, and I could brainstorm a list of interventions to help.  Again, we've tried nothing, and people are acting like that's the best we can do.  Ridiculous.

[burger]

I think I would leave some amount of decision making to individual teachers and families.

I also don't think we are appropriately pricing in the cost of the lockdown on kids.  It's one thing for someone like me to be locked down.  Or even my brother, who was laid off because his job entailed sales to bars and restaurants.  That is tragic, but was almost unavoidable.

But here are some of the issues with keeping kids at home:

https://www.economist.com/international/...ens-health

The pandemic is harming children’s health. Not that they are dying in large numbers of the virus itself, which seems to affect them only mildly. And not only because of a growing body of evidence suggesting that lockdowns harm their mental health. It is also because life under confinement in rich countries has been making children fatter and more sedentary. These effects may well last much longer than the restrictions designed to curb the disease.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/0...e-benefits

However, the costs of missing school are of immense proportions. Children learn less, and lose the habit of learning. Zoom is a lousy substitute for classrooms. Poor children, who are less likely to have good Wi-Fi and educated parents, fall further behind their better-off peers. Parents who have nowhere to drop their children struggle to return to work. Mothers bear the heavier burden, and so suffer a bigger career setback. Children out of school are more likely to suffer abuse, malnutrition and poor mental health.

This estimate is striking:

The World Bank estimates that five months of school closures would cut lifetime earnings for the children who are affected by $10trn in today’s money, equivalent to 7% of current annual gdp.

Just as we wouldn't think of forcing grocery stores or hospitals closed because of the pandemic, we should consider education in the same vein, an essential activity.  It still chaps my hide that we sacrificed in school education in order to open friggin bars (and again, I say that even with my brother's livelihood dependent on it).

BC

I guess you don't know when you've lost the argument.  Newsom is not reopening schools.  Mosts of the major school districts in CA are going online only.  School teachers have already said they will not go back into classes when it is not safe.  And teachers in Florida have sued DeSantis over his reopening.  Even if they lose the court case, I would expect a strike.  In CA at least, this debate is over.

More generally, asking teachers to risk their lives for a few months of education is monstrous and disgusting.  Read this article and tell me that this is fair: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/opini...afety.html  Even if we let teachers individually choose, do their families get a vote?  Do the coworkers of their family members get a vote?  You know which parents will be most likely to send their kids to school in person?  The ones who think the virus is a hoax.   It's clear that a substantial proportion of Americans are either ignorant ofthe risks of covid or are making a political choice to downplay those risks.  Should we empower these people to make decisions about the health of others?  No.  Let the experts decide.  And they have--school districts all over CA have looked at the evidence and decided to keep schools closed.

As for online educatino, we have barely tried to do ioso far, and people are already saying it's impossible. That's bullshit.  The argument for "permanent" losses due to poor education is bullshit also.  No one has ever been through this on a mass scale before.  Kids are resilient.  And it is totally possible that we can invest more in education as we come of out of covid to make up for any shortcomings now.  Send kids to summer school.  Hire more teachers.  Hire tutors.  I am not an education expert, and I could brainstorm a list of interventions to help.  Again, we've tried nothing, and people are acting like that's the best we can do.  Ridiculous.

[Mick]

As for online educatino, we have barely tried to do ioso far, and people are already saying it's impossible. That's bullshit.  

That's incorrect.  First, all forms of education need supervision, correction, training.  I've yet to see the computer that can serve those functions, particularly at the elementary level.  And the access that the poor and minorities have to top level equipment and wireless access is significantly behind that of the wealthy.  You're talking about systemic, nationwide online education.  We're not remotely prepared for it from an equipment standpoint, and we're even worse in terms of guidance, management, correction, etc.  You're letting kids learn at both their own preferred pace and, frankly, inclination.  How is that going to result in anything but disaster?

BTW, here's what kids want to do:
https://www.nextgov.com/ideas/2020/07/ki...ut/166915/
And its effects...
https://www.studyfinds.org/more-screen-t...-activity/

The argument for "permanent" losses due to poor education is bullshit also.  

Really?  You have evidence that this is bullshit?  Seems the exact opposite to me.

No one has ever been through this on a mass scale before.  

Makes perfect sense to roll the dice and abandon the traditional methods of literally every single society since the beginning of time.  "Wing it" doesn't seem like a winning solution.

Kids are resilient.  

You've made a lot of misstatements, but this one's a doozy.  This was the exact statement in the 1960s when large-scale divorce took root.  Kids were and are unbelievably screwed up over both divorce (read Judith Wallerstein's "The Long Term Effects of Divorce") and absent parents.  Kids are not resilient. Kids are resilient only in the sense that they heal more quickly than adults from injury.  In almost every other respect, they are not resilient.  Mental and emotional injury take a terrible toll on children, as would missing a year's worth of school.  I genuinely don't understand what you don't understand about that.  The implications in that statement -- we can screw with kids to the benefit of adults -- is horrifying, but not surprising, given our society's preference to marginalize their children. Which you're proving here, by the way.

And it is totally possible that we can invest more in education as we come of out of covid to make up for any shortcomings now.  Send kids to summer school.  Hire more teachers.  Hire tutors. 

Widespread, large-scale "catch up" is impossible.  Children have a top end learning pace.  You can't ignore a year, then make it up. 

I am not an education expert

No kidding.

I could brainstorm a list of interventions to help.  Again, we've tried nothing, and people are acting like that's the best we can do.  Ridiculous.

No, people are leery of gambling their children's futures on untried, unproven technologies with no supervision whatsoever.  How do you not understand that?

[Mick]

As for online educatino, we have barely tried to do ioso far, and people are already saying it's impossible. That's bullshit.  

That's incorrect.  First, all forms of education need supervision, correction, training.  I've yet to see the computer that can serve those functions, particularly at the elementary level.  And the access that the poor and minorities have to top level equipment and wireless access is significantly behind that of the wealthy.  You're talking about systemic, nationwide online education.  We're not remotely prepared for it from an equipment standpoint, and we're even worse in terms of guidance, management, correction, etc.  You're letting kids learn at both their own preferred pace and, frankly, inclination.  How is that going to result in anything but disaster?

BTW, here's what kids want to do:
https://www.nextgov.com/ideas/2020/07/ki...ut/166915/
And its effects...
https://www.studyfinds.org/more-screen-t...-activity/

The argument for "permanent" losses due to poor education is bullshit also.  

Really?  You have evidence that this is bullshit?  Seems the exact opposite to me.

No one has ever been through this on a mass scale before.  

Makes perfect sense to roll the dice and abandon the traditional methods of literally every single society since the beginning of time.  "Wing it" doesn't seem like a winning solution.

Kids are resilient.  

You've made a lot of misstatements, but this one's a doozy.  This was the exact statement in the 1960s when large-scale divorce took root.  Kids were and are unbelievably screwed up over both divorce (read Judith Wallerstein's "The Long Term Effects of Divorce") and absent parents.  Kids are not resilient. Kids are resilient only in the sense that they heal more quickly than adults from injury.  In almost every other respect, they are not resilient.  Mental and emotional injury take a terrible toll on children, as would missing a year's worth of school.  I genuinely don't understand what you don't understand about that.  The implications in that statement -- we can screw with kids to the benefit of adults -- is horrifying, but not surprising, given our society's preference to marginalize their children. Which you're proving here, by the way.

And it is totally possible that we can invest more in education as we come of out of covid to make up for any shortcomings now.  Send kids to summer school.  Hire more teachers.  Hire tutors. 

Widespread, large-scale "catch up" is impossible.  Children have a top end learning pace.  You can't ignore a year, then make it up. 

I am not an education expert

No kidding.

I could brainstorm a list of interventions to help.  Again, we've tried nothing, and people are acting like that's the best we can do.  Ridiculous.

No, people are leery of gambling their children's futures on untried, unproven technologies with no supervision whatsoever.  How do you not understand that?

[burger]

Mick, since you've made up your mind, let me know exactly how many teachers you're okay killing.  We can work backwards from there to figure out how many to bring back to the schools.  Assuming about a 1% IFR (teachers skew older than the general population): https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/..._t1s_002.a ), for every 1 teacher you're okay killing, we can bring back 100 times the number who will get infected.  How many will get infected?  No one knows!  What a fun experiment to play on teachers!  But it's worth it for the sake of the children.

Teachers did not sign up for this job to die or risk adverse health consequences.  Asking them do so is heartless and cruel.  If it's such a great idea to reopen, Mick, why is no major school district in California doing so?  Why are nearly all the leaders pushing for a full reopening Republicans who have mismanaged the pandemic from day one?  These things are not a coincidence.  People more knowledgeable on this issue than you or I have looked at the evidence and decided that the smartest thing is to close the schools for now.  That should be enough to decide the issue.  Anyone who thinks they are smarter than all the school boards and the experts they have consulted with should probably stop and rethink their position.

Finally, when you've lost Dave Grohl, I think it's time to concede: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/arch...rs/614422/

[burger]

Mick, since you've made up your mind, let me know exactly how many teachers you're okay killing.  We can work backwards from there to figure out how many to bring back to the schools.  Assuming about a 1% IFR (teachers skew older than the general population): https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/..._t1s_002.a ), for every 1 teacher you're okay killing, we can bring back 100 times the number who will get infected.  How many will get infected?  No one knows!  What a fun experiment to play on teachers!  But it's worth it for the sake of the children.

Teachers did not sign up for this job to die or risk adverse health consequences.  Asking them do so is heartless and cruel.  If it's such a great idea to reopen, Mick, why is no major school district in California doing so?  Why are nearly all the leaders pushing for a full reopening Republicans who have mismanaged the pandemic from day one?  These things are not a coincidence.  People more knowledgeable on this issue than you or I have looked at the evidence and decided that the smartest thing is to close the schools for now.  That should be enough to decide the issue.  Anyone who thinks they are smarter than all the school boards and the experts they have consulted with should probably stop and rethink their position.

Finally, when you've lost Dave Grohl, I think it's time to concede: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/arch...rs/614422/

[BostonCard]

I guess you don't know when you've lost the argument.  Newsom is not reopening schools.  Mosts of the major school districts in CA are going online only.  School teachers have already said they will not go back into classes when it is not safe.  And teachers in Florida have sued DeSantis over his reopening.  Even if they lose the court case, I would expect a strike.  In CA at least, this debate is over.

More generally, asking teachers to risk their lives for a few months of education is monstrous and disgusting.  Read this article and tell me that this is fair: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/opini...afety.html  Even if we let teachers individually choose, do their families get a vote?  Do the coworkers of their family members get a vote?  You know which parents will be most likely to send their kids to school in person?  The ones who think the virus is a hoax.   It's clear that a substantial proportion of Americans are either ignorant ofthe risks of covid or are making a political choice to downplay those risks.  Should we empower these people to make decisions about the health of others?  No.  Let the experts decide.  And they have--school districts all over CA have looked at the evidence and decided to keep schools closed.

As for online educatino, we have barely tried to do ioso far, and people are already saying it's impossible. That's bullshit.  The argument for "permanent" losses due to poor education is bullshit also.  No one has ever been through this on a mass scale before.  Kids are resilient.  And it is totally possible that we can invest more in education as we come of out of covid to make up for any shortcomings now.  Send kids to summer school.  Hire more teachers.  Hire tutors.  I am not an education expert, and I could brainstorm a list of interventions to help.  Again, we've tried nothing, and people are acting like that's the best we can do.  Ridiculous.

I accept that, at least in California, the debate is over.  But that doesn't mean I have to agree with the decision.  I think we will do immense long-term damage to children.  Unfortunately, this has been framed as "reopen schools" versus "don't reopen schools", and really nobody has spent the time and effort to give educators the plan that Grohl advocates.

I'm all for letting the experts offer their opinion.  Experts like the National Academy of Science Engineering and Medicine:

https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2...d-benefits

WASHINGTON — Weighing the health risks of reopening K-12 schools in fall 2020 against the educational risks of providing no in-person instruction, school districts should prioritize reopening schools full time, especially for grades K-5 and students with special needs, according to a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Opening schools will benefit families beyond providing education, including by supplying child care, school services, meals, and other family supports. Without in-person instruction, schools risk children falling behind academically and exacerbating educational inequities.

Yes, the administration is being stupid with its "damned the torpedoes" approach to reopening schools.  But that doesn't mean that the alternative is keeping schools closed.  The alternative is actually putting in the damned work to develop a plan, as the article you cited recommends, to open schools safely.  Will it be easy?  Absolutely not.  Will it be cheap?  Hell, no.  But saying we will no open schools, period, is defeatism.

How f'd up are our priorities that we reopened bars?  That we considered marijuana dispensaries "essential businesses"?  Even opening restaurants, beaches, etc. are trivial, compared to the importance of educating our children effectively.

BC

[BostonCard]

I guess you don't know when you've lost the argument.  Newsom is not reopening schools.  Mosts of the major school districts in CA are going online only.  School teachers have already said they will not go back into classes when it is not safe.  And teachers in Florida have sued DeSantis over his reopening.  Even if they lose the court case, I would expect a strike.  In CA at least, this debate is over.

More generally, asking teachers to risk their lives for a few months of education is monstrous and disgusting.  Read this article and tell me that this is fair: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/opini...afety.html  Even if we let teachers individually choose, do their families get a vote?  Do the coworkers of their family members get a vote?  You know which parents will be most likely to send their kids to school in person?  The ones who think the virus is a hoax.   It's clear that a substantial proportion of Americans are either ignorant ofthe risks of covid or are making a political choice to downplay those risks.  Should we empower these people to make decisions about the health of others?  No.  Let the experts decide.  And they have--school districts all over CA have looked at the evidence and decided to keep schools closed.

As for online educatino, we have barely tried to do ioso far, and people are already saying it's impossible. That's bullshit.  The argument for "permanent" losses due to poor education is bullshit also.  No one has ever been through this on a mass scale before.  Kids are resilient.  And it is totally possible that we can invest more in education as we come of out of covid to make up for any shortcomings now.  Send kids to summer school.  Hire more teachers.  Hire tutors.  I am not an education expert, and I could brainstorm a list of interventions to help.  Again, we've tried nothing, and people are acting like that's the best we can do.  Ridiculous.

I accept that, at least in California, the debate is over.  But that doesn't mean I have to agree with the decision.  I think we will do immense long-term damage to children.  Unfortunately, this has been framed as "reopen schools" versus "don't reopen schools", and really nobody has spent the time and effort to give educators the plan that Grohl advocates.

I'm all for letting the experts offer their opinion.  Experts like the National Academy of Science Engineering and Medicine:

https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2...d-benefits

WASHINGTON — Weighing the health risks of reopening K-12 schools in fall 2020 against the educational risks of providing no in-person instruction, school districts should prioritize reopening schools full time, especially for grades K-5 and students with special needs, according to a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Opening schools will benefit families beyond providing education, including by supplying child care, school services, meals, and other family supports. Without in-person instruction, schools risk children falling behind academically and exacerbating educational inequities.

Yes, the administration is being stupid with its "damned the torpedoes" approach to reopening schools.  But that doesn't mean that the alternative is keeping schools closed.  The alternative is actually putting in the damned work to develop a plan, as the article you cited recommends, to open schools safely.  Will it be easy?  Absolutely not.  Will it be cheap?  Hell, no.  But saying we will no open schools, period, is defeatism.

How f'd up are our priorities that we reopened bars?  That we considered marijuana dispensaries "essential businesses"?  Even opening restaurants, beaches, etc. are trivial, compared to the importance of educating our children effectively.

BC

[76lsjumb]

Mick, since you've made up your mind, let me know exactly how many teachers you're okay killing.  

That's not an argument, that's simply demagoguery.  And, to the extent you seem to think it's an argument -- indeed, one that you have repeated several times, I believe -- it "proves too much."  Since conducting in-person schooling has always, and will always, create a risk of a teacher being "killed" from myriad different causes in the school environment, your position must necessarily be that schools must be permanently closed.  Otherwise, of course, you, too, are "okay killing" teachers.

[76lsjumb]

Mick, since you've made up your mind, let me know exactly how many teachers you're okay killing.  

That's not an argument, that's simply demagoguery.  And, to the extent you seem to think it's an argument -- indeed, one that you have repeated several times, I believe -- it "proves too much."  Since conducting in-person schooling has always, and will always, create a risk of a teacher being "killed" from myriad different causes in the school environment, your position must necessarily be that schools must be permanently closed.  Otherwise, of course, you, too, are "okay killing" teachers.

[dabigv13]

If we get virus numbers down like Taiwan or South Korea or most of Europe, we could reopen our schools. If we continue like we are, they would certainly function to grow and prolong the outbreak, and result in more deaths and worse economy.

I think focusing on ways to operate schools with large cohorts of students who are together daily in confined spaces, is a fool's errand when our prevalence is so high. Focus on getting the virus under control, rather than how many desks you can fit in a room. Dispensaries, restaurants, and beaches I'm certain are less risky at propagating a respiratory disease than groups of 30 kids in classrooms and playing together at recess, even if I think schools are a more important and worthwhile thing to have operational than the others.

Considering the leaders most invested in boosting school reopenings are the ones who are least invested in getting control of the virus, I don't think those leaders really care about kid's educations, or people's lives, so much as their own political fortunes.

[dabigv13]

If we get virus numbers down like Taiwan or South Korea or most of Europe, we could reopen our schools. If we continue like we are, they would certainly function to grow and prolong the outbreak, and result in more deaths and worse economy.

I think focusing on ways to operate schools with large cohorts of students who are together daily in confined spaces, is a fool's errand when our prevalence is so high. Focus on getting the virus under control, rather than how many desks you can fit in a room. Dispensaries, restaurants, and beaches I'm certain are less risky at propagating a respiratory disease than groups of 30 kids in classrooms and playing together at recess, even if I think schools are a more important and worthwhile thing to have operational than the others.

Considering the leaders most invested in boosting school reopenings are the ones who are least invested in getting control of the virus, I don't think those leaders really care about kid's educations, or people's lives, so much as their own political fortunes.

[Snorlax94]

I can think of a reasonably safe way to re-open schools: if we value schools as an essential activity like hospitals and grocery stores, we’d shut down the economy for another strict shelter-in-place for 8 weeks. With the current testing and tracing capabilities, we’d be able to squash cases much more effectively.

Then, after the strict shelter-in-place, we’d first re-open schools, and not re-open anything else (outdoor restaurants, shops) until we could stabilize counts with children in school.

If someone says they believe schools should be prioritized as an essential activity, they should support these steps also.

I hope they do this in CA. I think we’re 2-8 weeks from a shutdown anyway.

[Snorlax94]

I can think of a reasonably safe way to re-open schools: if we value schools as an essential activity like hospitals and grocery stores, we’d shut down the economy for another strict shelter-in-place for 8 weeks. With the current testing and tracing capabilities, we’d be able to squash cases much more effectively.

Then, after the strict shelter-in-place, we’d first re-open schools, and not re-open anything else (outdoor restaurants, shops) until we could stabilize counts with children in school.

If someone says they believe schools should be prioritized as an essential activity, they should support these steps also.

I hope they do this in CA. I think we’re 2-8 weeks from a shutdown anyway.

[Mick]

Mick, since you've made up your mind, let me know exactly how many teachers you're okay killing.  We can work backwards from there to figure out how many to bring back to the schools.  Assuming about a 1% IFR (teachers skew older than the general population): https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/..._t1s_002.a ), for every 1 teacher you're okay killing, we can bring back 100 times the number who will get infected.  How many will get infected?  No one knows!  What a fun experiment to play on teachers!  But it's worth it for the sake of the children.

Teachers did not sign up for this job to die or risk adverse health consequences.  Asking them do so is heartless and cruel.  If it's such a great idea to reopen, Mick, why is no major school district in California doing so?  Why are nearly all the leaders pushing for a full reopening Republicans who have mismanaged the pandemic from day one?  These things are not a coincidence.  People more knowledgeable on this issue than you or I have looked at the evidence and decided that the smartest thing is to close the schools for now.  That should be enough to decide the issue.  Anyone who thinks they are smarter than all the school boards and the experts they have consulted with should probably stop and rethink their position.

Finally, when you've lost Dave Grohl, I think it's time to concede: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/arch...rs/614422/

I addressed every single one of your points.  You didn't address a single one of mine.  

Here's a question for you.  How many kids do you have?  I'll answer your riposte question in advance.  My mother, mother-in-law and wife were teachers.

[Mick]

Mick, since you've made up your mind, let me know exactly how many teachers you're okay killing.  We can work backwards from there to figure out how many to bring back to the schools.  Assuming about a 1% IFR (teachers skew older than the general population): https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/..._t1s_002.a ), for every 1 teacher you're okay killing, we can bring back 100 times the number who will get infected.  How many will get infected?  No one knows!  What a fun experiment to play on teachers!  But it's worth it for the sake of the children.

Teachers did not sign up for this job to die or risk adverse health consequences.  Asking them do so is heartless and cruel.  If it's such a great idea to reopen, Mick, why is no major school district in California doing so?  Why are nearly all the leaders pushing for a full reopening Republicans who have mismanaged the pandemic from day one?  These things are not a coincidence.  People more knowledgeable on this issue than you or I have looked at the evidence and decided that the smartest thing is to close the schools for now.  That should be enough to decide the issue.  Anyone who thinks they are smarter than all the school boards and the experts they have consulted with should probably stop and rethink their position.

Finally, when you've lost Dave Grohl, I think it's time to concede: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/arch...rs/614422/

I addressed every single one of your points.  You didn't address a single one of mine.  

Here's a question for you.  How many kids do you have?  I'll answer your riposte question in advance.  My mother, mother-in-law and wife were teachers.

[Goose]

With the current testing and tracing capabilities, we’d be able to squash cases much more effectively.

Why do you believe that is the case? I have seen no evidence that contact tracking and tracing has meaningfully affected Rt, or that it is actually doing anything at all. It would be reasonable to believe that by now there should be such a capability up and running, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. The SCC number of cases that are contacts of other cases is abysmal and getting worse. SF County doesn't publish such a figure, although what they do publish is tanking. San Mateo County publishes nothing.

[Goose]

With the current testing and tracing capabilities, we’d be able to squash cases much more effectively.

Why do you believe that is the case? I have seen no evidence that contact tracking and tracing has meaningfully affected Rt, or that it is actually doing anything at all. It would be reasonable to believe that by now there should be such a capability up and running, but I haven't seen any evidence of it. The SCC number of cases that are contacts of other cases is abysmal and getting worse. SF County doesn't publish such a figure, although what they do publish is tanking. San Mateo County publishes nothing.

[teejers1]

Mick, since you've made up your mind, let me know exactly how many teachers you're okay killing.  We can work backwards from there to figure out how many to bring back to the schools.  Assuming about a 1% IFR (teachers skew older than the general population): https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/..._t1s_002.a ), for every 1 teacher you're okay killing, we can bring back 100 times the number who will get infected.  How many will get infected?  No one knows!  What a fun experiment to play on teachers!  But it's worth it for the sake of the children.

Teachers did not sign up for this job to die or risk adverse health consequences.  Asking them do so is heartless and cruel.  If it's such a great idea to reopen, Mick, why is no major school district in California doing so?  Why are nearly all the leaders pushing for a full reopening Republicans who have mismanaged the pandemic from day one?  These things are not a coincidence.  People more knowledgeable on this issue than you or I have looked at the evidence and decided that the smartest thing is to close the schools for now.  That should be enough to decide the issue.  Anyone who thinks they are smarter than all the school boards and the experts they have consulted with should probably stop and rethink their position.

Finally, when you've lost Dave Grohl, I think it's time to concede: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/arch...rs/614422/

Of all your posts, this one takes the cake.  
You still didn't answer when is the risk "acceptable" - I think because at whatever level you put infection rate (or whatever measurable you want to cite), you have to admit that it's just a policy decision weighing risks and reward at that level.
You still don't explain why teachers' lives are more important than the Costco workers.
You still don't explain why school districts shouldn't be making these decisions on their own; why districts shouldn't be exploring every avenue to get the kids in school, on some regular basis (even if every other day), to reinstitute an educational routine for them.

The waste and torpor that occurred in the last "distance learning" school session to end 2019-20 school year was palpable and easy to see.  Those thinking "distance learning " will be just fine for the kids are in complete and utter denial.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

And you might want to try turning off your knee-jerk "right and wrong" analysis based solely on party politics.  It's lazy and unbecoming . . . independent thought is a good thing.

P.S.  I love your comment about the debate being "over on the merits" because Newsome catered to his political allies.  What a shocker!!

[teejers1]

Mick, since you've made up your mind, let me know exactly how many teachers you're okay killing.  We can work backwards from there to figure out how many to bring back to the schools.  Assuming about a 1% IFR (teachers skew older than the general population): https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/..._t1s_002.a ), for every 1 teacher you're okay killing, we can bring back 100 times the number who will get infected.  How many will get infected?  No one knows!  What a fun experiment to play on teachers!  But it's worth it for the sake of the children.

Teachers did not sign up for this job to die or risk adverse health consequences.  Asking them do so is heartless and cruel.  If it's such a great idea to reopen, Mick, why is no major school district in California doing so?  Why are nearly all the leaders pushing for a full reopening Republicans who have mismanaged the pandemic from day one?  These things are not a coincidence.  People more knowledgeable on this issue than you or I have looked at the evidence and decided that the smartest thing is to close the schools for now.  That should be enough to decide the issue.  Anyone who thinks they are smarter than all the school boards and the experts they have consulted with should probably stop and rethink their position.

Finally, when you've lost Dave Grohl, I think it's time to concede: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/arch...rs/614422/

Of all your posts, this one takes the cake.  
You still didn't answer when is the risk "acceptable" - I think because at whatever level you put infection rate (or whatever measurable you want to cite), you have to admit that it's just a policy decision weighing risks and reward at that level.
You still don't explain why teachers' lives are more important than the Costco workers.
You still don't explain why school districts shouldn't be making these decisions on their own; why districts shouldn't be exploring every avenue to get the kids in school, on some regular basis (even if every other day), to reinstitute an educational routine for them.

The waste and torpor that occurred in the last "distance learning" school session to end 2019-20 school year was palpable and easy to see.  Those thinking "distance learning " will be just fine for the kids are in complete and utter denial.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

And you might want to try turning off your knee-jerk "right and wrong" analysis based solely on party politics.  It's lazy and unbecoming . . . independent thought is a good thing.

P.S.  I love your comment about the debate being "over on the merits" because Newsome catered to his political allies.  What a shocker!!

[Mick]

Finally, when you've lost Dave Grohl, I think it's time to concede: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/arch...rs/614422/

"When you've lost Dave Grohl, it's time to concede?" Seriously? You want me to concede on education policy to a guy who dropped out of high school in his junior year to join a rock band.  Guess that makes sense in BurgerWorld. 

How about this...if high school dropout/guy without a real world job advocates a direction on education policy, maybe it's a crystal-clear indication to go the other direction?

You still haven't answered any of my questions...not that your response has all the hallmarks of a drive-by or anything.

[Mick]

Finally, when you've lost Dave Grohl, I think it's time to concede: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/arch...rs/614422/

"When you've lost Dave Grohl, it's time to concede?" Seriously? You want me to concede on education policy to a guy who dropped out of high school in his junior year to join a rock band.  Guess that makes sense in BurgerWorld. 

How about this...if high school dropout/guy without a real world job advocates a direction on education policy, maybe it's a crystal-clear indication to go the other direction?

You still haven't answered any of my questions...not that your response has all the hallmarks of a drive-by or anything.

[M T]

Teejers, since you believe you know what the state of education is (esp. for the last 4 months), for those of us who don't know, can you explain how you know so much?    Where are you getting your current data?  Do you have data for rural areas, poor areas, upscale areas?  Can you point us to it? Is it being published by the California Department of Education?

[M T]

Teejers, since you believe you know what the state of education is (esp. for the last 4 months), for those of us who don't know, can you explain how you know so much?    Where are you getting your current data?  Do you have data for rural areas, poor areas, upscale areas?  Can you point us to it? Is it being published by the California Department of Education?

[teejers1]

Teejers, since you believe you know what the state of education is (esp. for the last 4 months), for those of us who don't know, can you explain how you know so much?    Where are you getting your current data?  Do you have data for rural areas, poor areas, upscale areas?  Can you point us to it? Is it being published by the California Department of Education?

All I have is the experience of 3 kids (in a pretty good school district, btw) . . . and conversations with numerous parents who relayed their own experiences in the Bay Area (and other parts of hte country).  But no, I do not have "data" on how well kids were educated at the tail end of the '19-'20 school year - in "rural areas, poor areas, upscale areas" - especially in comparison to how they were educated before "distance learning."  But even without that data, I feel very comfortable and confident in my belief that "distance learning" is a poor substitute for in-person instruction.  

But hey, if you want to believe distance learning is at least as good (or better), be my guest.  I'm sure you have all kinds of data to support that position.

[teejers1]

Teejers, since you believe you know what the state of education is (esp. for the last 4 months), for those of us who don't know, can you explain how you know so much?    Where are you getting your current data?  Do you have data for rural areas, poor areas, upscale areas?  Can you point us to it? Is it being published by the California Department of Education?

All I have is the experience of 3 kids (in a pretty good school district, btw) . . . and conversations with numerous parents who relayed their own experiences in the Bay Area (and other parts of hte country).  But no, I do not have "data" on how well kids were educated at the tail end of the '19-'20 school year - in "rural areas, poor areas, upscale areas" - especially in comparison to how they were educated before "distance learning."  But even without that data, I feel very comfortable and confident in my belief that "distance learning" is a poor substitute for in-person instruction.  

But hey, if you want to believe distance learning is at least as good (or better), be my guest.  I'm sure you have all kinds of data to support that position.

[lex24]

Y

Mick, since you've made up your mind, let me know exactly how many teachers you're okay killing.  We can work backwards from there to figure out how many to bring back to the schools.  Assuming about a 1% IFR (teachers skew older than the general population): https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/..._t1s_002.a ), for every 1 teacher you're okay killing, we can bring back 100 times the number who will get infected.  How many will get infected?  No one knows!  What a fun experiment to play on teachers!  But it's worth it for the sake of the children.

Teachers did not sign up for this job to die or risk adverse health consequences.  Asking them do so is heartless and cruel.  If it's such a great idea to reopen, Mick, why is no major school district in California doing so?  Why are nearly all the leaders pushing for a full reopening Republicans who have mismanaged the pandemic from day one?  These things are not a coincidence.  People more knowledgeable on this issue than you or I have looked at the evidence and decided that the smartest thing is to close the schools for now.  That should be enough to decide the issue.  Anyone who thinks they are smarter than all the school boards and the experts they have consulted with should probably stop and rethink their position.

Finally, when you've lost Dave Grohl, I think it's time to concede: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/arch...rs/614422/

Of all your posts, this one takes the cake.  
You still didn't answer when is the risk "acceptable" - I think because at whatever level you put infection rate (or whatever measurable you want to cite), you have to admit that it's just a policy decision weighing risks and reward at that level.
You still don't explain why teachers' lives are more important than the Costco workers.
You still don't explain why school districts shouldn't be making these decisions on their own; why districts shouldn't be exploring every avenue to get the kids in school, on some regular basis (even if every other day), to reinstitute an educational routine for them.

The waste and torpor that occurred in the last "distance learning" school session to end 2019-20 school year was palpable and easy to see.  Those thinking "distance learning " will be just fine for the kids are in complete and utter denial.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

And you might want to try turning off your knee-jerk "right and wrong" analysis based solely on party politics.  It's lazy and unbecoming . . . independent thought is a good thing.

P.S.  I love your comment about the debate being "over on the merits" because Newsome catered to his political allies.  What a shocker!!

Let me ask you Burger - How many poor kids are you willing to let sit out a year of school and fall even further behind educationally? How many are you willing to have their opportunities dashed. 
 How much are you willing to let crime go up because high schools are closed and frankly 16 to 18-year-old boys with nothing to do is not a particularly good thing? I always love it when people take positions that are essentially – I am right and if you disagree with me you’re evil. Which is exactly what you did. Us vs them. Terrific.

---

Teejers, since you believe you know what the state of education is (esp. for the last 4 months), for those of us who don't know, can you explain how you know so much?    Where are you getting your current data?  Do you have data for rural areas, poor areas, upscale areas?  Can you point us to it? Is it being published by the California Department of Education?

All I have is the experience of 3 kids (in a pretty good school district, btw) . . . and conversations with numerous parents who relayed their own experiences in the Bay Area (and other parts of hte country).  But no, I do not have "data" on how well kids were educated at the tail end of the '19-'20 school year - in "rural areas, poor areas, upscale areas" - especially in comparison to how they were educated before "distance learning."  But even without that data, I feel very comfortable and confident in my belief that "distance learning" is a poor substitute for in-person instruction.  

But hey, if you want to believe distance learning is at least as good (or better), be my guest.  I'm sure you have all kinds of data to support that position.

Why do we approach this as mutually exclusive absolutes?   Where are people with vision and courage to come up with some ideas? This doesn’t have to be either we shut it all down or kids go back to school. Nor does it have to impact teachers from a Covid standpoint. They certainly can deliver their work virtually - through any number of mechanisms. And kids certainly may stay home and attend school if they have the ability, economically and otherwise to do so. As to those kids that can’t - what are they going to do? Or do we just basically say ***** em. Which is essentially where we are right now.

 There have to be some bright people out there who can look for some solutions. Simple ideas come to mind - like having means testing and opening up schools only for those kids that can’t either economically or through family circumstances, school from home. And they are out there. Plenty of them. Second, all instruction could be virtual. No teachers in the classroom. If need be put cameras in the classroom so if kids act out of line someone watching virtually can get them back in line and they’ll be someone close by if things get out of hand.  This is gonna cost money by the way in order to get the classrooms in a condition that they can actually do this. Particularly in areas with poor schools. My suggestion is simple – go to Google, Facebook and all the other Internet companies that are worth $1 trillion and get a whole boatload of money from them to help out.

Saying that the only choices are no school at all  and opening up schools generally is not the answer Give me some creativity. Show me something. That’s what I’m asking of the so-called leaders we have in this state country etc.

And Burger one last thing – both the New York Times and Wall St Journal  opinion pages came out with editorials on how important it is to reopen schools. One liberal opinion page, one conservative. Yet they agree on that point. I guess they just don’t give a shit about saving lives.

[lex24]

Y

Mick, since you've made up your mind, let me know exactly how many teachers you're okay killing.  We can work backwards from there to figure out how many to bring back to the schools.  Assuming about a 1% IFR (teachers skew older than the general population): https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/..._t1s_002.a ), for every 1 teacher you're okay killing, we can bring back 100 times the number who will get infected.  How many will get infected?  No one knows!  What a fun experiment to play on teachers!  But it's worth it for the sake of the children.

Teachers did not sign up for this job to die or risk adverse health consequences.  Asking them do so is heartless and cruel.  If it's such a great idea to reopen, Mick, why is no major school district in California doing so?  Why are nearly all the leaders pushing for a full reopening Republicans who have mismanaged the pandemic from day one?  These things are not a coincidence.  People more knowledgeable on this issue than you or I have looked at the evidence and decided that the smartest thing is to close the schools for now.  That should be enough to decide the issue.  Anyone who thinks they are smarter than all the school boards and the experts they have consulted with should probably stop and rethink their position.

Finally, when you've lost Dave Grohl, I think it's time to concede: https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/arch...rs/614422/

Of all your posts, this one takes the cake.  
You still didn't answer when is the risk "acceptable" - I think because at whatever level you put infection rate (or whatever measurable you want to cite), you have to admit that it's just a policy decision weighing risks and reward at that level.
You still don't explain why teachers' lives are more important than the Costco workers.
You still don't explain why school districts shouldn't be making these decisions on their own; why districts shouldn't be exploring every avenue to get the kids in school, on some regular basis (even if every other day), to reinstitute an educational routine for them.

The waste and torpor that occurred in the last "distance learning" school session to end 2019-20 school year was palpable and easy to see.  Those thinking "distance learning " will be just fine for the kids are in complete and utter denial.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

And you might want to try turning off your knee-jerk "right and wrong" analysis based solely on party politics.  It's lazy and unbecoming . . . independent thought is a good thing.

P.S.  I love your comment about the debate being "over on the merits" because Newsome catered to his political allies.  What a shocker!!

Let me ask you Burger - How many poor kids are you willing to let sit out a year of school and fall even further behind educationally? How many are you willing to have their opportunities dashed. 
 How much are you willing to let crime go up because high schools are closed and frankly 16 to 18-year-old boys with nothing to do is not a particularly good thing? I always love it when people take positions that are essentially – I am right and if you disagree with me you’re evil. Which is exactly what you did. Us vs them. Terrific.

---

Teejers, since you believe you know what the state of education is (esp. for the last 4 months), for those of us who don't know, can you explain how you know so much?    Where are you getting your current data?  Do you have data for rural areas, poor areas, upscale areas?  Can you point us to it? Is it being published by the California Department of Education?

All I have is the experience of 3 kids (in a pretty good school district, btw) . . . and conversations with numerous parents who relayed their own experiences in the Bay Area (and other parts of hte country).  But no, I do not have "data" on how well kids were educated at the tail end of the '19-'20 school year - in "rural areas, poor areas, upscale areas" - especially in comparison to how they were educated before "distance learning."  But even without that data, I feel very comfortable and confident in my belief that "distance learning" is a poor substitute for in-person instruction.  

But hey, if you want to believe distance learning is at least as good (or better), be my guest.  I'm sure you have all kinds of data to support that position.

Why do we approach this as mutually exclusive absolutes?   Where are people with vision and courage to come up with some ideas? This doesn’t have to be either we shut it all down or kids go back to school. Nor does it have to impact teachers from a Covid standpoint. They certainly can deliver their work virtually - through any number of mechanisms. And kids certainly may stay home and attend school if they have the ability, economically and otherwise to do so. As to those kids that can’t - what are they going to do? Or do we just basically say ***** em. Which is essentially where we are right now.

 There have to be some bright people out there who can look for some solutions. Simple ideas come to mind - like having means testing and opening up schools only for those kids that can’t either economically or through family circumstances, school from home. And they are out there. Plenty of them. Second, all instruction could be virtual. No teachers in the classroom. If need be put cameras in the classroom so if kids act out of line someone watching virtually can get them back in line and they’ll be someone close by if things get out of hand.  This is gonna cost money by the way in order to get the classrooms in a condition that they can actually do this. Particularly in areas with poor schools. My suggestion is simple – go to Google, Facebook and all the other Internet companies that are worth $1 trillion and get a whole boatload of money from them to help out.

Saying that the only choices are no school at all  and opening up schools generally is not the answer Give me some creativity. Show me something. That’s what I’m asking of the so-called leaders we have in this state country etc.

And Burger one last thing – both the New York Times and Wall St Journal  opinion pages came out with editorials on how important it is to reopen schools. One liberal opinion page, one conservative. Yet they agree on that point. I guess they just don’t give a shit about saving lives.

[chrisk]

The Californians who ignored the mask and social distance guidelines over the last 2 months are the ones who "made" the on-line school decision.

The countries that reopened schools earlier than the US are the ones that crushed the virus and are using testing and tracing to keep it under control. The virus has been spreading too fast, particularly in the southern half of the US, for testing and tracing to keep up with it.

Where is the criticism of people under 40, irresponsible employers, and lack of isolation housing for people in crowded housing?

[chrisk]

The Californians who ignored the mask and social distance guidelines over the last 2 months are the ones who "made" the on-line school decision.

The countries that reopened schools earlier than the US are the ones that crushed the virus and are using testing and tracing to keep it under control. The virus has been spreading too fast, particularly in the southern half of the US, for testing and tracing to keep up with it.

Where is the criticism of people under 40, irresponsible employers, and lack of isolation housing for people in crowded housing?