[BostonCard]

Don't get me wrong, I want to be able to reopen schools, and I agree with the President's push to do so.  But the President could do a lot more by leaning on the reasons why it is important to reopen schools and by helping enable it to happen than by leaning on the CDC to retract their scientific advice.  The CDC is made up of epidemiologists, not economists.  They have common sense, but they probably don't know the exact budgetary impact of their recommendations.  It follows that they will suggest what they think are reasonable outlays in order to protect students to the extent possible, which may turn out to be economically infeasible (especially with school scheduled to start in September).  And they were tasked with reducing risk; what they produced strikes me as pretty reasonable:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...hools.html

and

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...g-tool.pdf

If you look at the "guiding principles" they are in accordance with what you said.  They are not saying "you absolutely must do this to eliminate risk"; they are saying, "here are the steps you can take to reduce risk".  Moreover if you read the document, it looks like a tiered list.  For example:

[*]Space seating/desks at least 6 feet apart when feasible.
...
[*]stall physical barriers, such as sneeze guards and partitions, particularly in areas where it is difficult for individuals to remain at least 6 feet apart (e.g., reception desks).

(emphasis mine)

Yes, some of that stuff will cost money.  It strikes me that if you want to reopen schools, the best way to do it would be to help them meet the recommendations, which is what Marco Rubio has proposed (sorry, can't find the reference).  Or, if you find them too expensive, push to say so.  But that seems like something that ought to be done by the OMB, not the CDC.


BC

[BostonCard]

Don't get me wrong, I want to be able to reopen schools, and I agree with the President's push to do so.  But the President could do a lot more by leaning on the reasons why it is important to reopen schools and by helping enable it to happen than by leaning on the CDC to retract their scientific advice.  The CDC is made up of epidemiologists, not economists.  They have common sense, but they probably don't know the exact budgetary impact of their recommendations.  It follows that they will suggest what they think are reasonable outlays in order to protect students to the extent possible, which may turn out to be economically infeasible (especially with school scheduled to start in September).  And they were tasked with reducing risk; what they produced strikes me as pretty reasonable:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...hools.html

and

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nco...g-tool.pdf

If you look at the "guiding principles" they are in accordance with what you said.  They are not saying "you absolutely must do this to eliminate risk"; they are saying, "here are the steps you can take to reduce risk".  Moreover if you read the document, it looks like a tiered list.  For example:

[*]Space seating/desks at least 6 feet apart when feasible.
...
[*]stall physical barriers, such as sneeze guards and partitions, particularly in areas where it is difficult for individuals to remain at least 6 feet apart (e.g., reception desks).

(emphasis mine)

Yes, some of that stuff will cost money.  It strikes me that if you want to reopen schools, the best way to do it would be to help them meet the recommendations, which is what Marco Rubio has proposed (sorry, can't find the reference).  Or, if you find them too expensive, push to say so.  But that seems like something that ought to be done by the OMB, not the CDC.


BC