[JustAnotherFan]

Arguing that there is minimal risk to kids (which is uncertain) is a way to get people to not focus on the teachers, staff, and extended family of the students who will die when the schools prematurely open.

Beating a dead horse here, but there is no reason why schools should be bringing students and teachers together indoors. Period.

I can think of a lot of reasons why schools should be bringing teachers and students together indoors, the biggest of which is that other mechanisms of instruction leave a lot to be desired and will leave a long-lasting legacy of poor education in the kids.  If you want that the benefits of hands-on instruction does not outweigh the risks to the staff and student families from spreading the virus, that's one thing; but to see say there is "no reason" is, I think, minimizing the demonstrated benefits of in person instruction.

BC

Do it all outdoors.

---

In-person classes are considered "essential" and Covid parties are not
In-person classes feed hungry kids and provides a place for school-based therapy diagnoses, Covid parties do not
In-person classes decrease the massive increases in inequality in society, Covid parties do not
In-person classes can require spacing, Covid parties, by their nature, do not
I-person classes can require masks, Covid parties, by their nature, do not
In-person classes can require sanitizing, Covid parties do not
In-person classes can be done outdoors as much as possible, and can require ventilation like open windows, Covid parties generally do not

In-person classes are considered "essential" -- Liquor stores are considered essential. Being considered essential does not mean it is.
In-person classes feed hungry kids and provides a place for school-based therapy diagnoses -- Schools have been feeding hungry kids for the last few months without having in-person classes. Without the school many diagnoses become unnecessary (e.g., ODD, ADHD).
In-person classes decrease the massive increases in inequality in society -- Questionable claim. Many recognize schooling as an amplifier of inequality and inequity in America.
In-person classes can require spacing -- but they cannot in most American schools
I-person classes can require masks -- In most places they hopefully will. But when they are breathing recycled air for 7 hours a day they're still going to be spreading Covid.
In-person classes can require sanitizing -- that's not going to happen
In-person classes can be done outdoors as much as possible -- THIS IS THE SAFEST WAY TO REOPEN SCHOOLS

---

And what happens if a lot of teachers retire suddenly?

By "retire" I assume you also mean die.

---

I'd like to better understand your point of view. To me, every job has some amount of "economic coercion" in the form of getting paid. I certainly agree that no one should be forced at gunpoint to teach, and I also think that as a society we should value teachers more and they should be compensated for the risks they are taking, and we should be figuring out how to reduce the risk as low as we can. But I don't see how it would be any less ethical than other jobs where we are asking people to take risks - medical professionals and food processors during the pandemic, or even in normal times loggers, fishers, roofers, etc. 

I'm not sure how our society can ethically compel teachers to risk their lives through no fault of their own.  If a teacher were to volunteer despite the risk, that would be much better.  But most teachers would choose to avoid this risk.

Essential employees are facing this risk as well, and it's a similarly ethically wrong decision for society to coerce them economically between the ability to feed themselves and the choice to avoid exposure to the virus.

(And if they get exposed, they and the whole class are probably out for two weeks.  And if the teacher falls ill, that's 2-8 weeks out.  Good luck finding substitute teachers in this day and age for that kind of pay and risk.  And what happens if a lot of teachers retire suddenly?)

It seems to me that there should be two axis that are considered to answer this question. How much are they being compensated and what is the necessity of the work being done for the wellbeing of society. There should be no one in the high necessity of work, low compensation quadrant. Most teachers get paid too little for such a risk and I'd argue that bringing teachers, staff, and students back together in schools is unnecessary and even harmful to broader society during this pandemic. I also believe that actual essential workers (e.g., grocery store workers) should be getting paid substantially more right now.

[JustAnotherFan]

Arguing that there is minimal risk to kids (which is uncertain) is a way to get people to not focus on the teachers, staff, and extended family of the students who will die when the schools prematurely open.

Beating a dead horse here, but there is no reason why schools should be bringing students and teachers together indoors. Period.

I can think of a lot of reasons why schools should be bringing teachers and students together indoors, the biggest of which is that other mechanisms of instruction leave a lot to be desired and will leave a long-lasting legacy of poor education in the kids.  If you want that the benefits of hands-on instruction does not outweigh the risks to the staff and student families from spreading the virus, that's one thing; but to see say there is "no reason" is, I think, minimizing the demonstrated benefits of in person instruction.

BC

Do it all outdoors.

---

In-person classes are considered "essential" and Covid parties are not
In-person classes feed hungry kids and provides a place for school-based therapy diagnoses, Covid parties do not
In-person classes decrease the massive increases in inequality in society, Covid parties do not
In-person classes can require spacing, Covid parties, by their nature, do not
I-person classes can require masks, Covid parties, by their nature, do not
In-person classes can require sanitizing, Covid parties do not
In-person classes can be done outdoors as much as possible, and can require ventilation like open windows, Covid parties generally do not

In-person classes are considered "essential" -- Liquor stores are considered essential. Being considered essential does not mean it is.
In-person classes feed hungry kids and provides a place for school-based therapy diagnoses -- Schools have been feeding hungry kids for the last few months without having in-person classes. Without the school many diagnoses become unnecessary (e.g., ODD, ADHD).
In-person classes decrease the massive increases in inequality in society -- Questionable claim. Many recognize schooling as an amplifier of inequality and inequity in America.
In-person classes can require spacing -- but they cannot in most American schools
I-person classes can require masks -- In most places they hopefully will. But when they are breathing recycled air for 7 hours a day they're still going to be spreading Covid.
In-person classes can require sanitizing -- that's not going to happen
In-person classes can be done outdoors as much as possible -- THIS IS THE SAFEST WAY TO REOPEN SCHOOLS

---

And what happens if a lot of teachers retire suddenly?

By "retire" I assume you also mean die.

---

I'd like to better understand your point of view. To me, every job has some amount of "economic coercion" in the form of getting paid. I certainly agree that no one should be forced at gunpoint to teach, and I also think that as a society we should value teachers more and they should be compensated for the risks they are taking, and we should be figuring out how to reduce the risk as low as we can. But I don't see how it would be any less ethical than other jobs where we are asking people to take risks - medical professionals and food processors during the pandemic, or even in normal times loggers, fishers, roofers, etc. 

I'm not sure how our society can ethically compel teachers to risk their lives through no fault of their own.  If a teacher were to volunteer despite the risk, that would be much better.  But most teachers would choose to avoid this risk.

Essential employees are facing this risk as well, and it's a similarly ethically wrong decision for society to coerce them economically between the ability to feed themselves and the choice to avoid exposure to the virus.

(And if they get exposed, they and the whole class are probably out for two weeks.  And if the teacher falls ill, that's 2-8 weeks out.  Good luck finding substitute teachers in this day and age for that kind of pay and risk.  And what happens if a lot of teachers retire suddenly?)

It seems to me that there should be two axis that are considered to answer this question. How much are they being compensated and what is the necessity of the work being done for the wellbeing of society. There should be no one in the high necessity of work, low compensation quadrant. Most teachers get paid too little for such a risk and I'd argue that bringing teachers, staff, and students back together in schools is unnecessary and even harmful to broader society during this pandemic. I also believe that actual essential workers (e.g., grocery store workers) should be getting paid substantially more right now.