[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!!