[teejers1]

https://santarosapressdemocrat-ca-app.ne...=39e792345

Sad very sad.  Fortunately nothing serious.  Yet

Bob, I don't think anyone is arguing that you can open schools without risk of increased positive tests - indeed, increased positive tests are expected.  

The argument is that it's "worth it" because (a) the kids will be fine in virtually all cases, (b) the adults should be fine (especially if the high risk instructors/staff sit it out or remote instruct while kids in school), and © it's important to academic and social development to have kids not cooped up at home.  [And for the umpteenth time, additional positive tests are not dangerous or bad, just in and of themselves.  Is it ideal?  Of course not.  But that does not equate to life-threatening or even dangerous].  

And look at the colleges where kids are not only attending classes, but living in closer quarters.  Have there been positive tests?  Absolutely.  Has it been manageable/acceptable risk?  The results will not be known for sure for a while, but if you look at school reports/dashboards, the evidence is encouraging.  (See ND Dashboard; see what Northeastern is doing).

Bottom line: if "society" can find a way to field freaking sports teams on college campuses, you'd like to think that they could also find a way to get K-12 kids back to school.  It's about priority and the will to "find a way."

[teejers1]

https://santarosapressdemocrat-ca-app.ne...=39e792345

Sad very sad.  Fortunately nothing serious.  Yet

Bob, I don't think anyone is arguing that you can open schools without risk of increased positive tests - indeed, increased positive tests are expected.  

The argument is that it's "worth it" because (a) the kids will be fine in virtually all cases, (b) the adults should be fine (especially if the high risk instructors/staff sit it out or remote instruct while kids in school), and © it's important to academic and social development to have kids not cooped up at home.  [And for the umpteenth time, additional positive tests are not dangerous or bad, just in and of themselves.  Is it ideal?  Of course not.  But that does not equate to life-threatening or even dangerous].  

And look at the colleges where kids are not only attending classes, but living in closer quarters.  Have there been positive tests?  Absolutely.  Has it been manageable/acceptable risk?  The results will not be known for sure for a while, but if you look at school reports/dashboards, the evidence is encouraging.  (See ND Dashboard; see what Northeastern is doing).

Bottom line: if "society" can find a way to field freaking sports teams on college campuses, you'd like to think that they could also find a way to get K-12 kids back to school.  It's about priority and the will to "find a way."