[Genuine Realist]

61,000 children (actually probably a lot more because kids are frequently asymptomatic) is not a problem.  There have been 80 total deaths from COVID-19 in kids under 14, compared to 19,000+ deaths from all causes in that age group, and something like 600 pediatric deaths from influenza each year:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid.../index.htm

Although all pediatric deaths are tragic, this is an age group where it really is no worse than the flu.  The concern about kids getting COVID-19 is that they transmit it to vulnerable parents and teachers.

Those of us who advocate reopening schools don't do so to prioritize "convenience and subsidized childcare for businesses" ahead of public health, we do so to prioritize education over other activities which also spread the virus, such as eating out, shopping in stores, and professional (and collegiate) sports, which we as a society, seem to have agreed is acceptable.  If we need to go into a complete lockdown again, keeping only absolutely essential businesses (hospitals and supermarkets) then I would readily accept the need to do school remotely.  But don't tell me that the following (in San Mateo county, where I live):
Shopping malls: Can open indoors with modifications
Places of worship: Can open indoors with modifications
Dine-in restaurants: Can open indoors with modifications
Offices (non-essential businesses): Can open indoors with modifications
Bars/Breweries (where no meal provided): Can open outdoors only with modifications
Movie theaters: Can open indoors with modifications
Gyms & fitness centers, including indoor pools: Can open indoors with modifications
Hotels, lodging and short-term lodging rentals: Can open with modifications
Museums: Can open indoors with modifications


are ok, but that reopening schools is not.  This is about what our priorities ought to be as a society, understanding that whatever we do, if we don't keep R(t) under 1, case counts will continue to rise.  If keeping schools closed is essential to keep R(t) < 1, then close the schools.  But if we could keep R(t) under 1 by, for example, closing non-essential indoor activities instead, that would be my preference.

BC

I am hoping and expecting that Trump will lose today, Covid tactics will not be a political issue, and we can search for some nuance here.

Kids in school run the basic endemic flu risk, as I understand it. We never closed schools, not even during the Asian Flu epidemic of 1957 (I was 11) in which school age children were particularly at risk. Nations we have applauded for more drastic measures are keeping schools open. Even while France and Germany return to lockdown, the schools stay open.

A little too much of the nanny state here. If the concern is that school age children may spread the disease to geezers, please trust the geezers to take are of themselves. Not trusting them is too much TLC.

[Genuine Realist]

61,000 children (actually probably a lot more because kids are frequently asymptomatic) is not a problem.  There have been 80 total deaths from COVID-19 in kids under 14, compared to 19,000+ deaths from all causes in that age group, and something like 600 pediatric deaths from influenza each year:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid.../index.htm

Although all pediatric deaths are tragic, this is an age group where it really is no worse than the flu.  The concern about kids getting COVID-19 is that they transmit it to vulnerable parents and teachers.

Those of us who advocate reopening schools don't do so to prioritize "convenience and subsidized childcare for businesses" ahead of public health, we do so to prioritize education over other activities which also spread the virus, such as eating out, shopping in stores, and professional (and collegiate) sports, which we as a society, seem to have agreed is acceptable.  If we need to go into a complete lockdown again, keeping only absolutely essential businesses (hospitals and supermarkets) then I would readily accept the need to do school remotely.  But don't tell me that the following (in San Mateo county, where I live):
Shopping malls: Can open indoors with modifications
Places of worship: Can open indoors with modifications
Dine-in restaurants: Can open indoors with modifications
Offices (non-essential businesses): Can open indoors with modifications
Bars/Breweries (where no meal provided): Can open outdoors only with modifications
Movie theaters: Can open indoors with modifications
Gyms & fitness centers, including indoor pools: Can open indoors with modifications
Hotels, lodging and short-term lodging rentals: Can open with modifications
Museums: Can open indoors with modifications


are ok, but that reopening schools is not.  This is about what our priorities ought to be as a society, understanding that whatever we do, if we don't keep R(t) under 1, case counts will continue to rise.  If keeping schools closed is essential to keep R(t) < 1, then close the schools.  But if we could keep R(t) under 1 by, for example, closing non-essential indoor activities instead, that would be my preference.

BC

I am hoping and expecting that Trump will lose today, Covid tactics will not be a political issue, and we can search for some nuance here.

Kids in school run the basic endemic flu risk, as I understand it. We never closed schools, not even during the Asian Flu epidemic of 1957 (I was 11) in which school age children were particularly at risk. Nations we have applauded for more drastic measures are keeping schools open. Even while France and Germany return to lockdown, the schools stay open.

A little too much of the nanny state here. If the concern is that school age children may spread the disease to geezers, please trust the geezers to take are of themselves. Not trusting them is too much TLC.