[BostonCard]

I would suggest that the focus then should be in opening schools in a way that minimizes the risk to teachers.

BC

[BostonCard]

I would suggest that the focus then should be in opening schools in a way that minimizes the risk to teachers.

BC

[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.

[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.

[BostonCard]

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

[BostonCard]

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

[M T]

I would suggest that the focus then should be in opening schools in a way that minimizes the risk to teachers.

Your suggestion presupposes that schools open. 
Given your minimum risk protocols,  if you still find that the risk of any particular teacher getting COVID-19 is 99%, you still open schools?
If you find that the risk of any particular teacher getting COVID-19 is 1%, but the median number of parents of that that teacher's students that get COVID-19 after the child gets COVID-19 was 20, you still open schools?

(One could probably push 1% for the teachers if teachers were remote, or if teachers were dressed in full PPE all the time.  But most of us think of in-person classes as where the teachers interact with the kids, like getting between or pulling apart two or five fighting 8 year-olds.  But I don't see any way parents would be able to be remote or in full PPE with their kids.)

I would suggest that we look at the risk to the total population (kids, teachers, household members of the kids, and the overall COVID rate if schools become the COVID party that makes many of the community infected).


I'm not sure how our society can say "COVID parties are bad, but in-person classes are good."

[M T]

I would suggest that the focus then should be in opening schools in a way that minimizes the risk to teachers.

Your suggestion presupposes that schools open. 
Given your minimum risk protocols,  if you still find that the risk of any particular teacher getting COVID-19 is 99%, you still open schools?
If you find that the risk of any particular teacher getting COVID-19 is 1%, but the median number of parents of that that teacher's students that get COVID-19 after the child gets COVID-19 was 20, you still open schools?

(One could probably push 1% for the teachers if teachers were remote, or if teachers were dressed in full PPE all the time.  But most of us think of in-person classes as where the teachers interact with the kids, like getting between or pulling apart two or five fighting 8 year-olds.  But I don't see any way parents would be able to be remote or in full PPE with their kids.)

I would suggest that we look at the risk to the total population (kids, teachers, household members of the kids, and the overall COVID rate if schools become the COVID party that makes many of the community infected).


I'm not sure how our society can say "COVID parties are bad, but in-person classes are good."

[Snorlax94]

I'm not sure how our society can say "COVID parties are bad, but in-person classes are good."

Well,
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 can screen students for symptoms, Covid parties generally do not
In-person classes shouldn't involve alcohol, and alcohol has been linked to a lot of transmission (or as I say, drunk talking is a lot like singing)
Preliminary evidence shows children may become infected less, and may infect others less
(From the Iceland study: “One of the very interesting things is that, in all our data, there are only two examples where a child infected a parent,” Stefánsson told me. “But there are lots of examples where parents infected children.”)

[Snorlax94]

I'm not sure how our society can say "COVID parties are bad, but in-person classes are good."

Well,
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 can screen students for symptoms, Covid parties generally do not
In-person classes shouldn't involve alcohol, and alcohol has been linked to a lot of transmission (or as I say, drunk talking is a lot like singing)
Preliminary evidence shows children may become infected less, and may infect others less
(From the Iceland study: “One of the very interesting things is that, in all our data, there are only two examples where a child infected a parent,” Stefánsson told me. “But there are lots of examples where parents infected children.”)

[fullmetal]

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?)

[fullmetal]

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?)

[g1313]

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?)

[g1313]

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?)

[Mick]

And what happens if a lot of teachers retire suddenly?)

Good question.  NYC has had a significant increase in police officers who want to retire immediately, 5x the number who wanted to retire during the same period as last year.  There have been 503 retirements since the George Floyd murder, and another 40 officers left the force with less than a full pension. And yes, I know it's for a different set of reasons, but it will be interesting to see the effects on NYC.  Already, there have been more murders there.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc...story.html

[Mick]

And what happens if a lot of teachers retire suddenly?)

Good question.  NYC has had a significant increase in police officers who want to retire immediately, 5x the number who wanted to retire during the same period as last year.  There have been 503 retirements since the George Floyd murder, and another 40 officers left the force with less than a full pension. And yes, I know it's for a different set of reasons, but it will be interesting to see the effects on NYC.  Already, there have been more murders there.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc...story.html

[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.

[jhftb2]

I'm not sure how our society can say "COVID parties are bad, but in-person classes are good."

Well,
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 can screen students for symptoms, Covid parties generally do not
In-person classes shouldn't involve alcohol, and alcohol has been linked to a lot of transmission (or as I say, drunk talking is a lot like singing)
Preliminary evidence shows children may become infected less, and may infect others less
(From the Iceland study: “One of the very interesting things is that, in all our data, there are only two examples where a child infected a parent,” Stefánsson told me. “But there are lots of examples where parents infected children.”)

In person classes have kids that can’t be controlled to the degree you are assuming.  

My 30 something daughter (mild asthma, leukemia in remission) supervises several in-class therapists that work with special needs kids (mostly mod-severe on the autism spectrum) at a public school in the south sf bay. It’s not exactly a contact sport but to expect compliance with masks, distancing, hand washing, etc is unrealistic.  They can’t be outdoors as there wouldn’t be enough supervision.  The windows don’t open.  She and her therapists are routinely spat upon, bitten, and struck.  Rarely, to prevent injury the kids need to be physically restrained.  

I wouldn’t last 5 minutes in her job.  It’s important work.  She loves it but she shouldn’t have to risk death as part of the deal.  

It would have been nice if we stayed closed a little longer and if everyone wore masks when they became available.  Hard to argue that we’d be in better shape than we are now.   Seems that a lot of folks who want schools open weren’t willing to help get us to the point where it would be safe®.

[jhftb2]

I'm not sure how our society can say "COVID parties are bad, but in-person classes are good."

Well,
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 can screen students for symptoms, Covid parties generally do not
In-person classes shouldn't involve alcohol, and alcohol has been linked to a lot of transmission (or as I say, drunk talking is a lot like singing)
Preliminary evidence shows children may become infected less, and may infect others less
(From the Iceland study: “One of the very interesting things is that, in all our data, there are only two examples where a child infected a parent,” Stefánsson told me. “But there are lots of examples where parents infected children.”)

In person classes have kids that can’t be controlled to the degree you are assuming.  

My 30 something daughter (mild asthma, leukemia in remission) supervises several in-class therapists that work with special needs kids (mostly mod-severe on the autism spectrum) at a public school in the south sf bay. It’s not exactly a contact sport but to expect compliance with masks, distancing, hand washing, etc is unrealistic.  They can’t be outdoors as there wouldn’t be enough supervision.  The windows don’t open.  She and her therapists are routinely spat upon, bitten, and struck.  Rarely, to prevent injury the kids need to be physically restrained.  

I wouldn’t last 5 minutes in her job.  It’s important work.  She loves it but she shouldn’t have to risk death as part of the deal.  

It would have been nice if we stayed closed a little longer and if everyone wore masks when they became available.  Hard to argue that we’d be in better shape than we are now.   Seems that a lot of folks who want schools open weren’t willing to help get us to the point where it would be safe®.

[Snorlax94]

Seems that a lot of folks who want schools open weren’t willing to help get us to the point where it would be safe®.

Well, it might be true that many people who caused the increasing cases and demanded reopening at a reckless rate are now demanding that schools open “for the childrens’ sake”, and I can think of several specific instances of this, but the rub is that from what I’ve seen, parents with school aged children have been the ones following the guidelines. I’ve seen A LOT of people congregating — sometimes hundreds of people hanging our at bars or bar/restaurants, and groups of people jumping the fence to play basketball even during the initial, strict SIP, and it’s not the parents with young children doing this. People with young kids have been pleading with their neighbors on NextDoor to wear masks and not to congregate in large groups, saying how they want their kids to be able to go to school (which now, for the most part, they will not be able to do).

Or, as Paul Krugman succinctly put it in his recent column:
“ And the reason we’re in this position is that states, cheered on by the Trump administration, rushed to allow large parties and reopen bars. In a real sense America drank away its children’s future.”

[Snorlax94]

Seems that a lot of folks who want schools open weren’t willing to help get us to the point where it would be safe®.

Well, it might be true that many people who caused the increasing cases and demanded reopening at a reckless rate are now demanding that schools open “for the childrens’ sake”, and I can think of several specific instances of this, but the rub is that from what I’ve seen, parents with school aged children have been the ones following the guidelines. I’ve seen A LOT of people congregating — sometimes hundreds of people hanging our at bars or bar/restaurants, and groups of people jumping the fence to play basketball even during the initial, strict SIP, and it’s not the parents with young children doing this. People with young kids have been pleading with their neighbors on NextDoor to wear masks and not to congregate in large groups, saying how they want their kids to be able to go to school (which now, for the most part, they will not be able to do).

Or, as Paul Krugman succinctly put it in his recent column:
“ And the reason we’re in this position is that states, cheered on by the Trump administration, rushed to allow large parties and reopen bars. In a real sense America drank away its children’s future.”

[magnus]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that most parents are as safe as the people on this board.   I see/hear about plenty of playdates happening with friends from elementary school or with friends from the neighborhood.    This isn't as bad as mass congregating at bars, but is it pushing the envelope a little too much?  Maybe these families are lucky they live in a low prevalence area.

[magnus]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that most parents are as safe as the people on this board.   I see/hear about plenty of playdates happening with friends from elementary school or with friends from the neighborhood.    This isn't as bad as mass congregating at bars, but is it pushing the envelope a little too much?  Maybe these families are lucky they live in a low prevalence area.

[teejers1]

It would have been nice if we stayed closed a little longer and if everyone wore masks when they became available.  Hard to argue that we’d be in better shape than we are now.   Seems that a lot of folks who want schools open weren’t willing to help get us to the point where it would be safe®.

What do you even mean by that?
Whenever school kids come back, there is going to be increased risk for the adults, right?

So what, exactly, would have been sufficiently "better shape" for you to think: okay, schools can re-open now?  [If it's "sufficient trace and track to limit spread" - well, good luck on that ever happening].  

That's why I keep reverting to hospital capacity as driver.  THAT is objective data, which you hopefully can tie policy to.  The goal is to have sufficient hospital attention for those who need it.  People who get the virus and are asymptomatic and self-quarantine; or those who have symptoms but can convalesce at home . . . that's not destructive to society.  To the contrary, some might argue that this helps with herd immunity (which may be our ultimate resort if no vaccine secured).  Yeah, yeah, I know, immunity isn't certain, etc., etc.  But that still leads back to hospital capacity as driver.

If you believe it is not safe for teachers to return to school (and it may not be in some/most communities or schools - but watch, private schools will re-open in greater percentages than will publics), the question is when will it ever become safe enough in your view of the world?

P.S.  I'm wondering when we start seeing pushback from those locked in at LTCFs (and their families who don't want them to die alone).  That is a real problem, imo, but one that gets very little attention.

[teejers1]

It would have been nice if we stayed closed a little longer and if everyone wore masks when they became available.  Hard to argue that we’d be in better shape than we are now.   Seems that a lot of folks who want schools open weren’t willing to help get us to the point where it would be safe®.

What do you even mean by that?
Whenever school kids come back, there is going to be increased risk for the adults, right?

So what, exactly, would have been sufficiently "better shape" for you to think: okay, schools can re-open now?  [If it's "sufficient trace and track to limit spread" - well, good luck on that ever happening].  

That's why I keep reverting to hospital capacity as driver.  THAT is objective data, which you hopefully can tie policy to.  The goal is to have sufficient hospital attention for those who need it.  People who get the virus and are asymptomatic and self-quarantine; or those who have symptoms but can convalesce at home . . . that's not destructive to society.  To the contrary, some might argue that this helps with herd immunity (which may be our ultimate resort if no vaccine secured).  Yeah, yeah, I know, immunity isn't certain, etc., etc.  But that still leads back to hospital capacity as driver.

If you believe it is not safe for teachers to return to school (and it may not be in some/most communities or schools - but watch, private schools will re-open in greater percentages than will publics), the question is when will it ever become safe enough in your view of the world?

P.S.  I'm wondering when we start seeing pushback from those locked in at LTCFs (and their families who don't want them to die alone).  That is a real problem, imo, but one that gets very little attention.

[jhftb2]

It would have been nice if we stayed closed a little longer and if everyone wore masks when they became available.  Hard to argue that we’d be in better shape than we are now.   Seems that a lot of folks who want schools open weren’t willing to help get us to the point where it would be safe®.

What do you even mean by that?
Whenever school kids come back, there is going to be increased risk for the adults, right?

So what, exactly, would have been sufficiently "better shape" for you to think: okay, schools can re-open now?  [If it's "sufficient trace and track to limit spread" - well, good luck on that ever happening].  

That's why I keep reverting to hospital capacity as driver.  THAT is objective data, which you hopefully can tie policy to.  The goal is to have sufficient hospital attention for those who need it.  People who get the virus and are asymptomatic and self-quarantine; or those who have symptoms but can convalesce at home . . . that's not destructive to society.  

If you believe it is not safe for teachers to return to school (and it may not be in some/most communities or schools - but watch, private schools will re-open in greater percentages than will publics), the question is when will it ever become safe enough in your view of the world?

All sorts of fun things here.  I’ll pick an choose also:

Hospitalizations in California peaked in late April then turned down a little bit.  Rather than waiting a couple more weeks for a significant downturn to occur folks got anxious/complacent and wanted things open NOW.  Of course masks were too much trouble for some and distancing was for others to deal with.  Seems that they are still heading up.  Not the best time to consider opening anything to my mind.  How about some reputable group set some kind of phased reopening plan based on certain milestones.  Oh wait, we tried that...

Hospital capacity?  As we saw in New York you can always increase capacity.  Maples isn’t being used now.We could squeeze a few hundred beds in there.  There are anecdotal stories about crematoriums running at capacity with backlogs.  Should we track that, too?  How about we worry about keeping folks out of hospitals rather than figuring out how to stack them higher and deeper?

You talk of asymptomatic people self quarantining.  There are some who say we are doing too much testing and you seem to imply contact tracing is a joke.  How will asymptomatic folks know they need to quarantine?  I drove by the Mountain View ymca yesterday.  Nice bunch of kids sitting outside with college age leaders.  Looked like the were about 2 feet apart.  No masks in sight.  An asymptomatic leader would have given the virus to 6 kids who would have passed it on to 10+- parents and a greater number of siblings and grandparents.  

When will it be safe enough to return to class?  If we are to believe Mr Trump we will have a vaccine in December or January.  Seems not unreasonable to wait until then.  I guess his instance on opening schools now may cast some doubt on that, though.  Unfortunately a lot of the same people who want schools open and won’t wear masks won’t take the vaccine.  Quite frankly if my daughter is safe,  the parents can do whatever they want with their kids, and themselves and THEIR parents.  And yes, I signed up for the phase three test database that was the subject of another thread on this great board.

I have no idea how accurate the numbers are in this article but it makes an interesting read.  Although it’s on the internet so it must be true?
https://www.boredpanda.com/1-percent-mor...lin-veaux/

I realize there is no way anything I say will have any effect on your way of thinking so I’ll bow out here and leave the last word (if any) to you.  Thanks for letting me vent.

[jhftb2]

It would have been nice if we stayed closed a little longer and if everyone wore masks when they became available.  Hard to argue that we’d be in better shape than we are now.   Seems that a lot of folks who want schools open weren’t willing to help get us to the point where it would be safe®.

What do you even mean by that?
Whenever school kids come back, there is going to be increased risk for the adults, right?

So what, exactly, would have been sufficiently "better shape" for you to think: okay, schools can re-open now?  [If it's "sufficient trace and track to limit spread" - well, good luck on that ever happening].  

That's why I keep reverting to hospital capacity as driver.  THAT is objective data, which you hopefully can tie policy to.  The goal is to have sufficient hospital attention for those who need it.  People who get the virus and are asymptomatic and self-quarantine; or those who have symptoms but can convalesce at home . . . that's not destructive to society.  

If you believe it is not safe for teachers to return to school (and it may not be in some/most communities or schools - but watch, private schools will re-open in greater percentages than will publics), the question is when will it ever become safe enough in your view of the world?

All sorts of fun things here.  I’ll pick an choose also:

Hospitalizations in California peaked in late April then turned down a little bit.  Rather than waiting a couple more weeks for a significant downturn to occur folks got anxious/complacent and wanted things open NOW.  Of course masks were too much trouble for some and distancing was for others to deal with.  Seems that they are still heading up.  Not the best time to consider opening anything to my mind.  How about some reputable group set some kind of phased reopening plan based on certain milestones.  Oh wait, we tried that...

Hospital capacity?  As we saw in New York you can always increase capacity.  Maples isn’t being used now.We could squeeze a few hundred beds in there.  There are anecdotal stories about crematoriums running at capacity with backlogs.  Should we track that, too?  How about we worry about keeping folks out of hospitals rather than figuring out how to stack them higher and deeper?

You talk of asymptomatic people self quarantining.  There are some who say we are doing too much testing and you seem to imply contact tracing is a joke.  How will asymptomatic folks know they need to quarantine?  I drove by the Mountain View ymca yesterday.  Nice bunch of kids sitting outside with college age leaders.  Looked like the were about 2 feet apart.  No masks in sight.  An asymptomatic leader would have given the virus to 6 kids who would have passed it on to 10+- parents and a greater number of siblings and grandparents.  

When will it be safe enough to return to class?  If we are to believe Mr Trump we will have a vaccine in December or January.  Seems not unreasonable to wait until then.  I guess his instance on opening schools now may cast some doubt on that, though.  Unfortunately a lot of the same people who want schools open and won’t wear masks won’t take the vaccine.  Quite frankly if my daughter is safe,  the parents can do whatever they want with their kids, and themselves and THEIR parents.  And yes, I signed up for the phase three test database that was the subject of another thread on this great board.

I have no idea how accurate the numbers are in this article but it makes an interesting read.  Although it’s on the internet so it must be true?
https://www.boredpanda.com/1-percent-mor...lin-veaux/

I realize there is no way anything I say will have any effect on your way of thinking so I’ll bow out here and leave the last word (if any) to you.  Thanks for letting me vent.

[teejers1]

All sorts of fun things here.  I’ll pick an choose also:

Hospitalizations in California peaked in late April then turned down a little bit.  Rather than waiting a couple more weeks for a significant downturn to occur folks got anxious/complacent and wanted things open NOW.  Of course masks were too much trouble for some and distancing was for others to deal with.  Seems that they are still heading up.  Not the best time to consider opening anything to my mind.  How about some reputable group set some kind of phased reopening plan based on certain milestones.  Oh wait, we tried that...

Hospital capacity?  As we saw in New York you can always increase capacity.  Maples isn’t being used now.We could squeeze a few hundred beds in there.  There are anecdotal stories about crematoriums running at capacity with backlogs.  Should we track that, too?  How about we worry about keeping folks out of hospitals rather than figuring out how to stack them higher and deeper?

You talk of asymptomatic people self quarantining.  There are some who say we are doing too much testing and you seem to imply contact tracing is a joke.  How will asymptomatic folks know they need to quarantine?  I drove by the Mountain View ymca yesterday.  Nice bunch of kids sitting outside with college age leaders.  Looked like the were about 2 feet apart.  No masks in sight.  An asymptomatic leader would have given the virus to 6 kids who would have passed it on to 10+- parents and a greater number of siblings and grandparents.  

When will it be safe enough to return to class?  If we are to believe Mr Trump we will have a vaccine in December or January.  Seems not unreasonable to wait until then.  I guess his instance on opening schools now may cast some doubt on that, though.  Unfortunately a lot of the same people who want schools open and won’t wear masks won’t take the vaccine.  Quite frankly if my daughter is safe,  the parents can do whatever they want with their kids, and themselves and THEIR parents.  And yes, I signed up for the phase three test database that was the subject of another thread on this great board.

I have no idea how accurate the numbers are in this article but it makes an interesting read.  Although it’s on the internet so it must be true?
https://www.boredpanda.com/1-percent-mor...lin-veaux/

I realize there is no way anything I say will have any effect on your way of thinking so I’ll bow out here and leave the last word (if any) to you.  Thanks for letting me vent.

Anytime!

[teejers1]

All sorts of fun things here.  I’ll pick an choose also:

Hospitalizations in California peaked in late April then turned down a little bit.  Rather than waiting a couple more weeks for a significant downturn to occur folks got anxious/complacent and wanted things open NOW.  Of course masks were too much trouble for some and distancing was for others to deal with.  Seems that they are still heading up.  Not the best time to consider opening anything to my mind.  How about some reputable group set some kind of phased reopening plan based on certain milestones.  Oh wait, we tried that...

Hospital capacity?  As we saw in New York you can always increase capacity.  Maples isn’t being used now.We could squeeze a few hundred beds in there.  There are anecdotal stories about crematoriums running at capacity with backlogs.  Should we track that, too?  How about we worry about keeping folks out of hospitals rather than figuring out how to stack them higher and deeper?

You talk of asymptomatic people self quarantining.  There are some who say we are doing too much testing and you seem to imply contact tracing is a joke.  How will asymptomatic folks know they need to quarantine?  I drove by the Mountain View ymca yesterday.  Nice bunch of kids sitting outside with college age leaders.  Looked like the were about 2 feet apart.  No masks in sight.  An asymptomatic leader would have given the virus to 6 kids who would have passed it on to 10+- parents and a greater number of siblings and grandparents.  

When will it be safe enough to return to class?  If we are to believe Mr Trump we will have a vaccine in December or January.  Seems not unreasonable to wait until then.  I guess his instance on opening schools now may cast some doubt on that, though.  Unfortunately a lot of the same people who want schools open and won’t wear masks won’t take the vaccine.  Quite frankly if my daughter is safe,  the parents can do whatever they want with their kids, and themselves and THEIR parents.  And yes, I signed up for the phase three test database that was the subject of another thread on this great board.

I have no idea how accurate the numbers are in this article but it makes an interesting read.  Although it’s on the internet so it must be true?
https://www.boredpanda.com/1-percent-mor...lin-veaux/

I realize there is no way anything I say will have any effect on your way of thinking so I’ll bow out here and leave the last word (if any) to you.  Thanks for letting me vent.

Anytime!

[lex24]

I'm not sure how our society can say "COVID parties are bad, but in-person classes are good."

Well,
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 can screen students for symptoms, Covid parties generally do not
In-person classes shouldn't involve alcohol, and alcohol has been linked to a lot of transmission (or as I say, drunk talking is a lot like singing)
Preliminary evidence shows children may become infected less, and may infect others less
(From the Iceland study: “One of the very interesting things is that, in all our data, there are only two examples where a child infected a parent,” Stefánsson told me. “But there are lots of examples where parents infected children.”)

In person classes have kids that can’t be controlled to the degree you are assuming.  

My 30 something daughter (mild asthma, leukemia in remission) supervises several in-class therapists that work with special needs kids (mostly mod-severe on the autism spectrum) at a public school in the south sf bay. It’s not exactly a contact sport but to expect compliance with masks, distancing, hand washing, etc is unrealistic.  They can’t be outdoors as there wouldn’t be enough supervision.  The windows don’t open.  She and her therapists are routinely spat upon, bitten, and struck.  Rarely, to prevent injury the kids need to be physically restrained.  

I wouldn’t last 5 minutes in her job.  It’s important work.  She loves it but she shouldn’t have to risk death as part of the deal.  

It would have been nice if we stayed closed a little longer and if everyone wore masks when they became available.  Hard to argue that we’d be in better shape than we are now.   Seems that a lot of folks who want schools open weren’t willing to help get us to the point where it would be safe®.

Bless your daughter. I have so much respect for what she does.

[lex24]

I'm not sure how our society can say "COVID parties are bad, but in-person classes are good."

Well,
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 can screen students for symptoms, Covid parties generally do not
In-person classes shouldn't involve alcohol, and alcohol has been linked to a lot of transmission (or as I say, drunk talking is a lot like singing)
Preliminary evidence shows children may become infected less, and may infect others less
(From the Iceland study: “One of the very interesting things is that, in all our data, there are only two examples where a child infected a parent,” Stefánsson told me. “But there are lots of examples where parents infected children.”)

In person classes have kids that can’t be controlled to the degree you are assuming.  

My 30 something daughter (mild asthma, leukemia in remission) supervises several in-class therapists that work with special needs kids (mostly mod-severe on the autism spectrum) at a public school in the south sf bay. It’s not exactly a contact sport but to expect compliance with masks, distancing, hand washing, etc is unrealistic.  They can’t be outdoors as there wouldn’t be enough supervision.  The windows don’t open.  She and her therapists are routinely spat upon, bitten, and struck.  Rarely, to prevent injury the kids need to be physically restrained.  

I wouldn’t last 5 minutes in her job.  It’s important work.  She loves it but she shouldn’t have to risk death as part of the deal.  

It would have been nice if we stayed closed a little longer and if everyone wore masks when they became available.  Hard to argue that we’d be in better shape than we are now.   Seems that a lot of folks who want schools open weren’t willing to help get us to the point where it would be safe®.

Bless your daughter. I have so much respect for what she does.