[JustAnotherFan]

This is why they should not have reopened schools: 

More than 61,000 children got Covid-19 last week, a record. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-ne...d-n1245851

Pediatric cases now account for 11 percent of all cases in the U.S., up from 2 percent in April.

Bringing students, teachers, and staff together indoors fuels the spread to the rest of the community. Politicians, business leaders, school board members, and parents who advocated for reopening schools put convenience and subsidized childcare for businesses ahead of public health. It was not for the children.

If they were really concerned about the children not learning long division or not being able to socialize they should have taken schooling outdoors in small groups of physically distant Learners.

[JustAnotherFan]

This is why they should not have reopened schools: 

More than 61,000 children got Covid-19 last week, a record. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-ne...d-n1245851

Pediatric cases now account for 11 percent of all cases in the U.S., up from 2 percent in April.

Bringing students, teachers, and staff together indoors fuels the spread to the rest of the community. Politicians, business leaders, school board members, and parents who advocated for reopening schools put convenience and subsidized childcare for businesses ahead of public health. It was not for the children.

If they were really concerned about the children not learning long division or not being able to socialize they should have taken schooling outdoors in small groups of physically distant Learners.

[OutsiderFan]

As I posted in another thread, schools being open is not the problem. It's that they are opening without adequate NPIs.  Namely, this means ventilation and air filtration, mask wearing, and class size limits.

A more helpful story would say opening schools without adequate mitigation measures is going to be disastrous, but if they are in place, schools can open with manageable impact.  Then, it should talk about the need to invest money in retrofitting HVAC systems if schools are to open. Parents will bellyache about not having kids in school, but they must understand how only better HVAC systems can make opening pragmatic.  Perhaps municipalities can issue "Covid bonds" to raise the money for these retrofits?

We effectively have a war going on with a virus and we must ramp up production of whatever it takes to defeat it.  I see way, way too much surrender on all sides right now. Some want to just throw up their hands and hide in a bunker. Some don't want to do anything different and let the virus overrun them.  In a war, you must gain territory. Sitting idle or going out unarmed will make you no progress or kill you.

[OutsiderFan]

As I posted in another thread, schools being open is not the problem. It's that they are opening without adequate NPIs.  Namely, this means ventilation and air filtration, mask wearing, and class size limits.

A more helpful story would say opening schools without adequate mitigation measures is going to be disastrous, but if they are in place, schools can open with manageable impact.  Then, it should talk about the need to invest money in retrofitting HVAC systems if schools are to open. Parents will bellyache about not having kids in school, but they must understand how only better HVAC systems can make opening pragmatic.  Perhaps municipalities can issue "Covid bonds" to raise the money for these retrofits?

We effectively have a war going on with a virus and we must ramp up production of whatever it takes to defeat it.  I see way, way too much surrender on all sides right now. Some want to just throw up their hands and hide in a bunker. Some don't want to do anything different and let the virus overrun them.  In a war, you must gain territory. Sitting idle or going out unarmed will make you no progress or kill you.

[JustAnotherFan]

As I posted in another thread, schools being open is not the problem. It's that they are opening without adequate NPIs.  Namely, this means ventilation and air filtration, mask wearing, and class size limits.

A more helpful story would say opening schools without adequate mitigation measures is going to be disastrous, but if they are in place, schools can open with manageable impact.  Then, it should talk about the need to invest money in retrofitting HVAC systems if schools are to open. Parents will bellyache about not having kids in school, but they must understand how only better HVAC systems can make opening pragmatic.  Perhaps municipalities can issue "Covid bonds" to raise the money for these retrofits?

We effectively have a war going on with a virus and we must ramp up production of whatever it takes to defeat it.  I see way, way too much surrender on all sides right now. Some want to just throw up their hands and hide in a bunker. Some don't want to do anything different and let the virus overrun them.  In a war, you must gain territory. Sitting idle or going out unarmed will make you no progress or kill you.

And until they are able to do all the things you suggest, they could simply take learning outdoors. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/nyreg...doors.html

[JustAnotherFan]

As I posted in another thread, schools being open is not the problem. It's that they are opening without adequate NPIs.  Namely, this means ventilation and air filtration, mask wearing, and class size limits.

A more helpful story would say opening schools without adequate mitigation measures is going to be disastrous, but if they are in place, schools can open with manageable impact.  Then, it should talk about the need to invest money in retrofitting HVAC systems if schools are to open. Parents will bellyache about not having kids in school, but they must understand how only better HVAC systems can make opening pragmatic.  Perhaps municipalities can issue "Covid bonds" to raise the money for these retrofits?

We effectively have a war going on with a virus and we must ramp up production of whatever it takes to defeat it.  I see way, way too much surrender on all sides right now. Some want to just throw up their hands and hide in a bunker. Some don't want to do anything different and let the virus overrun them.  In a war, you must gain territory. Sitting idle or going out unarmed will make you no progress or kill you.

And until they are able to do all the things you suggest, they could simply take learning outdoors. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/nyreg...doors.html

[OutsiderFan]

As I posted in another thread, schools being open is not the problem. It's that they are opening without adequate NPIs.  Namely, this means ventilation and air filtration, mask wearing, and class size limits.

A more helpful story would say opening schools without adequate mitigation measures is going to be disastrous, but if they are in place, schools can open with manageable impact.  Then, it should talk about the need to invest money in retrofitting HVAC systems if schools are to open. Parents will bellyache about not having kids in school, but they must understand how only better HVAC systems can make opening pragmatic.  Perhaps municipalities can issue "Covid bonds" to raise the money for these retrofits?

We effectively have a war going on with a virus and we must ramp up production of whatever it takes to defeat it.  I see way, way too much surrender on all sides right now. Some want to just throw up their hands and hide in a bunker. Some don't want to do anything different and let the virus overrun them.  In a war, you must gain territory. Sitting idle or going out unarmed will make you no progress or kill you.

And until they are able to do all the things you suggest, they could simply take learning outdoors. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/nyreg...doors.html

I can't read the article, but how does outdoors work when it is 30 degrees outside?

[OutsiderFan]

As I posted in another thread, schools being open is not the problem. It's that they are opening without adequate NPIs.  Namely, this means ventilation and air filtration, mask wearing, and class size limits.

A more helpful story would say opening schools without adequate mitigation measures is going to be disastrous, but if they are in place, schools can open with manageable impact.  Then, it should talk about the need to invest money in retrofitting HVAC systems if schools are to open. Parents will bellyache about not having kids in school, but they must understand how only better HVAC systems can make opening pragmatic.  Perhaps municipalities can issue "Covid bonds" to raise the money for these retrofits?

We effectively have a war going on with a virus and we must ramp up production of whatever it takes to defeat it.  I see way, way too much surrender on all sides right now. Some want to just throw up their hands and hide in a bunker. Some don't want to do anything different and let the virus overrun them.  In a war, you must gain territory. Sitting idle or going out unarmed will make you no progress or kill you.

And until they are able to do all the things you suggest, they could simply take learning outdoors. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/nyreg...doors.html

I can't read the article, but how does outdoors work when it is 30 degrees outside?

[BostonCard]

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

[BostonCard]

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

[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.

[magnus]

 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.

I agree that schools should be a priority, but it appears that the above highlighted activities are all able to be far more physically distanced than schools. 

Perhaps it's a case of taking "follow the science" to an extreme?

[magnus]

 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.

I agree that schools should be a priority, but it appears that the above highlighted activities are all able to be far more physically distanced than schools. 

Perhaps it's a case of taking "follow the science" to an extreme?

[BostonCard]

There are always two dimensions to any decision, how risky it is and how important it is.  Early in the pandemic, especially lacking PPE, hospitals were very high risk for COVID transmission, but they were (appropriately) considered essential.  On the other hand, in the worst of the lockdown in Italy, even outdoor exercise was restricted, even though it was very low risk.  You might argue that museums, modified to enable social distancing, are low enough risk, but they aren't zero risk and this may be the case where it is worth sacrificing a lower risk activity to enable a more important, high risk activity.

BC

[BostonCard]

There are always two dimensions to any decision, how risky it is and how important it is.  Early in the pandemic, especially lacking PPE, hospitals were very high risk for COVID transmission, but they were (appropriately) considered essential.  On the other hand, in the worst of the lockdown in Italy, even outdoor exercise was restricted, even though it was very low risk.  You might argue that museums, modified to enable social distancing, are low enough risk, but they aren't zero risk and this may be the case where it is worth sacrificing a lower risk activity to enable a more important, high risk activity.

BC

[JustAnotherFan]

As I posted in another thread, schools being open is not the problem. It's that they are opening without adequate NPIs.  Namely, this means ventilation and air filtration, mask wearing, and class size limits.

A more helpful story would say opening schools without adequate mitigation measures is going to be disastrous, but if they are in place, schools can open with manageable impact.  Then, it should talk about the need to invest money in retrofitting HVAC systems if schools are to open. Parents will bellyache about not having kids in school, but they must understand how only better HVAC systems can make opening pragmatic.  Perhaps municipalities can issue "Covid bonds" to raise the money for these retrofits?

We effectively have a war going on with a virus and we must ramp up production of whatever it takes to defeat it.  I see way, way too much surrender on all sides right now. Some want to just throw up their hands and hide in a bunker. Some don't want to do anything different and let the virus overrun them.  In a war, you must gain territory. Sitting idle or going out unarmed will make you no progress or kill you.

And until they are able to do all the things you suggest, they could simply take learning outdoors. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/nyreg...doors.html

I can't read the article, but how does outdoors work when it is 30 degrees outside?

There's no such thing as bad weather. Only bad clothing choices.

---

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

It's not about how many kids die. It's about how they infect other students, teachers, and staff, who then take the disease home and spread it to the community.

[JustAnotherFan]

As I posted in another thread, schools being open is not the problem. It's that they are opening without adequate NPIs.  Namely, this means ventilation and air filtration, mask wearing, and class size limits.

A more helpful story would say opening schools without adequate mitigation measures is going to be disastrous, but if they are in place, schools can open with manageable impact.  Then, it should talk about the need to invest money in retrofitting HVAC systems if schools are to open. Parents will bellyache about not having kids in school, but they must understand how only better HVAC systems can make opening pragmatic.  Perhaps municipalities can issue "Covid bonds" to raise the money for these retrofits?

We effectively have a war going on with a virus and we must ramp up production of whatever it takes to defeat it.  I see way, way too much surrender on all sides right now. Some want to just throw up their hands and hide in a bunker. Some don't want to do anything different and let the virus overrun them.  In a war, you must gain territory. Sitting idle or going out unarmed will make you no progress or kill you.

And until they are able to do all the things you suggest, they could simply take learning outdoors. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/nyreg...doors.html

I can't read the article, but how does outdoors work when it is 30 degrees outside?

There's no such thing as bad weather. Only bad clothing choices.

---

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

It's not about how many kids die. It's about how they infect other students, teachers, and staff, who then take the disease home and spread it to the community.

[M T]

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

It's not about how many kids die. It's about how they infect other students, teachers, and staff, who then take the disease home and spread it to the community.

A bit later in his post, BC wrote "The concern about kids getting COVID-19 is that they transmit it to vulnerable parents and teachers." so the two of you are in agreement there.

I'll point out that how the spread among the kids affect the R value is significant.  It adds an entirely orthogonal mechanism for spread of the disease, which I believe is perhaps larger than all the spread in all the businesses.   In support of opening schools, people argued that "Kids don't get sick (or get sick less often)" and then that "Kids don't spread the disease", but I believe those have been shown to be false.

Very young children simply don't understand the risks.  Even when they do understand, they are easily distracted and forget that they shouldn't be interacting closely.  When maybe they've figured that out, many are individualizing themselves by rebelling against rules & authorities.

If one had the value of R with everyone at work but kids not in school, then I'd think R would double with everyone at work AND kids in school.   How many of you sit in a room with 25 (or, worse, 6 sets of 25) during your day?

The average classroom size in the US is about 25 (plus teacher(s)).  That's a lot of chances for one of them to be infectious (asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, or symptomatic), and then its off to the races.    Want to keep them 6' apart?  That's a minimum of 2940 sq ft (more than a 54'x54' room).

I see schools that are having classes have done alternating groups (one I saw had to use 4 disjoint groups) in order to spread the kids out in the room available.  Subdividing into groups reduces the size of each bubble but the bubbles are intricately linked.  Adam is going to take it home to brother Bill who is in a different group.   Sending each kid to school every other day or every third day pretty much makes sure that someone who gets sick was at school after being infectious but before symptoms showed.  Alternating weeks would reduce those chances somewhat.  

I can see how people from California might think schools can move outside, but I doubt you'd find much agreement from those in Minnesota, or Texas.   Even in California, are you going to call for school holidays when it rains, or just threatens to rain, or do you plan on huddling everyone indoors and think COVID won't spread on those days?

Can we find a reasonable way to have few enough people at work and all kids in brick&mortar schools and still get R<1?  Personally I doubt it.  We didn't get everyone back to work before R got above 1.

[M T]

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

It's not about how many kids die. It's about how they infect other students, teachers, and staff, who then take the disease home and spread it to the community.

A bit later in his post, BC wrote "The concern about kids getting COVID-19 is that they transmit it to vulnerable parents and teachers." so the two of you are in agreement there.

I'll point out that how the spread among the kids affect the R value is significant.  It adds an entirely orthogonal mechanism for spread of the disease, which I believe is perhaps larger than all the spread in all the businesses.   In support of opening schools, people argued that "Kids don't get sick (or get sick less often)" and then that "Kids don't spread the disease", but I believe those have been shown to be false.

Very young children simply don't understand the risks.  Even when they do understand, they are easily distracted and forget that they shouldn't be interacting closely.  When maybe they've figured that out, many are individualizing themselves by rebelling against rules & authorities.

If one had the value of R with everyone at work but kids not in school, then I'd think R would double with everyone at work AND kids in school.   How many of you sit in a room with 25 (or, worse, 6 sets of 25) during your day?

The average classroom size in the US is about 25 (plus teacher(s)).  That's a lot of chances for one of them to be infectious (asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, or symptomatic), and then its off to the races.    Want to keep them 6' apart?  That's a minimum of 2940 sq ft (more than a 54'x54' room).

I see schools that are having classes have done alternating groups (one I saw had to use 4 disjoint groups) in order to spread the kids out in the room available.  Subdividing into groups reduces the size of each bubble but the bubbles are intricately linked.  Adam is going to take it home to brother Bill who is in a different group.   Sending each kid to school every other day or every third day pretty much makes sure that someone who gets sick was at school after being infectious but before symptoms showed.  Alternating weeks would reduce those chances somewhat.  

I can see how people from California might think schools can move outside, but I doubt you'd find much agreement from those in Minnesota, or Texas.   Even in California, are you going to call for school holidays when it rains, or just threatens to rain, or do you plan on huddling everyone indoors and think COVID won't spread on those days?

Can we find a reasonable way to have few enough people at work and all kids in brick&mortar schools and still get R<1?  Personally I doubt it.  We didn't get everyone back to work before R got above 1.

[JustAnotherFan]

I can see how people from California might think schools can move outside, but I doubt you'd find much agreement from those in Minnesota, or Texas.   Even in California, are you going to call for school holidays when it rains, or just threatens to rain, or do you plan on huddling everyone indoors and think COVID won't spread on those days?

I'm in Texas. We have moved everything outdoors. It's possible. It is a question of will.

[JustAnotherFan]

I can see how people from California might think schools can move outside, but I doubt you'd find much agreement from those in Minnesota, or Texas.   Even in California, are you going to call for school holidays when it rains, or just threatens to rain, or do you plan on huddling everyone indoors and think COVID won't spread on those days?

I'm in Texas. We have moved everything outdoors. It's possible. It is a question of will.

[teejers1]

I can see how people from California might think schools can move outside, but I doubt you'd find much agreement from those in Minnesota, or Texas.   Even in California, are you going to call for school holidays when it rains, or just threatens to rain, or do you plan on huddling everyone indoors and think COVID won't spread on those days?

I'm in Texas. We have moved everything outdoors. It's possible. It is a question of will.

Common ground with JAF . . . another potential sign of the Apocalypse.

[teejers1]

I can see how people from California might think schools can move outside, but I doubt you'd find much agreement from those in Minnesota, or Texas.   Even in California, are you going to call for school holidays when it rains, or just threatens to rain, or do you plan on huddling everyone indoors and think COVID won't spread on those days?

I'm in Texas. We have moved everything outdoors. It's possible. It is a question of will.

Common ground with JAF . . . another potential sign of the Apocalypse.