The discussion isn't about what people want. Of course we want to send our kids back. It is about the deleterious effect on children from NOT going back. the health issues and the debate is whether the overall risks are greater than going back in a time of Covid.
UN Officials Cite Study That Finds Lockdowns, School Closures KILLING More Children Than COVID
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
The discussion isn't about what people want. Of course we want to send our kids back. It is about the deleterious effect on children from NOT going back. the health issues and the debate is whether the overall risks are greater than going back in a time of Covid.
I will say that our experience with summer day camps in North Carolina has not gone well. Within three weeks of opening nearly all of them experienced one or more cases of COVID-19. Many had to shut down including the Cary YMCA and Durham Museum of Life & Sciences camp.
I am afraid this will also happen when they open schools. We will get about 3 or 4 weeks into the semester and many children/teachers may test positive for COVID-19. The real problem is there is no policy (beyond sending the infected home for 14 days) for what should be done at the school when an outbreak occurs. Should everyone in the same classroom as the child be required to be remote for 14 days? Should the entire school be required to shut-down if there is a large-scale multi-classroom outbreak? If yes, then what is the required number of students or percentage of students infected that would trigger a entire school shutdown? Similarly the infection level in the local community should be a relevant factor in school being held in person - how is this being considered?
I think it is going to happen, no way around it. To put kids back in school and not expect them to get the virus is silly. Its obviously going to happen.
This goes back to the risk/reward conversation I regularly fall back on. Every day you get in your car to go somewhere, knowing in the back of your mind you can die in a car accident - yet you still do it. Why do you do it? Because the risk of dying in a car accident isn't enough to justify going without the convenience and benefits of a car.
If you believe that the risk of going back to school isn't as significant as the downside to not going to school, you go to school. If not, you don't. Plenty of people out there believe the risk is not as great as it is being made out to be. The above stats on CFR by demographic support this. It isn't right for everyone so people have to take precautions. Just like they always had to. But for the vast majority of people and almost all kids, there is little risk. And the downside of not going to school (for all the reasons mentioned) is too great.
The study was based mostly on Africa and Asia....let them read the study and respond accordingly
what about the CDC and NEJM?
Our choice was a 2 day in class and 2 day virtual in 2 sections. Group A was Tue/Thu and Group B was Wed/Fri. This would allow half the students to be in school at a time and cut down the population in person at a time minus those who chose virtual. So classes would go from 30-32 down to 12 with 3 feet social distancing as per APA guidelines and masks and hand sani.
We voted for this option because I felt it was full of good precautions and could be achieved and even 2 days in person was better than nothing.
Last week our county and the 3 surrounding counties decided to go 100% virtual for at least the first quarter and sports is delayed until december on a changed schedule.
Teachers and staff were not fully on board with the hybrid... this was not a political decision. This was the county listening to the parents and teachers about the best option. No one at this level gives a shit who is president.
They also showed a lot of arguments why kids should not stay home.
Ok, so we're in alignment. Kids should get back to school safely. virtual learning should not be the priority. Awesome.
I was under the impression you were supporting the push for virtual learning.
The risk of driving is minimized by you wearing a seatbelt, driving within the speed limit, using your signal to change lanes, using your mirrors when driving to be aware of what is around you, and police enformcement of traffic violations to ensure people follow the rules of the road to be safe.
Putting thousands or hundreds of kids into schools without safety precautions is not the same thing as your car driving example.
Just because kids can get it does not mean you ignore all safety precautions and put the kids with teachers jammed in hallways and rooms. it has to be done safely, as the NEJM has stated (sky is blue, grass is green). Just like when you get in your car there are a nuber of safety protocols followed to make it as safe as possible.
SAFELY
Virtual learning is what we have for the first quarter, as in my response to GWB I 100% support a hybrid as the first and best option to safely bringing kids back to school. If you don't feel safe you choose virtual.
Now this puts a huge strain on the school system since they have to accomodate two shifts of students in person and a group staying home for virtual but every school system in my area which are yuuuuge, was working towards that aim.
Many parents and most teachers are not yet there for the hybrid because there are too many safety issues not addressed (not through anyone's fault, just this is novel for everyone and a work in progress).
For example:
High School A has 2100 students in a building built for 1950. Hallways are crowded and classrooms are normally 30-32 kids right on top of each other. All kids going back means no social distancing and no way to properly keep areas sanitary and teachers safe or all 2100 kids from keeping masks on and not taking this lightly.
Now what happens if 20 kids stay home sick and test positive. Do you announce it to the school and stay open? What if 100 kids....200 kids....
How do you pay for all the cleaning supplies for desks and touchable doors and hallways and lockers....?
NEJM says getting kids back safely is a priority so they would agree that if it cannot be done safely then some other choice needs to be done and NEJM would support that as medical doctors.
Kids are carriers even if they are a small risk group but imagine you are the parents of a child who falls in that 1-3%.
I told you the story that a mom tested positive for COVID and did not quarantine and continued to send her kid to lacrosse practice. My sis in law found out and pulled her son from the socially distanced practices. The mom of a diabetic kid was livid as was a mom who is pregnant. The coach was pissed as he shut down the practice until everyone kid got tested (my nephew and SIL tested negative). The bitch put everyone at risk knowingly. The kids were practicing apart with minimal contact but that is a different risk than when you know you are knowingly bringing COVID into a group.
That can happen in schools and teachers were saying there are not any guidelines or plans in place yet so it is not safe. When it is, just like the NEJM they support full school.