Our school district just announced it would be 100% online in the fall.

[Rianne]

My DN attends a Catholic middle school which is reopening 5 days/week. Kids have to wear masks and will have smaller classrooms. I can see 10 year olds wearing their masks all day...in my imagination. There are open baseball games with parents huddled in the bleachers.

We live in a university town and students are coming back in the fall. The dorms will be open, one student per room but they share a bathroom. Class sizes smaller but masks required. College aged kids are no better. And they come from all over the country and will go home to their elderly grandparents and parents. This should be interesting in Sept.

 

[harllee]

My school district is going to be all remote at least for the first couple of months. In NC public schools have to be all remote or at 50% capacity per the Governor's order (rotating days or weeks). It appears that many school districts are saying 50% cannot work so most are going remote. Personally I would not send my child to school this fall, just too risky.

I am in a College town (UNC) and they plan for the University to start August 10 and for the first semester to end at Thanksgiving. Suppose to be all masks, social distancing, half the classes online, dining rooms in tents, 2 dorms for quarantined students, etc. There are plans to go all remote if there is a major outbreak. I gave it a month before it has to be all shut down.

Football players have been back since the first of June, 38 tested positive so football practice had to be shut down. College football is unlikely in my opinion.

 

[Chuckanut]

All the data show getting the kids in class is best and covid risk is small overall based on numerous studies overseas.

Emphasis added.

Covid risk to who? The kids, probably yes, it is small compared to adults. The staff? Not so sure about that.

IMHO, the only way to reopen the schools is the same way to reopen many businesses - find a way to manage this disease while we wait for a vaccine or an effective easy treatment. The lack of leadership at all levels (local, state, federal) in this area is stunning.

 

[Chuckanut]

And exactly how many subs do we think there will be when teachers start getting infected?

Details, details. Tsk, tsk. Stop asking these kind of questions or you will be on my list of Dangerous Radicals Who Infest this Site for another year!

 

[Montecfo]

College football is unlikely in my opinion.

I think you are right about that. Conferences just hoping something will happen to make it possible to play , and also not wanting to damage recruiting/manic fan bases until time makes the decision for them.

 

[Montecfo]

Emphasis added.

Covid risk to who? The kids, probably yes. The staff? Not so sure about that.

Ask the scientists. They say kids do not not contract the virus or infect others at high rates, based on studies. The recent German study included the possibility that kids act as a "break" on the virus.

I agree staff is the larger issue. To me the investment should be in working to keep them safe. Somehow other countries are making this work.

 

[MichaelB]

Ask the scientists. They say kids do not not contract the virus or infect others at high rates, based on studies. The recent German study included the possibility that kids act as a "break" on the virus.

My understanding is the science not clear on this. So far we have is observation and hypothesis. Here’s an article from Stat News (6/17) that looks at the topic https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/18...tists-see-a-huge-puzzle-without-easy-answers/

An early look, from Geneva, suggests when we’re talking about children we need to distinguish between young children on the one hand and tweens and teens on the other. Published last week in the journal the Lancet, the study found very little evidence of prior Covid-19 infection among children ages 5 to 9 years (the youngest included). But children ages 10 to 19 were as likely to have antibodies to the infection as adults ages 20 to 49 — and more likely than adults older than that.

One thing that is clear is that the disease is generally far less severe for children than it can be for older adults. Deaths among children have been few and the percentage of children who need hospitalization for the illness is substantially lower than it is among adults.

But teasing out whether kids are as likely to catch the virus and spread it has been exceedingly difficult at a time when children are spending far less time mixing with others than they normally do.

 

[Another Reader]

Ask the scientists. They say kids do not not contract the virus or infect others at high rates, based on studies. The recent German study included the possibility that kids act as a "break" on the virus.

I agree staff is the larger issue. To me the investment should be in working to keep them safe. Somehow other countries are making this work.

Published in a scientific or medical journal? Citation?

Look at Israel. Outbreaks in the schools, despite an overall good job at containment...

 

[eytonxav]

The idea of when the pandemic is under control seems fleeting to me and victory may be declared many times only to be revisited over and over, if we even know what victory looks like. If covid does not run out of steam and die a natural death, or herd immunity is never achieved, or no effective vaccine is developed, what is the point of keeping kids and everyone home as this virus might exist indefinitely and those who have not yet been infected might very well be infected down the road and on it goes. And for the teachers/unions that are fearful, I understand that, but aren't teachers essential workers and why should they be treated differently than our first responders and supermarket workers? That said, the idea of flattening the curve to keep hospitals from being overrun makes sense, but again, at what point do we get away from this lockdown approach with enough medical capacity and what is the metric for doing that to guarantee a successful outcome? I am all for protecting the vulnerable, but our immune systems are meant to deal with all sorts of microbes and most folks, especially the kiddos have good immune systems and will largely be un-effected from covid, so how long should the normal course of life be altered? The information/reports on kids is mixed and contradictory, are they super spreaders or not likely to spread at all or become seriously ill. We cannot seem to get clean accurate data or definitive facts on anything with this virus, so trying to understand the impact on kids and design an approach for safe teaching from a data aspect is also likely to be problematic.

If deaths from covid were a much higher % of the population, I could understand a much more cautious approach which many feel is necessary right now, but given what I have observed it just seems that more attention should be focused on promoting the maintenance/enhancement of a strong immune system and that would go along way toward keeping everyone healthy from covid, with the elderly and immune-compromised being outliers who need that cautious separation. Otherwise, the only other hope is for effective therapeutics and vaccines to become widely available which may or may not happen and how long should we wait to see if that happens (eg Jan 2021, 2022, etc)?

 

[Gumby]

... I am all for protecting the vulnerable, but ...

Which means you aren't.

 

[W2R]

Is comparing remote learning with school, like apples and oranges?

What a difficult issue for parents to deal with. On the one hand, how is a kid to learn social skills and interaction when kept at home? Simple, basic skills like listening to the teacher, standing in line without cutting in, and so much more, are not inborn and must be learned somewhere. And where does a young girl learn how to deal with the "mean girls" if they have no exposure to them in junior high, for example? Likewise where does an adolescent boy learn how to deal with a bully. A kid that does not learn these skills would be pretty much handicapped in their interactions with others for the rest of their lives.

And once grown, how can a kid compete in the workplace with a lesser education? Had I learned remotely, I'd have put a lot of effort into learning subjects I liked, like music theory and math, but at the expense of other subjects like civics. Civics may not have been fun but it has been very helpful at times throughout life. Also cooperation and teamwork are pretty hard to learn when there isn't anybody on the team or anybody to cooperate with.

As much as I truly, truly hated 9th grade, there isn't a week that goes by when I don't remember some wise words or other that I heard from my 9th grade ancient history teacher, or my English teacher, algebra teacher, biology teacher, French teacher, and so on. OK, I was lucky to have such amazing teachers. They are all probably dead by now, but they taught me so much and I don't think the impact would have been nearly as inspirational and educational had I gone to school via remote learning.

I am 72, and my only child is grown and childless herself. But if she were still a school aged kid, I'd probably reluctantly decide to keep her home rather than risk in-person classes. That would be a really tough call, though, and would also require a certain amount of financial independence if one has to quit work to do it. I truly feel for these parents making the difficult decisions. I think my daughter would have missed out on so much if learning remotely, for example her wonderful experiences in high school marching band. So much that we learn in school does not come from a book.

 

[Another Reader]

The idea of when the pandemic is under control seems fleeting to me and victory may be declared many times only to be revisited over and over, if we even know what victory looks like. If covid does not run out of steam and die a natural death, or herd immunity is never achieved, or no effective vaccine is developed, what is the point of keeping kids and everyone home as this virus might exist indefinitely and those who have not yet been infected might very well be infected down the road and on it goes. And for the teachers/unions that are fearful, I understand that, but aren't teachers essential workers and why should they be treated differently than our first responders and supermarket workers? That said, the idea of flattening the curve to keep hospitals from being overrun makes sense, but again, at what point do we get away from this lockdown approach with enough medical capacity and what is the metric for doing that to guarantee a successful outcome? I am all for protecting the vulnerable, but our immune systems are meant to deal with all sorts of microbes and most folks, especially the kiddos have good immune systems and will largely be un-effected from covid, so how long should the normal course of life be altered? The information/reports on kids is mixed and contradictory, are they super spreaders or not likely to spread at all or become seriously ill. We cannot seem to get clean accurate data or definitive facts on anything with this virus, so trying to understand the impact on kids and design an approach for safe teaching from a data aspect is also likely to be problematic.

If deaths from covid were a much higher % of the population, I could understand a much more cautious approach which many feel is necessary right now, but given what I have observed it just seems that more attention should be focused on promoting the maintenance/enhancement of a strong immune system and that would go along way toward keeping everyone healthy from covid, with the elderly and immune-compromised being outliers who need that cautious separation. Otherwise, the only other hope is for effective therapeutics and vaccines to become widely available which may or may not happen and how long should we wait to see if that happens (eg Jan 2021, 2022, etc)?

I think you should read the stories of the long haulers in their 20's and 30's. They included conditioned athletes, long distance runners, and other healthy people with no immune issues. Also read the stories of parents with sick kids, many of whom have the same symptoms as their parents. This is a novel virus. Human immune systems have never encountered it and the results of infection are not yet understood and cannot be predicted.

Estimates from Italy, Spain and England are between 10 and 20 percent of people that "recover" from COVID have serious long term, chronic and disabling conditions. We are going to pay out huge health care bills for these people over the next few decades.

It's not just the elderly and immune-compromised that are hit hard. If you think a strong immune system will protect you, in my opinion, you are fooling yourself.

 

[timo2]

For children, this week has two stories about children and COVID. It may be that children were being so well protected by their parents this year that the numbers are skewed.

"Eighty-five infants under age 1 have tested positive for coronavirus in one county in Texas -- with local officials imploring residents to help stop its spread as the state becomes one of the newest hotspots."
https://www.wcvb.com/article/85-inf...r-coronavirus-in-one-texas-county-1/33354995#

"New data revealed by NBC Bay Area’s Investigative Unit shows 998 COVID-19 cases in child care facilities across California. Most of the cases involve parents and staff. The Investigative Unit documents how two Bay Area child care centers scrambled to prevent outbreaks after learning of COVID-19 positive cases among kids who attend their facilities."

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investig...ases-reported-in-california-daycares/2326813/

 

[Dtail]

The idea of when the pandemic is under control seems fleeting to me and victory may be declared many times only to be revisited over and over, if we even know what victory looks like. If covid does not run out of steam and die a natural death, or herd immunity is never achieved, or no effective vaccine is developed, what is the point of keeping kids and everyone home as this virus might exist indefinitely and those who have not yet been infected might very well be infected down the road and on it goes. And for the teachers/unions that are fearful, I understand that, but aren't teachers essential workers and why should they be treated differently than our first responders and supermarket workers? That said, the idea of flattening the curve to keep hospitals from being overrun makes sense, but again, at what point do we get away from this lockdown approach with enough medical capacity and what is the metric for doing that to guarantee a successful outcome? I am all for protecting the vulnerable, but our immune systems are meant to deal with all sorts of microbes and most folks, especially the kiddos have good immune systems and will largely be un-effected from covid, so how long should the normal course of life be altered? The information/reports on kids is mixed and contradictory, are they super spreaders or not likely to spread at all or become seriously ill. We cannot seem to get clean accurate data or definitive facts on anything with this virus, so trying to understand the impact on kids and design an approach for safe teaching from a data aspect is also likely to be problematic.

If deaths from covid were a much higher % of the population, I could understand a much more cautious approach which many feel is necessary right now, but given what I have observed it just seems that more attention should be focused on promoting the maintenance/enhancement of a strong immune system and that would go along way toward keeping everyone healthy from covid, with the elderly and immune-compromised being outliers who need that cautious separation. Otherwise, the only other hope is for effective therapeutics and vaccines to become widely available which may or may not happen and how long should we wait to see if that happens (eg Jan 2021, 2022, etc)?

Let's revisit this statement in a few months and see if you feel the same.

 

[eytonxav]

Which means you aren't.

Actually, I am very vulnerable being elderly with underlying conditions.

I think you should read the stories of the long haulers in their 20's and 30's. They included conditioned athletes, long distance runners, and other healthy people with no immune issues. Also read the stories of parents with sick kids, many of whom have the same symptoms as their parents. This is a novel virus. Human immune systems have never encountered it and the results of infection are not yet understood and cannot be predicted.

Estimates from Italy, Spain and England are between 10 and 20 percent of people that "recover" from COVID have serious long term, chronic and disabling conditions. We are going to pay out huge health care bills for these people over the next few decades.

It's not just the elderly and immune-compromised that are hit hard. If you think a strong immune system will protect you, in my opinion, you are fooling yourself.

I'll take a strong immune systems vs a compromised one any day, thank you. Your immune system is designed to deal with these things, even novel ones.

Let's revisit this statement in a few months and see if you feel the same.

Remember, you cannot hide from a microbe indefinitely. I would not bet that a few more months will tell us or me much more than what is already known.

 

[Another Reader]

Actually, I am very vulnerable being elderly with underlying conditions.



I'll take a strong immune systems vs a compromised one any day, thank you. Your immune system is designed to deal with these things, even novel ones.



Remember, you cannot hide from a microbe indefinitely. I would not bet that a few more months will tell us or me much more than what is already known.

I don't disagree with your statement. However, it may not help you with this virus. And yes, we will know a lot more in a few months. In the meantime, you are better off avoiding exposure.

 

[eytonxav]

I don't disagree with your statement. However, it may not help you with this virus. And yes, we will know a lot more in a few months. In the meantime, you are better off avoiding exposure.

LOL, I am not attending any Covid parties trying to catch this.

 

[Aerides]

...aren't teachers essential workers and why should they be treated differently than our first responders and supermarket workers?

No one who signed up to be a teacher, or a grocery worker, expected to have to be a "front line essential" worker - so putting them in this position is bad and should be revisited - not accepted. At least most grocery workers are now behind plexiglas, and not expected to wipe a 5 year old's nose...

We cannot seem to get clean accurate data or definitive facts on anything with this virus, so trying to understand the impact on kids and design an approach for safe teaching from a data aspect is also likely to be problematic.

Every week there is more news and more is learned. So it would seem that in another 30, 60, 90, days we'll be smarter. I don't really understand the impatience with not knowing everything today. And of course it's impossible in the short term to even guess the long term impacts...

It not just the kids. The kids will bring it home to their parents, who will share it at work. Busdrivers, school workers, coaches - and their families. We all remember the bugs going around the office every september and january once kids went back to school. Imagine that, only now with more dying.

If deaths from covid were a much higher % of the population, I could understand a much more cautious approach which many feel is necessary right now...

How many deaths would be good enough for you?

 

[Gumby]

... I am all for protecting the vulnerable, but...

Which means you aren't.

Actually, I am very vulnerable being elderly with underlying conditions.

You misunderstand me. When someone starts an argument with "I'm all about X, but..." it means they are not really "all" about X. If they were "all" about it, there would not be a condition or qualification introduced by the "but". It's not specific to your argument, it's just a pet peeve of mine.

Now, as for your actual specific argument. Stripped down to its essence, I hear you saying "we, as a society, should tolerate Y number of deaths among teachers, administrators, aides, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, school secretaries etc. in order to have in-person schooling". If that is indeed your argument, you should specify that number Y. And you shouldn't really be surprised that the aforementioned groups might have a different view of what an acceptable number Y might be.

You could be looking at the military, where we risk the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines every day in order to protect our nation. But that is a far different story, as the risk-reward analysis has always been clearly and openly expressed and understood, by the public in general and by those who serve. When I was a Navy submariner, I certainly understood going in there was a non-zero probability that once my boat submerged, it would not surface again. But that was a decision I voluntarily made. And the nation understood that as well, which is one of the reasons why veterans are largely honored by the people of this country.

Educators are different. They signed up to help teach our children, not to risk their lives to provide daycare. In fact, we have laws in this country to protect the health and safety of workers just so they don't have to risk their lives for their jobs. Unlike the military, where you can't say "no" after you've raised your hand and sworn the oath, educators are not required by law to accept the risk you would have them take. Even if you could subvert the workplace safety laws, they may quit in massive numbers and there is nothing you can do to stop them; they are not draftees or slaves. And replacing them with qualified people willing to take the risk may prove to be more expensive than the taxpayers are willing to bear.

 

[harllee]

I don't think missing one year of school is going to hurt any kids. If they can't be homeschooled or get online learning they should just repeat the same grade next year. By next year I think we will have a much better handle on Covid--either a vaccine or antivirals or something.

The real problem with not having in person schools is what to do with the kids if both parents work away from home--we need to help these parents figure something out.

 

[eytonxav]

No one who signed up to be a teacher, or a grocery worker, expected to have to be a "front line essential" worker - so putting them in this position is bad and should be revisited - not accepted. At least most grocery workers are now behind plexiglas, and not expected to wipe a 5 year old's nose...


Every week there is more news and more is learned. So it would seem that in another 30, 60, 90, days we'll be smarter. I don't really understand the impatience with not knowing everything today. And of course it's impossible in the short term to even guess the long term impacts...

It not just the kids. The kids will bring it home to their parents, who will share it at work. Busdrivers, school workers, coaches - and their families. We all remember the bugs going around the office every september and january once kids went back to school. Imagine that, only now with more dying.



How many deaths would be good enough for you?

So teachers are non-essential from your perspective. Kids not learning as pointed out by W2R is not good; kids that are underfed or abused at home is also a real problem and something to be concerned about, especially inner city kids. Children absorb knowledge like a sponge when they are young, so delaying or diminishing that process comes at a cost in more ways than one. If some of the teachers are elderly or have underlying conditions, figure another way to utilize them and not place them at risk.

True, every week there is more learned about covid, but there is still way too much disagreement around the world and between each countries experts. Just look at some of the info from the WHO and CDC that has flip flopped, shouldn't we expect more and better info from them. When will definitive knowledge be reached, I don't know, but there are no absolutes thus far even though some may believe so.

Unless covid infected individuals are be placed into nursing homes or with the elderly or immune-compromised, why can't life continue without the lockdowns. Social distancing, masks and handwashing and separating the the vulnerable from the rest are best practices that should not be disputed, so I do not see why that isn't enough, without destroying parents livelihoods and children's educations?

Implying I want a high death count is an absurd statement, and should be beneath a moderator.

 

[timo2]

Reading these posts I feel that people are missing an important point: COVID-19 is not either you die or you don't. There is an unknown but significant percentage of people that contract COVID-19 that end up with chronic symptoms that could last their entire lives. The chance one has of becoming one of these so called 'long-haulers' is indeed something to be feared. COVID will count as a pre-existing condition. And the continuing costs of health care for the still living victims of COVID-19 may be huge. We just don't know yet. So how about when some 10 to 17 year olds end up with chronic lifetime symptoms? That's beyond tragic. Why would anyone risk that?

 

[Gumby]

... without destroying parents livelihoods ...

How many people should die for your job? And if the answer is any, why shouldn't one of them be you?

Implying I want a high death count is an absurd statement, and should be beneath a moderator.

Aerides didn't imply you want a high number, she just asked you to set out what number you find acceptable, as do I.

PS - moderators are members too, and entitled to their opinions as much as you are.

 

[TechLead]

Unless covid infected individuals are be placed into nursing homes or with the elderly or immune-compromised, why can't life continue without the lockdowns. Social distancing, masks and handwashing and separating the the vulnerable from the rest are best practices that should not be disputed, so I do not see why that isn't enough, without destroying parents livelihoods and children's educations?

Implying I want a high death count is an absurd statement, and should be beneath a moderator.

I think that is not all that difficult to understand.

It is because if we overwhelm our hospital system then system can not help to people who otherwise could be saved. People needlessly die.

Had we handled crisis like for example Taiwan all our schools would be opened by now. I think Taiwan did best job on the planet so it is a good example what to do and what to avoid.

 

[eytonxav]

You misunderstand me. When someone starts an argument with "I'm all about X, but..." it means they are not really "all" about X. If they were "all" about it, there would not be a condition or qualification introduced by the "but". It's not specific to your argument, it's just a pet peeve of mine.

Now, as for your actual specific argument. Stripped down to its essence, I hear you saying "we, as a society, should tolerate Y number of deaths among teachers, administrators, aides, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, school secretaries etc. in order to have in-person schooling". If that is indeed your argument, you should specify that number Y. And you shouldn't really be surprised that the aforementioned groups might have a different view of what an acceptable number Y might be.

You could be looking at the military, where we risk the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines every day in order to protect our nation. But that is a far different story, as the risk-reward analysis has always been clearly and openly expressed and understood, by the public in general and by those who serve. When I was a Navy submariner, I certainly understood going in there was a non-zero probability that once my boat submerged, it would not surface again. But that was a decision I voluntarily made. And the nation understood that as well, which is one of the reasons why veterans are largely honored by the people of this country.

Educators are different. They signed up to help teach our children, not to risk their lives to provide daycare. In fact, we have laws in this country to protect the health and safety of workers just so they don't have to risk their lives for their jobs. Unlike the military, where you can't say "no" after you've raised your hand and sworn the oath, educators are not required by law to accept the risk you would have them take. Even if you could subvert the workplace safety laws, they may quit in massive numbers and there is nothing you can do to stop them; they are not draftees or slaves. And replacing them with qualified people willing to take the risk may prove to be more expensive than the taxpayers are willing to bear.

Of course there can be buts, so your pet peeve argument makes no sense to me. The implication was to protect the vulnerable and let others go about their lives.

Your implication is that there is going to X number of teacher deaths if kids return to school. As far as I can see, the % of deaths as a function of the population is quite low, but what % people would find acceptable for covid deaths considering people die everyday from the flu, heart attacks, cancer, suicide, etc and deferring medical treatment is not clear to me. This is some degree of risk in everything in life, so what would be acceptable to you, 0%? Asking this from a different side of the argument, how long do you keep kids away or only allow them to learn remotely? I also do not equate teachers to soldiers, but I assume they did sign up to teach and if best practices for safety for onsite learning are implemented do they still get a pass if they are not vulnerable.