CDC planning to release new guidance on how K-12 students can physically return to classroom. 7/6/20

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From CNN today: 7/6/20
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is planning to release new guidance on how K-12 students can physically return to the classroom this year, according to a senior CDC official with knowledge of the discussions.

The recommendation was presented internally to leaders at the CDC early last week and is “a priority this week,” according to the senior official. Over the weekend, senior officials at the agency presented CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield with details on the science behind why schools should reopen, the source said. The specifics of the guidance were not available.

“Schools should be the first to open and the last to close,” the official said. “Kids need to physically be in school."
The officials comments' echo that of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which put out new guidance last week that "…strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school.”

Finally! Schools are not the ones to close. Bars are. Schools should have the priority to open.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They must think opening schools will help trumps reelection or will bolster the economy right before november. if it all turns to shit in november/december, they don't really care.

I can't think of any other reason why new recommendations would come at this time. If the new guidance recommends fewer mitigation measures, it must have detailed information about the reasons for backing off. We need studies and actual science. Otherwise, it will seem like yet another manipulation of the public to get Trump reelected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They must think opening schools will help trumps reelection or will bolster the economy right before november. if it all turns to shit in november/december, they don't really care.

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, given that many districts are well into the process for making these decisions, this guidance would have been more helpful a month ago.

\

seriously! they are the ones who caused all the issues with the desks six feet apart nonsense. Did the people who wrote that not have kids or not have kids in public school?

What difference does that make? If a recommendation is scientifically true, it is true whether it is inconvenient or not. The CDC suddenly coming up with new recommendations to placate complainers under an administration that clearly prioritizes pretending everything is fine above reality and if we just tested less, we could keep life going and let people die quietly behind the scenes, doesn't fill me with any confidence at all. "Oh, 6 feet isn't necessary, it's actually 2 feet!" Riiiight. Show me the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They must think opening schools will help trumps reelection or will bolster the economy right before november. if it all turns to shit in november/december, they don't really care.

I can't think of any other reason why new recommendations would come at this time. If the new guidance recommends fewer mitigation measures, it must have detailed information about the reasons for backing off. We need studies and actual science. Otherwise, it will seem like yet another manipulation of the public to get Trump reelected.

There have been numerous studies all over the world that kids are not significant covid vectors, but some people are like "La la la la, I can't hear you."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They must think opening schools will help trumps reelection or will bolster the economy right before november. if it all turns to shit in november/december, they don't really care.

I can't think of any other reason why new recommendations would come at this time. If the new guidance recommends fewer mitigation measures, it must have detailed information about the reasons for backing off. We need studies and actual science. Otherwise, it will seem like yet another manipulation of the public to get Trump reelected.

There have been numerous studies all over the world that kids are not significant covid vectors, but some people are like "La la la la, I can't hear you."

Exactly. When things are against their agenda, they blame politics.

[Anonymous]

Won’t everyone be bummed when MCPS goes full DL for the fall. It’s hard to fault the CDC re timing because what is known about the virus increases week by week, but it’s too late for the county to switch if it already is developing a plan. And not having to plan for DL is going to give you another situation like this spring. If the Fed govt threw $250m at the county to have two plans in place, then I could see having an in-person option, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They must think opening schools will help trumps reelection or will bolster the economy right before november. if it all turns to shit in november/december, they don't really care.

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER

Yup. Kids returning to school really gets jobs & the economy going. Trumps only reelection platform is based upon jobs & the economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They must think opening schools will help trumps reelection or will bolster the economy right before november. if it all turns to shit in november/december, they don't really care.

I can't think of any other reason why new recommendations would come at this time. If the new guidance recommends fewer mitigation measures, it must have detailed information about the reasons for backing off. We need studies and actual science. Otherwise, it will seem like yet another manipulation of the public to get Trump reelected.

There have been numerous studies all over the world that kids are not significant covid vectors, but some people are like "La la la la, I can't hear you."

La la la la, I can’t hear you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, given that many districts are well into the process for making these decisions, this guidance would have been more helpful a month ago.

\

seriously! they are the ones who caused all the issues with the desks six feet apart nonsense. Did the people who wrote that not have kids or not have kids in public school?

What difference does that make? If a recommendation is scientifically true, it is true whether it is inconvenient or not. The CDC suddenly coming up with new recommendations to placate complainers under an administration that clearly prioritizes pretending everything is fine above reality and if we just tested less, we could keep life going and let people die quietly behind the scenes, doesn't fill me with any confidence at all. "Oh, 6 feet isn't necessary, it's actually 2 feet!" Riiiight. Show me the data.

People in March: We can’t get masks.
CDC in March: you don’t need masks.
CDC later: Masks save lives.

Schools in July: We can’t space kids 6 feet apart.
CDC in July: 2 feet is fine.
CDC in October, probably: 6-10 feet apart saves lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From CNN today: 7/6/20
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is planning to release new guidance on how K-12 students can physically return to the classroom this year, according to a senior CDC official with knowledge of the discussions.

The recommendation was presented internally to leaders at the CDC early last week and is “a priority this week,” according to the senior official. Over the weekend, senior officials at the agency presented CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield with details on the science behind why schools should reopen, the source said. The specifics of the guidance were not available.

“Schools should be the first to open and the last to close,” the official said. “Kids need to physically be in school."
The officials comments' echo that of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which put out new guidance last week that "…strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school.”

Thank you OP for posting this. Kids need to go to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They must think opening schools will help trumps reelection or will bolster the economy right before november. if it all turns to shit in november/december, they don't really care.

I can't think of any other reason why new recommendations would come at this time. If the new guidance recommends fewer mitigation measures, it must have detailed information about the reasons for backing off. We need studies and actual science. Otherwise, it will seem like yet another manipulation of the public to get Trump reelected.

This is a standard we haven't required from any other essential function of society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"First to reopen and last to close"? You're months late on this, CDC. MONTHS.

CDC and the rest of the health care professionals have never seen anything like this before. We are learning more as we go. They are making decisions based on the information that we have now. They didn't have the same information we have now three months ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They must think opening schools will help trumps reelection or will bolster the economy right before november. if it all turns to shit in november/december, they don't really care.

I can't think of any other reason why new recommendations would come at this time. If the new guidance recommends fewer mitigation measures, it must have detailed information about the reasons for backing off. We need studies and actual science. Otherwise, it will seem like yet another manipulation of the public to get Trump reelected.

This is a standard we haven't required from any other essential function of society.

Transparent, scientific explanations should be required when recommendations are changing. If six feet of social distancing is recommended outside, and the CDC is now going to say that 2 feet is enough, they should explain why they have retreated from the earlier recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, but how, given that the CDC also says that people should stay 6' apart, especially when in doors. Maybe other schools have 15 kids per class, but we have 32 per class here in many classrooms.

Based on studies and data, Massachusetts was comfortable dropping the 6’ limit for schools and bussing down to 3’. All towns are moving forward using the 3’ distance, which significantly increases capacity.