So realistically, when do you think somewhat normal full time f2f education will resume?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP--It will be "somewhat normal" in fall 2021, and that's only if things go well.

Have you looked at the moco numbers at all over the last month? They are trending down every day. By this rate we should be at 2-3% test positivity by fall. We are at 5% as of yesterday. Another year of DL based on these numbers would be completely irresponsible and plain stupid. Even if the fall starts in DL I strongly believe the push back will be so strong based on the numbers that the governor will step in and make them go full time in person by October.

He's too busy planning his book tour and running for president.

However I agree that it would be completely inappropriate for MCPS to continue with remote instruction for all, if current trends in Montgomery County/Maryland continue. If I lived in Houston or Jacksonville, I would have a completely different opinion about school vs remote instruction, but I don't. The decision should be based on local conditions, and our local conditions are looking good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP--It will be "somewhat normal" in fall 2021, and that's only if things go well.

Have you looked at the moco numbers at all over the last month? They are trending down every day. By this rate we should be at 2-3% test positivity by fall. We are at 5% as of yesterday. Another year of DL based on these numbers would be completely irresponsible and plain stupid. Even if the fall starts in DL I strongly believe the push back will be so strong based on the numbers that the governor will step in and make them go full time in person by October.

He's too busy planning his book tour and running for president.

However I agree that it would be completely inappropriate for MCPS to continue with remote instruction for all, if current trends in Montgomery County/Maryland continue. If I lived in Houston or Jacksonville, I would have a completely different opinion about school vs remote instruction, but I don't. The decision should be based on local conditions, and our local conditions are looking good.

Exactly the decision needs to be based on the information available for the risk in our state/county. Not "possible" changes in coming months not "possible second waves" but what has been shown to bathe trend for almost 2 solid months now-that our numbers continue to improve and OUR curve is flattened.

And based on the information mcps should be full time f2f in the fall with precautions on course but simply saying "we have to Continue DL until it is safe!" Over and over doesn't actually mean anything. This virus could be around for years. The goal was to flatten the curve-never to wait until the virus was gone. Moving the goal posts over and over just hurts the kids for longer and longer.

[Anonymous]

Another idea is to open and then close and go online - school by school - once one person in that school tests positive. Just like they would handle any other infectious disease (measles). They should also test waste water to see if anyone is positive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another idea is to open and then close and go online - school by school - once one person in that school tests positive. Just like they would handle any other infectious disease (measles). They should also test waste water to see if anyone is positive.

Yeah, there needs to be a plan for when there's a positive case.

E.g., as Emily Oster says, "do you a) close the classroom for a day and deep clean, b) encourage testing of all kids, c) bar students from that class from school for two weeks, d) all of the above, or e) none of the above?"

But the plan can't be, "OMG, there was a positive case, we're shutting down all of the schools indefinitely again."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another idea is to open and then close and go online - school by school - once one person in that school tests positive. Just like they would handle any other infectious disease (measles). They should also test waste water to see if anyone is positive.

Yeah, there needs to be a plan for when there's a positive case.

E.g., as Emily Oster says, "do you a) close the classroom for a day and deep clean, b) encourage testing of all kids, c) bar students from that class from school for two weeks, d) all of the above, or e) none of the above?"

But the plan can't be, "OMG, there was a positive case, we're shutting down all of the schools indefinitely again."

Closing schools for a day to "deep clean" is completely illogical. We know that aerosol transmission is more of a concern than surface transmission. If one person is infected, then the chances of another child or staff member who have had close contact with them being infected is high enough to warrant isolating until they produce negative test results. That's the whole point of testing and tracing-to prevent one infected person from going on to infect a large cluster of people, who then go on to infect still more people, creating a new surge of infections. It only takes one in a community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another idea is to open and then close and go online - school by school - once one person in that school tests positive. Just like they would handle any other infectious disease (measles). They should also test waste water to see if anyone is positive.

Yeah, there needs to be a plan for when there's a positive case.

E.g., as Emily Oster says, "do you a) close the classroom for a day and deep clean, b) encourage testing of all kids, c) bar students from that class from school for two weeks, d) all of the above, or e) none of the above?"

But the plan can't be, "OMG, there was a positive case, we're shutting down all of the schools indefinitely again."

Closing schools for a day to "deep clean" is completely illogical. We know that aerosol transmission is more of a concern than surface transmission. If one person is infected, then the chances of another child or staff member who have had close contact with them being infected is high enough to warrant isolating until they produce negative test results. That's the whole point of testing and tracing-to prevent one infected person from going on to infect a large cluster of people, who then go on to infect still more people, creating a new surge of infections. It only takes one in a community.

I think they’d have to close for two weeks to quarantine and clean. Online learning would have to take place then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. You'll also be heaping COVID deaths upon flu deaths. Your argument seems to be that plenty of people die from the flu, why not COVID, too?

No, the argument is that parents send their kids to school even though kids get the flu at school and die.

Now, maybe parents are ok with the risk of their kids dying from school-acquired flu but are not ok with the risk of their kids dying from school-acquired covid. I don't know, and you don't either. But it does suggest that when it comes to sending kids to school, most parents have a potentially-fatal infectious-disease risk tolerance that's higher than zero.

The issue isn't just death it's getting adults sick too.

[Anonymous]

All of these discussions seem to ignore the fact that many parents don't have jobs where they can stay at home long-term. It's not a matter of convenience or preference or financial sacrifices. Not all of the county has wealthy, or even lower or middle class, dual income households that can drop to one income or a SAHP already. Many households scrape by, or there are single parents, etc., who do not have the job flexibility to stay at home with a child who is distance learning.

Not to mention all the special needs kids who cannot get adequate services at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP--It will be "somewhat normal" in fall 2021, and that's only if things go well.

Have you looked at the moco numbers at all over the last month? They are trending down every day. By this rate we should be at 2-3% test positivity by fall. We are at 5% as of yesterday. Another year of DL based on these numbers would be completely irresponsible and plain stupid. Even if the fall starts in DL I strongly believe the push back will be so strong based on the numbers that the governor will step in and make them go full time in person by October.

He's too busy planning his book tour and running for president.

However I agree that it would be completely inappropriate for MCPS to continue with remote instruction for all, if current trends in Montgomery County/Maryland continue. If I lived in Houston or Jacksonville, I would have a completely different opinion about school vs remote instruction, but I don't. The decision should be based on local conditions, and our local conditions are looking good.

Exactly the decision needs to be based on the information available for the risk in our state/county. Not "possible" changes in coming months not "possible second waves" but what has been shown to bathe trend for almost 2 solid months now-that our numbers continue to improve and OUR curve is flattened.

And based on the information mcps should be full time f2f in the fall with precautions on course but simply saying "we have to Continue DL until it is safe!" Over and over doesn't actually mean anything. This virus could be around for years. The goal was to flatten the curve-never to wait until the virus was gone. Moving the goal posts over and over just hurts the kids for longer and longer.

What about kids, staff and teachers who have medical conditions that put them at higher risk of serious illness? Do you favor allowing them to distance learn/teach, while others do f2f? Seems to me you'd at a minimum need that kind of exception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. You'll also be heaping COVID deaths upon flu deaths. Your argument seems to be that plenty of people die from the flu, why not COVID, too?

No, the argument is that parents send their kids to school even though kids get the flu at school and die.

Now, maybe parents are ok with the risk of their kids dying from school-acquired flu but are not ok with the risk of their kids dying from school-acquired covid. I don't know, and you don't either. But it does suggest that when it comes to sending kids to school, most parents have a potentially-fatal infectious-disease risk tolerance that's higher than zero.

You've answered your own question here. The other thing to realize is that this is not just about what parents want, or are willing to risk. The decision about f2f instruction has to take into account the effects of the decision upon the larger society in which the schools operate.

PP: Parents won't send their kids to school because the kids might die of covid!
Other PP: Really? Flu kills more kids than covid, yet parents send their kids to school.
You: Flu is not covid! Also, what about the adults?

As for the effect on the larger society in which schools operate - what is the effect on the larger society of closed schools?

The effect is more people will be alive than if we had opened the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What about kids, staff and teachers who have medical conditions that put them at higher risk of serious illness? Do you favor allowing them to distance learn/teach, while others do f2f? Seems to me you'd at a minimum need that kind of exception.

DP. People in high-risk groups will need accommodations. That should go without saying, but nothing goes without saying these days, so I'm saying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. You'll also be heaping COVID deaths upon flu deaths. Your argument seems to be that plenty of people die from the flu, why not COVID, too?

No, the argument is that parents send their kids to school even though kids get the flu at school and die.

Now, maybe parents are ok with the risk of their kids dying from school-acquired flu but are not ok with the risk of their kids dying from school-acquired covid. I don't know, and you don't either. But it does suggest that when it comes to sending kids to school, most parents have a potentially-fatal infectious-disease risk tolerance that's higher than zero.

You've answered your own question here. The other thing to realize is that this is not just about what parents want, or are willing to risk. The decision about f2f instruction has to take into account the effects of the decision upon the larger society in which the schools operate.

PP: Parents won't send their kids to school because the kids might die of covid!
Other PP: Really? Flu kills more kids than covid, yet parents send their kids to school.
You: Flu is not covid! Also, what about the adults?

As for the effect on the larger society in which schools operate - what is the effect on the larger society of closed schools?

The effect is more people will be alive than if we had opened the schools.

Reading DCUM, you'd think that the only thing schools do is provide an opportunity for people to get infected with covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:January or February - it would be insane to open schools without a vaccine since it will vastly increase the spread of the virus.

If there are no deaths of kids attending school (even if lots of them get sick) in the fall, then schools will reopen in January. If kids are dying (even a small number), or if illness rates and deaths among adults get so bad that they have to completely close schools then they will likely not reopen until a vaccine is found.

At least 100 grocery store workers have died from covid, but the grocery stores are still open.

As a society we tend to prioritize children's lives over adults. The older the person, the less value we put on their lives. It's unfortunate, but it's just how America tends to be. The death of kids attributed to their attending school will keep enough parents from sending their kids in the spring which will cause all schools to go to disctance learning until a vaccine is created.

We're keeping schools closed because we prioritize children over adults?!

I apologize for being rude, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard today.

You are reading much more into what I am saying than what I said.

I said we prioritize children's lives over adults (lives). Meaning, if something kills 100 adults (going to work at a grocery store) our reaction is very different than if that thing (or in this case something similar) kills 100 kids (going to school). If there are even 10 dead kids in this country because they went to school, parents are going to be too scared to send their kids to school. This is largely because we view kids as being helpless and we view adults of having a choice to work or not work (even though that is often not true).

Every year, kids die from the flu, which they likely acquired at school. Per CDC: "Since 2004-2005, flu-related deaths in children reported to CDC during regular flu seasons have ranged from 37 to 187 deaths. Even though the reported number of deaths during the 2017-2018 flu season was 187, CDC’s mathematical models that account for the underreporting of flu-related deaths in children estimate the actual number was closer to 600." (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/children.htm). Given that Covid appears to be much less deadly to kids than the flu, we'd be crazy to keep kids out of school if even just 10 kids die from Covid after returning to school, as you suggest. I'm not saying it won't happen as the level of hysteria about Covid is high, but it would not be a rational response considering that those pediatric flu deaths every year don't even make the news in most cases.

And no, I'm not saying Covid is no worse than the flu in general. That is only true for children, for whom the flu is more dangerous.

Also, there is nothing wrong with considering a child's death a bigger tragedy than the death of especially elderly adults. A child has their whole life ahead of them with all its potential, whereas a 70 or 80 year old has already lived most of theirs. It has nothing to do with the value of the person per se, or with whether we view children as helpless.

You're right about the flu, of course. You know what else is true about the flu? There is a reasonably effective vaccine for it. Not perfect, but worth getting. So I'm with you. When there is a reasonably effective vaccine for COVID-19, we should think about it, and going back to school f2f, in similar terms as we think about the school and flu. The lengths people will go to to compare COVID-19 to the flu are just incredible to me. People, this is not the flu. This is much worse than the flu. Just look at the death toll nationally. Even if kids generally fare better than adults, do you think they are only going to encounter other kids (and no adults) at school, or when they come home having been infected with the virus?

You are missing my point, which wasn't to compare the general risks of the flu to Covid. For the point I was making, i.e. comparing your hypothetical 10 pediatric Covid fatalities in case of school reopening to the actual hundred+ (or, according to CDC, likely 600) annual pediatric deaths from the flu, it is irrelevant whether we have a vaccine or not. These flu deaths happen despite the partially effective flu vaccine. Therefore, it is not logical to say we cannot have kids in school until a vaccine because a small number might die of Covid (which is what you said), while we apparently have no problem sending them despite the actual, not hypothetical flu deaths that happen every year despite a vaccine.

Comparing flu deaths among kids to (prospective) COVID deaths among kids is too narrow a focus. You do distance learning not just to keep kids healthy, but to keep the adults in their lives from getting sick, too. A better comparison is overall deaths from the flu and overall deaths from COVID.

The CDC says the flu is responsible for 12,000 to 60,000 deaths in the U.S. annually. The COVID death toll is 133,000 in only six months -- with kids out of school for much of that time. And there is a vaccine for the flu! Kids in school are not hermetically sealed there. The infections they get in school can be transmitted to adults in school and at home. You have to include those prospective illnesses and deaths among adults in the calculus, too.

I am aware of all of this and do not dispute it. As I said in another follow up post, that is a separate question. I was responding only to the PP's (your?) claim that even 10 pediatric Covid deaths would legitimately prompt parents to keep their kids out of school, and explained that this doesn't make logical sense given the annual pediatric flu deaths. Why is that so hard to understand? It's like you guys can't follow an argument. Or as if just mentioning the flu triggers some of you to go off on a lecture about how the two are not the same. I never said they were, nor do I think they are.

Maybe this explains why we're talking past each other a little bit. I didn't make that claim. I am the PP who argued that you need to take the interests of the larger society into account when deciding about whether to have f2f instruction, and how much. I don't think it's a separate question at all; it's the whole question -- at least for the people who ultimately make the decision. (I understand that individual parents who advocate for schools reopening may not be factoring the interests of, say, the elderly empty-nesters who live down the street into their belief about what the right course is.)

Also, I'm glad you agree that COVID is worse than the flu and that comparisons to the flu and its impacts are rarely germane to any discussion about whether it makes sense to re-open schools in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

Well, yeah, when you respond to a back and forth between two other posters without paying attention to what the specific question being debated actually was, chances are your input ends up being beside the point. When I said your post raised a "separate question", I meant separate from what I and the other PP were discussing, which was Covid's risk to kids themselves. I'm sure if you went back and read the exchange, that would become clear.

And yes, absolutely, you need to take the interests of the larger society into account, which includes both the interests of the elderly and the interests of millions of kids. I don't think most of the posters here who are arguing for a reopening of schools fail to consider the larger picture, they just weigh the risk-benefit calculation differently.

And finally, when it comes to the risks of Covid TO KIDS (not an irrelevant question either when thinking about the reopening of schools), which is what I was discussing with the PP, comparisons to the flu are absolutely germane, because the it remains a fact that the flu is more deadly for kids. Pointing that out when someone tries to use the specter of pediatric Covid fatalities to argue against opening schools shouldn't prompt any reasonable reader to assume that whoever is making the comparison is ignorant about the differences between the two viruses. I know it vexes you because Trump has often ignorantly dismissed Covid as no worse than the flu, but his idiocy shouldn't lead us try to silence any further comparative discussion of the two viruses.

The bottom line is, don't use the risk of Covid TO KIDS as a reason to argue that schools need to remain closed. Be honest and say it is about vulnerable adults inside and outside the school, and we can have a reasonable discussion about the risks and benefit of prolonged school closures.

We agree on this much. Sorry if I intruded into your private exchange of views with another poster on a public forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. You'll also be heaping COVID deaths upon flu deaths. Your argument seems to be that plenty of people die from the flu, why not COVID, too?

No, the argument is that parents send their kids to school even though kids get the flu at school and die.

Now, maybe parents are ok with the risk of their kids dying from school-acquired flu but are not ok with the risk of their kids dying from school-acquired covid. I don't know, and you don't either. But it does suggest that when it comes to sending kids to school, most parents have a potentially-fatal infectious-disease risk tolerance that's higher than zero.

You've answered your own question here. The other thing to realize is that this is not just about what parents want, or are willing to risk. The decision about f2f instruction has to take into account the effects of the decision upon the larger society in which the schools operate.

PP: Parents won't send their kids to school because the kids might die of covid!
Other PP: Really? Flu kills more kids than covid, yet parents send their kids to school.
You: Flu is not covid! Also, what about the adults?

As for the effect on the larger society in which schools operate - what is the effect on the larger society of closed schools?

The effect is more people will be alive than if we had opened the schools.

Reading DCUM, you'd think that the only thing schools do is provide an opportunity for people to get infected with covid.

+100. These people are acting like opening schools assures them a most certain death. The over-reaction is actually comical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. You'll also be heaping COVID deaths upon flu deaths. Your argument seems to be that plenty of people die from the flu, why not COVID, too?

No, the argument is that parents send their kids to school even though kids get the flu at school and die.

Now, maybe parents are ok with the risk of their kids dying from school-acquired flu but are not ok with the risk of their kids dying from school-acquired covid. I don't know, and you don't either. But it does suggest that when it comes to sending kids to school, most parents have a potentially-fatal infectious-disease risk tolerance that's higher than zero.

You've answered your own question here. The other thing to realize is that this is not just about what parents want, or are willing to risk. The decision about f2f instruction has to take into account the effects of the decision upon the larger society in which the schools operate.

PP: Parents won't send their kids to school because the kids might die of covid!
Other PP: Really? Flu kills more kids than covid, yet parents send their kids to school.
You: Flu is not covid! Also, what about the adults?

As for the effect on the larger society in which schools operate - what is the effect on the larger society of closed schools?

The effect is more people will be alive than if we had opened the schools.

Reading DCUM, you'd think that the only thing schools do is provide an opportunity for people to get infected with covid.

+100. These people are acting like opening schools assures them a most certain death. The over-reaction is actually comical.

Would you think it was comical if your child came down with COVID and multisystem inflammatory syndrome? What about if you have a teacher spouse and they were hospitalized and intubated? Is that funny to you? I hope that everyone who thinks that valid concerns about COVID are funny is personally impacted by the virus.