Allegedly there are several options for the fall none of which include being back full time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s what gyms and churches are doing right now. By September, they will be much less strict.

Then we should let them be less strict for a month and observe how well that goes before reopening schools. MP 1 should be distance learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone thinks this is so simple. “Ugh, why is this so hard!” “Duh, they just have to go back to school!”

I am a parent and a teacher and I am here to tell you that this is complicated. It’s not simple. Putting 500-3000 wiggly, non-rule following humans in a tight space every day in the middle of a pandemic is a challenge. Even if they tend to be asymptomatic. Even if you have to go to work. If we are going to have a real conversation about what needs to happen to open, people on both sides need to agree on the basics.

PP, I agree with you that it's not simple.

But I think that MCPS needs to start with the premise "kids will go to school in the fall" and then figure out how to accomplish that.

Given the physical buildings and buses we have available in the county, if we declare that all kids will go to school in person in the fall, then social distancing is essentially over. If our state and county health officials determine social distancing can be over, then cool. But there is truly no point to setting limits on the number of people who can be in groups, in restaurants, in gyms, etc. if you are going to open schools normally.

First, there is no comparison between the priority of opening schools versus opening gyms, restaurants etc.
Second, by now we know that kids have very low risk of having Covid-19 complications themselves, even less than flu. Only adults would need to protect themselves, most probably among themselves. I would think that would be easier to accomplish.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone thinks this is so simple. “Ugh, why is this so hard!” “Duh, they just have to go back to school!”

I am a parent and a teacher and I am here to tell you that this is complicated. It’s not simple. Putting 500-3000 wiggly, non-rule following humans in a tight space every day in the middle of a pandemic is a challenge. Even if they tend to be asymptomatic. Even if you have to go to work. If we are going to have a real conversation about what needs to happen to open, people on both sides need to agree on the basics.

PP, I agree with you that it's not simple.

But I think that MCPS needs to start with the premise "kids will go to school in the fall" and then figure out how to accomplish that.

Given the physical buildings and buses we have available in the county, if we declare that all kids will go to school in person in the fall, then social distancing is essentially over. If our state and county health officials determine social distancing can be over, then cool. But there is truly no point to setting limits on the number of people who can be in groups, in restaurants, in gyms, etc. if you are going to open schools normally.

OK, if you can't accomplish kids going to school in the fall without ending social distancing in schools, then we end social distancing in schools. The benefits of kids in school outweigh the costs.

I agree. Social distancing is the ideal. It’s not realistic or desirable for every situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone thinks this is so simple. “Ugh, why is this so hard!” “Duh, they just have to go back to school!”

I am a parent and a teacher and I am here to tell you that this is complicated. It’s not simple. Putting 500-3000 wiggly, non-rule following humans in a tight space every day in the middle of a pandemic is a challenge. Even if they tend to be asymptomatic. Even if you have to go to work. If we are going to have a real conversation about what needs to happen to open, people on both sides need to agree on the basics.

PP, I agree with you that it's not simple.

But I think that MCPS needs to start with the premise "kids will go to school in the fall" and then figure out how to accomplish that.

Given the physical buildings and buses we have available in the county, if we declare that all kids will go to school in person in the fall, then social distancing is essentially over. If our state and county health officials determine social distancing can be over, then cool. But there is truly no point to setting limits on the number of people who can be in groups, in restaurants, in gyms, etc. if you are going to open schools normally.

OK, if you can't accomplish kids going to school in the fall without ending social distancing in schools, then we end social distancing in schools. The benefits of kids in school outweigh the costs.

I agree. Social distancing is the ideal. It’s not realistic or desirable for every situation.

There is literally zero chance that schools are going to open up without precautions in place. Not sure why that's what you want-one would think that you would have a modicum of concern for your family's health and for your community.
I don't know how we've even gotten to the point where people are so ignorant that they think schools should just open as normal and give up controlling the spread of the virus. Over 100,000 people die and you just shrug and say, "But it wasn't me, so I don't care." You seem incredibly selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone thinks this is so simple. “Ugh, why is this so hard!” “Duh, they just have to go back to school!”

I am a parent and a teacher and I am here to tell you that this is complicated. It’s not simple. Putting 500-3000 wiggly, non-rule following humans in a tight space every day in the middle of a pandemic is a challenge. Even if they tend to be asymptomatic. Even if you have to go to work. If we are going to have a real conversation about what needs to happen to open, people on both sides need to agree on the basics.

But we won't be "in the middle of a pandemic". The numbers are declining everywhere despite things opening up.

That’s just not true. Cases are climbing in the south and west where things first opened up. I’m for reopening schools with social distancing measures.

Do you have data to support those claims? Because by and large that is not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone thinks this is so simple. “Ugh, why is this so hard!” “Duh, they just have to go back to school!”

I am a parent and a teacher and I am here to tell you that this is complicated. It’s not simple. Putting 500-3000 wiggly, non-rule following humans in a tight space every day in the middle of a pandemic is a challenge. Even if they tend to be asymptomatic. Even if you have to go to work. If we are going to have a real conversation about what needs to happen to open, people on both sides need to agree on the basics.

PP, I agree with you that it's not simple.

But I think that MCPS needs to start with the premise "kids will go to school in the fall" and then figure out how to accomplish that.

Given the physical buildings and buses we have available in the county, if we declare that all kids will go to school in person in the fall, then social distancing is essentially over. If our state and county health officials determine social distancing can be over, then cool. But there is truly no point to setting limits on the number of people who can be in groups, in restaurants, in gyms, etc. if you are going to open schools normally.

OK, if you can't accomplish kids going to school in the fall without ending social distancing in schools, then we end social distancing in schools. The benefits of kids in school outweigh the costs.

I agree. Social distancing is the ideal. It’s not realistic or desirable for every situation.

There is literally zero chance that schools are going to open up without precautions in place. Not sure why that's what you want-one would think that you would have a modicum of concern for your family's health and for your community.
I don't know how we've even gotten to the point where people are so ignorant that they think schools should just open as normal and give up controlling the spread of the virus. Over 100,000 people die and you just shrug and say, "But it wasn't me, so I don't care." You seem incredibly selfish.

DP, but have you actually looked at the data on the impact of school opening as a contributor to increased deaths? It's pretty small. Most of us are saying that we need to consider the trade-offs of the decisions we make. Preventing the spread of COVID19 is not the only problem our society has, and we can't pretend that it is.

[Anonymous]

Teachers don't want to go back. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 100% online again because that's what the teachers' unions are pushing for. They have schools over a barrel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone thinks this is so simple. “Ugh, why is this so hard!” “Duh, they just have to go back to school!”

I am a parent and a teacher and I am here to tell you that this is complicated. It’s not simple. Putting 500-3000 wiggly, non-rule following humans in a tight space every day in the middle of a pandemic is a challenge. Even if they tend to be asymptomatic. Even if you have to go to work. If we are going to have a real conversation about what needs to happen to open, people on both sides need to agree on the basics.

But we won't be "in the middle of a pandemic". The numbers are declining everywhere despite things opening up.

That’s just not true. Cases are climbing in the south and west where things first opened up. I’m for reopening schools with social distancing measures.

Do you have data to support those claims? Because by and large that is not the case.

Yesterday’s Washington Post. It’s “spreading aggressively” in parts of the south, Midwest, and west: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/amid-reopenings-and-street-protests-coronavirus-transmission-remains-high-in-much-of-the-us/2020/06/05/40c12efe-a670-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone thinks this is so simple. “Ugh, why is this so hard!” “Duh, they just have to go back to school!”

I am a parent and a teacher and I am here to tell you that this is complicated. It’s not simple. Putting 500-3000 wiggly, non-rule following humans in a tight space every day in the middle of a pandemic is a challenge. Even if they tend to be asymptomatic. Even if you have to go to work. If we are going to have a real conversation about what needs to happen to open, people on both sides need to agree on the basics.

PP, I agree with you that it's not simple.

But I think that MCPS needs to start with the premise "kids will go to school in the fall" and then figure out how to accomplish that.

Given the physical buildings and buses we have available in the county, if we declare that all kids will go to school in person in the fall, then social distancing is essentially over. If our state and county health officials determine social distancing can be over, then cool. But there is truly no point to setting limits on the number of people who can be in groups, in restaurants, in gyms, etc. if you are going to open schools normally.

OK, if you can't accomplish kids going to school in the fall without ending social distancing in schools, then we end social distancing in schools. The benefits of kids in school outweigh the costs.

I agree. Social distancing is the ideal. It’s not realistic or desirable for every situation.

There is literally zero chance that schools are going to open up without precautions in place. Not sure why that's what you want-one would think that you would have a modicum of concern for your family's health and for your community.
I don't know how we've even gotten to the point where people are so ignorant that they think schools should just open as normal and give up controlling the spread of the virus. Over 100,000 people die and you just shrug and say, "But it wasn't me, so I don't care." You seem incredibly selfish.

DP, but have you actually looked at the data on the impact of school opening as a contributor to increased deaths? It's pretty small. Most of us are saying that we need to consider the trade-offs of the decisions we make. Preventing the spread of COVID19 is not the only problem our society has, and we can't pretend that it is.

Honest question here: how can we look at the impact of opening schools if no one has opened schools yet? It doesn’t seem relevant to compare the US to places like China that have reopened schools with temperature checks for every child and desks 6 feet apart, because that will never happen here. Our schools do not have the space or the staff for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone thinks this is so simple. “Ugh, why is this so hard!” “Duh, they just have to go back to school!”

I am a parent and a teacher and I am here to tell you that this is complicated. It’s not simple. Putting 500-3000 wiggly, non-rule following humans in a tight space every day in the middle of a pandemic is a challenge. Even if they tend to be asymptomatic. Even if you have to go to work. If we are going to have a real conversation about what needs to happen to open, people on both sides need to agree on the basics.

But we won't be "in the middle of a pandemic". The numbers are declining everywhere despite things opening up.

That’s just not true. Cases are climbing in the south and west where things first opened up. I’m for reopening schools with social distancing measures.

Do you have data to support those claims? Because by and large that is not the case.

Yesterday’s Washington Post. It’s “spreading aggressively” in parts of the south, Midwest, and west: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/amid-reopenings-and-street-protests-coronavirus-transmission-remains-high-in-much-of-the-us/2020/06/05/40c12efe-a670-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Can't read it without a subscription.

[Anonymous]

The same WaPo had also a convincing article that schools should open. I think it was last week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even Fauci said today it’s time to open schools.

No he did not.

"I hesitate to make any broad statements about whether it is or is not quote 'safe' for kids to come back to school," Fauci told CNN.

He says it is time to THINK about reopening schools; you can read for yourself the caveats according to him at https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/fauci-schools-reopening-coronavirus/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone thinks this is so simple. “Ugh, why is this so hard!” “Duh, they just have to go back to school!”

I am a parent and a teacher and I am here to tell you that this is complicated. It’s not simple. Putting 500-3000 wiggly, non-rule following humans in a tight space every day in the middle of a pandemic is a challenge. Even if they tend to be asymptomatic. Even if you have to go to work. If we are going to have a real conversation about what needs to happen to open, people on both sides need to agree on the basics.

But we won't be "in the middle of a pandemic". The numbers are declining everywhere despite things opening up.

That’s just not true. Cases are climbing in the south and west where things first opened up. I’m for reopening schools with social distancing measures.

I am also surprised that people can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that many viruses dramatically decline in summer. The fact that we are still seeing increases in some states and Maryland is still holding steady for the most part is concerning given the warmer weather. Once the kids go back to school, the weather benefits will start to decrease. This has to be considered in the reopening plan. The pandemic is far from over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone thinks this is so simple. “Ugh, why is this so hard!” “Duh, they just have to go back to school!”

I am a parent and a teacher and I am here to tell you that this is complicated. It’s not simple. Putting 500-3000 wiggly, non-rule following humans in a tight space every day in the middle of a pandemic is a challenge. Even if they tend to be asymptomatic. Even if you have to go to work. If we are going to have a real conversation about what needs to happen to open, people on both sides need to agree on the basics.

But we won't be "in the middle of a pandemic". The numbers are declining everywhere despite things opening up.

That’s just not true. Cases are climbing in the south and west where things first opened up. I’m for reopening schools with social distancing measures.

Do you have data to support those claims? Because by and large that is not the case.

Yesterday’s Washington Post. It’s “spreading aggressively” in parts of the south, Midwest, and west: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/amid-reopenings-and-street-protests-coronavirus-transmission-remains-high-in-much-of-the-us/2020/06/05/40c12efe-a670-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Can't read it without a subscription.

Data from JHU: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases-50-states

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why everyone thinks this is so simple. “Ugh, why is this so hard!” “Duh, they just have to go back to school!”

I am a parent and a teacher and I am here to tell you that this is complicated. It’s not simple. Putting 500-3000 wiggly, non-rule following humans in a tight space every day in the middle of a pandemic is a challenge. Even if they tend to be asymptomatic. Even if you have to go to work. If we are going to have a real conversation about what needs to happen to open, people on both sides need to agree on the basics.

PP, I agree with you that it's not simple.

But I think that MCPS needs to start with the premise "kids will go to school in the fall" and then figure out how to accomplish that.

Given the physical buildings and buses we have available in the county, if we declare that all kids will go to school in person in the fall, then social distancing is essentially over. If our state and county health officials determine social distancing can be over, then cool. But there is truly no point to setting limits on the number of people who can be in groups, in restaurants, in gyms, etc. if you are going to open schools normally.

OK, if you can't accomplish kids going to school in the fall without ending social distancing in schools, then we end social distancing in schools. The benefits of kids in school outweigh the costs.

I know that you feel otherwise but your children’s lives are no more important than anyone else’s. Even if that person is eighty years old or 45 and a cancer survivor. Your children are not less important, but no, them going back to school full time so you can work is not more important than mitigating the spread of the pandemic. We will not be ending social distancing in schools. I’m a teacher and I’m not throwing caution to the wind to appease you. You are free to go out and expose yourself and your children to the virus at will but you can not demand that other people be reckless and foolish enough to do so.

The education and mental health of 55 million children in this country (and the livelihoods of their countless working parents who cannot accommodate DL (I am not one of them)) is absolutely more important than delaying the deaths of 80+ year olds, who can self-isolate along with others who are at elevated risk. This is an ethical discussion we need to have, instead of just deferring to virologists, who will argue for continued social distancing as long as there is a risk of a spike (which may be indefinitely).