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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the people pushing for DL — be they teachers, staffers, parents, or whoever — honestly feel that DL is an adequate substitute for children? Self/driven adults seeking pro dev? Sure! But kids? Can you honestly say that? And at what age and for how many hours a day do you think this is true? Straight answers, please — no “it’s better th an nothing” or “we all have to sacrifice.” Really answer the question.

In normal times, no. In a pandemic, yes. And for as long as necessary because it is not possible to create the conditions listed as precautions.

DP, but really? You really think preventing COVID deaths is the only consideration in our society? Really?

Only, no. Top, yes. The death of a loved one impacts children emotionally, socially, educationally, and financially. Really.

And what's the death rate that leads you to conclude that the death of a grandparent (much less commonly, a parent of young kids) is more traumatic than the cumulative stress of social isolation, missing school, potentially living in an unsafe home, having parents laid off, etc. What's the calculus there?

Here's another way to think about it: severe child abuse is increasing during the pandemic. What are the lives of those kids worth?

How much death are you willing to tolerate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the people pushing for DL — be they teachers, staffers, parents, or whoever — honestly feel that DL is an adequate substitute for children? Self/driven adults seeking pro dev? Sure! But kids? Can you honestly say that? And at what age and for how many hours a day do you think this is true? Straight answers, please — no “it’s better th an nothing” or “we all have to sacrifice.” Really answer the question.

In normal times, no. In a pandemic, yes. And for as long as necessary because it is not possible to create the conditions listed as precautions.

DP, but really? You really think preventing COVID deaths is the only consideration in our society? Really?

Only, no. Top, yes. The death of a loved one impacts children emotionally, socially, educationally, and financially. Really.

And what's the death rate that leads you to conclude that the death of a grandparent (much less commonly, a parent of young kids) is more traumatic than the cumulative stress of social isolation, missing school, potentially living in an unsafe home, having parents laid off, etc. What's the calculus there?

Here's another way to think about it: severe child abuse is increasing during the pandemic. What are the lives of those kids worth?

How much death are you willing to tolerate?

Hey, I know! What if we looked for ways to reduce illness/death from covid that don't cause serious harm to children?

[Anonymous]

Another way to look at this is that it isn’t children and their education that are being sacrificed due to fear of the virus. Education is being sacrificed for the economy.

I understand that many think the risk of death is minuscule and that old people and people with lifestyle based comorbidities were going to going to die any day now, so who cares? The virus is here regardless of how you value life, public health officials need to act to slow its spread, just as they do other communicable diseases that may not cause large numbers of deaths.

We have to balance many competing interests, including public health and the economy. What we are seeing is that the areas that have reopened indoor spaced with few restrictions are seeing a rise in cases. We still don’t know how it will play out if it happens here.

Maybe instead of asking why casinos can reopen but your child’s school can’t because school is essential for the education, health and well-being of children, ask why reopening non-esssential businesses or minimizing restrictions non-essential business is MORE important that reopening schools. Reopenings don’t prove the safety of any activity, they just allow economic activity based on individual risk assessment. Schools are responsible for the health and safety of children and staff, and the bad news is that risk associated with reopening schools is increased by reopening businesses. We have people demanding that schools reopen while they travel to other areas for vacations or eat at indoor restaurants or return to the gym. People are willing to take on more risk and that will help to jump start the economy, which is a positive thing. However, the more we let our guard down, and the more of us engage in these higher risk activities, the less likely full time F2F school is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another way to look at this is that it isn’t children and their education that are being sacrificed due to fear of the virus. Education is being sacrificed for the economy.

I understand that many think the risk of death is minuscule and that old people and people with lifestyle based comorbidities were going to going to die any day now, so who cares? The virus is here regardless of how you value life, public health officials need to act to slow its spread, just as they do other communicable diseases that may not cause large numbers of deaths.

We have to balance many competing interests, including public health and the economy. What we are seeing is that the areas that have reopened indoor spaced with few restrictions are seeing a rise in cases. We still don’t know how it will play out if it happens here.

Maybe instead of asking why casinos can reopen but your child’s school can’t because school is essential for the education, health and well-being of children, ask why reopening non-esssential businesses or minimizing restrictions non-essential business is MORE important that reopening schools. Reopenings don’t prove the safety of any activity, they just allow economic activity based on individual risk assessment. Schools are responsible for the health and safety of children and staff, and the bad news is that risk associated with reopening schools is increased by reopening businesses. We have people demanding that schools reopen while they travel to other areas for vacations or eat at indoor restaurants or return to the gym. People are willing to take on more risk and that will help to jump start the economy, which is a positive thing. However, the more we let our guard down, and the more of us engage in these higher risk activities, the less likely full time F2F school is.

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the people pushing for DL — be they teachers, staffers, parents, or whoever — honestly feel that DL is an adequate substitute for children? Self/driven adults seeking pro dev? Sure! But kids? Can you honestly say that? And at what age and for how many hours a day do you think this is true? Straight answers, please — no “it’s better th an nothing” or “we all have to sacrifice.” Really answer the question.

In normal times, no. In a pandemic, yes. And for as long as necessary because it is not possible to create the conditions listed as precautions.

DP, but really? You really think preventing COVID deaths is the only consideration in our society? Really?

Only, no. Top, yes. The death of a loved one impacts children emotionally, socially, educationally, and financially. Really.

And what's the death rate that leads you to conclude that the death of a grandparent (much less commonly, a parent of young kids) is more traumatic than the cumulative stress of social isolation, missing school, potentially living in an unsafe home, having parents laid off, etc. What's the calculus there?

Here's another way to think about it: severe child abuse is increasing during the pandemic. What are the lives of those kids worth?

How much death are you willing to tolerate?

Death of whom? And what are the trade-offs?

You probably don't know that in many hospitals, physicians were/are considering unilateral DNR orders in cases when patients with COVID crashed, because of the substantial risk that resuscitating them posed to medical staff who, if they became infected, couldn't care for other patients. Ethics aren't that simple, as much as you may want them to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another way to look at this is that it isn’t children and their education that are being sacrificed due to fear of the virus. Education is being sacrificed for the economy.

I understand that many think the risk of death is minuscule and that old people and people with lifestyle based comorbidities were going to going to die any day now, so who cares? The virus is here regardless of how you value life, public health officials need to act to slow its spread, just as they do other communicable diseases that may not cause large numbers of deaths.

We have to balance many competing interests, including public health and the economy. What we are seeing is that the areas that have reopened indoor spaced with few restrictions are seeing a rise in cases. We still don’t know how it will play out if it happens here.

Maybe instead of asking why casinos can reopen but your child’s school can’t because school is essential for the education, health and well-being of children, ask why reopening non-esssential businesses or minimizing restrictions non-essential business is MORE important that reopening schools. Reopenings don’t prove the safety of any activity, they just allow economic activity based on individual risk assessment. Schools are responsible for the health and safety of children and staff, and the bad news is that risk associated with reopening schools is increased by reopening businesses. We have people demanding that schools reopen while they travel to other areas for vacations or eat at indoor restaurants or return to the gym. People are willing to take on more risk and that will help to jump start the economy, which is a positive thing. However, the more we let our guard down, and the more of us engage in these higher risk activities, the less likely full time F2F school is.

Yep.

This is what I've been screaming about since reopening started. As if parents and children aren't part of "the economy."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the people pushing for DL — be they teachers, staffers, parents, or whoever — honestly feel that DL is an adequate substitute for children? Self/driven adults seeking pro dev? Sure! But kids? Can you honestly say that? And at what age and for how many hours a day do you think this is true? Straight answers, please — no “it’s better th an nothing” or “we all have to sacrifice.” Really answer the question.

In normal times, no. In a pandemic, yes. And for as long as necessary because it is not possible to create the conditions listed as precautions.

DP, but really? You really think preventing COVID deaths is the only consideration in our society? Really?

Only, no. Top, yes. The death of a loved one impacts children emotionally, socially, educationally, and financially. Really.

And what's the death rate that leads you to conclude that the death of a grandparent (much less commonly, a parent of young kids) is more traumatic than the cumulative stress of social isolation, missing school, potentially living in an unsafe home, having parents laid off, etc. What's the calculus there?

Here's another way to think about it: severe child abuse is increasing during the pandemic. What are the lives of those kids worth?

How much death are you willing to tolerate?

Death of whom? And what are the trade-offs?

You probably don't know that in many hospitals, physicians were/are considering unilateral DNR orders in cases when patients with COVID crashed, because of the substantial risk that resuscitating them posed to medical staff who, if they became infected, couldn't care for other patients. Ethics aren't that simple, as much as you may want them to be.

Which lives are not worth saving in your opinion? I'm not discounting that there is a huge cost to closing schools. I'm saying there will be a cost to opening them, which you are assuming is smaller than the cost of keeping them closed. You may be right but I certainly am not in a position to determine that, and I suspect you are not either.

The unilateral DNR orders is a great example of why it's important to prevent people from catching COVID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another way to look at this is that it isn’t children and their education that are being sacrificed due to fear of the virus. Education is being sacrificed for the economy.

I understand that many think the risk of death is minuscule and that old people and people with lifestyle based comorbidities were going to going to die any day now, so who cares? The virus is here regardless of how you value life, public health officials need to act to slow its spread, just as they do other communicable diseases that may not cause large numbers of deaths.

We have to balance many competing interests, including public health and the economy. What we are seeing is that the areas that have reopened indoor spaced with few restrictions are seeing a rise in cases. We still don’t know how it will play out if it happens here.

Maybe instead of asking why casinos can reopen but your child’s school can’t because school is essential for the education, health and well-being of children, ask why reopening non-esssential businesses or minimizing restrictions non-essential business is MORE important that reopening schools. Reopenings don’t prove the safety of any activity, they just allow economic activity based on individual risk assessment. Schools are responsible for the health and safety of children and staff, and the bad news is that risk associated with reopening schools is increased by reopening businesses. We have people demanding that schools reopen while they travel to other areas for vacations or eat at indoor restaurants or return to the gym. People are willing to take on more risk and that will help to jump start the economy, which is a positive thing. However, the more we let our guard down, and the more of us engage in these higher risk activities, the less likely full time F2F school is.

Yep.

This is what I've been screaming about since reopening started. As if parents and children aren't part of "the economy."

I suspect this has something to do with the fact that schools keep groups of children inside together for hours, while other businesses do not. Let's say one child has COVID and is asymptomatic or presymptomatic. They might shed small amounts of virus throughout the day, not enough to infect a hairdresser during a haircut, but there's a higher risk when they are indoors with a bunch of other kids for hours and using shared bathrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the people pushing for DL — be they teachers, staffers, parents, or whoever — honestly feel that DL is an adequate substitute for children? Self/driven adults seeking pro dev? Sure! But kids? Can you honestly say that? And at what age and for how many hours a day do you think this is true? Straight answers, please — no “it’s better th an nothing” or “we all have to sacrifice.” Really answer the question.

In normal times, no. In a pandemic, yes. And for as long as necessary because it is not possible to create the conditions listed as precautions.

DP, but really? You really think preventing COVID deaths is the only consideration in our society? Really?

Only, no. Top, yes. The death of a loved one impacts children emotionally, socially, educationally, and financially. Really.

And what's the death rate that leads you to conclude that the death of a grandparent (much less commonly, a parent of young kids) is more traumatic than the cumulative stress of social isolation, missing school, potentially living in an unsafe home, having parents laid off, etc. What's the calculus there?

Here's another way to think about it: severe child abuse is increasing during the pandemic. What are the lives of those kids worth?

How much death are you willing to tolerate?

Death of whom? And what are the trade-offs?

You probably don't know that in many hospitals, physicians were/are considering unilateral DNR orders in cases when patients with COVID crashed, because of the substantial risk that resuscitating them posed to medical staff who, if they became infected, couldn't care for other patients. Ethics aren't that simple, as much as you may want them to be.

Which lives are not worth saving in your opinion? I'm not discounting that there is a huge cost to closing schools. I'm saying there will be a cost to opening them, which you are assuming is smaller than the cost of keeping them closed. You may be right but I certainly am not in a position to determine that, and I suspect you are not either.

The unilateral DNR orders is a great example of why it's important to prevent people from catching COVID.

Correct. The cost of opening is more than just the the number of deaths caused by COVID. Community spread has to be considered, as well as the cost of putting reasonable mitigation measures in place. There are many competing interests that need to be considered on both sides.

It’s just like those who don’t think that shutting down was necessary. There might be truth to that under ideal circumstances. If we had enough PPE for everyone, if testing was readily available, if we had isolated and tested travelers earlier, if we had better contact tracing, etc., maybe we wouldn’t have needed to shut down. But we didn’t.

In a perfect would, we could protect teachers with plexiglass, add extra buses to allow social distancing, provide high quality masks to all teachers in school, have instant testing for staff or kids exhibiting minor symptoms, have extra custodial staff, have a solid plan in place for excluding sick kids and making sure they don’t lose out if they can’t come to school for two weeks, have staggered start times, etc. If we had all of those things, then the risk of reopening would likely be outweighed by the educational and mental health needs of children and the economic need for parents to have childcare. But we don’t live in a perfect world and we don’t have all of those things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the people pushing for DL — be they teachers, staffers, parents, or whoever — honestly feel that DL is an adequate substitute for children? Self/driven adults seeking pro dev? Sure! But kids? Can you honestly say that? And at what age and for how many hours a day do you think this is true? Straight answers, please — no “it’s better th an nothing” or “we all have to sacrifice.” Really answer the question.

In normal times, no. In a pandemic, yes. And for as long as necessary because it is not possible to create the conditions listed as precautions.

DP, but really? You really think preventing COVID deaths is the only consideration in our society? Really?

Only, no. Top, yes. The death of a loved one impacts children emotionally, socially, educationally, and financially. Really.

And what's the death rate that leads you to conclude that the death of a grandparent (much less commonly, a parent of young kids) is more traumatic than the cumulative stress of social isolation, missing school, potentially living in an unsafe home, having parents laid off, etc. What's the calculus there?

Here's another way to think about it: severe child abuse is increasing during the pandemic. What are the lives of those kids worth?

How much death are you willing to tolerate?

Death of whom? And what are the trade-offs?

You probably don't know that in many hospitals, physicians were/are considering unilateral DNR orders in cases when patients with COVID crashed, because of the substantial risk that resuscitating them posed to medical staff who, if they became infected, couldn't care for other patients. Ethics aren't that simple, as much as you may want them to be.

Which lives are not worth saving in your opinion? I'm not discounting that there is a huge cost to closing schools. I'm saying there will be a cost to opening them, which you are assuming is smaller than the cost of keeping them closed. You may be right but I certainly am not in a position to determine that, and I suspect you are not either.

The unilateral DNR orders is a great example of why it's important to prevent people from catching COVID.

No, of course I'm not in a position to make these decisions. And I don't even know that DL isn't the least bad option of multiple bad options; it may well be. My point is that we can't just yell "COVID!!" and pretend that there are no negatives that stem from the COVID mitigation efforts, which is what many PPs are doing. I would hope that those who do make these decisions are considering the various trade-offs. I know there are no easy answers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Correct. The cost of opening is more than just the the number of deaths caused by COVID. Community spread has to be considered, as well as the cost of putting reasonable mitigation measures in place. There are many competing interests that need to be considered on both sides.

It’s just like those who don’t think that shutting down was necessary. There might be truth to that under ideal circumstances. If we had enough PPE for everyone, if testing was readily available, if we had isolated and tested travelers earlier, if we had better contact tracing, etc., maybe we wouldn’t have needed to shut down. But we didn’t.

In a perfect would, we could protect teachers with plexiglass, add extra buses to allow social distancing, provide high quality masks to all teachers in school, have instant testing for staff or kids exhibiting minor symptoms, have extra custodial staff, have a solid plan in place for excluding sick kids and making sure they don’t lose out if they can’t come to school for two weeks, have staggered start times, etc. If we had all of those things, then the risk of reopening would likely be outweighed by the educational and mental health needs of children and the economic need for parents to have childcare. But we don’t live in a perfect world and we don’t have all of those things.

It already is. As you say, we don't live in a perfect world. We can't do all of the mitigation measures. So we send the kids back to school with the mitigation measures we can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Correct. The cost of opening is more than just the the number of deaths caused by COVID. Community spread has to be considered, as well as the cost of putting reasonable mitigation measures in place. There are many competing interests that need to be considered on both sides.

It’s just like those who don’t think that shutting down was necessary. There might be truth to that under ideal circumstances. If we had enough PPE for everyone, if testing was readily available, if we had isolated and tested travelers earlier, if we had better contact tracing, etc., maybe we wouldn’t have needed to shut down. But we didn’t.

In a perfect would, we could protect teachers with plexiglass, add extra buses to allow social distancing, provide high quality masks to all teachers in school, have instant testing for staff or kids exhibiting minor symptoms, have extra custodial staff, have a solid plan in place for excluding sick kids and making sure they don’t lose out if they can’t come to school for two weeks, have staggered start times, etc. If we had all of those things, then the risk of reopening would likely be outweighed by the educational and mental health needs of children and the economic need for parents to have childcare. But we don’t live in a perfect world and we don’t have all of those things.

It already is. As you say, we don't live in a perfect world. We can't do all of the mitigation measures. So we send the kids back to school with the mitigation measures we can do.

Which ones? Regular bus routes? What social distancing do you recommend for crowded high schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the people pushing for DL — be they teachers, staffers, parents, or whoever — honestly feel that DL is an adequate substitute for children? Self/driven adults seeking pro dev? Sure! But kids? Can you honestly say that? And at what age and for how many hours a day do you think this is true? Straight answers, please — no “it’s better th an nothing” or “we all have to sacrifice.” Really answer the question.

In normal times, no. In a pandemic, yes. And for as long as necessary because it is not possible to create the conditions listed as precautions.

DP, but really? You really think preventing COVID deaths is the only consideration in our society? Really?

Only, no. Top, yes. The death of a loved one impacts children emotionally, socially, educationally, and financially. Really.

And what's the death rate that leads you to conclude that the death of a grandparent (much less commonly, a parent of young kids) is more traumatic than the cumulative stress of social isolation, missing school, potentially living in an unsafe home, having parents laid off, etc. What's the calculus there?

Here's another way to think about it: severe child abuse is increasing during the pandemic. What are the lives of those kids worth?

How much death are you willing to tolerate?

Death of whom? And what are the trade-offs?

You probably don't know that in many hospitals, physicians were/are considering unilateral DNR orders in cases when patients with COVID crashed, because of the substantial risk that resuscitating them posed to medical staff who, if they became infected, couldn't care for other patients. Ethics aren't that simple, as much as you may want them to be.

Which lives are not worth saving in your opinion? I'm not discounting that there is a huge cost to closing schools. I'm saying there will be a cost to opening them, which you are assuming is smaller than the cost of keeping them closed. You may be right but I certainly am not in a position to determine that, and I suspect you are not either.

The unilateral DNR orders is a great example of why it's important to prevent people from catching COVID.

No, of course I'm not in a position to make these decisions. And I don't even know that DL isn't the least bad option of multiple bad options; it may well be. My point is that we can't just yell "COVID!!" and pretend that there are no negatives that stem from the COVID mitigation efforts, which is what many PPs are doing. I would hope that those who do make these decisions are considering the various trade-offs. I know there are no easy answers.

That's not how I read the PPs. And back in early March these boards were full of posters concerned that schools had not yet been closed. Officials hadn't closed them yet precisely because they knew it would come at a huge cost. I don't know if they made the right decision at the right time but they certainly weren't ignoring the costs of closing schools, and I don't think they are now either. Not to say the decision-making process is going well, I just don't think that is the specific problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Correct. The cost of opening is more than just the the number of deaths caused by COVID. Community spread has to be considered, as well as the cost of putting reasonable mitigation measures in place. There are many competing interests that need to be considered on both sides.

It’s just like those who don’t think that shutting down was necessary. There might be truth to that under ideal circumstances. If we had enough PPE for everyone, if testing was readily available, if we had isolated and tested travelers earlier, if we had better contact tracing, etc., maybe we wouldn’t have needed to shut down. But we didn’t.

In a perfect would, we could protect teachers with plexiglass, add extra buses to allow social distancing, provide high quality masks to all teachers in school, have instant testing for staff or kids exhibiting minor symptoms, have extra custodial staff, have a solid plan in place for excluding sick kids and making sure they don’t lose out if they can’t come to school for two weeks, have staggered start times, etc. If we had all of those things, then the risk of reopening would likely be outweighed by the educational and mental health needs of children and the economic need for parents to have childcare. But we don’t live in a perfect world and we don’t have all of those things.

It already is. As you say, we don't live in a perfect world. We can't do all of the mitigation measures. So we send the kids back to school with the mitigation measures we can do.

Which ones? Regular bus routes? What social distancing do you recommend for crowded high schools?

Which ones? The ones we can do. For example, we can open bus windows. We can open classroom windows (for classrooms that have windows...) We can require masks. We can make sure that there's actually soap in the bathrooms.

Keeping kids out of school indefinitely is simply not an acceptable option. The kids are not all right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the people pushing for DL — be they teachers, staffers, parents, or whoever — honestly feel that DL is an adequate substitute for children? Self/driven adults seeking pro dev? Sure! But kids? Can you honestly say that? And at what age and for how many hours a day do you think this is true? Straight answers, please — no “it’s better th an nothing” or “we all have to sacrifice.” Really answer the question.

I do feel that DL is a satisfactory substitute in these times. My children were in 5th and 8th, and they took charge of their meeting calendars, their homework, etc. The elementary student had about 2 hours a day between the class meeting and the homework. I would prefer that had been more like 3 hours. The middle schooler had maybe a little more, and again I would have preferred a little more. Things they really missed were instrumental music and going to the library. But in no way was this a big disaster or joke for us. They missed their friends, but they kept learning. Subtracting out the bus ride, lunch, recess/PE, and travel time between classes, kids honestly only get maybe 3 hours of instruction a day at school anyway.

I don’t have a younger elementary student so I can’t speak to that.