The prospect of kids not going back to school until 2021

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If people would like to convince others of their way of thinking, they’ve really got to cool it with the oversimplification here. We can’t just say “schools have to open, period.” Or “this is simple.” Or “they’ve lost their minds.”

Yes, schools provide in-person education. Yes, they keep children occupied productively so parents can work. But it’s also true that they pose unique risks. Online learning is not simply a complete joke — my children have learned things.

Anyone asserting that this is simple and easy — and their opponents are dumb — is wrong.

I don't think anyone has said that it's simple or easy. But the thinking needs to be

1. there will be school - meaning, school school, in the building
2. given that, what are the feasible ways to reduce risk?

[Anonymous]

49 pages and counting of the same over and over again:

We are fine, send kids to school. If some get sick, it's ok.

vs.

School is not your childcare, hunker down for the next two years. It doesn't matter if you lose your job and can't feed those kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:49 pages and counting of the same over and over again:

We are fine, send kids to school. If some get sick, it's ok.

vs.

School is not your childcare, hunker down for the next two years. It doesn't matter if you lose your job and can't feed those kids.

Both are oversimplifications. It is not "fine" that some people will get sick and die. We hear you! You think it's cool if other people die or lose their family members. Guess what? Maybe other people aren't quite so cavalier about death!
There won't be school five days a week any more. The reason for this is to reduce the dangerous overcrowding that has gone on for years as a result of budget cuts. Employers are going to have to shift their models as well. People with children are going to have to work different shifts, telework, etc. That's the reality of the situation. You can demand that the schools will just open up at full capacity and shrug while people get sick, are hospitalized, and even die-but no one is going to go along with that plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:49 pages and counting of the same over and over again:

We are fine, send kids to school. If some get sick, it's ok.

vs.

School is not your childcare, hunker down for the next two years. It doesn't matter if you lose your job and can't feed those kids.

Both are oversimplifications. It is not "fine" that some people will get sick and die. We hear you! You think it's cool if other people die or lose their family members. Guess what? Maybe other people aren't quite so cavalier about death!
There won't be school five days a week any more. The reason for this is to reduce the dangerous overcrowding that has gone on for years as a result of budget cuts. Employers are going to have to shift their models as well. People with children are going to have to work different shifts, telework, etc. That's the reality of the situation. You can demand that the schools will just open up at full capacity and shrug while people get sick, are hospitalized, and even die-but no one is going to go along with that plan.

The bolded will only happen in a very limited capacity, if at all. Instead, working mothers are going to continue to bear the brunt of the lack of childcare.

Also: you can’t realistically telework AND manage schooling for kids at the same time. The past few months have shown us that.

Also: there are other considerations in these decisions beyond deaths from COVID-19. To think otherwise is yet another oversimplification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:49 pages and counting of the same over and over again:

We are fine, send kids to school. If some get sick, it's ok.

vs.

School is not your childcare, hunker down for the next two years. It doesn't matter if you lose your job and can't feed those kids.

Nope. Send the kids to school, with the precautions that are (a) reasonable (b) feasible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:49 pages and counting of the same over and over again:

We are fine, send kids to school. If some get sick, it's ok.

vs.

School is not your childcare, hunker down for the next two years. It doesn't matter if you lose your job and can't feed those kids.

Both are oversimplifications. It is not "fine" that some people will get sick and die. We hear you! You think it's cool if other people die or lose their family members. Guess what? Maybe other people aren't quite so cavalier about death!
There won't be school five days a week any more. The reason for this is to reduce the dangerous overcrowding that has gone on for years as a result of budget cuts. Employers are going to have to shift their models as well. People with children are going to have to work different shifts, telework, etc. That's the reality of the situation. You can demand that the schools will just open up at full capacity and shrug while people get sick, are hospitalized, and even die-but no one is going to go along with that plan.

The bolded will only happen in a very limited capacity, if at all. Instead, working mothers are going to continue to bear the brunt of the lack of childcare.

Also: you can’t realistically telework AND manage schooling for kids at the same time. The past few months have shown us that.

Also: there are other considerations in these decisions beyond deaths from COVID-19. To think otherwise is yet another oversimplification.

This. I really hope public pressure is going to become so intense that the safetyists won't be able to implement their indefinite school reduction plan for more than a few months.

I've been fully compliant will stay-at-home orders, I diligently wear a mask when I go among people and I think everyone should (except young kids), but keeping kids in very part-time school for the foreseeable future is a crazy plan and really discredits the whole lockdown approach, to goal of which was ostensibly to flatten the curve and prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. Covid will be with us for a while and life has never been risk-free. We have to weigh costs and benefits, as we do in all areas of life. It's not like Covid is such an outsized threat compared to all the other things one could die of on any given day that we should just completely stop forever living normal lives with reasonable precautions. I hardly ever agree with Republicans on anything, but on this matter, they have a point.

I know everyone is counting on a vaccine within the next year but that is far from certain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This. I really hope public pressure is going to become so intense that the safetyists won't be able to implement their indefinite school reduction plan for more than a few months.

I've been fully compliant will stay-at-home orders, I diligently wear a mask when I go among people and I think everyone should (except young kids), but keeping kids in very part-time school for the foreseeable future is a crazy plan and really discredits the whole lockdown approach, to goal of which was ostensibly to flatten the curve and prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. Covid will be with us for a while and life has never been risk-free. We have to weigh costs and benefits, as we do in all areas of life. It's not like Covid is such an outsized threat compared to all the other things one could die of on any given day that we should just completely stop forever living normal lives with reasonable precautions. I hardly ever agree with Republicans on anything, but on this matter, they have a point.

I know everyone is counting on a vaccine within the next year but that is far from certain.

You're being way too reasonable for this crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:49 pages and counting of the same over and over again:

We are fine, send kids to school. If some get sick, it's ok.

vs.

School is not your childcare, hunker down for the next two years. It doesn't matter if you lose your job and can't feed those kids.

Both are oversimplifications. It is not "fine" that some people will get sick and die. We hear you! You think it's cool if other people die or lose their family members. Guess what? Maybe other people aren't quite so cavalier about death!
There won't be school five days a week any more. The reason for this is to reduce the dangerous overcrowding that has gone on for years as a result of budget cuts. Employers are going to have to shift their models as well. People with children are going to have to work different shifts, telework, etc. That's the reality of the situation. You can demand that the schools will just open up at full capacity and shrug while people get sick, are hospitalized, and even die-but no one is going to go along with that plan.

The bolded will only happen in a very limited capacity, if at all. Instead, working mothers are going to continue to bear the brunt of the lack of childcare.

Also: you can’t realistically telework AND manage schooling for kids at the same time. The past few months have shown us that.

Also: there are other considerations in these decisions beyond deaths from COVID-19. To think otherwise is yet another oversimplification.

This. I really hope public pressure is going to become so intense that the safetyists won't be able to implement their indefinite school reduction plan for more than a few months.

I've been fully compliant will stay-at-home orders, I diligently wear a mask when I go among people and I think everyone should (except young kids), but keeping kids in very part-time school for the foreseeable future is a crazy plan and really discredits the whole lockdown approach, to goal of which was ostensibly to flatten the curve and prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. Covid will be with us for a while and life has never been risk-free. We have to weigh costs and benefits, as we do in all areas of life. It's not like Covid is such an outsized threat compared to all the other things one could die of on any given day that we should just completely stop forever living normal lives with reasonable precautions. I hardly ever agree with Republicans on anything, but on this matter, they have a point.

I know everyone is counting on a vaccine within the next year but that is far from certain.

So you want schools to open up full time at full capacity, without masks. Simply, you are not going to get your way. Public pressure doesn't trump safety, and doesn't magically fund our schools or any of the incredibly expensive measures we'd need to implement in order to open them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. I really hope public pressure is going to become so intense that the safetyists won't be able to implement their indefinite school reduction plan for more than a few months.

I've been fully compliant will stay-at-home orders, I diligently wear a mask when I go among people and I think everyone should (except young kids), but keeping kids in very part-time school for the foreseeable future is a crazy plan and really discredits the whole lockdown approach, to goal of which was ostensibly to flatten the curve and prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. Covid will be with us for a while and life has never been risk-free. We have to weigh costs and benefits, as we do in all areas of life. It's not like Covid is such an outsized threat compared to all the other things one could die of on any given day that we should just completely stop forever living normal lives with reasonable precautions. I hardly ever agree with Republicans on anything, but on this matter, they have a point.

I know everyone is counting on a vaccine within the next year but that is far from certain.

You're being way too reasonable for this crowd.

DP. Not really. I'm talking to a lot of people in real life who think that whatever else goes on, there has to be school. I'm hearing this from parents, as well as from people who don't have kids but are hearing it from the parents at their workplaces. And I run in a generally quite liberal crowd. I haven't talked to anybody who thinks that schools have to stay closed until coronavirus is over, which doesn't mean there aren't any, I know.

I remember how shocked I was at the beginning of all of this, reading that various countries had closed their schools (!) for two months (!!!). Now here we are, the kids missed three months of school already, and I'm telling my kids that I really, really, really hope they'll be back in the building on August 31 but who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. I really hope public pressure is going to become so intense that the safetyists won't be able to implement their indefinite school reduction plan for more than a few months.

I've been fully compliant will stay-at-home orders, I diligently wear a mask when I go among people and I think everyone should (except young kids), but keeping kids in very part-time school for the foreseeable future is a crazy plan and really discredits the whole lockdown approach, to goal of which was ostensibly to flatten the curve and prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. Covid will be with us for a while and life has never been risk-free. We have to weigh costs and benefits, as we do in all areas of life. It's not like Covid is such an outsized threat compared to all the other things one could die of on any given day that we should just completely stop forever living normal lives with reasonable precautions. I hardly ever agree with Republicans on anything, but on this matter, they have a point.

I know everyone is counting on a vaccine within the next year but that is far from certain.

So you want schools to open up full time at full capacity, without masks. Simply, you are not going to get your way. Public pressure doesn't trump safety, and doesn't magically fund our schools or any of the incredibly expensive measures we'd need to implement in order to open them.

Did PP say that? No, PP did not. In fact, PP explicitly said the opposite.

Also, masks are not incredibly expensive measures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:49 pages and counting of the same over and over again:

We are fine, send kids to school. If some get sick, it's ok.

vs.

School is not your childcare, hunker down for the next two years. It doesn't matter if you lose your job and can't feed those kids.

Nope. Send the kids to school, with the precautions that are (a) reasonable (b) feasible.

There are no feasible precautions when classrooms and hallways look like this. Overcrowding has been an issue for decades. Now its a serious health issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. I really hope public pressure is going to become so intense that the safetyists won't be able to implement their indefinite school reduction plan for more than a few months.

I've been fully compliant will stay-at-home orders, I diligently wear a mask when I go among people and I think everyone should (except young kids), but keeping kids in very part-time school for the foreseeable future is a crazy plan and really discredits the whole lockdown approach, to goal of which was ostensibly to flatten the curve and prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. Covid will be with us for a while and life has never been risk-free. We have to weigh costs and benefits, as we do in all areas of life. It's not like Covid is such an outsized threat compared to all the other things one could die of on any given day that we should just completely stop forever living normal lives with reasonable precautions. I hardly ever agree with Republicans on anything, but on this matter, they have a point.

I know everyone is counting on a vaccine within the next year but that is far from certain.

You're being way too reasonable for this crowd.

+100. First it was to flatten the curve, then it just continued. And now it seems like the new goal is 0% risk. 0% risk is not logical or attainable. Yet, here we are with no end date. I mean, we can't just keep the school situation all messed up for an undisclosed period of time. It's ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This. I really hope public pressure is going to become so intense that the safetyists won't be able to implement their indefinite school reduction plan for more than a few months.

I've been fully compliant will stay-at-home orders, I diligently wear a mask when I go among people and I think everyone should (except young kids), but keeping kids in very part-time school for the foreseeable future is a crazy plan and really discredits the whole lockdown approach, to goal of which was ostensibly to flatten the curve and prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. Covid will be with us for a while and life has never been risk-free. We have to weigh costs and benefits, as we do in all areas of life. It's not like Covid is such an outsized threat compared to all the other things one could die of on any given day that we should just completely stop forever living normal lives with reasonable precautions. I hardly ever agree with Republicans on anything, but on this matter, they have a point.

I know everyone is counting on a vaccine within the next year but that is far from certain.

So you want schools to open up full time at full capacity, without masks. Simply, you are not going to get your way. Public pressure doesn't trump safety, and doesn't magically fund our schools or any of the incredibly expensive measures we'd need to implement in order to open them.

Did PP say that? No, PP did not. In fact, PP explicitly said the opposite.

Also, masks are not incredibly expensive measures.

She literally said everyone should wear masks "except young kids"-so just adults then? I'm not working closely with unmasked children. I teach elementary school. I should just accept that she doesn't think they should wear masks and everything is cool? Not happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. I really hope public pressure is going to become so intense that the safetyists won't be able to implement their indefinite school reduction plan for more than a few months.

I've been fully compliant will stay-at-home orders, I diligently wear a mask when I go among people and I think everyone should (except young kids), but keeping kids in very part-time school for the foreseeable future is a crazy plan and really discredits the whole lockdown approach, to goal of which was ostensibly to flatten the curve and prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. Covid will be with us for a while and life has never been risk-free. We have to weigh costs and benefits, as we do in all areas of life. It's not like Covid is such an outsized threat compared to all the other things one could die of on any given day that we should just completely stop forever living normal lives with reasonable precautions. I hardly ever agree with Republicans on anything, but on this matter, they have a point.

I know everyone is counting on a vaccine within the next year but that is far from certain.

You're being way too reasonable for this crowd.

+100. First it was to flatten the curve, then it just continued. And now it seems like the new goal is 0% risk. 0% risk is not logical or attainable. Yet, here we are with no end date. I mean, we can't just keep the school situation all messed up for an undisclosed period of time. It's ridiculous.

Schools are the only consistent forum in this country where hundreds to thousands of people crowd together in small boxes, thin hallways, and tight stairwells. You're practically begging the infection rates to skyrocket by opening them up again.

Governments have to think of the well-being of the community. Not just the desires of fed-up parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. I really hope public pressure is going to become so intense that the safetyists won't be able to implement their indefinite school reduction plan for more than a few months.

I've been fully compliant will stay-at-home orders, I diligently wear a mask when I go among people and I think everyone should (except young kids), but keeping kids in very part-time school for the foreseeable future is a crazy plan and really discredits the whole lockdown approach, to goal of which was ostensibly to flatten the curve and prevent hospitals from getting overwhelmed. Covid will be with us for a while and life has never been risk-free. We have to weigh costs and benefits, as we do in all areas of life. It's not like Covid is such an outsized threat compared to all the other things one could die of on any given day that we should just completely stop forever living normal lives with reasonable precautions. I hardly ever agree with Republicans on anything, but on this matter, they have a point.

I know everyone is counting on a vaccine within the next year but that is far from certain.

You're being way too reasonable for this crowd.

+100. First it was to flatten the curve, then it just continued. And now it seems like the new goal is 0% risk. 0% risk is not logical or attainable. Yet, here we are with no end date. I mean, we can't just keep the school situation all messed up for an undisclosed period of time. It's ridiculous.

Schools are the only consistent forum in this country where hundreds to thousands of people crowd together in small boxes, thin hallways, and tight stairwells. You're practically begging the infection rates to skyrocket by opening them up again.

Governments have to think of the well-being of the community. Not just the desires of fed-up parents.

Except that data from countries that never locked down their schools don't show them to be the cause of skyrocketing infection rates. How does that information fit into your worldview?