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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of countries are already planning (some already announced) to start the school year early to make up for the loss instruction. Our stats have improved tremendously, and every day it improves more. I believe schools will open by if they don't, whoever makes that decision will not get my vote in the next election.

Are the stats truly improving?

Yes, Jesus, look at the links people keep posting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The median age for teachers in the US is around 40. 40% of Americans have at least one risk factor. Oh and don’t forget the staff and administrators. That’s a lot of people to take out of the pool and expect the schools to somehow function at full capacity. The death rate for people 50-64 is 2.9 % which is an unacceptable number of deaths. Also keep in mind that this is a NEW virus so what you think you know about it may not prove to be true. Information can and will change so it is best to make cautious decisions as we move forward.

Do you have a source for that fatality rate? I am assuming it is a case fatality rate and not an infection fatality rate?

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rate-us-compared-to-flu-by-age-2020-6

[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:

Yes teachers are just like doctors what with all the respect, support and money they get from society. Everyone wants someone else to make the sacrifice for them, but god forbid Larla has to be sad and her parents have to sacrifice for her.

I'd say teachers get more respect and money than supermarket workers. And yet the latter are doing their jobs despite some risk.

Retail workers, home health care aides, other medical workers who aren't doctors, bus drivers, delivery people, construction workers, truck drivers, warehouse workers, food manufacturing workers, building services workers, mail carriers...

And it's not about Larla's sadness, or at least not only about Larla's sadness (though mental health is also a public-health factor, just like covid). It's about Larla's education.

So you think that teachers should be treated like delivery people, truck drivers, or warehouse workers? None of those jobs require prolonged exposure to other people in a small enclosed space, day after day. None of those jobs require them to literally touch other people's bodily fluids, except home health aides. They also don't require any formal education at all. I'm sorry, I didn't work my way through undergrad and graduate school to be fold sweaters or stock shelves in a supermarket. Forgive all our student loans and just throw us in the building with the kids and I'll keep them alive, then. They can watch movies, color, whatever they want. Either I'm a babysitter or I'm an educator. I'm not both.

DP (and the one who said that other essential workers haven’t complained this way):

-There are many, many essential workers who absolutely are in small enclosed spaces with *other adults* (aka the ones most likely to spread COVID) all day
-Stop looking down on people who have less education than you
-You can’t teach people while providing care? Really? Inherent in the job of teaching children, especially young ones, is providing oversight. Is the issue that you think you’re better than a “babysitter”?
-I really hope you can develop more appreciation for the emotional work of teaching. Part of the reason I respect (some) teachers so highly is because they get how important their role is. They don’t haughtily describe themselves as “educators” only and ignore the very real emotional care they provide to children

And I only respect some parents. Some of them just can’t be bothered to do any work at all with their children (the majority of my class) and are angry that they’ve lost their free full time care. I don’t think they’re doing their job supporting the emotional or educational needs of their children, which is an enormous personal failure on their part. We absolutely will not be pushed back to the classroom under unsafe conditions. We’ve worked hard for our rights and we aren’t going to sacrifice them to make your life easier.
You assume that you can tell me that you don’t respect me, and then turn around and say that I don’t value other people’s work. You don’t see the irony there? Good luck treating teachers like they owe you a place to deposit your child 5 days a week during a pandemic. They don’t.

Not a teacher and I totally agree. I think the same people on here and on FB who bitch and moan about schools JUST HAVE to be open have the financial privilege and job security to keep their kids home but they just don't want bothered.

Seems pretty entitled on the part of a teacher to expect the parents to do a good part of their job, which is what it amounts to when you deal with young elementary students. The "virtual" teacher is pretty much useless, and what I am doing is homeschooling. And frankly, that's what I'll likely do if we have DL.

Yup, I’m expected to continue to perform all of my duties and responsibilities while working at home. I can’t tell someone else to pick up the slack.

That's what parenting is. You want a teacher to risk their life or the life of their family member so you can get your work done? What on earth is wrong with you people? Also keep in mind that teenagers are more like adults in their ability to catch and spread the illness so all the high school teachers are dealing with a different situation. Can't we just band together, do our best and thank our lucky effing stars that kids dont' seem to be dying of this?

DP. No, parenting does not require a willingness to homeschool, which doesn't work for most parents or kids. That's why we have public schools. Yes, I expect teachers to do their jobs, not primarily for my sake but for my kids' sake, for whom DL is a pale substitute to actual school. Unless, of course, the teachers are actually at high risk, in which case they should be offered the option to teach DL to those kids who are also high-risk, or whose parents have other reasons not to send them back. Or they should get retirement incentives, career change support, etc. But to expect that they should keep receiving the same benefits while parents serve as their substitutes or assistants is just entitled. It was fine for a few months while everyone was dumbfounded by an unexpected pandemic, but it is not fine for potentially another year or years. What on earth is wrong with you people thinking we could keep kids out of school for this long?

Parenting DOES require you to oftentimes experience trials or discomfort to assist them. That's the WHOLE job. No one doesn't expect teachers to do their jobs I just don't expect them to die for their jobs. Not wanting to die teaching is NOT entitled. Wanting people to potentially experience a life altering illness or die so your child doesn't miss one year of school is entitled - super entitled. Life is long, kids are adaptable (except for your little darlings apparently) if they need to repeat a year then they repeat a year. You get to have them home for another year before they go to college and save for another year. This is a global pandemic. If we don't get this right people, thousands will literally die. What on earth is wrong with you people thinking that your child's education is more important than someone else's life? Where is your soul?

You are trying to personalize this, and twist the call to re-open schools into the moral failure of the suburban moms on DCUM. But the issue is much bigger than this. We are not just talking about the loss of education for mine or some other poster’s kid, but for tens of millions across the country. It is a question both of public health and of bioethics. How many lives would we need to save in order to justify depriving millions of kids of their education for a year? How many lives saved would justify the harms inflicted on so many kids, as well as on their families’ livelihoods? I don’t think your cavalier dismissal that those harms even exist or that they don’t matter in the face of even a single death is going to be taken seriously by any expert in the field. There are no easy answers, but trying to brand the parents who question the justifications and wisdo
m of widespread and indefinite school closures as morally deficient is definitely not helpful to any serious discussion of this complex issue.

OK, then let's think of it this way: How many people would you be willing to have die in your extended family to ensure that kids could go back to school? One? Two? Would it be worth it? If your answer is "zero" then you have no moral leg to stand on in making your argument. Because that means you'd be willing to sacrifice other people's family members but not your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OK, then let's think of it this way: How many people would you be willing to have die in your extended family to ensure that kids could go back to school? One? Two? Would it be worth it? If your answer is "zero" then you have no moral leg to stand on in making your argument. Because that means you'd be willing to sacrifice other people's family members but not your own.

No, let's think of it this way. What non-essential activities can be avoided/reduced/closed, in order to reduce community spread, so that kids can go to school (an essential activity)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are more serious problems in our society than education if your child (or anyone's child) will DIE because they can't go to school. That idea just blows my mind. There are some serious issues that need to be dealt with that have nothing to do with a virus. I for one would have to be dependent on the schools to keep my kids alive. Parents need to be responsible for keeping their kids alive. That basic premise is gone??

That basic premise has never helped kids whose parents are unwilling or unable to meet this responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are more serious problems in our society than education if your child (or anyone's child) will DIE because they can't go to school. That idea just blows my mind. There are some serious issues that need to be dealt with that have nothing to do with a virus. I for one would have to be dependent on the schools to keep my kids alive. Parents need to be responsible for keeping their kids alive. That basic premise is gone??

That basic premise has never helped kids whose parents are unwilling or unable to meet this responsibility.

Right? Or is it the kids' fault for not picking better parents?

The inability of so many people to ignore the complexities of this situation is truly mind-boggling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, then let's think of it this way: How many people would you be willing to have die in your extended family to ensure that kids could go back to school? One? Two? Would it be worth it? If your answer is "zero" then you have no moral leg to stand on in making your argument. Because that means you'd be willing to sacrifice other people's family members but not your own.

No, let's think of it this way. What non-essential activities can be avoided/reduced/closed, in order to reduce community spread, so that kids can go to school (an essential activity)?

OK go ahead and name a few. You can close restaurants, stores and bars. You can close movie theaters and professional sports. You can have people work from home where possible. This will reduce overall community spread but it will merely slow down, not end, spread in schools. Schools will become the primary vector for family infection and community spread.
If you want to limit spread in schools, the most effective way to do that is cut off modes of transmission by having all kids wear masks, ensuring adequate social distancing (which, given the crowded state of most public schools, means only a fraction of students can be in the building at any given time), and routinely test students and contact trace and require contacts to self isolate for 14 days when positive cases are found.

I suspect this would actually be more disruptive to families' lives then full time distance learning, but it would get kids back in school buildings for at least part of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The median age for teachers in the US is around 40. 40% of Americans have at least one risk factor. Oh and don’t forget the staff and administrators. That’s a lot of people to take out of the pool and expect the schools to somehow function at full capacity. The death rate for people 50-64 is 2.9 % which is an unacceptable number of deaths. Also keep in mind that this is a NEW virus so what you think you know about it may not prove to be true. Information can and will change so it is best to make cautious decisions as we move forward.

There needs to be more justification than "it's best to be cautious" to keep schools closed next fall.

If we're concerned about community spread, and we believe that schools are a priority, then we need to focus on limiting community spread so that schools can open.

If we don't believe that schools are a priority, then we just decide right off the bat that it's not possible for schools to open.

You're exactly right, PP, and I'm afraid your second scenario is what's happening. By all means, reopen indoor dining and retail or society will crumble, but keep the schools closed, it would take too many sacrifices elsewhere to open them. I'm so depressed.

And the difference is? The servers and retail staff don’t have a powerful union.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes teachers are just like doctors what with all the respect, support and money they get from society. Everyone wants someone else to make the sacrifice for them, but god forbid Larla has to be sad and her parents have to sacrifice for her.

I'd say teachers get more respect and money than supermarket workers. And yet the latter are doing their jobs despite some risk.

Retail workers, home health care aides, other medical workers who aren't doctors, bus drivers, delivery people, construction workers, truck drivers, warehouse workers, food manufacturing workers, building services workers, mail carriers...

And it's not about Larla's sadness, or at least not only about Larla's sadness (though mental health is also a public-health factor, just like covid). It's about Larla's education.

So you think that teachers should be treated like delivery people, truck drivers, or warehouse workers? None of those jobs require prolonged exposure to other people in a small enclosed space, day after day. None of those jobs require them to literally touch other people's bodily fluids, except home health aides. They also don't require any formal education at all. I'm sorry, I didn't work my way through undergrad and graduate school to be fold sweaters or stock shelves in a supermarket. Forgive all our student loans and just throw us in the building with the kids and I'll keep them alive, then. They can watch movies, color, whatever they want. Either I'm a babysitter or I'm an educator. I'm not both.

DP (and the one who said that other essential workers haven’t complained this way):

-There are many, many essential workers who absolutely are in small enclosed spaces with *other adults* (aka the ones most likely to spread COVID) all day
-Stop looking down on people who have less education than you
-You can’t teach people while providing care? Really? Inherent in the job of teaching children, especially young ones, is providing oversight. Is the issue that you think you’re better than a “babysitter”?
-I really hope you can develop more appreciation for the emotional work of teaching. Part of the reason I respect (some) teachers so highly is because they get how important their role is. They don’t haughtily describe themselves as “educators” only and ignore the very real emotional care they provide to children

And I only respect some parents. Some of them just can’t be bothered to do any work at all with their children (the majority of my class) and are angry that they’ve lost their free full time care. I don’t think they’re doing their job supporting the emotional or educational needs of their children, which is an enormous personal failure on their part. We absolutely will not be pushed back to the classroom under unsafe conditions. We’ve worked hard for our rights and we aren’t going to sacrifice them to make your life easier.
You assume that you can tell me that you don’t respect me, and then turn around and say that I don’t value other people’s work. You don’t see the irony there? Good luck treating teachers like they owe you a place to deposit your child 5 days a week during a pandemic. They don’t.

Not a teacher and I totally agree. I think the same people on here and on FB who bitch and moan about schools JUST HAVE to be open have the financial privilege and job security to keep their kids home but they just don't want bothered.

Seems pretty entitled on the part of a teacher to expect the parents to do a good part of their job, which is what it amounts to when you deal with young elementary students. The "virtual" teacher is pretty much useless, and what I am doing is homeschooling. And frankly, that's what I'll likely do if we have DL.

Yup, I’m expected to continue to perform all of my duties and responsibilities while working at home. I can’t tell someone else to pick up the slack.

That's what parenting is. You want a teacher to risk their life or the life of their family member so you can get your work done? What on earth is wrong with you people? Also keep in mind that teenagers are more like adults in their ability to catch and spread the illness so all the high school teachers are dealing with a different situation. Can't we just band together, do our best and thank our lucky effing stars that kids dont' seem to be dying of this?

DP. No, parenting does not require a willingness to homeschool, which doesn't work for most parents or kids. That's why we have public schools. Yes, I expect teachers to do their jobs, not primarily for my sake but for my kids' sake, for whom DL is a pale substitute to actual school. Unless, of course, the teachers are actually at high risk, in which case they should be offered the option to teach DL to those kids who are also high-risk, or whose parents have other reasons not to send them back. Or they should get retirement incentives, career change support, etc. But to expect that they should keep receiving the same benefits while parents serve as their substitutes or assistants is just entitled. It was fine for a few months while everyone was dumbfounded by an unexpected pandemic, but it is not fine for potentially another year or years. What on earth is wrong with you people thinking we could keep kids out of school for this long?

Parenting DOES require you to oftentimes experience trials or discomfort to assist them. That's the WHOLE job. No one doesn't expect teachers to do their jobs I just don't expect them to die for their jobs. Not wanting to die teaching is NOT entitled. Wanting people to potentially experience a life altering illness or die so your child doesn't miss one year of school is entitled - super entitled. Life is long, kids are adaptable (except for your little darlings apparently) if they need to repeat a year then they repeat a year. You get to have them home for another year before they go to college and save for another year. This is a global pandemic. If we don't get this right people, thousands will literally die. What on earth is wrong with you people thinking that your child's education is more important than someone else's life? Where is your soul?

You are trying to personalize this, and twist the call to re-open schools into the moral failure of the suburban moms on DCUM. But the issue is much bigger than this. We are not just talking about the loss of education for mine or some other poster’s kid, but for tens of millions across the country. It is a question both of public health and of bioethics. How many lives would we need to save in order to justify depriving millions of kids of their education for a year? How many lives saved would justify the harms inflicted on so many kids, as well as on their families’ livelihoods? I don’t think your cavalier dismissal that those harms even exist or that they don’t matter in the face of even a single death is going to be taken seriously by any expert in the field. There are no easy answers, but trying to brand the parents who question the justifications and wisdo
m of widespread and indefinite school closures as morally deficient is definitely not helpful to any serious discussion of this complex issue.

OK, then let's think of it this way: How many people would you be willing to have die in your extended family to ensure that kids could go back to school? One? Two? Would it be worth it? If your answer is "zero" then you have no moral leg to stand on in making your argument. Because that means you'd be willing to sacrifice other people's family members but not your own.

You are again trying to personalize the issue. That’s not how any bioethicist would think about it or ask you to think about it when figuring out what is best for the greater good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The median age for teachers in the US is around 40. 40% of Americans have at least one risk factor. Oh and don’t forget the staff and administrators. That’s a lot of people to take out of the pool and expect the schools to somehow function at full capacity. The death rate for people 50-64 is 2.9 % which is an unacceptable number of deaths. Also keep in mind that this is a NEW virus so what you think you know about it may not prove to be true. Information can and will change so it is best to make cautious decisions as we move forward.

There needs to be more justification than "it's best to be cautious" to keep schools closed next fall.

If we're concerned about community spread, and we believe that schools are a priority, then we need to focus on limiting community spread so that schools can open.

If we don't believe that schools are a priority, then we just decide right off the bat that it's not possible for schools to open.

You're exactly right, PP, and I'm afraid your second scenario is what's happening. By all means, reopen indoor dining and retail or society will crumble, but keep the schools closed, it would take too many sacrifices elsewhere to open them. I'm so depressed.

And the difference is? The servers and retail staff don’t have a powerful union.

Nah, the difference is that we, as a society, believe that consumerism is more important than education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OK go ahead and name a few. You can close restaurants, stores and bars. You can close movie theaters and professional sports. You can have people work from home where possible. This will reduce overall community spread but it will merely slow down, not end, spread in schools. Schools will become the primary vector for family infection and community spread.
If you want to limit spread in schools, the most effective way to do that is cut off modes of transmission by having all kids wear masks, ensuring adequate social distancing (which, given the crowded state of most public schools, means only a fraction of students can be in the building at any given time), and routinely test students and contact trace and require contacts to self isolate for 14 days when positive cases are found.

I suspect this would actually be more disruptive to families' lives then full time distance learning, but it would get kids back in school buildings for at least part of the time.

The goal was to slow down the spread, not end it - right? That's what the whole "flatten the curve" thing was - right? And we have contact tracing and testing to actually eliminate the spread - right?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes teachers are just like doctors what with all the respect, support and money they get from society. Everyone wants someone else to make the sacrifice for them, but god forbid Larla has to be sad and her parents have to sacrifice for her.

I'd say teachers get more respect and money than supermarket workers. And yet the latter are doing their jobs despite some risk.

Retail workers, home health care aides, other medical workers who aren't doctors, bus drivers, delivery people, construction workers, truck drivers, warehouse workers, food manufacturing workers, building services workers, mail carriers...

And it's not about Larla's sadness, or at least not only about Larla's sadness (though mental health is also a public-health factor, just like covid). It's about Larla's education.

So you think that teachers should be treated like delivery people, truck drivers, or warehouse workers? None of those jobs require prolonged exposure to other people in a small enclosed space, day after day. None of those jobs require them to literally touch other people's bodily fluids, except home health aides. They also don't require any formal education at all. I'm sorry, I didn't work my way through undergrad and graduate school to be fold sweaters or stock shelves in a supermarket. Forgive all our student loans and just throw us in the building with the kids and I'll keep them alive, then. They can watch movies, color, whatever they want. Either I'm a babysitter or I'm an educator. I'm not both.

DP (and the one who said that other essential workers haven’t complained this way):

-There are many, many essential workers who absolutely are in small enclosed spaces with *other adults* (aka the ones most likely to spread COVID) all day
-Stop looking down on people who have less education than you
-You can’t teach people while providing care? Really? Inherent in the job of teaching children, especially young ones, is providing oversight. Is the issue that you think you’re better than a “babysitter”?
-I really hope you can develop more appreciation for the emotional work of teaching. Part of the reason I respect (some) teachers so highly is because they get how important their role is. They don’t haughtily describe themselves as “educators” only and ignore the very real emotional care they provide to children

And I only respect some parents. Some of them just can’t be bothered to do any work at all with their children (the majority of my class) and are angry that they’ve lost their free full time care. I don’t think they’re doing their job supporting the emotional or educational needs of their children, which is an enormous personal failure on their part. We absolutely will not be pushed back to the classroom under unsafe conditions. We’ve worked hard for our rights and we aren’t going to sacrifice them to make your life easier.
You assume that you can tell me that you don’t respect me, and then turn around and say that I don’t value other people’s work. You don’t see the irony there? Good luck treating teachers like they owe you a place to deposit your child 5 days a week during a pandemic. They don’t.

Not a teacher and I totally agree. I think the same people on here and on FB who bitch and moan about schools JUST HAVE to be open have the financial privilege and job security to keep their kids home but they just don't want bothered.

Seems pretty entitled on the part of a teacher to expect the parents to do a good part of their job, which is what it amounts to when you deal with young elementary students. The "virtual" teacher is pretty much useless, and what I am doing is homeschooling. And frankly, that's what I'll likely do if we have DL.

Yup, I’m expected to continue to perform all of my duties and responsibilities while working at home. I can’t tell someone else to pick up the slack.

That's what parenting is. You want a teacher to risk their life or the life of their family member so you can get your work done? What on earth is wrong with you people? Also keep in mind that teenagers are more like adults in their ability to catch and spread the illness so all the high school teachers are dealing with a different situation. Can't we just band together, do our best and thank our lucky effing stars that kids dont' seem to be dying of this?

DP. No, parenting does not require a willingness to homeschool, which doesn't work for most parents or kids. That's why we have public schools. Yes, I expect teachers to do their jobs, not primarily for my sake but for my kids' sake, for whom DL is a pale substitute to actual school. Unless, of course, the teachers are actually at high risk, in which case they should be offered the option to teach DL to those kids who are also high-risk, or whose parents have other reasons not to send them back. Or they should get retirement incentives, career change support, etc. But to expect that they should keep receiving the same benefits while parents serve as their substitutes or assistants is just entitled. It was fine for a few months while everyone was dumbfounded by an unexpected pandemic, but it is not fine for potentially another year or years. What on earth is wrong with you people thinking we could keep kids out of school for this long?

Parenting DOES require you to oftentimes experience trials or discomfort to assist them. That's the WHOLE job. No one doesn't expect teachers to do their jobs I just don't expect them to die for their jobs. Not wanting to die teaching is NOT entitled. Wanting people to potentially experience a life altering illness or die so your child doesn't miss one year of school is entitled - super entitled. Life is long, kids are adaptable (except for your little darlings apparently) if they need to repeat a year then they repeat a year. You get to have them home for another year before they go to college and save for another year. This is a global pandemic. If we don't get this right people, thousands will literally die. What on earth is wrong with you people thinking that your child's education is more important than someone else's life? Where is your soul?

You are trying to personalize this, and twist the call to re-open schools into the moral failure of the suburban moms on DCUM. But the issue is much bigger than this. We are not just talking about the loss of education for mine or some other poster’s kid, but for tens of millions across the country. It is a question both of public health and of bioethics. How many lives would we need to save in order to justify depriving millions of kids of their education for a year? How many lives saved would justify the harms inflicted on so many kids, as well as on their families’ livelihoods? I don’t think your cavalier dismissal that those harms even exist or that they don’t matter in the face of even a single death is going to be taken seriously by any expert in the field. There are no easy answers, but trying to brand the parents who question the justifications and wisdo
m of widespread and indefinite school closures as morally deficient is definitely not helpful to any serious discussion of this complex issue.

OK, then let's think of it this way: How many people would you be willing to have die in your extended family to ensure that kids could go back to school? One? Two? Would it be worth it? If your answer is "zero" then you have no moral leg to stand on in making your argument. Because that means you'd be willing to sacrifice other people's family members but not your own.

You are again trying to personalize the issue. That’s not how any bioethicist would think about it or ask you to think about it when figuring out what is best for the greater good.

Which bioethicist are you talking about? Joseph Goebbels?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK go ahead and name a few. You can close restaurants, stores and bars. You can close movie theaters and professional sports. You can have people work from home where possible. This will reduce overall community spread but it will merely slow down, not end, spread in schools. Schools will become the primary vector for family infection and community spread.
If you want to limit spread in schools, the most effective way to do that is cut off modes of transmission by having all kids wear masks, ensuring adequate social distancing (which, given the crowded state of most public schools, means only a fraction of students can be in the building at any given time), and routinely test students and contact trace and require contacts to self isolate for 14 days when positive cases are found.

I suspect this would actually be more disruptive to families' lives then full time distance learning, but it would get kids back in school buildings for at least part of the time.

The goal was to slow down the spread, not end it - right? That's what the whole "flatten the curve" thing was - right? And we have contact tracing and testing to actually eliminate the spread - right?

Right. Are you expecting that reopened schools will test and contact trace students? When someone in your son's class tests positive, you're expecting your son to have to stay home from school for two weeks, right? Done right, a return to in person instruction will be resource intensive and very disruptive. That's why I suspect they won't do it right, and within a couple months schools will close down again anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[

Which bioethicist are you talking about? Joseph Goebbels?

DP.

What is Bioethics?
"No Easy Answers"

“Bioethics” is a term with two parts, and each needs some explanation. Here, “ethics” refers to the identification, study, and resolution or mitigation of conflicts among competing values or goals. The ethical question is, “What should we do, all things considered?” The “bio” puts the ethical question into a particular context.

Bioethics is commonly understood to refer to the ethical implications and applications of the health-related life sciences. These implications can run the entire length of the bench-to-bedside “translational pipeline.” Dilemmas can arise for the basic scientist who wants to develop synthetic embryos to better study embryonic and fetal development, but is not sure just how real the embryos can be without running into moral limits on their later destruction. How much should the scientist worry about their potential uses?

Once treatments or drugs are in clinical trials involving human subjects, a new set of challenges arise, from ensuring informed consent, to protecting vulnerable research participants to guarantee their participation is voluntary and informed. Eventually, some of these new approaches exit the pipeline and are put into practice, where providers, patients, and families struggle with how to best align the risks and benefits of treatment with the patient’s best interest and goals. The added costs of new therapies inevitably strain available resources, forcing hard choices about how to fairly serve the needs of all, especially those already underserved by the health care system.

Questions in bioethics aren’t just for “experts.” Discussions of bioethical challenges take place in the media, in the academy, in classrooms, but also in labs, offices, and hospital wards. They involve not just doctors, but patients, not just scientists and politicians, but the general public.

Below you will find information on some specific areas within bioethics, as well as connections to a variety of related educational resources.

https://bioethics.msu.edu/what-is-bioethics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK go ahead and name a few. You can close restaurants, stores and bars. You can close movie theaters and professional sports. You can have people work from home where possible. This will reduce overall community spread but it will merely slow down, not end, spread in schools. Schools will become the primary vector for family infection and community spread.
If you want to limit spread in schools, the most effective way to do that is cut off modes of transmission by having all kids wear masks, ensuring adequate social distancing (which, given the crowded state of most public schools, means only a fraction of students can be in the building at any given time), and routinely test students and contact trace and require contacts to self isolate for 14 days when positive cases are found.

I suspect this would actually be more disruptive to families' lives then full time distance learning, but it would get kids back in school buildings for at least part of the time.

The goal was to slow down the spread, not end it - right? That's what the whole "flatten the curve" thing was - right? And we have contact tracing and testing to actually eliminate the spread - right?

Right. Are you expecting that reopened schools will test and contact trace students? When someone in your son's class tests positive, you're expecting your son to have to stay home from school for two weeks, right? Done right, a return to in person instruction will be resource intensive and very disruptive. That's why I suspect they won't do it right, and within a couple months schools will close down again anyway.

No, I'm expecting Montgomery County and the State of Maryland to continue the testing and contact tracing that they're already doing.

And yes, when someone tests positive, everyone who was exposed goes into quarantine. That's how that works.