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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Don't be an idiot. Read what the PP above posted about what bioethics is and educate yourself. Here is a discussion from April that lays out a lot of the questions here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/magazine/coronavirus-economy-debate.html

[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?

Testing is getting better, but contact tracing is almost non-existent. We needed a national army of contact tracers and the federal government did nothing about it. In the states that have tried to get it off the ground, it's slow going. You can't create functional public health apparatus out of nothing, and public health was underfunded for way too long before this.

And of course, you have whole states that never really did what they needed to do even to flatten the curve--witness what is happening now in Texas and Florida. We have open borders with those places.

[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?

Testing is getting better, but contact tracing is almost non-existent. We needed a national army of contact tracers and the federal government did nothing about it. In the states that have tried to get it off the ground, it's slow going. You can't create functional public health apparatus out of nothing, and public health was underfunded for way too long before this.

And of course, you have whole states that never really did what they needed to do even to flatten the curve--witness what is happening now in Texas and Florida. We have open borders with those places.

That's factually incorrect. Maryland is doing contact tracing. I know somebody who is doing it in Montgomery County.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/coronavirus/bs-md-coronavirus-june2-update-20200602-po2teoowdraivbl3vfsf6suytu-story.html

[Anonymous]

Just wait until DL becomes a success....and cheaper. And no need for a teacher to be nearby, when they can teach remotely. Like from India. .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just wait - there will be a whole contingent of parents who don’t want their kids tested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just wait - there will be a whole contingent of parents who don’t want their kids tested.

If they don't want their kids tested, then they can keep their kids home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wait until DL becomes a success....and cheaper. And no need for a teacher to be nearby, when they can teach remotely. Like from India. .

Kids aren't ultrasounds or tech support questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wait until DL becomes a success....and cheaper. And no need for a teacher to be nearby, when they can teach remotely. Like from India. .

Kids aren't ultrasounds or tech support questions.

Yeah, the people who think that DL is going to be the "new normal" for schools of the future are nuts. But everybody, especially teachers who are advocating against reopening, should be careful, because the Betsy De Vos types are just waiting to gut public education as we know it...

[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)?

People in MoCo will not be willing to give up trips to Home Depot, the hair salon, and bars in exchange for FT F2F school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wait until DL becomes a success....and cheaper. And no need for a teacher to be nearby, when they can teach remotely. Like from India. .

Kids aren't ultrasounds or tech support questions.

Yeah, the people who think that DL is going to be the "new normal" for schools of the future are nuts. But everybody, especially teachers who are advocating against reopening, should be careful, because the Betsy De Vos types are just waiting to gut public education as we know it...

It won’t be people teaching remotely in India. It will be AI and a national curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wait until DL becomes a success....and cheaper. And no need for a teacher to be nearby, when they can teach remotely. Like from India. .

Kids aren't ultrasounds or tech support questions.

Yeah, the people who think that DL is going to be the "new normal" for schools of the future are nuts. But everybody, especially teachers who are advocating against reopening, should be careful, because the Betsy De Vos types are just waiting to gut public education as we know it...

It won’t be people teaching remotely in India. It will be AI and a national curriculum.

That is dystopian insanity as well. Maybe it will happen, but we should do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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)?

People in MoCo will not be willing to give up trips to Home Depot, the hair salon, and bars in exchange for FT F2F school.

Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, that's what leadership is for - to lead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)?

People in MoCo will not be willing to give up trips to Home Depot, the hair salon, and bars in exchange for FT F2F school.

Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, that's what leadership is for - to lead.

You are crazy to think that everyone's primary focus should be minimizing spread so that schools can open. You do know that not everyone has a child or cares about this issue? Some people are more concerned about losing their jobs, caring for elderly family members, their own cancer diagnosis, losing their home, etc. It isn't the governments job to focus on your primary interests at the expense of all others. Ridiculous for you to expect that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)?

People in MoCo will not be willing to give up trips to Home Depot, the hair salon, and bars in exchange for FT F2F school.

Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, that's what leadership is for - to lead.

You are crazy to think that everyone's primary focus should be minimizing spread so that schools can open. You do know that not everyone has a child or cares about this issue? Some people are more concerned about losing their jobs, caring for elderly family members, their own cancer diagnosis, losing their home, etc. It isn't the governments job to focus on your primary interests at the expense of all others. Ridiculous for you to expect that.

Children are not a weird expensive private hobby, like scuba diving or Peloton. Children are our society's future. One of our society's primary functions is educating our children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)?

People in MoCo will not be willing to give up trips to Home Depot, the hair salon, and bars in exchange for FT F2F school.

Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, that's what leadership is for - to lead.

You are crazy to think that everyone's primary focus should be minimizing spread so that schools can open. You do know that not everyone has a child or cares about this issue? Some people are more concerned about losing their jobs, caring for elderly family members, their own cancer diagnosis, losing their home, etc. It isn't the governments job to focus on your primary interests at the expense of all others. Ridiculous for you to expect that.

Children are not a weird expensive private hobby, like scuba diving or Peloton. Children are our society's future. One of our society's primary functions is educating our children.

Once again, if you want to prioritize your own children above all else, great. Society will never and has never decided that children are more vital than any other members as a group. I know that for you, three months of remote learning was a catastrophe! For society at large? No. The fall will be what it will be. You need to unclench. If the people in Florida, Texas, Arizona, California, etc. are any indication, none of us will be doing much in August or September.