Any schools going remote - increases in cases?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks: the only way over this is through it

No. The way over it is a national plan to deal with air quality and limit transmission. But we have abandoned that bc, capitalism. And people being generally selfish AF.

Come back when someone you love dies or is disabled with LongCovid.

The situation in China should put an end to this argument. They continue to implement city-wide lockdowns where literally no one can leave their houses for days and weeks on end. And they still see it spreading. It is here to stay. That is just reality.

You are referencing a communist regime's solution as one we should implement?

um, yeah, I doubt you want anything else their government implements for clamping down on things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks: the only way over this is through it

No. The way over it is a national plan to deal with air quality and limit transmission. But we have abandoned that bc, capitalism. And people being generally selfish AF.

Come back when someone you love dies or is disabled with LongCovid.

The situation in China should put an end to this argument. They continue to implement city-wide lockdowns where literally no one can leave their houses for days and weeks on end. And they still see it spreading. It is here to stay. That is just reality.

You are referencing a communist regime's solution as one we should implement?

um, yeah, I doubt you want anything else their government implements for clamping down on things.

You misread this post. PP is saying Covid is still spreading in China despite strict lockdowns, proving lockdowns are ineffective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cases at DS’s school, but no switch to virtual. Seems reckless!

I really really doubt anyone will go virtual again not matter the case numbers.

Why not though (not asked with snark). They have the capability to do so.

I'd similarly hope they would do virtual if there were any other kind of outbreak ... flu, norovirus, etc.

Because virtual learning has been proven ineffective at best and damaging at worst for 95% of youth. If yours isn’t one of them consider yourself lucky!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cases at DS’s school, but no switch to virtual. Seems reckless!

I really really doubt anyone will go virtual again not matter the case numbers.

Why not though (not asked with snark). They have the capability to do so.

I'd similarly hope they would do virtual if there were any other kind of outbreak ... flu, norovirus, etc.

Because virtual learning has been proven ineffective at best and damaging at worst for 95% of youth. If yours isn’t one of them consider yourself lucky!

For a week, to stop further spread it would be fine and hardly damaging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cases at DS’s school, but no switch to virtual. Seems reckless!

I really really doubt anyone will go virtual again not matter the case numbers.

Why not though (not asked with snark). They have the capability to do so.

I'd similarly hope they would do virtual if there were any other kind of outbreak ... flu, norovirus, etc.

Because virtual learning has been proven ineffective at best and damaging at worst for 95% of youth. If yours isn’t one of them consider yourself lucky!

For a week, to stop further spread it would be fine and hardly damaging.

Bars and restaurants are wide open, stadiums and concerts are packed, but you want to shut down schools. That whacko idelogy is just child abuse at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a few people who have had Covid recently, and it has been totally mild for all of them.

Why would we close schools for that?!

Because they care about public health and understand that more cases means more chances for this virus to mutate and continue to disrupt our lives.

I agree that I don’t think any schools actually care that much anymore. But it doesn’t take much effort to bring back some social distancing, masking, or moving classes outdoors. Better than zoom school.

But the point is that the virus is no longer disrupting our lives any more than other viruses.

Are you serious?! Daycares and preschools are still having 10 day closures due to cases. My kids were recently quarantined and had activities and events cancelled/postponed. The disruption to lives continued. Every day we are dealing with cases in schools, at work, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cases at DS’s school, but no switch to virtual. Seems reckless!

No and No.

Please homeschool.

Our school stopped weekly testing for the year. Kinda weird, don't really get it. Why would you stop 3 weeks out?

What school? I would like mine to stop.

NPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cases at DS’s school, but no switch to virtual. Seems reckless!

I really really doubt anyone will go virtual again not matter the case numbers.

Why not though (not asked with snark). They have the capability to do so.

I'd similarly hope they would do virtual if there were any other kind of outbreak ... flu, norovirus, etc.

Because virtual learning has been proven ineffective at best and damaging at worst for 95% of youth. If yours isn’t one of them consider yourself lucky!

For a week, to stop further spread it would be fine and hardly damaging.

It doesn't stop spread though, not unless you're also restricting students' socialization, activities, travel, and everything else outside of school that week – which isn't possible, especially now. At my older kid's school, we often see the largest case numbers after school breaks or long weekends.

Switching to virtual also isn't like flipping a switch. It's a major change in instruction that requires teachers to redo their plans, students to have the right materials at home, younger students to have supervision and/or a parent to help them with the tech, schools to reschedule events and move assessments, etc. Even though it's not damaging for a short period, it's still very disruptive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cases at DS’s school, but no switch to virtual. Seems reckless!

I really really doubt anyone will go virtual again not matter the case numbers.

Why not though (not asked with snark). They have the capability to do so.

I'd similarly hope they would do virtual if there were any other kind of outbreak ... flu, norovirus, etc.

Because virtual learning has been proven ineffective at best and damaging at worst for 95% of youth. If yours isn’t one of them consider yourself lucky!

For a week, to stop further spread it would be fine and hardly damaging.

It doesn't stop spread though, not unless you're also restricting students' socialization, activities, travel, and everything else outside of school that week – which isn't possible, especially now. At my older kid's school, we often see the largest case numbers after school breaks or long weekends.

Switching to virtual also isn't like flipping a switch. It's a major change in instruction that requires teachers to redo their plans, students to have the right materials at home, younger students to have supervision and/or a parent to help them with the tech, schools to reschedule events and move assessments, etc. Even though it's not damaging for a short period, it's still very disruptive.

If schools stay in person, which they are, what would you like to see in place? Or are we done with mitigation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cases at DS’s school, but no switch to virtual. Seems reckless!

I really really doubt anyone will go virtual again not matter the case numbers.

Why not though (not asked with snark). They have the capability to do so.

I'd similarly hope they would do virtual if there were any other kind of outbreak ... flu, norovirus, etc.

Because virtual learning has been proven ineffective at best and damaging at worst for 95% of youth. If yours isn’t one of them consider yourself lucky!

For a week, to stop further spread it would be fine and hardly damaging.

It doesn't stop spread though, not unless you're also restricting students' socialization, activities, travel, and everything else outside of school that week – which isn't possible, especially now. At my older kid's school, we often see the largest case numbers after school breaks or long weekends.

Switching to virtual also isn't like flipping a switch. It's a major change in instruction that requires teachers to redo their plans, students to have the right materials at home, younger students to have supervision and/or a parent to help them with the tech, schools to reschedule events and move assessments, etc. Even though it's not damaging for a short period, it's still very disruptive.

Hmm. We have pulled back (indoor) social events and travel (work meetings flipped to virtual, and canceled conference attendance) right now. We're back to socializing outdoors and eating at restaurants outdoors right now. I can name many families doing the same, and none of us are "we should all wear masks forever" types. We are, however, "follow the data" types.

It's incredibly doable and hardly an imposition, ESPECIALLY for a week. Your social life will survive. Getting COVID would be the actual imposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cases at DS’s school, but no switch to virtual. Seems reckless!

I really really doubt anyone will go virtual again not matter the case numbers.

Why not though (not asked with snark). They have the capability to do so.

I'd similarly hope they would do virtual if there were any other kind of outbreak ... flu, norovirus, etc.

Because virtual learning has been proven ineffective at best and damaging at worst for 95% of youth. If yours isn’t one of them consider yourself lucky!

For a week, to stop further spread it would be fine and hardly damaging.

It doesn't stop spread though, not unless you're also restricting students' socialization, activities, travel, and everything else outside of school that week – which isn't possible, especially now. At my older kid's school, we often see the largest case numbers after school breaks or long weekends.

Switching to virtual also isn't like flipping a switch. It's a major change in instruction that requires teachers to redo their plans, students to have the right materials at home, younger students to have supervision and/or a parent to help them with the tech, schools to reschedule events and move assessments, etc. Even though it's not damaging for a short period, it's still very disruptive.

Hmm. We have pulled back (indoor) social events and travel (work meetings flipped to virtual, and canceled conference attendance) right now. We're back to socializing outdoors and eating at restaurants outdoors right now. I can name many families doing the same, and none of us are "we should all wear masks forever" types. We are, however, "follow the data" types.

It's incredibly doable and hardly an imposition, ESPECIALLY for a week. Your social life will survive. Getting COVID would be the actual imposition.

Sorry, I was unclear: it's certainly possible on the individual level. It's just not possible for a school to enforce this in any uniform way. Doing a week of virtual when everything else is open just feels like an empty (but really labor-intensive!) exercise. Students will still socialize and do activities, they have siblings at other schools, they have parents who work, etc. And again, you often see higher case numbers when kids return from a week away!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cases at DS’s school, but no switch to virtual. Seems reckless!

I really really doubt anyone will go virtual again not matter the case numbers.

Why not though (not asked with snark). They have the capability to do so.

I'd similarly hope they would do virtual if there were any other kind of outbreak ... flu, norovirus, etc.

Because virtual learning has been proven ineffective at best and damaging at worst for 95% of youth. If yours isn’t one of them consider yourself lucky!

For a week, to stop further spread it would be fine and hardly damaging.

It doesn't stop spread though, not unless you're also restricting students' socialization, activities, travel, and everything else outside of school that week – which isn't possible, especially now. At my older kid's school, we often see the largest case numbers after school breaks or long weekends.

Switching to virtual also isn't like flipping a switch. It's a major change in instruction that requires teachers to redo their plans, students to have the right materials at home, younger students to have supervision and/or a parent to help them with the tech, schools to reschedule events and move assessments, etc. Even though it's not damaging for a short period, it's still very disruptive.

If schools stay in person, which they are, what would you like to see in place? Or are we done with mitigation?

- vaccine (and booster when relevant) requirements
- liberal use of rapid testing in times of higher transmission
- strict policy on staying home while sick
- bonus: supply of N95s for students who need them & support in wearing them correctly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cases at DS’s school, but no switch to virtual. Seems reckless!

I really really doubt anyone will go virtual again not matter the case numbers.

Why not though (not asked with snark). They have the capability to do so.

I'd similarly hope they would do virtual if there were any other kind of outbreak ... flu, norovirus, etc.

Because virtual learning has been proven ineffective at best and damaging at worst for 95% of youth. If yours isn’t one of them consider yourself lucky!

For a week, to stop further spread it would be fine and hardly damaging.

It doesn't stop spread though, not unless you're also restricting students' socialization, activities, travel, and everything else outside of school that week – which isn't possible, especially now. At my older kid's school, we often see the largest case numbers after school breaks or long weekends.

Switching to virtual also isn't like flipping a switch. It's a major change in instruction that requires teachers to redo their plans, students to have the right materials at home, younger students to have supervision and/or a parent to help them with the tech, schools to reschedule events and move assessments, etc. Even though it's not damaging for a short period, it's still very disruptive.

Hmm. We have pulled back (indoor) social events and travel (work meetings flipped to virtual, and canceled conference attendance) right now. We're back to socializing outdoors and eating at restaurants outdoors right now. I can name many families doing the same, and none of us are "we should all wear masks forever" types. We are, however, "follow the data" types.

It's incredibly doable and hardly an imposition, ESPECIALLY for a week. Your social life will survive. Getting COVID would be the actual imposition.

The problem with proposals like “close schools for just a week! We promise, just a week!” Is that no one believes you anymore. A week won’t do anything and we all learned the awful, hard way that closing schools is easy. Getting them re-opened is way harder than it should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cases at DS’s school, but no switch to virtual. Seems reckless!

I really really doubt anyone will go virtual again not matter the case numbers.

Why not though (not asked with snark). They have the capability to do so.

I'd similarly hope they would do virtual if there were any other kind of outbreak ... flu, norovirus, etc.

Because virtual learning has been proven ineffective at best and damaging at worst for 95% of youth. If yours isn’t one of them consider yourself lucky!

For a week, to stop further spread it would be fine and hardly damaging.

Bars and restaurants are wide open, stadiums and concerts are packed, but you want to shut down schools. That whacko idelogy is just child abuse at this point.

+1

We are not going back to virtual. That experiment failed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of cases at DS’s school, but no switch to virtual. Seems reckless!

I really really doubt anyone will go virtual again not matter the case numbers.

Why not though (not asked with snark). They have the capability to do so.

I'd similarly hope they would do virtual if there were any other kind of outbreak ... flu, norovirus, etc.

Because virtual learning has been proven ineffective at best and damaging at worst for 95% of youth. If yours isn’t one of them consider yourself lucky!

For a week, to stop further spread it would be fine and hardly damaging.

It doesn't stop spread though, not unless you're also restricting students' socialization, activities, travel, and everything else outside of school that week – which isn't possible, especially now. At my older kid's school, we often see the largest case numbers after school breaks or long weekends.

Switching to virtual also isn't like flipping a switch. It's a major change in instruction that requires teachers to redo their plans, students to have the right materials at home, younger students to have supervision and/or a parent to help them with the tech, schools to reschedule events and move assessments, etc. Even though it's not damaging for a short period, it's still very disruptive.

Hmm. We have pulled back (indoor) social events and travel (work meetings flipped to virtual, and canceled conference attendance) right now. We're back to socializing outdoors and eating at restaurants outdoors right now. I can name many families doing the same, and none of us are "we should all wear masks forever" types. We are, however, "follow the data" types.

It's incredibly doable and hardly an imposition, ESPECIALLY for a week. Your social life will survive. Getting COVID would be the actual imposition.

The problem with proposals like “close schools for just a week! We promise, just a week!” Is that no one believes you anymore. A week won’t do anything and we all learned the awful, hard way that closing schools is easy. Getting them re-opened is way harder than it should be.

Yep. Who would believe a school system would be reasonable and open with the spike is decreasing? They didn’t the last time.

Schools will remain in person and open. A lesson in what happens when a hand is overplayed.