Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok. How about schools just follow the CDC recommended measures then. Like cohorting middle and high school students? That’s not asking for zero risk. That’s asking to follow basic safety guidelines!

Here's confirmation that the Wisconsin schools did cohort HS. However they DID NOT have 6' spacing within cohorts. The author also says they had indoor lunches.
https://twitter.com/TracyBethHoeg/status/1354292380174675971

Anonymous wrote:Ok. How about schools just follow the CDC recommended measures then. Like cohorting middle and high school students? That’s not asking for zero risk. That’s asking to follow basic safety guidelines!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, the unions are going to keep coming up with excuses to keep schools closed until the public pressure becomes too much. When one excuse is refuted, they'll move onto the next. First, it was that keeping schools closed was necessary to prevent spread. Then when studies showed that spread was low in schools, they said teachers had to be vaccinated. Once teachers had access to the vaccine they started saying students needed to be vaccinated. When public health officials said student vaccination was unnecessary, it became that other adults in the household needed to be vaccinated. Now you are also hearing about new variants, though experts say the vaccines are likely effective against those. And don't forget antiquated ventilation systems. Every time some reason for not going back is refuted, they will find another one.

But it's not just unions. It's the general fear of school boards to make any decisions, to take responsibility for them. That I think is an even bigger challenge to reopening. These people are politicians and like most politicians prefer inaction and don't want to be connected to any decision.

https://www.the74million.org/article/analysis-teachers-unions-want-a-seat-at-the-table-when-it-comes-to-reopening-schools-but-they-dont-want-it-to-be-the-hot-seat-thats-why-they-keep-moving-the-goalposts/

Unions want a seat at the table, but they don’t want it to be the hot seat. Despite the growing criticism of teachers unions for keeping schools closed, they can defend their position by citing the health and safety of their members and students. Once they commit to a specific and objective set of protections, they are declaring schools “safe” if those protections are put in place.

But what if those protections don’t make schools safe? Students will still be unvaccinated, and it looks like a considerable percentage of school employees will be unvaccinated, whether due to pregnancy, allergy or choice. If the vaccine is 95 percent effective, that still leaves 5 percent who may contract the virus.

Some school employees will get sick. Some might even die. What union wants any accountability for the conditions under which such tragedies could happen?

Replace union with school board, and it's still the same.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't APS just ignoring CDC recommendations altogether?

Anonymous wrote:Look, the unions are going to keep coming up with excuses to keep schools closed until the public pressure becomes too much. When one excuse is refuted, they'll move onto the next. First, it was that keeping schools closed was necessary to prevent spread. Then when studies showed that spread was low in schools, they said teachers had to be vaccinated. Once teachers had access to the vaccine they started saying students needed to be vaccinated. When public health officials said student vaccination was unnecessary, it became that other adults in the household needed to be vaccinated. Now you are also hearing about new variants, though experts say the vaccines are likely effective against those. And don't forget antiquated ventilation systems. Every time some reason for not going back is refuted, they will find another one.

But it's not just unions. It's the general fear of school boards to make any decisions, to take responsibility for them. That I think is an even bigger challenge to reopening. These people are politicians and like most politicians prefer inaction and don't want to be connected to any decision.

Anonymous wrote:Look, the unions are going to keep coming up with excuses to keep schools closed until the public pressure becomes too much. When one excuse is refuted, they'll move onto the next. First, it was that keeping schools closed was necessary to prevent spread. Then when studies showed that spread was low in schools, they said teachers had to be vaccinated. Once teachers had access to the vaccine they started saying students needed to be vaccinated. When public health officials said student vaccination was unnecessary, it became that other adults in the household needed to be vaccinated. Now you are also hearing about new variants, though experts say the vaccines are likely effective against those. And don't forget antiquated ventilation systems. Every time some reason for not going back is refuted, they will find another one.

But it's not just unions. It's the general fear of school boards to make any decisions, to take responsibility for them. That I think is an even bigger challenge to reopening. These people are politicians and like most politicians prefer inaction and don't want to be connected to any decision.

Unions want a seat at the table, but they don’t want it to be the hot seat. Despite the growing criticism of teachers unions for keeping schools closed, they can defend their position by citing the health and safety of their members and students. Once they commit to a specific and objective set of protections, they are declaring schools “safe” if those protections are put in place.

But what if those protections don’t make schools safe? Students will still be unvaccinated, and it looks like a considerable percentage of school employees will be unvaccinated, whether due to pregnancy, allergy or choice. If the vaccine is 95 percent effective, that still leaves 5 percent who may contract the virus.

Some school employees will get sick. Some might even die. What union wants any accountability for the conditions under which such tragedies could happen?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why APS is just outright ignoring CDC recommendations that students be in cohorts for their middle and high school return to school plans? A middle or high school student at a high hybrid school could be exposed to 9 kids or so in each class, five classes a day. With A/B days that means exposure to close to 90 different kids each week. Very few are talking about this on these boards.

Why can't APS (and others) recognize that they are able to open elementary consistent with CDC recommendations, but not middle and high school. They chose not to cohort them. These are the consequences. Are they just hoping to get away with ignoring CDC recommendations in their re-opening plans for middle and high school????

See Washington Post article from yesterday: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/cdc-school-virus-spread/2021/01/26/bf949222-5fe6-11eb-9061-07abcc1f9229_story.html

And here's the relevant paragraph:
Specifically, the CDC recommends that schools require masks, allow for a distance of six feet between people and keep students in cohorts to limit the number of people who must quarantine in the case of an exposure. It also recommends screening tests to identify asymptomatic infected people, and increased air ventilation.

Why aren't more parents raising this with the School Board?

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet...but it was a viewpoint piece, not official guidance from the CDC. Note the disclaimer at the bottom of the piece: "Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

Huh. Does that cast doubt on the entire document then? The part about “scant evidence” of spread?

For me, here's the thing: CDC guidelines state that if you're not a close contact (less than 6' for more than 15 minutes) then you don't need to be tested for COVID...so schools don't test. It makes me wonder how many of those "community acquired" transmissions possibly happened at school. I'm also wondering how the results may differ in a more urban setting, as the WI schools used in the study are much smaller than ours. The data was also collected before we knew about the more contagious strands.

tl/dr: I'd like to see studies from more urban settings that take into account at least one of the newer strands. I'd love for us to get back in the building...but I wouldn't base my decision on this study if I were in charge.

Here is the author of the Wisconsin study, pointing to the NYT article on it as a source of info as to why it applies in urban settings as well as rural.

Obviously taking into account the new strands here in the US is going to be harder since we don't sequence many copies of the virus. You'd need a study out of another country for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why APS is just outright ignoring CDC recommendations that students be in cohorts for their middle and high school return to school plans? A middle or high school student at a high hybrid school could be exposed to 9 kids or so in each class, five classes a day. With A/B days that means exposure to close to 90 different kids each week. Very few are talking about this on these boards.

Why can't APS (and others) recognize that they are able to open elementary consistent with CDC recommendations, but not middle and high school. They chose not to cohort them. These are the consequences. Are they just hoping to get away with ignoring CDC recommendations in their re-opening plans for middle and high school????

See Washington Post article from yesterday: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/cdc-school-virus-spread/2021/01/26/bf949222-5fe6-11eb-9061-07abcc1f9229_story.html

And here's the relevant paragraph:
Specifically, the CDC recommends that schools require masks, allow for a distance of six feet between people and keep students in cohorts to limit the number of people who must quarantine in the case of an exposure. It also recommends screening tests to identify asymptomatic infected people, and increased air ventilation.

Why aren't more parents raising this with the School Board?

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet...but it was a viewpoint piece, not official guidance from the CDC. Note the disclaimer at the bottom of the piece: "Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

Huh. Does that cast doubt on the entire document then? The part about “scant evidence” of spread?

For me, here's the thing: CDC guidelines state that if you're not a close contact (less than 6' for more than 15 minutes) then you don't need to be tested for COVID...so schools don't test. It makes me wonder how many of those "community acquired" transmissions possibly happened at school. I'm also wondering how the results may differ in a more urban setting, as the WI schools used in the study are much smaller than ours. The data was also collected before we knew about the more contagious strands.

tl/dr: I'd like to see studies from more urban settings that take into account at least one of the newer strands. I'd love for us to get back in the building...but I wouldn't base my decision on this study if I were in charge.