Anonymous wrote:Also bad for small businesses: 70% of employees being unable to work due to a terrible illness.

This is just bad either way.

I think small business owners who give PTO should get tax breaks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-deaths-top-4-000-000319020.html

Seattle is the first major public school district to close for two weeks. It has over 50,000 students.

The rest of the nation is going to close. It is just a matter of time. In the next 1-3 weeks, every school, everywhere is going to be shut down.

Anonymous wrote:https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-deaths-top-4-000-000319020.html

Seattle is the first major public school district to close for two weeks. It has over 50,000 students.

Anonymous wrote:Need to declare snow days for the rest of the week and Monday.

Anonymous wrote:Closing school is inconvenient for many parents, as the schools are a place for kids to get foods and spend their days. However, the schools are no longer safe in a situation such as coronavirus just like any other social gathering.


In this interview from Science, Nicholas Christakis, a social scientist and physician at Yale University, explains

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/does-closing-schools-slow-spread-novel-coronavirus

Q: How about proactive school closures, before there are any infections associated with a school? Are they helpful?

A: Proactive school closures—closing schools before there’s a case there—have been shown to be one of the most powerful nonpharmaceutical interventions that we can deploy. Proactive school closures work like reactive school closures not just because they get the children, the little vectors, removed from circulation. It’s not just about keeping the kids safe. It’s keeping the whole community safe. When you close the schools, you reduce the mixing of the adults—parents dropping off at the school, the teachers being present. When you close the schools, you effectively require the parents to stay home.

There was a wonderful paper published that analyzed data regarding the Spanish flu in 1918, examining proactive versus reactive school closures. When did [regional] authorities close the schools relative to when the epidemic was spiking? What they found was that proactive school closing saved substantial numbers of lives. St. Louis closed the schools about a day in advance of the epidemic spiking, for 143 days. Pittsburgh closed 7 days after the peak and only for 53 days. And the death rate for the epidemic in St. Louis was roughly one-third as high as in Pittsburgh. These things work.

Anonymous wrote:Closing school is inconvenient for many parents, as the schools are a place for kids to get foods and spend their days. However, the schools are no longer safe in a situation such as coronavirus just like any other social gathering.


In this interview from Science, Nicholas Christakis, a social scientist and physician at Yale University, explains

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/does-closing-schools-slow-spread-novel-coronavirus

Q: How about proactive school closures, before there are any infections associated with a school? Are they helpful?

A: Proactive school closures—closing schools before there’s a case there—have been shown to be one of the most powerful nonpharmaceutical interventions that we can deploy. Proactive school closures work like reactive school closures not just because they get the children, the little vectors, removed from circulation. It’s not just about keeping the kids safe. It’s keeping the whole community safe. When you close the schools, you reduce the mixing of the adults—parents dropping off at the school, the teachers being present. When you close the schools, you effectively require the parents to stay home.

There was a wonderful paper published that analyzed data regarding the Spanish flu in 1918, examining proactive versus reactive school closures. When did [regional] authorities close the schools relative to when the epidemic was spiking? What they found was that proactive school closing saved substantial numbers of lives. St. Louis closed the schools about a day in advance of the epidemic spiking, for 143 days. Pittsburgh closed 7 days after the peak and only for 53 days. And the death rate for the epidemic in St. Louis was roughly one-third as high as in Pittsburgh. These things work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly there should never have been the problem of parents missing out on their paychecks to take care of kids in an emergency. There always should have been mandated paid leave for emergencies and now it should be expanded.

How are small business owners (who will see a MASSIVE decrease in business, if not have to completely shut down) absorb this cost? I asked this earlier in the thread and was given a completely irrelevant response.

PP, do YOU own a business?

They don’t absorb the cost, they fold. Along with many larger companies.

PP you quoted here

Exactly--and since that business folds, that employee still won't be getting that "mandated paid leave" the previous pp demands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly there should never have been the problem of parents missing out on their paychecks to take care of kids in an emergency. There always should have been mandated paid leave for emergencies and now it should be expanded.

How are small business owners (who will see a MASSIVE decrease in business, if not have to completely shut down) absorb this cost? I asked this earlier in the thread and was given a completely irrelevant response.

PP, do YOU own a business?

Yep, this sucks and it's why it's going to throw us into a recession. But do we want a recession and a health crisis, or do we want to slow the spread and drop the curve as the graphic above shows.

FWIW, two-parent working family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly there should never have been the problem of parents missing out on their paychecks to take care of kids in an emergency. There always should have been mandated paid leave for emergencies and now it should be expanded.

How are small business owners (who will see a MASSIVE decrease in business, if not have to completely shut down) absorb this cost? I asked this earlier in the thread and was given a completely irrelevant response.

PP, do YOU own a business?

They don’t absorb the cost, they fold. Along with many larger companies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly there should never have been the problem of parents missing out on their paychecks to take care of kids in an emergency. There always should have been mandated paid leave for emergencies and now it should be expanded.

How are small business owners (who will see a MASSIVE decrease in business, if not have to completely shut down) absorb this cost? I asked this earlier in the thread and was given a completely irrelevant response.

PP, do YOU own a business?