Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

going4roses said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

sycasey said:

---

going4roses said:

---

But you have to be open and willing but you trying to cast doubt on all my posts because of one shared tweet seems a bit like overkill. No?

---

That one shared tweet also tried to cast doubt on the motives of all white parents who want their kids in school, so that was also a bit like overkill. No?

Openness and willingness has to go both ways or else we're not getting anywhere in a debate like this. Are you open to the idea that parents who want their kids in school just want what's best for their kids and other kids in their community?

---

I'm saying disagree with the tweet np but does that one tweet clearly not me cast doubt on every post I have made?

---

See, when directly asked, you still can't even say you are open to the idea that White parents just want what is best for their kids.

---

Hold on just one min I never said that. There are clearly white parents that want the best for their kids. Is that really what you took from that tweet ? Hmm

---

The tweet literally says that white people want to get rid of their kids. How else is anyone supposed to take it?

---

I'm a white stay-at-home dad. The person that tweeted that, Gabriel Whatever, I have no idea if he is considered a "serious" commentator on our life and times, but here is how I took it:

Just somebody tweeting to get attention, like millions do. It sounded like an off-hand remark that was maybe intended to get a few people to laugh, combined with a little shock value. I actually chuckled a bit, inside, as it reminded me of a few stay-at-home parents in our community, who, after school's over (back when the kids were in school) paid to keep their kids in after-school care, so that the parents would have the entire day "free", instead of just 8:30-3:00. (These kids are invariably the worst behaved, in extra-curriculars, as well.) As I'm thinking of these families, they happen to be white, but they could be green, purple, who gives a s***. Fortunately, there aren't that many of them.

Anyway, hey Gabriel What's-Your-Name, that was a mildly witty tweet there. Haha. By now, I would've forgotten everything about it, and you, were it not for the constant reminders on this thread.

---

Fine, but for me, it reflects how racism against certain groups is basically deemed socially acceptable. If you are white, you cannot say anything if someone decides to malign you based on your skin color, irrespective of your actual character or experiences. To defend oneself is not to recognize the social injustice against another group or one's white privilege. Asians and Jewish - generally in the same place except for limited exceptions and who the person being discriminatory is. Some of the other races, there is no practical way to assess someone based on his/her actual character because implying anything negative regarding an individual (even if we would all agree that someone white doing the same would be viewed negatively) who just happens to be a person of color can be painted as racist by fake woke crowd.

That is no way for people to actually respect one anther's individuality, humanity, and worth and to have true human connection.

You cannot correct injustice by perpetuating the same injustice, just against a different group. You fix injustice by calling out the evil of the injustice as a principle and appeal to our better angels to stand up for the right principle, no matter who the victim of the injustice is

---

I think White People are like blonds and the French (I know, subsets and all):

They (we) need to be able to take a little ribbing and just shake it off. It's the price paid for being on top of the societal heap.

---

And also like Boomers because I can say that is a very Boomer perspective.

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

The 'Reopen Schools Now!' Debate Is Rooted In Racism

Here are some snippets:

"Some parents say, "send the kids back now," emphatic that we open schools immediately. Soccer moms suddenly profess concern for inner city kids in one breath, and prospects for college admissions for their own kids in the other, as though the stakes are the same. We see white and affluent parents leveraging the plight of historically underserved children as justification to reopen schools now, while actively excluding the communities they claim to be advocating for from the conversation."

"I imagine that it is true fear for their kids, and a feeling of unaccustomed powerlessness, coupled with the entitlement that comes with access to opportunity. When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. The sudden recognition by those who have been able to advocate, influence, or buy access to opportunities that they are now in the same boat as everyone else is a terrifying and unwelcome reality."

"Third, there are greater fears than missing a season of soccer, or the SATs, or the fun of senior year. Parents claiming to advocate on our behalf are not in solidarity with marginalized people if they feel their fears outweigh ours."

"Rather than putting their energy and resources into solving the social and educational inequities that they claim to be against, efforts that could make surviving this moment in time more tenable, they demand their right to choice, which just demonstrates they would be content to leave the rest of us behind as long as their needs are being met. "

"They must recognize that their perception of our reality is inaccurate, and do not have to commit to agreeing, but to listening with the intent to understand. They must seek out voices across demographics and center those voices, not just their own."

---

First I will say that I realize these are not your words specifically. I'm just going to address the argument presented.

I think her points about listening to minority communities and their concerns are valid. That's why I'm not advocating that every child should be forced to return to in-person school. Districts should attempt to make their best arrangements to allow for both in-person learning and remote. In fact, I think that having some students remote will also make it easier to keep the in-person learners (and the teachers) safe by helping to maintain social distancing in classrooms. Win-win.

There are some other points she makes that I think are either inaccurate or contradictory. For one thing, she cites "missing a season of soccer, or the SATs, or the fun of senior year" as the trivial concerns of white parents. It seems to me those are not the primary concerns. The primary concern is what happens to these kids by missing so much schooling, especially for younger kids in the critical elementary school years? By making "soccer" and "senior year" the strawman arguments she sidesteps the real educational and child-development problems created by school closures. I'm happy to hear the worries minority or other parents may have about in-person school, but this only works if those who are opposed to it also hear the concerns of those who want in-person learning. This author is just talking past everyone in the same way she accuses white parents of doing.

She also mocks white parents for relying on "the data" and tells them to just listen to the personal experiences of the people she knows. Okay, but what if some of us also have personal experiences that the current situation is not treating our kids well? How do we resolve this dispute? Apparently the "data" has to be thrown out because it's biased against her position. This is starting to sound an awful lot like the Trumpists' arguments about who won the election. If you start telling me not to look at the data I'm going to get suspicious of your position.

Bottom line: I don't think you can make an argument that your concerns will need to be heard if you never seem to hear anyone else's.

---

Yeah, you know, I kind of missed this on the first go around. SAT's are kind of important if you want to go to college.

February is White History Month

> SAT's are kind of important if you want to go to college

^ /Sarcasm

but not crucial if you're exceptional enough other ways, athletics in particular

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

going4roses said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

sycasey said:

---

going4roses said:

---

But you have to be open and willing but you trying to cast doubt on all my posts because of one shared tweet seems a bit like overkill. No?

---

That one shared tweet also tried to cast doubt on the motives of all white parents who want their kids in school, so that was also a bit like overkill. No?

Openness and willingness has to go both ways or else we're not getting anywhere in a debate like this. Are you open to the idea that parents who want their kids in school just want what's best for their kids and other kids in their community?

---

I'm saying disagree with the tweet np but does that one tweet clearly not me cast doubt on every post I have made?

---

See, when directly asked, you still can't even say you are open to the idea that White parents just want what is best for their kids.

---

Hold on just one min I never said that. There are clearly white parents that want the best for their kids. Is that really what you took from that tweet ? Hmm

---

The tweet literally says that white people want to get rid of their kids. How else is anyone supposed to take it?

---

I'm a white stay-at-home dad. The person that tweeted that, Gabriel Whatever, I have no idea if he is considered a "serious" commentator on our life and times, but here is how I took it:

Just somebody tweeting to get attention, like millions do. It sounded like an off-hand remark that was maybe intended to get a few people to laugh, combined with a little shock value. I actually chuckled a bit, inside, as it reminded me of a few stay-at-home parents in our community, who, after school's over (back when the kids were in school) paid to keep their kids in after-school care, so that the parents would have the entire day "free", instead of just 8:30-3:00. (These kids are invariably the worst behaved, in extra-curriculars, as well.) As I'm thinking of these families, they happen to be white, but they could be green, purple, who gives a s***. Fortunately, there aren't that many of them.

Anyway, hey Gabriel What's-Your-Name, that was a mildly witty tweet there. Haha. By now, I would've forgotten everything about it, and you, were it not for the constant reminders on this thread.

---

Fine, but for me, it reflects how racism against certain groups is basically deemed socially acceptable. If you are white, you cannot say anything if someone decides to malign you based on your skin color, irrespective of your actual character or experiences. To defend oneself is not to recognize the social injustice against another group or one's white privilege. Asians and Jewish - generally in the same place except for limited exceptions and who the person being discriminatory is. Some of the other races, there is no practical way to assess someone based on his/her actual character because implying anything negative regarding an individual (even if we would all agree that someone white doing the same would be viewed negatively) who just happens to be a person of color can be painted as racist by fake woke crowd.

That is no way for people to actually respect one anther's individuality, humanity, and worth and to have true human connection.

You cannot correct injustice by perpetuating the same injustice, just against a different group. You fix injustice by calling out the evil of the injustice as a principle and appeal to our better angels to stand up for the right principle, no matter who the victim of the injustice is

---

I think White People are like blonds and the French (I know, subsets and all):

They (we) need to be able to take a little ribbing and just shake it off. It's the price paid for being on top of the societal heap.

---

So being racist is not the issue? Is it that societal results has some on the top and others not on the top? So if a white person goes to an African country, it would be completely proper to sprout the most racists, despicable crap because white people are not on the top of the societal heap? Is that it? Because if racism is wrong without qualification, then white people, Jewish people, or Asians do not have to take a little ribbing. And everyone who as a principle thinks discriminating or judging an individual based on an immutable and irrelevant skin color should be offended no matter against whom the racism is directed.

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

going4roses said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

sycasey said:

---

going4roses said:

---

But you have to be open and willing but you trying to cast doubt on all my posts because of one shared tweet seems a bit like overkill. No?

---

That one shared tweet also tried to cast doubt on the motives of all white parents who want their kids in school, so that was also a bit like overkill. No?

Openness and willingness has to go both ways or else we're not getting anywhere in a debate like this. Are you open to the idea that parents who want their kids in school just want what's best for their kids and other kids in their community?

---

I'm saying disagree with the tweet np but does that one tweet clearly not me cast doubt on every post I have made?

---

See, when directly asked, you still can't even say you are open to the idea that White parents just want what is best for their kids.

---

Hold on just one min I never said that. There are clearly white parents that want the best for their kids. Is that really what you took from that tweet ? Hmm

---

The tweet literally says that white people want to get rid of their kids. How else is anyone supposed to take it?

---

I'm a white stay-at-home dad. The person that tweeted that, Gabriel Whatever, I have no idea if he is considered a "serious" commentator on our life and times, but here is how I took it:

Just somebody tweeting to get attention, like millions do. It sounded like an off-hand remark that was maybe intended to get a few people to laugh, combined with a little shock value. I actually chuckled a bit, inside, as it reminded me of a few stay-at-home parents in our community, who, after school's over (back when the kids were in school) paid to keep their kids in after-school care, so that the parents would have the entire day "free", instead of just 8:30-3:00. (These kids are invariably the worst behaved, in extra-curriculars, as well.) As I'm thinking of these families, they happen to be white, but they could be green, purple, who gives a s***. Fortunately, there aren't that many of them.

Anyway, hey Gabriel What's-Your-Name, that was a mildly witty tweet there. Haha. By now, I would've forgotten everything about it, and you, were it not for the constant reminders on this thread.

---

Fine, but for me, it reflects how racism against certain groups is basically deemed socially acceptable. If you are white, you cannot say anything if someone decides to malign you based on your skin color, irrespective of your actual character or experiences. To defend oneself is not to recognize the social injustice against another group or one's white privilege. Asians and Jewish - generally in the same place except for limited exceptions and who the person being discriminatory is. Some of the other races, there is no practical way to assess someone based on his/her actual character because implying anything negative regarding an individual (even if we would all agree that someone white doing the same would be viewed negatively) who just happens to be a person of color can be painted as racist by fake woke crowd.

That is no way for people to actually respect one anther's individuality, humanity, and worth and to have true human connection.

You cannot correct injustice by perpetuating the same injustice, just against a different group. You fix injustice by calling out the evil of the injustice as a principle and appeal to our better angels to stand up for the right principle, no matter who the victim of the injustice is

---

I think White People are like blonds and the French (I know, subsets and all):

They (we) need to be able to take a little ribbing and just shake it off. It's the price paid for being on top of the societal heap.

---

So being racist is not the issue? Is it that societal results has some on the top and others not on the top? So if a white person goes to an African country, it would be completely proper to sprout the most racists, despicable crap because white people are not on the top of the societal heap? Is that it? Because if racism is wrong without qualification, then white people, Jewish people, or Asians do not have to take a little ribbing. And everyone who as a principle thinks discriminating or judging an individual based on an immutable and irrelevant skin color should be offended no matter against whom the racism is directed.

---

Certainly you are correct on this in the sense of ideological purity. You will always have that angle. The rest, I am not able to successfully articulate to you.

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

going4roses said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

going4roses said:

---

sycasey said:

---

going4roses said:

---

But you have to be open and willing but you trying to cast doubt on all my posts because of one shared tweet seems a bit like overkill. No?

---

That one shared tweet also tried to cast doubt on the motives of all white parents who want their kids in school, so that was also a bit like overkill. No?

Openness and willingness has to go both ways or else we're not getting anywhere in a debate like this. Are you open to the idea that parents who want their kids in school just want what's best for their kids and other kids in their community?

---

I'm saying disagree with the tweet np but does that one tweet clearly not me cast doubt on every post I have made?

---

See, when directly asked, you still can't even say you are open to the idea that White parents just want what is best for their kids.

---

Hold on just one min I never said that. There are clearly white parents that want the best for their kids. Is that really what you took from that tweet ? Hmm

---

The tweet literally says that white people want to get rid of their kids. How else is anyone supposed to take it?

---

I'm a white stay-at-home dad. The person that tweeted that, Gabriel Whatever, I have no idea if he is considered a "serious" commentator on our life and times, but here is how I took it:

Just somebody tweeting to get attention, like millions do. It sounded like an off-hand remark that was maybe intended to get a few people to laugh, combined with a little shock value. I actually chuckled a bit, inside, as it reminded me of a few stay-at-home parents in our community, who, after school's over (back when the kids were in school) paid to keep their kids in after-school care, so that the parents would have the entire day "free", instead of just 8:30-3:00. (These kids are invariably the worst behaved, in extra-curriculars, as well.) As I'm thinking of these families, they happen to be white, but they could be green, purple, who gives a s***. Fortunately, there aren't that many of them.

Anyway, hey Gabriel What's-Your-Name, that was a mildly witty tweet there. Haha. By now, I would've forgotten everything about it, and you, were it not for the constant reminders on this thread.

---

Fine, but for me, it reflects how racism against certain groups is basically deemed socially acceptable. If you are white, you cannot say anything if someone decides to malign you based on your skin color, irrespective of your actual character or experiences. To defend oneself is not to recognize the social injustice against another group or one's white privilege. Asians and Jewish - generally in the same place except for limited exceptions and who the person being discriminatory is. Some of the other races, there is no practical way to assess someone based on his/her actual character because implying anything negative regarding an individual (even if we would all agree that someone white doing the same would be viewed negatively) who just happens to be a person of color can be painted as racist by fake woke crowd.

That is no way for people to actually respect one anther's individuality, humanity, and worth and to have true human connection.

You cannot correct injustice by perpetuating the same injustice, just against a different group. You fix injustice by calling out the evil of the injustice as a principle and appeal to our better angels to stand up for the right principle, no matter who the victim of the injustice is

---

I think White People are like blonds and the French (I know, subsets and all):

They (we) need to be able to take a little ribbing and just shake it off. It's the price paid for being on top of the societal heap.

---

So being racist is not the issue? Is it that societal results has some on the top and others not on the top? So if a white person goes to an African country, it would be completely proper to sprout the most racists, despicable crap because white people are not on the top of the societal heap? Is that it? Because if racism is wrong without qualification, then white people, Jewish people, or Asians do not have to take a little ribbing. And everyone who as a principle thinks discriminating or judging an individual based on an immutable and irrelevant skin color should be offended no matter against whom the racism is directed.

---

Certainly you are correct on this in the sense of ideological purity. You will always have that angle. The rest, I am not able to successfully articulate to you.

---

You make it seem like some lofty, unachievable goal not to judge someone based on the color of his skin and that we must use humor to excuse a little bit of racism. No thanks.

Well, the s*** is hitting the fan now. San Francisco is suing its own school board for not coming up with a reopening plan.

https://sfist.com/2021/02/03/san-francisco-is-suing-its-own-school-district-in-escalating-war-over-reopening/

SFUSD may not have a good plan for this, but they do know that it's important to get rid of acronyms!

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/school-renaming-SFUSD-acronyms-racist-15919053.php

Oy. When I was growing up in S.F. I was never too impressed with the school board, but this nonsense is next-level even for them.

sycasey said:

---

Well, the s*** is hitting the fan now. San Francisco is suing its own school board for not coming up with a reopening plan.

https://sfist.com/2021/02/03/san-francisco-is-suing-its-own-school-district-in-escalating-war-over-reopening/

SFUSD may not have a good plan for this, but they do know that it's important to get rid of acronyms!

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/school-renaming-SFUSD-acronyms-racist-15919053.php

Oy. When I was growing up in S.F. I was never too impressed with the school board, but this nonsense is next-level even for them.

---

That school board needs to be voted out. Plain and simple.

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Well, the s*** is hitting the fan now. San Francisco is suing its own school board for not coming up with a reopening plan.

https://sfist.com/2021/02/03/san-francisco-is-suing-its-own-school-district-in-escalating-war-over-reopening/

SFUSD may not have a good plan for this, but they do know that it's important to get rid of acronyms!

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/school-renaming-SFUSD-acronyms-racist-15919053.php

Oy. When I was growing up in S.F. I was never too impressed with the school board, but this nonsense is next-level even for them.

---

That school board needs to be voted out. Plain and simple.

---

I suspect they will be at the next opportunity.

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Well, the s*** is hitting the fan now. San Francisco is suing its own school board for not coming up with a reopening plan.

https://sfist.com/2021/02/03/san-francisco-is-suing-its-own-school-district-in-escalating-war-over-reopening/

SFUSD may not have a good plan for this, but they do know that it's important to get rid of acronyms!

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/school-renaming-SFUSD-acronyms-racist-15919053.php

Oy. When I was growing up in S.F. I was never too impressed with the school board, but this nonsense is next-level even for them.

---

That school board needs to be voted out. Plain and simple.

---

I suspect they will be at the next opportunity.

---

Totally agree that they should get the boot, but how did they get voted in, in the first place? It would be rare for school board members to make important decisions that didn't reflect the wishes of their constituency.

Complete and total joke, though: Lowest COVID totals, all along, of all major cities, but they can't get even their elementary schools open. The Lowell admissions thing is, arguably, wrong and the renamimg thing, it's hard to even argue a case for it, as it stands.

Big C said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Well, the s*** is hitting the fan now. San Francisco is suing its own school board for not coming up with a reopening plan.

https://sfist.com/2021/02/03/san-francisco-is-suing-its-own-school-district-in-escalating-war-over-reopening/

SFUSD may not have a good plan for this, but they do know that it's important to get rid of acronyms!

https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/school-renaming-SFUSD-acronyms-racist-15919053.php

Oy. When I was growing up in S.F. I was never too impressed with the school board, but this nonsense is next-level even for them.

---

That school board needs to be voted out. Plain and simple.

---

I suspect they will be at the next opportunity.

---

Totally agree that they should get the boot, but how did they get voted in, in the first place? It would be rare for school board members to make important decisions that didn't reflect the wishes of their constituency.

---

I suspect that many of the SF residents agree with the social and racial justice ideologies these people espoused when getting elected to the board and thus decided to vote for them. In relatively peaceful times that's probably fine. But when the rubber meets the road and you've got a crisis of school closures that requires real, practical solutions and they are still wasting time on this stuff, I suspect actual competence starts to matter more.

We'll see, maybe they don't remove these folks. But given that the mayor feels emboldened enough to sue the board I suspect she sees public opinion turning against them very rapidly.

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

---

OK, I misunderstood. I thought kids were most likely to be asymptomatic, and not that they could not catch it and be a carrier.

I still don't understand what it is about schools and kids then that makes them the exempt group (especially since having kids wear a mask all day would seem nearly impossible) when it is so easy to catch it in every other situation.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

---

OK, I misunderstood. I thought kids were most likely to be asymptomatic, and not that they could not catch it and be a carrier.

I still don't understand what it is about schools and kids then that makes them the exempt group (especially since having kids wear a mask all day would seem nearly impossible) when it is so easy to catch it in every other situation.

---

Maybe their immune systems just neutralize the virus so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to spread, but older people are slower to adapt. I dunno. But the evidence seems to be there that young kids don't spread it.

Pediatrician's group calls for schools to reopen in L.A.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-02-03/southern-california-pediatricians-call-schools-reopen

Clearly this is just white privilege talking.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

---

OK, I misunderstood. I thought kids were most likely to be asymptomatic, and not that they could not catch it and be a carrier.

I still don't understand what it is about schools and kids then that makes them the exempt group (especially since having kids wear a mask all day would seem nearly impossible) when it is so easy to catch it in every other situation.

---

Maybe their immune systems just neutralize the virus so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to spread, but older people are slower to adapt. I dunno. But the evidence seems to be there that young kids don't spread it.

---

Look, I am for opening up schools for those who want to send their kids.

But that explanation is loopy, and is inconsistent with prior news of long term physical impact of the virus on kids.

And science is still learning and changing. Hard to just blindly follow science even if doesn't make sense (like how they went from wash your hands for twenty seconds, wipe everything down to now the virus cannot survive on surface and the sanitizing is just theater - all the spread is airborne). Science is not infallible, and we cannot blindly accept it as final. It is the best guess we have, and it should be one of the heavier factors we weigh when we do a cost/benefit analysis.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

---

OK, I misunderstood. I thought kids were most likely to be asymptomatic, and not that they could not catch it and be a carrier.

I still don't understand what it is about schools and kids then that makes them the exempt group (especially since having kids wear a mask all day would seem nearly impossible) when it is so easy to catch it in every other situation.

---

Maybe their immune systems just neutralize the virus so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to spread, but older people are slower to adapt. I dunno. But the evidence seems to be there that young kids don't spread it.

---

Look, I am for opening up schools for those who want to send their kids.

But that explanation is loopy, and is inconsistent with prior news of long term physical impact of the virus on kids.

And science is still learning and changing. Hard to just blindly follow science even if doesn't make sense (like how they went from wash your hands for twenty seconds, wipe everything down to now the virus cannot survive on surface and the sanitizing is just theater - all the spread is airborne). Science is not infallible, and we cannot blindly accept it as final. It is the best guess we have, and it should be one of the heavier factors we weigh when we do a cost/benefit analysis.

---

That explanation is just my guess, not a scientific one.

Of course science can always learn more and knowledge can change. I would support adjusting public policy in response to those changes. But we can't base public policy on how we THINK it might change.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

---

OK, I misunderstood. I thought kids were most likely to be asymptomatic, and not that they could not catch it and be a carrier.

I still don't understand what it is about schools and kids then that makes them the exempt group (especially since having kids wear a mask all day would seem nearly impossible) when it is so easy to catch it in every other situation.

---

Maybe their immune systems just neutralize the virus so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to spread, but older people are slower to adapt. I dunno. But the evidence seems to be there that young kids don't spread it.

---

Look, I am for opening up schools for those who want to send their kids.

But that explanation is loopy, and is inconsistent with prior news of long term physical impact of the virus on kids.

And science is still learning and changing. Hard to just blindly follow science even if doesn't make sense (like how they went from wash your hands for twenty seconds, wipe everything down to now the virus cannot survive on surface and the sanitizing is just theater - all the spread is airborne). Science is not infallible, and we cannot blindly accept it as final. It is the best guess we have, and it should be one of the heavier factors we weigh when we do a cost/benefit analysis.

---

That explanation is just my guess, not a scientific one.

Of course science can always learn more and knowledge can change. I would support adjusting public policy in response to those changes. But we can't base public policy on how we THINK it might change.

---

Did I write that? I don't think I did.

What I did write is that we need to stop thinking that science is the end all and be all on this matter. They have proven to be wrong in the past. They are still a better source than most, but it is just one of many factors.

So, trying to quiet debate by saying, I am going to shut down this business or I am for opening up school because ...you, know...science... is not deep thinking or reflective of recent history.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

---

OK, I misunderstood. I thought kids were most likely to be asymptomatic, and not that they could not catch it and be a carrier.

I still don't understand what it is about schools and kids then that makes them the exempt group (especially since having kids wear a mask all day would seem nearly impossible) when it is so easy to catch it in every other situation.

---

Maybe their immune systems just neutralize the virus so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to spread, but older people are slower to adapt. I dunno. But the evidence seems to be there that young kids don't spread it.

---

Look, I am for opening up schools for those who want to send their kids.

But that explanation is loopy, and is inconsistent with prior news of long term physical impact of the virus on kids.

And science is still learning and changing. Hard to just blindly follow science even if doesn't make sense (like how they went from wash your hands for twenty seconds, wipe everything down to now the virus cannot survive on surface and the sanitizing is just theater - all the spread is airborne). Science is not infallible, and we cannot blindly accept it as final. It is the best guess we have, and it should be one of the heavier factors we weigh when we do a cost/benefit analysis.

---

That explanation is just my guess, not a scientific one.

Of course science can always learn more and knowledge can change. I would support adjusting public policy in response to those changes. But we can't base public policy on how we THINK it might change.

---

Did I write that? I don't think I did.

What I did write is that we need to stop thinking that science is the end all and be all on this matter. They have proven to be wrong in the past. They are still a better source than most, but it is just one of many factors.

So, trying to quiet debate by saying, I am going to shut down this business or I am for opening up school because ...you, know...science... is not deep thinking or reflective of recent history.

---

Okay. So which other sources should we be considering?

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

---

OK, I misunderstood. I thought kids were most likely to be asymptomatic, and not that they could not catch it and be a carrier.

I still don't understand what it is about schools and kids then that makes them the exempt group (especially since having kids wear a mask all day would seem nearly impossible) when it is so easy to catch it in every other situation.

---

Maybe their immune systems just neutralize the virus so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to spread, but older people are slower to adapt. I dunno. But the evidence seems to be there that young kids don't spread it.

---

Look, I am for opening up schools for those who want to send their kids.

But that explanation is loopy, and is inconsistent with prior news of long term physical impact of the virus on kids.

And science is still learning and changing. Hard to just blindly follow science even if doesn't make sense (like how they went from wash your hands for twenty seconds, wipe everything down to now the virus cannot survive on surface and the sanitizing is just theater - all the spread is airborne). Science is not infallible, and we cannot blindly accept it as final. It is the best guess we have, and it should be one of the heavier factors we weigh when we do a cost/benefit analysis.

---

That explanation is just my guess, not a scientific one.

Of course science can always learn more and knowledge can change. I would support adjusting public policy in response to those changes. But we can't base public policy on how we THINK it might change.

---

Did I write that? I don't think I did.

What I did write is that we need to stop thinking that science is the end all and be all on this matter. They have proven to be wrong in the past. They are still a better source than most, but it is just one of many factors.

So, trying to quiet debate by saying, I am going to shut down this business or I am for opening up school because ...you, know...science... is not deep thinking or reflective of recent history.

---

Okay. So which other sources should we be considering?

---

The ones that confirm his biases.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

---

OK, I misunderstood. I thought kids were most likely to be asymptomatic, and not that they could not catch it and be a carrier.

I still don't understand what it is about schools and kids then that makes them the exempt group (especially since having kids wear a mask all day would seem nearly impossible) when it is so easy to catch it in every other situation.

---

Maybe their immune systems just neutralize the virus so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to spread, but older people are slower to adapt. I dunno. But the evidence seems to be there that young kids don't spread it.

---

Look, I am for opening up schools for those who want to send their kids.

But that explanation is loopy, and is inconsistent with prior news of long term physical impact of the virus on kids.

And science is still learning and changing. Hard to just blindly follow science even if doesn't make sense (like how they went from wash your hands for twenty seconds, wipe everything down to now the virus cannot survive on surface and the sanitizing is just theater - all the spread is airborne). Science is not infallible, and we cannot blindly accept it as final. It is the best guess we have, and it should be one of the heavier factors we weigh when we do a cost/benefit analysis.

---

That explanation is just my guess, not a scientific one.

Of course science can always learn more and knowledge can change. I would support adjusting public policy in response to those changes. But we can't base public policy on how we THINK it might change.

---

Did I write that? I don't think I did.

What I did write is that we need to stop thinking that science is the end all and be all on this matter. They have proven to be wrong in the past. They are still a better source than most, but it is just one of many factors.

So, trying to quiet debate by saying, I am going to shut down this business or I am for opening up school because ...you, know...science... is not deep thinking or reflective of recent history.

---

Okay. So which other sources should we be considering?

---

Like all risk assessment, consider science, costs, potential impact if we are wrong, etc. Not just...science.

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

I say just vaccinate the teachers that are scheduled and committed to return ASAP. At the very, very least, the older ones and the ones with underlying conditions, but, heck, I say all of the returning teachers.

By "asking" them to return, they are deemed, by definition, essential workers.

The more pressure to vaccinate more and more people, the better, in general.

I know I would feel a helluva lot safer going to work in a classroom setting, if I were vaccinated.

Vaccinating teachers shows a commitment to them and to education.

It's easier to claim the moral high ground on this and call out teachers and teachers' unions who are dragging their feet about returning, if we have prioritized their vaccinations.

JUST LINE THEM TEACHERS UP AND STICK 'EM!

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

I say just vaccinate the teachers that are scheduled and committed to return ASAP. At the very, very least, the older ones and the ones with underlying conditions, but, heck, I say all of the returning teachers.

By "asking" them to return, they are deemed, by definition, essential workers.

The more pressure to vaccinate more and more people, the better, in general.

I know I would feel a helluva lot safer going to work in a classroom setting, if I were vaccinated.

Vaccinating teachers shows a commitment to them and to education.

It's easier to claim the moral high ground on this and call out teachers and teachers' unions who are dragging their feet about returning, if we have prioritized their vaccinations.

JUST LINE THEM TEACHERS UP AND STICK 'EM!

---

Should we stick the teachers before or after we get everyone older than 65? I believe they are already included in the next group for priority vaccination, but the supply isn't there yet.

I could accept the idea of requiring vaccination for the oldest and most at-risk teachers, but those who are young and healthy I suspect are not in much danger from returning to the classroom.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

---

OK, I misunderstood. I thought kids were most likely to be asymptomatic, and not that they could not catch it and be a carrier.

I still don't understand what it is about schools and kids then that makes them the exempt group (especially since having kids wear a mask all day would seem nearly impossible) when it is so easy to catch it in every other situation.

---

Maybe their immune systems just neutralize the virus so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to spread, but older people are slower to adapt. I dunno. But the evidence seems to be there that young kids don't spread it.

---

Look, I am for opening up schools for those who want to send their kids.

But that explanation is loopy, and is inconsistent with prior news of long term physical impact of the virus on kids.

And science is still learning and changing. Hard to just blindly follow science even if doesn't make sense (like how they went from wash your hands for twenty seconds, wipe everything down to now the virus cannot survive on surface and the sanitizing is just theater - all the spread is airborne). Science is not infallible, and we cannot blindly accept it as final. It is the best guess we have, and it should be one of the heavier factors we weigh when we do a cost/benefit analysis.

---

That explanation is just my guess, not a scientific one.

Of course science can always learn more and knowledge can change. I would support adjusting public policy in response to those changes. But we can't base public policy on how we THINK it might change.

---

Did I write that? I don't think I did.

What I did write is that we need to stop thinking that science is the end all and be all on this matter. They have proven to be wrong in the past. They are still a better source than most, but it is just one of many factors.

So, trying to quiet debate by saying, I am going to shut down this business or I am for opening up school because ...you, know...science... is not deep thinking or reflective of recent history.

---

Okay. So which other sources should we be considering?

---

Like all risk assessment, consider science, costs, potential impact if we are wrong, etc. Not just...science.

---

Cost is a reasonable concern. I'm fine to hear arguments that we can't reopen because the needed safety measures are too expensive. If that's the issue then I understand the slowness. I think the scientists are already measuring the potential impact of being wrong here, but sure I could hear more arguments on that as well, with the caveat that they need to be backed by evidence and not just personal fears.

What I'm not interested in hearing are claims that "It's not safe to open schools now!" when the current science says it is. Not saying that's your position, but I hear it a lot and I think it's stalling the process.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

---

OK, I misunderstood. I thought kids were most likely to be asymptomatic, and not that they could not catch it and be a carrier.

I still don't understand what it is about schools and kids then that makes them the exempt group (especially since having kids wear a mask all day would seem nearly impossible) when it is so easy to catch it in every other situation.

---

Maybe their immune systems just neutralize the virus so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to spread, but older people are slower to adapt. I dunno. But the evidence seems to be there that young kids don't spread it.

---

Look, I am for opening up schools for those who want to send their kids.

But that explanation is loopy, and is inconsistent with prior news of long term physical impact of the virus on kids.

And science is still learning and changing. Hard to just blindly follow science even if doesn't make sense (like how they went from wash your hands for twenty seconds, wipe everything down to now the virus cannot survive on surface and the sanitizing is just theater - all the spread is airborne). Science is not infallible, and we cannot blindly accept it as final. It is the best guess we have, and it should be one of the heavier factors we weigh when we do a cost/benefit analysis.

---

That explanation is just my guess, not a scientific one.

Of course science can always learn more and knowledge can change. I would support adjusting public policy in response to those changes. But we can't base public policy on how we THINK it might change.

---

Did I write that? I don't think I did.

What I did write is that we need to stop thinking that science is the end all and be all on this matter. They have proven to be wrong in the past. They are still a better source than most, but it is just one of many factors.

So, trying to quiet debate by saying, I am going to shut down this business or I am for opening up school because ...you, know...science... is not deep thinking or reflective of recent history.

---

Okay. So which other sources should we be considering?

---

Like all risk assessment, consider science, costs, potential impact if we are wrong, etc. Not just...science.

---

Cost is a reasonable concern. I'm fine to hear arguments that we can't reopen because the needed safety measures are too expensive. If that's the issue then I understand the slowness. I think the scientists are already measuring the potential impact of being wrong here, but sure I could hear more arguments on that as well, with the caveat that they need to be backed by evidence and not just personal fears.

What I'm not interested in hearing are claims that "It's not safe to open schools now!" when the current science says it is. Not saying that's your position, but I hear it a lot and I think it's stalling the process.

---

I would agree. And, to be clear, I am for opening up the schools just like I am for moderated opening up of businesses.

Just like you don't want to hear that it is not safe, I don't want to hear that it is safe. All of that is subjective, and science is not going to conclude what is safe and what is not. It will tell us the potential for infection rate, etc. But it is up to us in our assessment on what is acceptable risk. It will not be zero and kids are not some mutants that kill the virus. If the data shows, at least for now, that the risk is low enough and the benefit of opening up the schools is high enough and we want to take that risk with our kids, great. Same with other places. Do we really need to be shoulder to shoulder inside restaurants and what is the risk of transmission? How about 50%, etc. and what is the financial impact to the small business owners at different levels?

That is all I have been asking for this whole time, and not just blanket science says no, so we will just say no.

Big C said:

---

I say just vaccinate the teachers that are scheduled and committed to return ASAP. At the very, very least, the older ones and the ones with underlying conditions, but, heck, I say all of the returning teachers

---

heck yeah. signed, child-less by choice

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

I say just vaccinate the teachers that are scheduled and committed to return ASAP. At the very, very least, the older ones and the ones with underlying conditions, but, heck, I say all of the returning teachers.

By "asking" them to return, they are deemed, by definition, essential workers.

The more pressure to vaccinate more and more people, the better, in general.

I know I would feel a helluva lot safer going to work in a classroom setting, if I were vaccinated.

Vaccinating teachers shows a commitment to them and to education.

It's easier to claim the moral high ground on this and call out teachers and teachers' unions who are dragging their feet about returning, if we have prioritized their vaccinations.

JUST LINE THEM TEACHERS UP AND STICK 'EM!

---

This is my issue, BigC. I want everyone vaccinated. I'm happy to give teachers vaccinations. But we have limited supply and we have to prioritize.

Obviously, if they are in a priority category other than being a teacher, they should be vaccinated.

I think obviously teachers should be in A priority category, but not necessarily the highest. That needs to be determined by risk to them individually and risk of community spread. It is easy to say that if you are going to ask them to go back, they should be prioritized. And I don't disagree.

However, we have ALREADY asked a lot of workers to go to work without a vaccine. So, take for instance workers in food processing plants. They are at much greater risk. They were required to go to work months ago in order to keep the food supply going. IMO, very clearly they should be vaccinated first based on risk.

Where exactly do teachers fit on the list between police and fire, grocery shoppers, court room personnel, prison guards, etc? I don't know. But I don't think the answer is a simple as just vaccinate them.

I do not at all claim moral ground on teachers or their unions. They need to speak up for themselves and people do not seem to understand that the job of a union is to represent their workers, period. It is up to the school districts to negotiate. If I were the unions, I'd be demanding vaccinations and clear safety measures. At the end of the day, though, I would not want to be going out on strike to avoid in person instruction if, as in SF, the union is asking for a higher level standard than the very strict SF health department is requiring.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

---

OK, I misunderstood. I thought kids were most likely to be asymptomatic, and not that they could not catch it and be a carrier.

I still don't understand what it is about schools and kids then that makes them the exempt group (especially since having kids wear a mask all day would seem nearly impossible) when it is so easy to catch it in every other situation.

---

Maybe their immune systems just neutralize the virus so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to spread, but older people are slower to adapt. I dunno. But the evidence seems to be there that young kids don't spread it.

---

Look, I am for opening up schools for those who want to send their kids.

But that explanation is loopy, and is inconsistent with prior news of long term physical impact of the virus on kids.

And science is still learning and changing. Hard to just blindly follow science even if doesn't make sense (like how they went from wash your hands for twenty seconds, wipe everything down to now the virus cannot survive on surface and the sanitizing is just theater - all the spread is airborne). Science is not infallible, and we cannot blindly accept it as final. It is the best guess we have, and it should be one of the heavier factors we weigh when we do a cost/benefit analysis.

---

That explanation is just my guess, not a scientific one.

Of course science can always learn more and knowledge can change. I would support adjusting public policy in response to those changes. But we can't base public policy on how we THINK it might change.

---

Did I write that? I don't think I did.

What I did write is that we need to stop thinking that science is the end all and be all on this matter. They have proven to be wrong in the past. They are still a better source than most, but it is just one of many factors.

So, trying to quiet debate by saying, I am going to shut down this business or I am for opening up school because ...you, know...science... is not deep thinking or reflective of recent history.

---

Okay. So which other sources should we be considering?

---

Like all risk assessment, consider science, costs, potential impact if we are wrong, etc. Not just...science.

---

Cost is a reasonable concern. I'm fine to hear arguments that we can't reopen because the needed safety measures are too expensive. If that's the issue then I understand the slowness. I think the scientists are already measuring the potential impact of being wrong here, but sure I could hear more arguments on that as well, with the caveat that they need to be backed by evidence and not just personal fears.

What I'm not interested in hearing are claims that "It's not safe to open schools now!" when the current science says it is. Not saying that's your position, but I hear it a lot and I think it's stalling the process.

---

I would agree. And, to be clear, I am for opening up the schools just like I am for moderated opening up of businesses.

Just like you don't want to hear that it is not safe, I don't want to hear that it is safe. All of that is subjective, and science is not going to conclude what is safe and what is not. It will tell us the potential for infection rate, etc. But it is up to us in our assessment on what is acceptable risk. It will not be zero and kids are not some mutants that kill the virus. If the data shows, at least for now, that the risk is low enough and the benefit of opening up the schools is high enough and we want to take that risk with our kids, great. Same with other places. Do we really need to be shoulder to shoulder inside restaurants and what is the risk of transmission? How about 50%, etc. and what is the financial impact to the small business owners at different levels?

That is all I have been asking for this whole time, and not just blanket science says no, so we will just say no.

---

IMO, scientists need to be able to answer the science questions. If scientists say the risk is high or medium, that doesn't mean the answer is no. That means we need to weigh it against the cost.

If the scientists say the risk is low, than what are we shutting down the activity for? Normally we would have the activity. Science is saying the activity isn't risky. Happy to have everyone debate whether we should open given the risk that scientists outline, but I'm not happy to have everyone debate what the risk is because they don't agree with scientists based on nothing but they feel scared.

In relation to the kids, I'm going to say this again. The numerical risk of a 5-14 year old dying of Covid is 7 times lower than the risk that a teenage football player dies of football related injuries. We haven't outlawed football.

The baseline is that everything should be as normal unless their is a suspicion of significant individual or societal risk. With respect to elementary school, it has been studied significantly and that suspicion is not there.

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

---

OK, I misunderstood. I thought kids were most likely to be asymptomatic, and not that they could not catch it and be a carrier.

I still don't understand what it is about schools and kids then that makes them the exempt group (especially since having kids wear a mask all day would seem nearly impossible) when it is so easy to catch it in every other situation.

---

Maybe their immune systems just neutralize the virus so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to spread, but older people are slower to adapt. I dunno. But the evidence seems to be there that young kids don't spread it.

---

Look, I am for opening up schools for those who want to send their kids.

But that explanation is loopy, and is inconsistent with prior news of long term physical impact of the virus on kids.

And science is still learning and changing. Hard to just blindly follow science even if doesn't make sense (like how they went from wash your hands for twenty seconds, wipe everything down to now the virus cannot survive on surface and the sanitizing is just theater - all the spread is airborne). Science is not infallible, and we cannot blindly accept it as final. It is the best guess we have, and it should be one of the heavier factors we weigh when we do a cost/benefit analysis.

---

That explanation is just my guess, not a scientific one.

Of course science can always learn more and knowledge can change. I would support adjusting public policy in response to those changes. But we can't base public policy on how we THINK it might change.

---

Did I write that? I don't think I did.

What I did write is that we need to stop thinking that science is the end all and be all on this matter. They have proven to be wrong in the past. They are still a better source than most, but it is just one of many factors.

So, trying to quiet debate by saying, I am going to shut down this business or I am for opening up school because ...you, know...science... is not deep thinking or reflective of recent history.

---

Okay. So which other sources should we be considering?

---

Like all risk assessment, consider science, costs, potential impact if we are wrong, etc. Not just...science.

---

Cost is a reasonable concern. I'm fine to hear arguments that we can't reopen because the needed safety measures are too expensive. If that's the issue then I understand the slowness. I think the scientists are already measuring the potential impact of being wrong here, but sure I could hear more arguments on that as well, with the caveat that they need to be backed by evidence and not just personal fears.

What I'm not interested in hearing are claims that "It's not safe to open schools now!" when the current science says it is. Not saying that's your position, but I hear it a lot and I think it's stalling the process.

---

I would agree. And, to be clear, I am for opening up the schools just like I am for moderated opening up of businesses.

Just like you don't want to hear that it is not safe, I don't want to hear that it is safe. All of that is subjective, and science is not going to conclude what is safe and what is not. It will tell us the potential for infection rate, etc. But it is up to us in our assessment on what is acceptable risk. It will not be zero and kids are not some mutants that kill the virus. If the data shows, at least for now, that the risk is low enough and the benefit of opening up the schools is high enough and we want to take that risk with our kids, great. Same with other places. Do we really need to be shoulder to shoulder inside restaurants and what is the risk of transmission? How about 50%, etc. and what is the financial impact to the small business owners at different levels?

That is all I have been asking for this whole time, and not just blanket science says no, so we will just say no.

---

IMO, scientists need to be able to answer the science questions. If scientists say the risk is high or medium, that doesn't mean the answer is no. That means we need to weigh it against the cost.

If the scientists say the risk is low, than what are we shutting down the activity for? Normally we would have the activity. Science is saying the activity isn't risky. Happy to have everyone debate whether we should open given the risk that scientists outline, but I'm not happy to have everyone debate what the risk is because they don't agree with scientists based on nothing but they feel scared.

In relation to the kids, I'm going to say this again. The numerical risk of a 5-14 year old dying of Covid is 7 times lower than the risk that a teenage football player dies of football related injuries. We haven't outlawed football.

The baseline is that everything should be as normal unless their is a suspicion of significant individual or societal risk. With respect to elementary school, it has been studied significantly and that suspicion is not there.

---

Agreed. But everything you wrote is different from saying something is safe (which is a subjective term). What the scientist can give us is data and not conclusions on what we should do. That is Fauci's position and something Rand did not understand and something may do not understand from both sides. The legislative body and the WH makes policies, not the scientists, and we make decisions on what is safe and what is not, and what is risky and what is not. We make that judgment based on the best guess data we get from scientist and weigh it with our risk tolerance, costs and potential impact.

We did not do that in the beginning. We just said, shut everything down because scientists said it is not safe.

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

---

OK, I misunderstood. I thought kids were most likely to be asymptomatic, and not that they could not catch it and be a carrier.

I still don't understand what it is about schools and kids then that makes them the exempt group (especially since having kids wear a mask all day would seem nearly impossible) when it is so easy to catch it in every other situation.

---

Maybe their immune systems just neutralize the virus so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to spread, but older people are slower to adapt. I dunno. But the evidence seems to be there that young kids don't spread it.

---

Look, I am for opening up schools for those who want to send their kids.

But that explanation is loopy, and is inconsistent with prior news of long term physical impact of the virus on kids.

And science is still learning and changing. Hard to just blindly follow science even if doesn't make sense (like how they went from wash your hands for twenty seconds, wipe everything down to now the virus cannot survive on surface and the sanitizing is just theater - all the spread is airborne). Science is not infallible, and we cannot blindly accept it as final. It is the best guess we have, and it should be one of the heavier factors we weigh when we do a cost/benefit analysis.

---

That explanation is just my guess, not a scientific one.

Of course science can always learn more and knowledge can change. I would support adjusting public policy in response to those changes. But we can't base public policy on how we THINK it might change.

---

Did I write that? I don't think I did.

What I did write is that we need to stop thinking that science is the end all and be all on this matter. They have proven to be wrong in the past. They are still a better source than most, but it is just one of many factors.

So, trying to quiet debate by saying, I am going to shut down this business or I am for opening up school because ...you, know...science... is not deep thinking or reflective of recent history.

---

Okay. So which other sources should we be considering?

---

Like all risk assessment, consider science, costs, potential impact if we are wrong, etc. Not just...science.

---

Cost is a reasonable concern. I'm fine to hear arguments that we can't reopen because the needed safety measures are too expensive. If that's the issue then I understand the slowness. I think the scientists are already measuring the potential impact of being wrong here, but sure I could hear more arguments on that as well, with the caveat that they need to be backed by evidence and not just personal fears.

What I'm not interested in hearing are claims that "It's not safe to open schools now!" when the current science says it is. Not saying that's your position, but I hear it a lot and I think it's stalling the process.

---

I would agree. And, to be clear, I am for opening up the schools just like I am for moderated opening up of businesses.

Just like you don't want to hear that it is not safe, I don't want to hear that it is safe. All of that is subjective, and science is not going to conclude what is safe and what is not. It will tell us the potential for infection rate, etc. But it is up to us in our assessment on what is acceptable risk. It will not be zero and kids are not some mutants that kill the virus. If the data shows, at least for now, that the risk is low enough and the benefit of opening up the schools is high enough and we want to take that risk with our kids, great. Same with other places. Do we really need to be shoulder to shoulder inside restaurants and what is the risk of transmission? How about 50%, etc. and what is the financial impact to the small business owners at different levels?

That is all I have been asking for this whole time, and not just blanket science says no, so we will just say no.

---

IMO, scientists need to be able to answer the science questions. If scientists say the risk is high or medium, that doesn't mean the answer is no. That means we need to weigh it against the cost.

If the scientists say the risk is low, than what are we shutting down the activity for? Normally we would have the activity. Science is saying the activity isn't risky. Happy to have everyone debate whether we should open given the risk that scientists outline, but I'm not happy to have everyone debate what the risk is because they don't agree with scientists based on nothing but they feel scared.

In relation to the kids, I'm going to say this again. The numerical risk of a 5-14 year old dying of Covid is 7 times lower than the risk that a teenage football player dies of football related injuries. We haven't outlawed football.

The baseline is that everything should be as normal unless their is a suspicion of significant individual or societal risk. With respect to elementary school, it has been studied significantly and that suspicion is not there.

---

Agreed. But everything you wrote is different from saying something is safe (which is a subjective term). What the scientist can give us is data and not conclusions on what we should do. That is Fauci's position and something Rand did not understand and something may do not understand from both sides. The legislative body and the WH makes policies, not the scientists, and we make decisions on what is safe and what is not, and what is risky and what is not. We make that judgment based on the best guess data we get from scientist and weigh it with our risk tolerance, costs and potential impact.

We did not do that in the beginning. We just said, shut everything down because scientists said it is not safe.

---

"Safe" and "low risk" are both subjective terms and seem to mean roughly the same thing to me. If you prefer the latter that's fine. Scientists are saying that opening elementary schools is low risk.

It's also my understanding that in the early days scientists were in favor of the shelter-in-place because they didn't know how the disease was spreading yet. I agreed with that policy at the time and I would agree with more targeted policy now.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Well, given that this is all a pretty new experience I think we won't know for sure for another 40 years. The studies you cite are likely talking about absenteeism, which is an entirely different issue with its own external drivers.

---

It would have helped this discussion if you had actually read the articles I cited or at least glanced at the top line summary, because that is not what they're about. They cite school closures due to weather events, the Spanish Flu, summer vacation, etc. All such events suggest learning loss for students. Yes, the wealthier students whose parents are able to supplement tend to do better, but all students fall behind during this time.

---

Director of the CDC says today point blank that the science demonstrates that schools can reopen with proper mitigation measures, naming masking, social distancing and proper ventilation and that teachers do not need to be vaccinated before reopening. That the science indicates that schools do not present a high risk of transmission to students or teachers.

---

How about family members?

I am all for opening up the schools, but not sure it is because I completely trust CDC after so many foot faults. It's that the risk of not opening up and the damage may be worse than the risk of opening up the schools.

---

Well, if the virus is not transmitted at schools then how would families be affected by opening of schools?

---

OK, I misunderstood. I thought kids were most likely to be asymptomatic, and not that they could not catch it and be a carrier.

I still don't understand what it is about schools and kids then that makes them the exempt group (especially since having kids wear a mask all day would seem nearly impossible) when it is so easy to catch it in every other situation.

---

Maybe their immune systems just neutralize the virus so quickly that it doesn't have a chance to spread, but older people are slower to adapt. I dunno. But the evidence seems to be there that young kids don't spread it.

---

Look, I am for opening up schools for those who want to send their kids.

But that explanation is loopy, and is inconsistent with prior news of long term physical impact of the virus on kids.

And science is still learning and changing. Hard to just blindly follow science even if doesn't make sense (like how they went from wash your hands for twenty seconds, wipe everything down to now the virus cannot survive on surface and the sanitizing is just theater - all the spread is airborne). Science is not infallible, and we cannot blindly accept it as final. It is the best guess we have, and it should be one of the heavier factors we weigh when we do a cost/benefit analysis.

---

That explanation is just my guess, not a scientific one.

Of course science can always learn more and knowledge can change. I would support adjusting public policy in response to those changes. But we can't base public policy on how we THINK it might change.

---

Did I write that? I don't think I did.

What I did write is that we need to stop thinking that science is the end all and be all on this matter. They have proven to be wrong in the past. They are still a better source than most, but it is just one of many factors.

So, trying to quiet debate by saying, I am going to shut down this business or I am for opening up school because ...you, know...science... is not deep thinking or reflective of recent history.

---

Okay. So which other sources should we be considering?

---

Like all risk assessment, consider science, costs, potential impact if we are wrong, etc. Not just...science.

---

Cost is a reasonable concern. I'm fine to hear arguments that we can't reopen because the needed safety measures are too expensive. If that's the issue then I understand the slowness. I think the scientists are already measuring the potential impact of being wrong here, but sure I could hear more arguments on that as well, with the caveat that they need to be backed by evidence and not just personal fears.

What I'm not interested in hearing are claims that "It's not safe to open schools now!" when the current science says it is. Not saying that's your position, but I hear it a lot and I think it's stalling the process.

---

I would agree. And, to be clear, I am for opening up the schools just like I am for moderated opening up of businesses.

Just like you don't want to hear that it is not safe, I don't want to hear that it is safe. All of that is subjective, and science is not going to conclude what is safe and what is not. It will tell us the potential for infection rate, etc. But it is up to us in our assessment on what is acceptable risk. It will not be zero and kids are not some mutants that kill the virus. If the data shows, at least for now, that the risk is low enough and the benefit of opening up the schools is high enough and we want to take that risk with our kids, great. Same with other places. Do we really need to be shoulder to shoulder inside restaurants and what is the risk of transmission? How about 50%, etc. and what is the financial impact to the small business owners at different levels?

That is all I have been asking for this whole time, and not just blanket science says no, so we will just say no.

---

IMO, scientists need to be able to answer the science questions. If scientists say the risk is high or medium, that doesn't mean the answer is no. That means we need to weigh it against the cost.

If the scientists say the risk is low, than what are we shutting down the activity for? Normally we would have the activity. Science is saying the activity isn't risky. Happy to have everyone debate whether we should open given the risk that scientists outline, but I'm not happy to have everyone debate what the risk is because they don't agree with scientists based on nothing but they feel scared.

In relation to the kids, I'm going to say this again. The numerical risk of a 5-14 year old dying of Covid is 7 times lower than the risk that a teenage football player dies of football related injuries. We haven't outlawed football.

The baseline is that everything should be as normal unless their is a suspicion of significant individual or societal risk. With respect to elementary school, it has been studied significantly and that suspicion is not there.

---

Agreed. But everything you wrote is different from saying something is safe (which is a subjective term). What the scientist can give us is data and not conclusions on what we should do. That is Fauci's position and something Rand did not understand and something may do not understand from both sides. The legislative body and the WH makes policies, not the scientists, and we make decisions on what is safe and what is not, and what is risky and what is not. We make that judgment based on the best guess data we get from scientist and weigh it with our risk tolerance, costs and potential impact.

We did not do that in the beginning. We just said, shut everything down because scientists said it is not safe.

---

"Safe" and "low risk" are both subjective terms and seem to mean roughly the same thing to me. If you prefer the latter that's fine. Scientists are saying that opening elementary schools is low risk.

It's also my understanding that in the early days scientists were in favor of the shelter-in-place because they didn't know how the disease was spreading yet. I agreed with that policy at the time and I would agree with more targeted policy now.

---

I never said "low risk" is a scientific, objective term. It is subjective like safe and not safe. Scientist will just give as recent data (not conclusions on whether we view that as low risk), and it is up to us whether we think it is low risk.