Reopening Schools

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-13-2020, 09:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is what they are doing at my kids school.  

Teachers are required to wear masks when in "close proximity" to the students.  Students are encouraged to wear masks but not required. (derp)

Bussing is a big issue because they really pack a lot of kids in those buses.  They will take every childs temperature before they are allowed to get on the bus, so a parent is required to be at the bus stop in case the child is not allowed on.  Luckily my oldest is a senior and will be driving herself.  My son will be a freshman so he can ride with her.

I’m not sure what the busing requirements will be.

[Benton]

My daughter's district is planning to reopen at the end of August and is discussing home school options to anyone that wants to go that route. But, they aren't offering a "here or nti" option, which I'm disappointed in. Not for my daughter (we talked it over and would send her even if they did) but I know other families arent as comfortable with it and would prefer to nti instead of actually home schooling.

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2020, 09:31 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The
My son will be a freshman. They will do in person until Thanksgiving and resume again in January. He certainly wants to go because he wants to play fall ball and see if he liked such a small school. He’s always wanted to go to OSU but his only options for baseball were small D3 schools. Find out if he lives it, and if he doesn’t he can transfer to OSU and play club ball. Ok but COVID, but COVID already robbed him of his senior year in high school. Kids his age are extremely low risk to almost statistically none so I’m fine with it.

The issue with reopening in the fall for in-person classes is that colleges and universities aren't just made up of the 18-22 year old undergraduate demographic. There are the professors, the staff, the administrators, and then you have the wider community. I'll use JMU, my school, as an example. When we have 29,000 students descend into the city and county from every state in the country plus a couple of other countries, they already bring with them illnesses that spread into the community. Call it the freshman flu, the college crud, whatever you want, we have something spread around in the fall semester every year. This is because those healthy 18-22 year olds may not feel it, but when they go to Target and Walmart to pick up stuff for their dorms and apartments, or go hang out in the cafe at the local Barnes & Noble, or crowd the local watering holes, they aren't isolating their contact to their fellow 18-22 year olds. Other members of the community come in contact with them and then it spreads.

This is the same story for every college town; I guarantee it. This is why I say that colleges and universities opening up in the fall for in-person classes are risking the communities, because the students aren't the ones at most risk. The people that work on campus, that shop in the stores, eat in the restaurants, drink at the bars, those people will be the ones hit the hardest.

[Belsnickel]

(07-13-2020, 09:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Bussing is a big issue because they really pack a lot of kids in those buses.  They will take every childs temperature before they are allowed to get on the bus, so a parent is required to be at the bus stop in case the child is not allowed on.  Luckily my oldest is a senior and will be driving herself.  My son will be a freshman so he can ride with her.

This just reminded me of one of the biggest shit shows for our reopening plan. We contract with the city for transit service. Really, the city's busses wouldn't operate without the university money. Anyway, because of this, we have inner campus shuttles and other university specific routes. These routes are jam packed. Like, standing room only, if that, during the week. During the busy times of the day there is a real chance there will be no room on the bus for you to get across campus. The busses have between 30 and 40 seats in them, depending on the model, and then you have an additional 20 standing. They will be capping the load to 18 people on the busses this fall. This is going to be a mess.

[BmorePat87]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/507198-californias-orange-county-votes-to-reopen-schools-without-requiring?fbclid=IwAR0ZO8ZrgGrRSY4vVahJJX8qVEve8MwjHcdRJVIuB2rNQC4ZRIgkFpm36Z8

Quote:"The county Board of Education in Orange County, Calif., on Monday voted to approve school reopening recommendations that do not require masks for students or social distancing in schools.

In a 4-1 vote, the board approved recommendations that include frequent hand-washing, daily temperature checks and nightly disinfection of facilities and vehicles, but did not include mandatory masks for students, the Los Angeles Times reported."


“K-12 children represent the lowest-risk cohort for Covid-19. Because of that fact, social distancing of children and reduced census classrooms is not necessary and therefore not recommended,” the board’s recommendations reads. “Requiring children to wear masks during school is not only difficult —if not impossible to implement — but not based on science. It may even be harmful and is therefore not recommended.”

Nichole Quick, the county’s chief health officer, resigned in June, citing death threats after she issued an order requiring masks in public, The Orange County Register reported.

The fact that it is hard to get kids to keep masks on and social distance should not be a reason to adopt an attitude that essentially says "f*** it, if they die, they die. It won't be too many at their age group". 

[CJD]

Regardless of whether we open schools or not, the President should have no say in the matter. Trump is severely overreaching with his demands and is only doing so because he knows that without the schools opening, the country on a whole can not meaningfully re-open. If the country cannot re-open, then the economy won't recover. If the economy doesn't recover, he'll almost certainly be voted out of office. Therefore, you can't actually take him (or any politician) as being truthful and responsible with their expectations for re-opening schools because it's 100% based on political gain.

Public health officials should be the ones to decide when it is safe to re-open schools.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-14-2020, 10:57 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Hot Take:
Regardless of whether we open schools or not, the President should have no say in the matter. Trump is severely overreaching with his demands and is only doing so because he knows that without the schools opening, the country on a whole can not meaningfully re-open. If the country cannot re-open, then the economy won't recover. If the economy doesn't recover, he'll almost certainly be voted out of office. Therefore, you can't actually take him (or any politician) as being truthful and responsible with their expectations for re-opening schools because it's 100% based on political gain.

Public health officials should be the ones to decide when it is safe to re-open schools.

agree 100% that the President should have no say, and in truth I don't think he really does outside of his own mind.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-14-2020, 10:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/507198-californias-orange-county-votes-to-reopen-schools-without-requiring?fbclid=IwAR0ZO8ZrgGrRSY4vVahJJX8qVEve8MwjHcdRJVIuB2rNQC4ZRIgkFpm36Z8



The fact that it is hard to get kids to keep masks on and social distance should not be a reason to adopt an attitude that essentially says "f*** it, if they die, they die. It won't be too many at their age group". 

This false BS right here . . .

Quote: Requiring children to wear masks during school is not only difficult —if not impossible to implement — but not based on science. It may even be harmful and is therefore not recommended.

. . . is what really is upsetting. This is where federal recommendations would help. Recommendations such as the CDC’s which Trump, with his complete lack of credentials, has attacked. Just because he doesn’t want to give the impression anything is wrong before the election.

The leadership vacuum on the federal level creates an environment where this kind of crap can develop.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

[GMDino]

[Belsnickel]

(07-14-2020, 10:57 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Hot Take:
Regardless of whether we open schools or not, the President should have no say in the matter. Trump is severely overreaching with his demands and is only doing so because he knows that without the schools opening, the country on a whole can not meaningfully re-open. If the country cannot re-open, then the economy won't recover. If the economy doesn't recover, he'll almost certainly be voted out of office. Therefore, you can't actually take him (or any politician) as being truthful and responsible with their expectations for re-opening schools because it's 100% based on political gain.

Public health officials should be the ones to decide when it is safe to re-open schools.

(07-14-2020, 11:00 AM)michaelsean Wrote: agree 100% that the President should have no say, and in truth I don't think he really does outside of his own mind.

Correct. He can't pull funding and he has no say. The reason for pushing for schools to reopen for in-person education is to let parents get back to work and get the economy going because an economic downturn is bad for his election chances. That is what it is all about. He doesn't care about the safety of children or their educational quality, it is all about trying to prevent the economy from continuing a downward trend leading into November.

[GMDino]

[Millhouse]

(07-14-2020, 11:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Correct. He can't pull funding and he has no say. The reason for pushing for schools to reopen for in-person education is to let parents get back to work and get the economy going because an economic downturn is bad for his election chances. That is what it is all about. He doesn't care about the safety of children or their educational quality, it is all about trying to prevent the economy from continuing a downward trend leading into November.

Agreed. The ironic part of all this is that if there was actual leadership and cohesiveness from the federal level starting with him, that would have helped to prevent the economy going backwards again (which I predict will happen again). What I mean is if he would have insisted and leading the charge on everyone wearing masks and social distancing while carefully reopening a couple months ago until vaccines are out, then chances would be a lot better for schools and the economy reopening. But there wasn't as there was a complete opposite do nothing approach from the White House.

[*bfine32*]

(07-14-2020, 11:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Correct. He can't pull funding and he has no say. The reason for pushing for schools to reopen for in-person education is to let parents get back to work and get the economy going because an economic downturn is bad for his election chances. That is what it is all about. He doesn't care about the safety of children or their educational quality, it is all about trying to prevent the economy from continuing a downward trend leading into November.

Isn't an economic downturn bad for the economy?

[Belsnickel]

(07-14-2020, 01:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Isn't an economic downturn bad for the economy?

That would be implicit in the term "economic downturn." Was there a point aside from general snark?

[fredtoast]

(07-14-2020, 01:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Isn't an economic downturn bad for the economy?

The point is that the President should not sacrifice tens of thousands of lives  in order to inflate the economy.

Trump and his followers don't understand the difference between "best for the country" and "best for the economy".

There are TONS of horrible things that would be good for our economy but bad for the country.

[BrownAssClown]

I wonder if the politicians, school boards, etc. even consider how many grandparents watch their grandchildren after school because the parents are out working. Little Johnny may be just fine and feel no effects from Covid-19, because he is young, he may just contract the virus from school and show no signs of the illness. When Little Johnny comes home he may be bringing Grandma and Grandpa a possible death sentence. How would some of these kids feel if they knew they made "papaw" sick or even worse because they could trace the infection back to them. It would've wrecked me as a child, as I was very close to my grandparents.

[*bfine32*]

(07-14-2020, 01:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That would be implicit in the term "economic downturn." Was there a point aside from general snark?

No snark. It was actually to illustrate how we make an issue divisive .

Let's pretend you're a liberal who doesn't like Donald Trump and you are asked how you feel about returning to classes. You ask what are the pros and cons

Person A tells you this: Returning back to classes will increase Trump's election chances

Person B tells you: It could jump start our struggling economy and allow parents to return to earning a living.

Would your answer/opinion be the same given those to separate pieces of information.

I think it was Bill Maher who said it a couple years back when he said: The only way to stop Trump is to have a recession. Sure people will suffer, but it's worth it"

People on both sides of the aisle rightly condemned his comments and he quickly apologized.

Now that it's really happening there are those that try to prolong it with wording like: "Returning to school will help Trump's election chances".

[*bfine32*]

(07-14-2020, 01:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The point is that the President should not sacrifice tens of thousands of lives  in order to inflate the economy.

Trump and his followers don't understand the difference between "best for the country" and "best for the economy".

There are TONS of horrible things that would be good for our economy but bad for the country.

See my comment above for "the point".

[treee]

I'm having trouble seeing how a majority of schools aren't going to have to shut down due to an outbreak, relatively early in the year. Then they'll just be at square 1 again. In addition to the fact that the quality of in-person learning will have dropped dramatically itself due to the procedural requirements, the smart move to me seems to be going all in on distance learning for the majority of situations.

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-14-2020, 10:51 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/507198-californias-orange-county-votes-to-reopen-schools-without-requiring?fbclid=IwAR0ZO8ZrgGrRSY4vVahJJX8qVEve8MwjHcdRJVIuB2rNQC4ZRIgkFpm36Z8



The fact that it is hard to get kids to keep masks on and social distance should not be a reason to adopt an attitude that essentially says "f*** it, if they die, they die. It won't be too many at their age group". 

There are so many failures with this line of thinking, that you have to wonder how incompetent are the buffoons making this decision. Just to connect it to a point made by Belsnickel, there are others besides kids at schools, who are much more at risk. They can also end up spreading the disease to the rest of the community after catching it from the kids at school. Why not take the online option to protect the community? Or at the least, require the kids to wear masks? The kids themselves might not be at risk, but the chances of spreading to the rest of the community just goes way up.

Wearing a mask protects others more than the person wearing it. Therefore, even if the adults wear a mask, they have a much higher chance of getting infected when hundreds of kids don't wear them. Heck, they might get infected even if the kids wear the masks, simply due to the hours spent breathing the same air. Some mitigations like opening windows might help, but it's that a possibility for all areas of the school? Again, asking the kids to wear masks will decrease the chances, so why not do so?