Reopening Schools

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2020, 06:02 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: 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? 

The only reason not to mandate masks is to appease the people who are against masks. Children 2 and younger should not wear masks, but those children are not in school. Children with breathing problems or who cannot manipulate the mask themselves should also not wear masks for a long period of time, but those children would be covered under an IEP or a 504, and individualized plans would be made for them.

There just isn't any reason to say "no masks" other than to appease anti-maskers. 

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-14-2020, 06:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The only reason not to mandate masks is to appease the people who are against masks. Children 2 and younger should not wear masks, but those children are not in school. Children with breathing problems or who cannot manipulate the mask themselves should also not wear masks for a long period of time, but that children would be covered under an IEP or a 504, and individualized plans would be made for them.

There just isn't any reason to say "no masks" other than to appease anti-maskers. 

Maybe there's more to consider, but really why not take the risks of of the equation by simply moving to an online format? This seems like inviting a problem by throwing away an existing solution. 

It's possible there are considerations that require schools to open, instead of conducting them online, and I would be glad to hear them. Possibly children are not succeeding in an environment bereft of socializing. But to not mandate masks seems irresponsible at best.

[Belsnickel]

(07-14-2020, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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".

Here is where the flaw is in your logic. What is being said is not "we should keep the schools closed to prolong the economic downturn and hurt Trump's election chances." What is being said is "returning the children to school and putting them and our communities at risk is a misguided venture that is being pushed by Trump predominantly because it can help the economy and therefore his election chances."

Point to one single person here that is saying that we should keep schools closed because it will hurt Trump.

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2020, 06:46 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Maybe there's more to consider, but really why not take the risks of of the equation by simply moving to an online format? This seems like inviting a problem by throwing away an existing solution. 

It's possible there are considerations that require schools to open, instead of conducting them online, and I would be glad to hear them. Possibly children are not succeeding in an environment bereft of socializing. But to not mandate masks seems irresponsible at best.

Yea, there's no risk in taking that approach. If there was more preparation for online learning, you'd be able to prepare teachers and have a more rigorous design planned.

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-14-2020, 06:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is where the flaw is in your logic. What is being said is not "we should keep the schools closed to prolong the economic downturn and hurt Trump's election chances." What is being said is "returning the children to school and putting them and our communities at risk is a misguided venture that is being pushed by Trump predominantly because it can help the economy and therefore his election chances."

Point to one single person here that is saying that we should keep schools closed because it will hurt Trump.

I agree with your assessment except for the bolded. It would be more agreeable if you phrase it as "because in his mind it can help the economy". I think it's debatable whether it will help the economy to open schools. We can debate opening up the economy while schools are held online. 

[fredtoast]

(07-14-2020, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

My answer would be exactly he same because something can be both "good for the economy" and "bad for the country".
I don't mean this as direct jab at you, but it is impossible to have a rational discussion about what is best for the country if some people refuse to acknowledge that it is possible for people to care about the health of the country and make decisions based on that instead of just hating Trump.
It reminds me of when the Iraq situation dissolved into a complete shit show.  Anytime anyone tried to criticize what was going on there the Republicans claimed it was just because we hated Bush.
That being said Trump has horribly mishandled this pandemic from the very beginning.  He does not care how many people die because he calls it a hoax and tells people not to wear masks.  the opening of the schools is just another step in a pattern that developed long ago.  the body count doesn't matter.  All that counts is the economy and his re-election.
So I am not criticizing Trump just because I don't like him.  I criticize him because his policy is dangerous and bad for the country.

[fredtoast]

(07-14-2020, 07:06 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I agree with your assessment except for the bolded. It would be more agreeable if you phrase it as "because in his mind it can help the economy". I think it's debatable whether it will help the economy to open schools. We can debate opening up the economy while schools are held online. 

Lots of parents can't go back to work if they have to watch their kids all day. 

[fredtoast]

Actually if all I cared about was Trump losing then I would want as many people to get sick and die as possible.  Sending kids back to school will probably have that effect.  

Same with wearing masks.  If wearing masks slows the effects of the virus then that will HELP Trump.  So if all liberals cared about was Trump losing we would be telling everyone NOT to wear masks.

[masterpanthera_t]

(07-14-2020, 07:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Lots of parents can't go back to work if they have to watch their kids all day. 

Haha, seems obvious now that you mentioned it. I overlooked this one, but haven't we started reopening businesses in phases already while children are currently in summer vacation? The parents who have to care for them manage it somehow I assume. Possibly one of the parents has quit work and subsidizing income via unemployment, but not sure. In any case, I haven't kept up with the news regarding phased reopening so I can now see the two potential sides of the argument.

Still, not requiring children to wear masks is simply irresponsible. Not that you were debating this, but I've updated my overall perspective in this post. Based on other points to be seen, I'm open to persuasion/newer consistent perspectives.

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2020, 07:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually if all I cared about was Trump losing then I would want as many people to get sick and die as possible.  Sending kids back to school will probably have that effect.  

Same with wearing masks.  If wearing masks slows the effects of the virus then that will HELP Trump.  So if all liberals cared about was Trump losing we would be telling everyone NOT to wear masks.

Facts. 

[BmorePat87]

Schools may have been able to open had we acted swiftly and purposefully when this all started. Unfortunately it's July and 130k deaths later and we're still not.

At first I thought that Trump didn't want to act because he knew he'd be blamed either way, so he decided to just call it a hoax the entire way through. Now I think he just didn't know how to govern, because the GOP hasn't forced him to. Overturning Obama executive orders and regulations while nominating whoever the Federalist Society told him to nominate for the courts was enough for the GOP. They'd blame the Democrats for all the debt and could lose 2024 knowing they put a lot of bodies on the bench.

Now we need guidance at the federal level, and they're reaping what they sowed. Trump is literally incapable of governing.

[Benton]

(07-14-2020, 07:53 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Haha, seems obvious now that you mentioned it. I overlooked this one, but haven't we started reopening businesses in phases already while children are currently in summer vacation? The parents who have to care for them manage it somehow I assume. Possibly one of the parents has quit work and subsidizing income via unemployment, but not sure. In any case, I haven't kept up with the news regarding phased reopening so I can now see the two potential sides of the argument.

Still, not requiring children to wear masks is simply irresponsible. Not that you were debating this, but I've updated my overall perspective in this post. Based on other points to be seen, I'm open to persuasion/newer consistent perspectives.

A lot of employers are offering partial pay for workers who don't have childcare because daycraes were closed and schools weren't open. 

From talking to folks, now would be a good time to open a daycare. It seems lots shut down during the pandemic and more are opening but not accepting new clients/reducing the numbers of kids they accept.

[Millhouse]

I suspect that a lot of teachers that are eligible for retirement will go ahead and retire asap, if they havent already.

I also wonder if schools do go back, what rights/protections do teachers with underlying conditions have to not want to be in a classroom? Im thinking of the ones that are cancer survivors, have heart conditions, etc.

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2020, 09:46 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I suspect that a lot of teachers that are eligible for retirement will go ahead and retire asap, if they havent already.

I also wonder if schools do go back, what rights/protections do teachers with underlying conditions have to not want to be in a classroom? Im thinking of the ones that are cancer survivors, have heart conditions, etc.

Some older teachers I have spoken to are seriously considering it if they have to go back right away. In addition to their students, they're worried about their health and the health of their family. 

One I spoke to recently is having her 5th grandkid in November and works with our life skills students (severe disabilities and not diploma bound) and told me that she will use up her 30 banked sick days and possibly retire if we go back too soon. There's no social distancing there. She literally has to toilet kids. She doesn't want to risk the health of her pregnant daughter or upcoming grandkid.

[samhain]

(07-14-2020, 07:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually if all I cared about was Trump losing then I would want as many people to get sick and die as possible.  Sending kids back to school will probably have that effect.  

Same with wearing masks.  If wearing masks slows the effects of the virus then that will HELP Trump.  So if all liberals cared about was Trump losing we would be telling everyone NOT to wear masks.

This.

Trump really can't be the pro mask guy after he's railed against it or months, but he'd have been wise to take that position.  The longer people dig their heels in on opposing masks and other COVID protocol, the less likely he is to get re-elected.  Most of the things he wants to see happen will likely increase the rate of infection, including his rallies.  

Even with his lassiez-faire stance on virus containment, any decrease only serves to help his chances at a second term.  He should have been championing masks and regulations from the beginning.  it would have saved him a lot of trouble.

[*bfine32*]

(07-14-2020, 07:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: My answer would be exactly he same because something can be both "good for the economy" and "bad for the country".
I don't mean this as direct jab at you, but it is impossible to have a rational discussion about what is best for the country if some people refuse to acknowledge that it is possible for people to care about the health of the country and make decisions based on that instead of just hating Trump.
It reminds me of when the Iraq situation dissolved into a complete shit show.  Anytime anyone tried to criticize what was going on there the Republicans claimed it was just because we hated Bush.
That being said Trump has horribly mishandled this pandemic from the very beginning.  He does not care how many people die because he calls it a hoax and tells people not to wear masks.  the opening of the schools is just another step in a pattern that developed long ago.  the body count doesn't matter.  All that counts is the economy and his re-election.
So I am not criticizing Trump just because I don't like him.  I criticize him because his policy is dangerous and bad for the country.

I replied to this and apparently it got deleted, no idea why, but it did. So let me try again.

I have no problem with having a rational discussion about what is best for the country. If you go back and reread the thread you'll see I'm the one that attempted to turn the thread in that direction as opposed to a biased pants party.  It's just many folks consider a discussion irrational if it does align with their rationality. 

The country MUST reopen, we have no choice; we need to discuss a new normal. I'm just of the opinion that "rational folks"  want to start doing that after the first Tuesday in November

[BmorePat87]

(07-14-2020, 10:25 PM)samhain Wrote: This.

Trump really can't be the pro mask guy after he's railed against it or months, but he'd have been wise to take that position.  The longer people dig their heels in on opposing masks and other COVID protocol, the less likely he is to get re-elected.  Most of the things he wants to see happen will likely increase the rate of infection, including his rallies.  

Even with his lassiez-faire stance on virus containment, any decrease only serves to help his chances at a second term.  He should have been championing masks and regulations from the beginning.  it would have saved him a lot of trouble.

It would have been the defining leadership moment of his presidency. As I mentioned earlier, I think he just doesn't know how to govern so he decided early in to just go with the "hoax" angle. 

Even coming out now and saying "supporters, you NEED to wear masks. Red states, you NEED to tell people to wear masks" would help schools be in a better position to open sooner. 

I don't want schools open until it's safe for my students, but that will happen sooner if we just all wear masks. 

[GMDino]

The bad news is Pence has sold his soul.  The good news is that it was high dollar since he's so pure.

Mike Pence: "We don't want CDC guidance to be a reason why people don't reopen their schools." ????????pic.twitter.com/ngLbfjbqin

— Rex Chapman?? (@RexChapman) July 14, 2020

 

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(07-14-2020, 10:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I replied to this and apparently it got deleted, no idea why, but it did. So let me try again.

I have no problem with having a rational discussion about what is best for the country. If you go back and reread the thread you'll see I'm the one that attempted to turn the thread in that direction as opposed to a biased pants party.  It's just many folks consider a discussion irrational if it does align with their rationality. 

The country MUST reopen, we have no choice; we need to discuss a new normal. I'm just of the opinion that "rational folks"  want to start doing that after the first Tuesday in November

[BmorePat87]

(07-15-2020, 12:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: The bad news is Pence has sold his soul.  The good news is that it was high dollar since he's so pure.

Mike Pence: "We don't want CDC guidance to be a reason why people don't reopen their schools." ????????pic.twitter.com/ngLbfjbqin

— Rex Chapman?? (@RexChapman) July 14, 2020

 

I'm more concerned with "we're gonna respect whatever decisions are gonna be made on campuses like this" because by threatening to withhold funding for making decisions that they do not agree with, they absolutely are not respecting those decisions.