Supreme Court NY Decision - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Supreme Court NY Decision (/thread-21035.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Supreme Court NY Decision (/thread-21035.html)
Supreme Court NY Decision - Genuine Realist - 12-01-2020
I don't think anyone has posted the per curiam Supreme Court decision granting injunctive relief to Catholic and Jewish organizations against various covid orders made by Cuomo,but here it is. Candidly, since this was the first encounter of the new conservative majority with a religious issue, and the decision was 5-4, I was expecting more of a hullabaloo. But the reaction was surprisingly muted. You can see why when you read the factual recitals of the majority. (A note of caution - this came to the Court as a petition for injunctive relief, which means the reviewing Court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true or at least provable. Religious organizations are as capable as any other litigant of gilding the lily. Something to keep in mind.)
But if the plaintiffs can prove out their case, it's a doozy. There seems to be an incredible amount of arbitrariness in Cuomo's approach to covid enforcement vis a vis religious and commercial organizations. One Jewish organization even alleges gerrymandering of red and orange zones to limit the size of congregations and activity.
To me, this underscores the false dichotomy of 'following the science' or not. To be sure, Trump and the anti-mask stuff have made fools of themselves with sensible social distancing measures. But if you think Blue State types like Cuomo, Whitmer, and Newsom have taken a scrupulously scientific approach, I think you're a bit naive. The NY measures are ridden with policy, some of it quite arbitrary. Whitmer faced much the same criticism, not so much on the approach as a whole, but an unjustifiable arbitrariness about too much of this. (I think of the golf restrictions, which I am cynical enough to believe was simple Democratic racial politics. If you're going to stop inner city kids from playing basketball, you have to stop country club members from playing golf, even though there are plenty of public links and brobdingnagian numbers of African-Americans enjoy the game. Never mind that the two games are entirely different, and golf can easily be played with appropriate distance. THAT's the science, but it didn't matter.) There was also the indifference to social distancing measures in connection with the Floyd riots.
Right at the moment, much of the Santa Clara County regimen makes sense - but not all. I can understand barring spectators from events, but not banning the events themselves. Maybe football, because of the sheer number of participants - but certainly not basketball, or college or club tennis. It's not that there might not be an epidemiological justification for this - just that it is not immediately evident - and I don't think the American people take anything on faith, particularly measures this drastic.
Trump bears his lion's share of the blame for public cynicism. But if you believe in 'following the science', I don't think any State has done it. You see corruption by politics and policy everywhere.
RE: Supreme Court NY Decision - Mick - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 09:56 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: To me, this underscores the false dichotomy of 'following the science' or not. To be sure, Trump and the anti-mask stuff have made fools of themselves with sensible social distancing measures. But if you think Blue State types like Cuomo, Whitmer, and Newsom have taken a scrupulously scientific approach, I think you're a bit naive. The NY measures are ridden with policy, some of it quite arbitrary. Whitmer faced much the same criticism, not so much on the approach as a whole, but an unjustifiable arbitrariness about too much of this. (I think of the golf restrictions, which I am cynical enough to believe was simple Democratic racial politics. If you're going to stop inner city kids from playing basketball, you have to stop country club members from playing golf, even though there are plenty of public links and of immense proportions numbers of African-Americans enjoy the game. Never mind that the two games are entirely different, and golf can easily be played with appropriate distance. THAT's the science, but it didn't matter.) There was also the indifference to social distancing measures in connection with the Floyd riots.
Trump bears his lion's share of the blame for public cynicism. But if you believe in 'following the science', I don't think any State has done it. You see corruption by politics and policy everywhere.
I never mentioned it at the time, and believe me, there were plenty of issues with Whitmer's COVID-related policies, but the golf prohibition was ridiculous and affected golfers across the pigment spectrum. Michigan is a public golf mecca, there's 650 courses, most of which are extremely affordable. There are a variety of really strong, very inexpensive public golf courses within a half-hour drive of downtown Detroit. You can play a Donald Ross-designed course (Rackham, which has held two U.S. PubLinx championships) with cart for $49. I don't know how many African-American golfers there are in Michigan, but there are around 700,000 in America. My dad's favorite golfer was Calvin Peete, a solid pro (was in the Top 10 rankings when they first came out) and he built his game on Detroit public courses. Detroit's Joe Louis played in a few pro golf tournaments back in the day.
On the private side The Detroit Golf Club, just west of Palmer Park has a substantial African American golfer community, and is currently on its third African American chairperson. If you're interested, here's an article from www.africanamericangolfersdigest.com:
http://africanamericangolfersdigest.com/detroit-and-golf-a-most-proper-and-historic-combination/
lex24 - lex24 - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 09:56 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: I don't think anyone has posted the per curiam Supreme Court decision granting injunctive relief to Catholic and Jewish organizations against various covid orders made by Cuomo,but here it is. Candidly, since this was the first encounter of the new conservative majority with a religious issue, and the decision was 5-4, I was expecting more of a hullabaloo. But the reaction was surprisingly muted. You can see why when you read the factual recitals of the majority. (A note of caution - this came to the Court as a petition for injunctive relief, which means the reviewing Court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true or at least provable. Religious organizations are as capable as any other litigant of gilding the lily. Something to keep in mind.)
But if the plaintiffs can prove out their case, it's a doozy. There seems to be an incredible amount of arbitrariness in Cuomo's approach to covid enforcement vis a vis religious and commercial organizations. One Jewish organization even alleges gerrymandering of red and orange zones to limit the size of congregations and activity.
To me, this underscores the false dichotomy of 'following the science' or not. To be sure, Trump and the anti-mask stuff have made fools of themselves with sensible social distancing measures. But if you think Blue State types like Cuomo, Whitmer, and Newsom have taken a scrupulously scientific approach, I think you're a bit naive. The NY measures are ridden with policy, some of it quite arbitrary. Whitmer faced much the same criticism, not so much on the approach as a whole, but an unjustifiable arbitrariness about too much of this. (I think of the golf restrictions, which I am cynical enough to believe was simple Democratic racial politics. If you're going to stop inner city kids from playing basketball, you have to stop country club members from playing golf, even though there are plenty of public links and of immense proportions numbers of African-Americans enjoy the game. Never mind that the two games are entirely different, and golf can easily be played with appropriate distance. THAT's the science, but it didn't matter.) There was also the indifference to social distancing measures in connection with the Floyd riots.
Right at the moment, much of the Santa Clara County regimen makes sense - but not all. I can understand barring spectators from events, but not banning the events themselves. Maybe football, because of the sheer number of participants - but certainly not basketball, or college or club tennis. It's not that there might not be an epidemiological justification for this - just that it is not immediately evident - and I don't think the American people take anything on faith, particularly measures this drastic.
Trump bears his lion's share of the blame for public cynicism. But if you believe in 'following the science', I don't think any State has done it. You see corruption by politics and policy everywhere.
I was two seconds from posting the decision when I saw this (in response to a post). The holding itself is narrow. And fairly predictable. The “facts” cited are the more troubling aspect. Of course those have to be proven if the suit goes forward.
(12-01-2020, 12:32 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-01-2020, 09:56 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: I don't think anyone has posted the per curiam Supreme Court decision granting injunctive relief to Catholic and Jewish organizations against various covid orders made by Cuomo,but here it is. Candidly, since this was the first encounter of the new conservative majority with a religious issue, and the decision was 5-4, I was expecting more of a hullabaloo. But the reaction was surprisingly muted. You can see why when you read the factual recitals of the majority. (A note of caution - this came to the Court as a petition for injunctive relief, which means the reviewing Court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true or at least provable. Religious organizations are as capable as any other litigant of gilding the lily. Something to keep in mind.)
But if the plaintiffs can prove out their case, it's a doozy. There seems to be an incredible amount of arbitrariness in Cuomo's approach to covid enforcement vis a vis religious and commercial organizations. One Jewish organization even alleges gerrymandering of red and orange zones to limit the size of congregations and activity.
To me, this underscores the false dichotomy of 'following the science' or not. To be sure, Trump and the anti-mask stuff have made fools of themselves with sensible social distancing measures. But if you think Blue State types like Cuomo, Whitmer, and Newsom have taken a scrupulously scientific approach, I think you're a bit naive. The NY measures are ridden with policy, some of it quite arbitrary. Whitmer faced much the same criticism, not so much on the approach as a whole, but an unjustifiable arbitrariness about too much of this. (I think of the golf restrictions, which I am cynical enough to believe was simple Democratic racial politics. If you're going to stop inner city kids from playing basketball, you have to stop country club members from playing golf, even though there are plenty of public links and of immense proportions numbers of African-Americans enjoy the game. Never mind that the two games are entirely different, and golf can easily be played with appropriate distance. THAT's the science, but it didn't matter.) There was also the indifference to social distancing measures in connection with the Floyd riots.
Right at the moment, much of the Santa Clara County regimen makes sense - but not all. I can understand barring spectators from events, but not banning the events themselves. Maybe football, because of the sheer number of participants - but certainly not basketball, or college or club tennis. It's not that there might not be an epidemiological justification for this - just that it is not immediately evident - and I don't think the American people take anything on faith, particularly measures this drastic.
Trump bears his lion's share of the blame for public cynicism. But if you believe in 'following the science', I don't think any State has done it. You see corruption by politics and policy everywhere.
I was two seconds from posting the decision when I saw this (in response to a post). The holding itself is narrow. And fairly predictable. The “facts” cited are the more troubling aspect. Of course those have to be proven if the suit goes forward.
As to the college and pro sports ban - all I’d like is some proof that’s it has contributed to the issue that is leading to the increased measures - which is Covid hospitalizations. If so, then fine. But no one even asks the question.
In fact, there is very little questioning from the press on any of this. CNN had the SCC counsel on. Not one difficult question during the interview as to the Y. Simply throwing softballs and patting him on the back for the tough measures he’s taking and him talking about the need for state and federal federal help. But that’s what I would expect. Because he’s on the right side of the political divide when it comes to CNN. If he was on Fox of course he probably would’ve been roasted. But I suspect he won’t go on Fox. There in lies the problem with today’s media. Ideologically based media is a very very bad thing. And that is essentially all we have right now.
RE: lex24 - BostonCard - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 12:32 PM)lex24 Wrote: As to the college and pro sports ban - all I’d like is some proof that’s it has contributed to the issue that is leading to the increased measures - which is Covid hospitalizations. If so, then fine. But no one even asks the question.
Actually, I am sure lots of people have asked the question; it is just a very difficult and tricky one to answer. Since we can't do randomized, placebo controlled trials of sports versus no sports to see whether engaging in sports leads to hospitalization, you have to tease the answer out from a lot of data. Maybe the best way would be contact tracing, but we suck at it, and, as I pointed out in another post, people aren't answering.
My guess is that playing college and pro sports are probably ok, but there is risk of spread in all the other activities: traveling to and from the event (even if it is in a chartered jet), staying at a hotel in a city different than your own, etc. I doubt what you are asking for (proof one way or another) can be done in the middle of a pandemic, so we are going to have to make educated guesses.
BC
RE: Supreme Court NY Decision - 2006alum - 12-01-2020
No comment. :)
lex24 - lex24 - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 02:36 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-01-2020, 12:32 PM)lex24 Wrote: As to the college and pro sports ban - all I’d like is some proof that’s it has contributed to the issue that is leading to the increased measures - which is Covid hospitalizations. If so, then fine. But no one even asks the question.
Actually, I am sure lots of people have asked the question; it is just a very difficult and tricky one to answer. Since we can't do randomized, placebo controlled trials of sports versus no sports to see whether engaging in sports leads to hospitalization, you have to tease the answer out from a lot of data. Maybe the best way would be contact tracing, but we suck at it, and, as I pointed out in another post, people aren't answering.
My guess is that playing college and pro sports are probably ok, but there is risk of spread in all the other activities: traveling to and from the event (even if it is in a chartered jet), staying at a hotel in a city different than your own, etc. I doubt what you are asking for (proof one way or another) can be done in the middle of a pandemic, so we are going to have to make educated guesses.
BC
Every pro team has its own jet. And I believe the protocals essentially call for them to be locked down pretty tight. I think an enterprising investigative reporter could find evidence one way or the other. I mean we know from the NFL essentially who gets Covid they essentially are listed. I just want to see the press do it’s job. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
The 49ers have had maybe 4 or 5 Home games. (A guess, I’m too lazy to look it up). I am relatively certain that the writers know where the teams stay. Have there been outbreaks in those hotel. I mean it shouldn’t be that hard to do some sleuthing as investigative reporters do and come to some conclusions. But nobody really seems to give a damn to undertake that type of analysis. So they just accept what is said. Why? My guess is that they’re afraid that if they were to look into this and determine that there absolutely was no evidence of any connection between professional sports and hospitalizations and went to press with that story they’d be excoriated for “putting sports before peoples lives.” Which of course would not be true. But that doesn’t really matter.
As for contact tracing - don’t you think it’s a given when an NFL player or someone affiliated with the team tests positive? They don’t have a choice to evade.
RE: lex24 - Farm93 - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 02:36 PM)BostonCard Wrote:If the players could appear in the stadium, play the game on their own, and then teleport home then maybe.(12-01-2020, 12:32 PM)lex24 Wrote: As to the college and pro sports ban - all I’d like is some proof that’s it has contributed to the issue that is leading to the increased measures - which is Covid hospitalizations. If so, then fine. But no one even asks the question.
Actually, I am sure lots of people have asked the question; it is just a very difficult and tricky one to answer. Since we can't do randomized, placebo controlled trials of sports versus no sports to see whether engaging in sports leads to hospitalization, you have to tease the answer out from a lot of data. Maybe the best way would be contact tracing, but we suck at it, and, as I pointed out in another post, people aren't answering.
My guess is that playing college and pro sports are probably ok, but there is risk of spread in all the other activities: traveling to and from the event (even if it is in a chartered jet), staying at a hotel in a city different than your own, etc. I doubt what you are asking for (proof one way or another) can be done in the middle of a pandemic, so we are going to have to make educated guesses.
BC
That's not how it works. The players need to train (we know that's not going well). The players need to have people train them, ask Coach Saban about that. The players need support staff when they are in the stadium, I believe some folks in Philly have thoughts on the safety of those efforts after the Marlins came to town. There is just so much beyond the actual activity with ample examples of spread even in the relatively small sample size.
The sport also consumes a lot of health care resources. They are paying for those resources, but it is still a bad look for a government to allow those activities to consume resources that are in relatively short supply.
In the end football, bars, casinos and everything else should be stopped in an attempt to keep schools open.
FWIW - It probably won't be enough. LA county is on fire right now. Cases are out of control, so look for a lot more at the state level to be closed or suspended soon. Everyone will say, "Why us" or "Why our industry". Ultimately when a novel pandemic is out of control you just have to shutdown all non-essential stuff ASAP in the hopes of keeping essential stuff open.
Football? Non-essential. It really is that easy.
RE: Supreme Court NY Decision - BostonCard - 12-01-2020
If players are getting COVID, it means either they are passing it amongst themselves in their "bubble" or getting it from outside their bubble. If they are contracting COVID from outside, then that means they are interacting with enough outside people that they can give it to them. The saving grace is that they are testing frequently, so the period in which they might be infected and not know it is short.
BC
RE: lex24 - Goose - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 08:08 PM)Farm93 Wrote: FWIW - It probably won't be enough. LA county is on fire right now. Cases are out of control, so look for a lot more at the state level to be closed or suspended soon. Everyone will say, "Why us" or "Why our industry". Ultimately when a novel pandemic is out of control you just have to shutdown all non-essential stuff ASAP in the hopes of keeping essential stuff open.Unfortunately, I think you are correct. The targeted shutdowns we are seeing now can't have any effect for 2 weeks. In 2 weeks time, we will be in such bad shape that a total SIP will be instituted. I just hope it is done sooner. The "lag time" in cases is such that if you wait until you are right on the edge to act, it is too late. You will go over for sure, and many "extra" people will die as a result. We can't take that chance.
Football? Non-essential. It really is that easy.
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 12-02-2020
(12-01-2020, 08:08 PM)Farm93 Wrote: In the end football, bars, casinos and everything else should be stopped in an attempt to keep schools open.
If only my 3 HS kids' school was "open." BTW, if you ever want a model to flustercuck a school re-opening plan, just look at the disaster that was PAUSD's attempt at hybrid learning. I still don't know why they made something that in theory should have an easy plan (i.e., have half the school in-person half the time, and stream all in-person classes so the half at home can watch real time) to the most convoluted, worthless alternative that's too complicated to even relay here. But I did learn that the teachers objected to streaming in-person classes, apparently based on inability to control those not in the classroom. Um . . . how is that complaint any different than what is going on now?
Exceptionally disappointed in PA secondary schools. The powers-that-be (teachers, administrators, school board) have failed these kids, imo.
But again, I have a strong bias for in-person learning.
RE: lex24 - BostonCard - 12-02-2020
(12-02-2020, 01:57 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-01-2020, 08:08 PM)Farm93 Wrote: In the end football, bars, casinos and everything else should be stopped in an attempt to keep schools open.
If only my 3 HS kids' school was "open." BTW, if you ever want a model to flustercuck a school re-opening plan, just look at the disaster that was PAUSD's attempt at hybrid learning. I still don't know why they made something that in theory should have an easy plan (i.e., have half the school in-person half the time, and stream all in-person classes so the half at home can watch real time) to the most convoluted, worthless alternative that's too complicated to even relay here. But I did learn that the teachers objected to streaming in-person classes, apparently based on inability to control those not in the classroom. Um . . . how is that complaint any different than what is going on now?
Exceptionally disappointed in PA secondary schools. The powers-that-be (teachers, administrators, school board) have failed these kids, imo.
But again, I have a strong bias for in-person learning.
Sounds like SMUSHD and BSD. Ultimately, I think that a few teachers were resistant to coming back (some because of legitimate health complaints, others because they didn't like the commute, others just to stick it to the district) and the union supported them. Once the initial plan was set forth, for some in-person instruction to resume at an arbitrary date, it became a race against the clock and the new wave. Ultimately, the best time to start school in person would have been in September, so when we went into Purple a week ago, all plans to offer some semblence of in person instruction were gone.
I was told that the reason your plan couldn't be put into place (I was hoping for the same thing) is some prohibition against broadcasting live classes, meant for a different era and something that if people stopped and thought for a bit, could have overcome in these extenuating circumstances. But instead, a lot of time and effort was expended to get around that restriction.
But yeah, it would have been logical to basically have half the students in the classroom and the other half participating remotely via zoom, with teachers participating in person if they could (or from home if they had health concerns).
BC
RE: lex24 - Mick - 12-05-2020
(12-02-2020, 01:57 AM)teejers1 Wrote: Exceptionally disappointed in PA secondary schools. The powers-that-be (teachers, administrators, school board) have failed these kids, imo.
But again, I have a strong bias for in-person learning.
That's really disappointing to hear. Mrs. Mick taught in PAUSD for six years. She had a very nice set of credentials (student-taught in Cupertino schools) and she evaluated a dozen different school districts. PAUSD, far and away, offered the best compensation packages and best teaching environment. I know she thought the administration was easily the best of the dozen or so districts where she had interviews, met with administrators and observed the schools. If any school district had it knocked, I would have assumed it would have been PAUSD. That's a real shame.
RE: lex24 - Farm93 - 12-05-2020
(12-02-2020, 02:06 AM)BostonCard Wrote:Every school district is different, different financial resources, different local conditions, regulations and unions. Most districts are trying and none were built to deal with something like this, so I can only imagine how hard it is to do this right. Just one student or faculty death will create so many problems for a district, so I understand it is tough to navigate this stuff.(12-02-2020, 01:57 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-01-2020, 08:08 PM)Farm93 Wrote: In the end football, bars, casinos and everything else should be stopped in an attempt to keep schools open.
If only my 3 HS kids' school was "open." BTW, if you ever want a model to flustercuck a school re-opening plan, just look at the disaster that was PAUSD's attempt at hybrid learning. I still don't know why they made something that in theory should have an easy plan (i.e., have half the school in-person half the time, and stream all in-person classes so the half at home can watch real time) to the most convoluted, worthless alternative that's too complicated to even relay here. But I did learn that the teachers objected to streaming in-person classes, apparently based on inability to control those not in the classroom. Um . . . how is that complaint any different than what is going on now?
Exceptionally disappointed in PA secondary schools. The powers-that-be (teachers, administrators, school board) have failed these kids, imo.
But again, I have a strong bias for in-person learning.
Sounds like SMUSHD and BSD. Ultimately, I think that a few teachers were resistant to coming back (some because of legitimate health complaints, others because they didn't like the commute, others just to stick it to the district) and the union supported them. Once the initial plan was set forth, for some in-person instruction to resume at an arbitrary date, it became a race against the clock and the new wave. Ultimately, the best time to start school in person would have been in September, so when we went into Purple a week ago, all plans to offer some semblence of in person instruction were gone.
I was told that the reason your plan couldn't be put into place (I was hoping for the same thing) is some prohibition against broadcasting live classes, meant for a different era and something that if people stopped and thought for a bit, could have overcome in these extenuating circumstances. But instead, a lot of time and effort was expended to get around that restriction.
But yeah, it would have been logical to basically have half the students in the classroom and the other half participating remotely via zoom, with teachers participating in person if they could (or from home if they had health concerns).
BC
Here in my OC based SD the schools are operating on two different tracks.
There is a virtual school (zoom, Google document sharing, etc.) which is open for all grades, and then the school district seems to have the most vulnerable teachers leading those classes. My children, for example, have each had a teacher leave in the first 3 months for maternity leave. That can't be a coincidence IMHO. The kids in virtual can participate in varsity sports at their home school.
My HS aged kids are in that basic plan. Virtual at home, and then involved in non-contact outdoor varsity sports that provide some element of socialization and exercise.
Alternatively kids can by in a hybrid model where they attend school 2 days a week, and watch via zoom the other days.
It all seems to work. A number of hybrid families didn't really read the closure policies carefully. So as cases first started to emerge on dashboards in schools some families wanted the schools to notify every parent, or for the school to close for a number of days.
Parents can opt to go virtual almost at any time, but a capacity clause is in there just in case there is a run on going virtual. Those in virtual can only go to Hybrid at the end of a term, and that is also subject to space availability.
Been a healthy balance IMHO. And some number of families in the district understand that the schools are linked to COVID cases in the community and CA based rules which are largely driven by COVID cases in county, state, and/or the new regions.
My understanding from the few faculty members I know in the district has been that teachers are scared that the information distribution is not sufficient to stop in classroom COVID spread. 6 feet AND 15 minutes just seems to be too lenient to them, and me. More than possible for COVID to skip from soon-to-be positive student to others in the same classroom over the span of a period or school day, but that is what CDC was referencing back in July and August.
Until the last ~14 days the privacy first approach seemed sufficient, but in the last 7 days cases have started to explode on the district dashboard.
As the schools were open, they get to stay open in the new CA plan. I have yet to talk with my faculty friends since the new plan and new cases emerged, but I suspect some faculty are a bit more worried right now.
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 12-05-2020
(12-05-2020, 10:03 AM)Farm93 Wrote: My children, for example, have each had a teacher leave in the first 3 months for maternity leave. That can't be a coincidence IMHO.
Let's see . . . SiP starts in March . . . some teachers take maternity leave in the fall. Yeah, I'd say no coincidence!
Seriously, it sounds like SD had their stuff together earlier than up here. What makes it all the more disappointing is that the new lockdowns allow the status quote to remain - so if PAUSD had their $hit together on secondary schools earlier, then the kids would still have the option of in-person learning.
But it was a giant cluster. And I must say that every teacher who spoke at the 4 hour board meeting opposed the hybrid plan. And there were an awful lot of scare tactics (and outright misstatements - that had to be clarified later by the Administration) used in opposing the plan. And it was a crap plan for re-introducing in-person learning. How can there be such a disconnect with Administration and teachers, who individually profess to prefer teaching in-person? A complete cluster. And my distinct impression is that while the teachers might say they want in-person instruction, most of them did not (or the vocal ones/leaders did not).