[teejers1]

Death or major lung injury is irreparable.  One year of suboptimal education is not.  

Anyway, all of the moralizing about the importance of education is not going to matter when teachers choose not to go into classrooms or schools shut down after outbreaks.

It's already been (almost) 1/2 a year of suboptimal education for countless numbers of kids.  What's another year?  (Assuming there is a vaccine - a big assumption).

And I just love the sound bite:  "Not one person should die to give kids a marginally better education for what will hopefully be just a year."   And btw, I disagree with it, too.  One life - let's say an 88 year old relative living with kids/grandkids - is not automatically "worth" more than the collective damage caused by hundreds of thousands of kids adrift in education for 1+ years.  And I don't think even you believe that.  But it sure sounds nice.

But fundamentally what I object to is the calculation of marginal risk versus benefit of a particular activity (which seemingly is lost in the discussion of "opening up = killing people = bad" versus "shutting down = saving lives = good").  Marginal risk is what every activity should be judged by, and of course within the broader picture of hospital capacity in a given area (which is largely ignored entirely).  Now, it may be that the marginal risk of re-opening schools is greater than the benefits achieved by same in some (or even many/most) communities. But given the damage of kids educationally adrift - particularly less well-off kids- I sure would explore a lot of possibilities before throwing in the towel.  For example:  outdoor classes; on-days and off-days for 1/2 the student body; teacher leaves for all those 60 years old and above (or those having recognized co-morbidities); hiring a slew of young bloods to teach for those taking a year off for health concerns.  There are options short of surrender that should be examined community-by-community.

[teejers1]

Death or major lung injury is irreparable.  One year of suboptimal education is not.  

Anyway, all of the moralizing about the importance of education is not going to matter when teachers choose not to go into classrooms or schools shut down after outbreaks.

It's already been (almost) 1/2 a year of suboptimal education for countless numbers of kids.  What's another year?  (Assuming there is a vaccine - a big assumption).

And I just love the sound bite:  "Not one person should die to give kids a marginally better education for what will hopefully be just a year."   And btw, I disagree with it, too.  One life - let's say an 88 year old relative living with kids/grandkids - is not automatically "worth" more than the collective damage caused by hundreds of thousands of kids adrift in education for 1+ years.  And I don't think even you believe that.  But it sure sounds nice.

But fundamentally what I object to is the calculation of marginal risk versus benefit of a particular activity (which seemingly is lost in the discussion of "opening up = killing people = bad" versus "shutting down = saving lives = good").  Marginal risk is what every activity should be judged by, and of course within the broader picture of hospital capacity in a given area (which is largely ignored entirely).  Now, it may be that the marginal risk of re-opening schools is greater than the benefits achieved by same in some (or even many/most) communities. But given the damage of kids educationally adrift - particularly less well-off kids- I sure would explore a lot of possibilities before throwing in the towel.  For example:  outdoor classes; on-days and off-days for 1/2 the student body; teacher leaves for all those 60 years old and above (or those having recognized co-morbidities); hiring a slew of young bloods to teach for those taking a year off for health concerns.  There are options short of surrender that should be examined community-by-community.