[JustAnotherFan]

Goes to the heart of a discussion the country can’t seem to honestly have.  The harm to low income kids that closing schools brings is obvious.  One would think with increased discussion on social justice issues that this would be at the top of the list.  But Trump was advocating for it.  Which means progressives must be against it.  Sadly where we are these days.

I work in the lowest income neighborhood in the Bay Area. Our zip code led the state in the rate of new Covid cases for several weeks recently. I have had positive Covid tests on over 30 kids in the last month. Most of their parents are sick as well. Several grandparents have ended up in the hospital. Although kids don't get as sick and they might not be as contagious, let's not fool ourselves into thinking there are no consequences for the poor. Their diets are of poor quality and their immune systems therefore are not of the same quality. One of our teen patients just barely survived a stay in the ICU. He has organ damage that may be permanent.



Every child in the Oakland School district has received a computer and I haven't met a family yet who hasn't found access to Wi-Fi. Sure, education is affected, but it is affected for everyone this year.

While all of this is undoubtably true, the data provided in the original article suggests that kids are generally not becoming infected at school, and kids with hybrid or in person classes are no more likely to be infected with COVID-19 than kids who have a purely distant learning experience.  What appears likely is that the kids are getting sick from their parents, rather getting sick from each other and infecting their parents.

In the meantime, as you note, education is affected, as is the social/emotional development of kids.  Furthermore, a record number of (mostly) women have had to withdraw from the labor market altogether because a laptop and access to wifi is necessary but not sufficient to enable distance learning.

I am a firm believer in following the data.  If analysis of COVID-19 transmission to date had shown that there has been frequent spread of COVID-19 in in-person or hybrid school settings (and that the adult family members were getting sick from their kids), I would be much more hesitant towards endorsing in person classes, but the data is supportive of cautiously restarting in person classes.  The risks will never be zero, but in this case they are low enough and substantially outweighed by the benefits.

BC

Well we do not have good data on schools because many schools are not reporting, and many states are not collecting. The data that Oster uses is self reported, and I'm guessing the most irresponsible schools are not eager to fill out the survey. We also know that kids can catch and spread Covid. We know that many teachers and staff (and even some students) are at risk and even a low risk of infection is dangerously too high for them. We also know that most have families that they go home to. We know that when you mass people in indoor environments with stagnant or recycled air that the chance of spread goes up substantially. That there haven't been any documented superspreader sites at schools yet is hardly a compelling reason to reopen schools. Especially now, before flu season.

If we were to follow the data the schools would be operating outdoors.

---

Interestingly, a recommended article beneath the one from the OP was this one covering k: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...ic/616548/

"Cevik identifies “prolonged contact, poor ventilation, [a] highly infectious person, [and] crowding” as the key elements for a super-spreader event."

Sounds like schools. Reopening schools at this point is playing with fire. Maybe Oster is right, and that schools only have some teachers and administrators dropping dead? Or maybe schools will become more frequent super spreaders, especially as more students come back to school and as complacency rises. Reopening the schools now us not a bet I want to take when playing with the lives of other people.

[JustAnotherFan]

Goes to the heart of a discussion the country can’t seem to honestly have.  The harm to low income kids that closing schools brings is obvious.  One would think with increased discussion on social justice issues that this would be at the top of the list.  But Trump was advocating for it.  Which means progressives must be against it.  Sadly where we are these days.

I work in the lowest income neighborhood in the Bay Area. Our zip code led the state in the rate of new Covid cases for several weeks recently. I have had positive Covid tests on over 30 kids in the last month. Most of their parents are sick as well. Several grandparents have ended up in the hospital. Although kids don't get as sick and they might not be as contagious, let's not fool ourselves into thinking there are no consequences for the poor. Their diets are of poor quality and their immune systems therefore are not of the same quality. One of our teen patients just barely survived a stay in the ICU. He has organ damage that may be permanent.



Every child in the Oakland School district has received a computer and I haven't met a family yet who hasn't found access to Wi-Fi. Sure, education is affected, but it is affected for everyone this year.

While all of this is undoubtably true, the data provided in the original article suggests that kids are generally not becoming infected at school, and kids with hybrid or in person classes are no more likely to be infected with COVID-19 than kids who have a purely distant learning experience.  What appears likely is that the kids are getting sick from their parents, rather getting sick from each other and infecting their parents.

In the meantime, as you note, education is affected, as is the social/emotional development of kids.  Furthermore, a record number of (mostly) women have had to withdraw from the labor market altogether because a laptop and access to wifi is necessary but not sufficient to enable distance learning.

I am a firm believer in following the data.  If analysis of COVID-19 transmission to date had shown that there has been frequent spread of COVID-19 in in-person or hybrid school settings (and that the adult family members were getting sick from their kids), I would be much more hesitant towards endorsing in person classes, but the data is supportive of cautiously restarting in person classes.  The risks will never be zero, but in this case they are low enough and substantially outweighed by the benefits.

BC

Well we do not have good data on schools because many schools are not reporting, and many states are not collecting. The data that Oster uses is self reported, and I'm guessing the most irresponsible schools are not eager to fill out the survey. We also know that kids can catch and spread Covid. We know that many teachers and staff (and even some students) are at risk and even a low risk of infection is dangerously too high for them. We also know that most have families that they go home to. We know that when you mass people in indoor environments with stagnant or recycled air that the chance of spread goes up substantially. That there haven't been any documented superspreader sites at schools yet is hardly a compelling reason to reopen schools. Especially now, before flu season.

If we were to follow the data the schools would be operating outdoors.

---

Interestingly, a recommended article beneath the one from the OP was this one covering k: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi...ic/616548/

"Cevik identifies “prolonged contact, poor ventilation, [a] highly infectious person, [and] crowding” as the key elements for a super-spreader event."

Sounds like schools. Reopening schools at this point is playing with fire. Maybe Oster is right, and that schools only have some teachers and administrators dropping dead? Or maybe schools will become more frequent super spreaders, especially as more students come back to school and as complacency rises. Reopening the schools now us not a bet I want to take when playing with the lives of other people.