[BostonCard]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/want-school...?mod=e2two

I think the term economists use is "revealed preferences".  Which is to say that our actions as a society reveal what we value more than what we say we do.  WE say we value education, but when all is said and done, we open tattoo parlors, bars and indoor restaurants, marijuana dispensaries, and professional sports teams, while creating the circumstances that require children to stay at home.

The country’s political leadership at all levels failed to carry out plans to manage the epidemic that would allow society to preserve what is most important.

It's sad because at the onset of the pandemic, Newsom and local leaders (don't get me started at the mixed messages coming from Washington) did a good job of closing down early and decisively, and saved lives in the process.  But when push came to shove and we had the opportunity to keep the virus under control, we caved and opened up when we shouldn't have.

Professional sports teams have far more access to testing than public schools do. What does that say about what’s most important to American society? Our children’s safety and development should be the highest priority, and public policy ought to support these values.

As I said, "revealed preferences".  And we have royally messed up preferences.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/want-school...?mod=e2two

I think the term economists use is "revealed preferences".  Which is to say that our actions as a society reveal what we value more than what we say we do.  WE say we value education, but when all is said and done, we open tattoo parlors, bars and indoor restaurants, marijuana dispensaries, and professional sports teams, while creating the circumstances that require children to stay at home.

The country’s political leadership at all levels failed to carry out plans to manage the epidemic that would allow society to preserve what is most important.

It's sad because at the onset of the pandemic, Newsom and local leaders (don't get me started at the mixed messages coming from Washington) did a good job of closing down early and decisively, and saved lives in the process.  But when push came to shove and we had the opportunity to keep the virus under control, we caved and opened up when we shouldn't have.

Professional sports teams have far more access to testing than public schools do. What does that say about what’s most important to American society? Our children’s safety and development should be the highest priority, and public policy ought to support these values.

As I said, "revealed preferences".  And we have royally messed up preferences.

BC

[Goose]

As I said, "revealed preferences".  And we have royally messed up preferences.


BC

That nails it. We also choose our leaders in a democracy, and it appears that the people we have chosen are either incapable of making reasoned decisions that they can explain to the public (i.e. they aren't very bright) or do not have the moral courage to do what they know the ought to do.

[Goose]

As I said, "revealed preferences".  And we have royally messed up preferences.


BC

That nails it. We also choose our leaders in a democracy, and it appears that the people we have chosen are either incapable of making reasoned decisions that they can explain to the public (i.e. they aren't very bright) or do not have the moral courage to do what they know the ought to do.

[teejers1]

As I said, "revealed preferences".  And we have royally messed up preferences.


BC

That nails it. We also choose our leaders in a democracy, and it appears that the people we have chosen are either incapable of making reasoned decisions that they can explain to the public (i.e. they aren't very bright) or do not have the moral courage to do what they know the ought to do.

Is there any "moral courage" in taking a position that educating kids is so important that you're going to set up whatever protocols you can to make it as safe as possible, while still acknowledging that risk spread is heightened (and sickness/death increased in the aggregate by some indeterminate amount) by re-opening schools?  

Or is that devoid of "moral courage."

And if your answer is "the latter," then really, it's all about shutdown until a vaccine is developed.

Again, everything is a policy decision where you weigh the risks and benefits of each action and decision.

Having said all that, I agree that priorities for re-opening were whack.

[teejers1]

As I said, "revealed preferences".  And we have royally messed up preferences.


BC

That nails it. We also choose our leaders in a democracy, and it appears that the people we have chosen are either incapable of making reasoned decisions that they can explain to the public (i.e. they aren't very bright) or do not have the moral courage to do what they know the ought to do.

Is there any "moral courage" in taking a position that educating kids is so important that you're going to set up whatever protocols you can to make it as safe as possible, while still acknowledging that risk spread is heightened (and sickness/death increased in the aggregate by some indeterminate amount) by re-opening schools?  

Or is that devoid of "moral courage."

And if your answer is "the latter," then really, it's all about shutdown until a vaccine is developed.

Again, everything is a policy decision where you weigh the risks and benefits of each action and decision.

Having said all that, I agree that priorities for re-opening were whack.

[oregontim]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

[oregontim]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

[Mick]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

I don't think of what FDR did as being particularly courageous.  The country needed federal help, needed it now and needed a lot of it.  FDR went all gas, no brake, to the appreciation of millions.  Churchill was courageous, his reward was to be voted out of office.  Lincoln was courageous, he was murdered in office.

In a democracy, all too often, moral courage = being voted out of office.  In business and in politics, use your political capital wisely.

[Mick]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

I don't think of what FDR did as being particularly courageous.  The country needed federal help, needed it now and needed a lot of it.  FDR went all gas, no brake, to the appreciation of millions.  Churchill was courageous, his reward was to be voted out of office.  Lincoln was courageous, he was murdered in office.

In a democracy, all too often, moral courage = being voted out of office.  In business and in politics, use your political capital wisely.

[82 Card]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

I don't think of what FDR did as being particularly courageous.  The country needed federal help, needed it now and needed a lot of it.  FDR went all gas, no brake, to the appreciation of millions.  Churchill was courageous, his reward was to be voted out of office.  Lincoln was courageous, he was murdered in office.

In a democracy, all too often, moral courage = being voted out of office.  In business and in politics, use your political capital wisely.

FDR went full steam with a program that faced fierce opposition. The opposition party persists in vilifying everything he did to this day.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-09-09/o...t-disaster

[82 Card]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

I don't think of what FDR did as being particularly courageous.  The country needed federal help, needed it now and needed a lot of it.  FDR went all gas, no brake, to the appreciation of millions.  Churchill was courageous, his reward was to be voted out of office.  Lincoln was courageous, he was murdered in office.

In a democracy, all too often, moral courage = being voted out of office.  In business and in politics, use your political capital wisely.

FDR went full steam with a program that faced fierce opposition. The opposition party persists in vilifying everything he did to this day.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-09-09/o...t-disaster

[oregontim]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

I don't think of what FDR did as being particularly courageous.  The country needed federal help, needed it now and needed a lot of it.  FDR went all gas, no brake, to the appreciation of millions.  Churchill was courageous, his reward was to be voted out of office.  Lincoln was courageous, he was murdered in office.

In a democracy, all too often, moral courage = being voted out of office.  In business and in politics, use your political capital wisely.

Interesting points. I didn't equate moral courage with reelection, though, did I? I completely agree with your last statement there. Courage might be the opposite of career expediency. In that case, it's more courage, not less.

Still, I draw from that shared well of history we baby boomers were taught in the fifties and sixties, referencing the kind of unifying leadership that FDR and Churchill showed at the beginning of WWII, and Lincoln as he brought the union together during the civil war. The leader who shares the danger and threat, embracing it, rather than covering it up. Roosevelt the day after Pearl Harbor, Churchill during the battle of Britain, Lincoln's Gettysburg address. The leader who shows courage and inspires courage when it is most needed. And in all three cases, reelection or not, assassination or not, the history I learned credits them with effective leadership.

I wanted them as icons and shared memory, not as point of view or taking sides. But I guess our divisions do go back now even into divisions over what was true even 70, 80, 150 years ago. I thought if we go back a few decades, we reach some common ground. Apparently not. I'm surprised and disappointed.

[oregontim]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

I don't think of what FDR did as being particularly courageous.  The country needed federal help, needed it now and needed a lot of it.  FDR went all gas, no brake, to the appreciation of millions.  Churchill was courageous, his reward was to be voted out of office.  Lincoln was courageous, he was murdered in office.

In a democracy, all too often, moral courage = being voted out of office.  In business and in politics, use your political capital wisely.

Interesting points. I didn't equate moral courage with reelection, though, did I? I completely agree with your last statement there. Courage might be the opposite of career expediency. In that case, it's more courage, not less.

Still, I draw from that shared well of history we baby boomers were taught in the fifties and sixties, referencing the kind of unifying leadership that FDR and Churchill showed at the beginning of WWII, and Lincoln as he brought the union together during the civil war. The leader who shares the danger and threat, embracing it, rather than covering it up. Roosevelt the day after Pearl Harbor, Churchill during the battle of Britain, Lincoln's Gettysburg address. The leader who shows courage and inspires courage when it is most needed. And in all three cases, reelection or not, assassination or not, the history I learned credits them with effective leadership.

I wanted them as icons and shared memory, not as point of view or taking sides. But I guess our divisions do go back now even into divisions over what was true even 70, 80, 150 years ago. I thought if we go back a few decades, we reach some common ground. Apparently not. I'm surprised and disappointed.

[Mick]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

I don't think of what FDR did as being particularly courageous.  The country needed federal help, needed it now and needed a lot of it.  FDR went all gas, no brake, to the appreciation of millions.  Churchill was courageous, his reward was to be voted out of office.  Lincoln was courageous, he was murdered in office.

In a democracy, all too often, moral courage = being voted out of office.  In business and in politics, use your political capital wisely.

FDR went full steam with a program that faced fierce opposition. The opposition party persists in vilifying everything he did to this day.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-09-09/o...t-disaster

Opposition was decidedly not fierce.  FDR beat Hoover 472-59 in the electoral college with a 22.8 mms. to 15.7 mms. popular vote.  He may have faced opposition, but the House and Senate were Democrat majority from March 1933 until the end of his Presidency, 73rd through 78th Congresses.  Some opposition.  FDR basically had free rein and used it like a club.

[Mick]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

I don't think of what FDR did as being particularly courageous.  The country needed federal help, needed it now and needed a lot of it.  FDR went all gas, no brake, to the appreciation of millions.  Churchill was courageous, his reward was to be voted out of office.  Lincoln was courageous, he was murdered in office.

In a democracy, all too often, moral courage = being voted out of office.  In business and in politics, use your political capital wisely.

FDR went full steam with a program that faced fierce opposition. The opposition party persists in vilifying everything he did to this day.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-09-09/o...t-disaster

Opposition was decidedly not fierce.  FDR beat Hoover 472-59 in the electoral college with a 22.8 mms. to 15.7 mms. popular vote.  He may have faced opposition, but the House and Senate were Democrat majority from March 1933 until the end of his Presidency, 73rd through 78th Congresses.  Some opposition.  FDR basically had free rein and used it like a club.

[BostonCard]

Since FDR didn't have to deal with COVID-19, I am going to steer this conversation back away from Terry rule territory.

Some data on the risk of schools:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1278714280448319489?s=20[/tweet]

I thought this figure, in particular, was useful:



It looks at contact tracing for 18 COVID-19 cases (9 in students and 9 in faculty staff) in a school in Australia, and 863 of their school contacts.  It found exactly one secondary case (in another student) and no student to faculty transmissions.  A number of other contact tracings as well in the thread, and a link to this article from Israel about transmission in schools there:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/over-20-mo...n-a-month/

This link is a bit more circumstantial, but also useful.  It looks at countries that reopened schools to see if they triggered a rise in cases...

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/back-school-t...ols-reopen

This figure shows that mostly, the answer is no:



I agree with the tweeter:

Kids are suffering lifelong damage from lack of schooling. They are safer in school than out of it. There is always risk of increasing transmission, so we must prioritise schools over other social mixing. Lets make it happen, make it safe, and make it good!

BC

[BostonCard]

Since FDR didn't have to deal with COVID-19, I am going to steer this conversation back away from Terry rule territory.

Some data on the risk of schools:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1278714280448319489?s=20[/tweet]

I thought this figure, in particular, was useful:



It looks at contact tracing for 18 COVID-19 cases (9 in students and 9 in faculty staff) in a school in Australia, and 863 of their school contacts.  It found exactly one secondary case (in another student) and no student to faculty transmissions.  A number of other contact tracings as well in the thread, and a link to this article from Israel about transmission in schools there:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/over-20-mo...n-a-month/

This link is a bit more circumstantial, but also useful.  It looks at countries that reopened schools to see if they triggered a rise in cases...

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/back-school-t...ols-reopen

This figure shows that mostly, the answer is no:



I agree with the tweeter:

Kids are suffering lifelong damage from lack of schooling. They are safer in school than out of it. There is always risk of increasing transmission, so we must prioritise schools over other social mixing. Lets make it happen, make it safe, and make it good!

BC

[82 Card]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

I don't think of what FDR did as being particularly courageous.  The country needed federal help, needed it now and needed a lot of it.  FDR went all gas, no brake, to the appreciation of millions.  Churchill was courageous, his reward was to be voted out of office.  Lincoln was courageous, he was murdered in office.

In a democracy, all too often, moral courage = being voted out of office.  In business and in politics, use your political capital wisely.

FDR went full steam with a program that faced fierce opposition. The opposition party persists in vilifying everything he did to this day.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-09-09/o...t-disaster

Opposition was decidedly not fierce.  FDR beat Hoover 472-59 in the electoral college with a 22.8 mms. to 15.7 mms. popular vote.  He may have faced opposition, but the House and Senate were Democrat majority from March 1933 until the end of his Presidency, 73rd through 78th Congresses.  Some opposition.  FDR basically had free rein and used it like a club.

Sure, the Democratic party did well in elections, mostly because Hoover got blamed for the mess. However, unifying the Democratic party behind FDR's program was no small feat. The party was conservative. FDR did not run the first time on anything resembling the program he later adopted. Lining up his own party to do what needed to be done was not assured. The country was not all that unified until a shooting match broke out.

[82 Card]

I read the reference to moral courage in this thread as a reminder of leaders of the past who have faced down crisis and united a nation in response to it. The Lincolns, FDRs, and Churchills. Creating united national response to hard times and challenges through leadership. And this far into this pandemic, we squabble about what to do because we have the polar opposite of leadership.

I don't think of what FDR did as being particularly courageous.  The country needed federal help, needed it now and needed a lot of it.  FDR went all gas, no brake, to the appreciation of millions.  Churchill was courageous, his reward was to be voted out of office.  Lincoln was courageous, he was murdered in office.

In a democracy, all too often, moral courage = being voted out of office.  In business and in politics, use your political capital wisely.

FDR went full steam with a program that faced fierce opposition. The opposition party persists in vilifying everything he did to this day.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-09-09/o...t-disaster

Opposition was decidedly not fierce.  FDR beat Hoover 472-59 in the electoral college with a 22.8 mms. to 15.7 mms. popular vote.  He may have faced opposition, but the House and Senate were Democrat majority from March 1933 until the end of his Presidency, 73rd through 78th Congresses.  Some opposition.  FDR basically had free rein and used it like a club.

Sure, the Democratic party did well in elections, mostly because Hoover got blamed for the mess. However, unifying the Democratic party behind FDR's program was no small feat. The party was conservative. FDR did not run the first time on anything resembling the program he later adopted. Lining up his own party to do what needed to be done was not assured. The country was not all that unified until a shooting match broke out.

[BostonCard]

Since FDR didn't have to deal with COVID-19, I am going to steer this conversation back away from Terry rule territory.

Re-upping.

BC

[BostonCard]

Since FDR didn't have to deal with COVID-19, I am going to steer this conversation back away from Terry rule territory.

Re-upping.

BC

[M T]

I thought this figure, in particular, was useful:

In your figure, the most cases at the time school was started were ~2500/day in a country of 52M and ~1000/day in a country of 83M.  That's about 4.8 and 1.2 daily cases per 100K.
In the US, there are currently close to 300K cases per day in a country of 320M.  That's about 94 daily cases per 100K, off that chart.

(Btw, logarithmic scale may be appropriate for demonstrating spread characteristics.  I don't think it is appropriate to equate 1000 people to 100 or 10 or 1 when they are suffering the effects of the disease.)

If any of the example countries went back to school with the daily case rate at nearly 100  per 100K, please let us know.

And, since the risk of being exposed to the disease is related to the number of people you are exposed to, for an average class size of 20 (grade school: single class;  middle & high schools have at least 5 such classes (with overlap)), that is 20 to (up to) 100 people that each spend their time indoors with.

You keep talking as though education has to happen NOW or else the kids are irreparably harmed. (And, further, that brick & mortar schools somehow are the only place that true education can happen.)  This isn't food or water or air.  Have you never known anyone who had to miss a year of school perhaps due to a serious illness?  Or because they couldn't handle their subjects?   Or seen young kids on the cusp between being able to start school in one year or the year after?

Let's put it in terms that fit the CARDboard:   Perhaps the default should be that the kids won't get a full grade level's advancement within the year. Think of it as an academic redshirt year for the K-12 schools.  All the kids will be more mature when they continue their studies. 

We all hope that the kids can get a good education during the year.  For some, independent study might be a better option.  For someone like me, I would have really enjoyed a year where I could have focused on the STEM areas that I enjoyed.  Others might spend all their time reading books. (And, no doubt, some will be allowed to spend all their time playing video games.)

This could be a time for those that are struggling to work through their weak areas.  If nothing else, they would be a year more physically mature when they get back to regular school.  

It won't be school as usual.  As always, it would be wrong to just say "Kid, you're a year older and although you didn't learn much, we're going to act like you did and promote you to the next grade."

[M T]

I thought this figure, in particular, was useful:

In your figure, the most cases at the time school was started were ~2500/day in a country of 52M and ~1000/day in a country of 83M.  That's about 4.8 and 1.2 daily cases per 100K.
In the US, there are currently close to 300K cases per day in a country of 320M.  That's about 94 daily cases per 100K, off that chart.

(Btw, logarithmic scale may be appropriate for demonstrating spread characteristics.  I don't think it is appropriate to equate 1000 people to 100 or 10 or 1 when they are suffering the effects of the disease.)

If any of the example countries went back to school with the daily case rate at nearly 100  per 100K, please let us know.

And, since the risk of being exposed to the disease is related to the number of people you are exposed to, for an average class size of 20 (grade school: single class;  middle & high schools have at least 5 such classes (with overlap)), that is 20 to (up to) 100 people that each spend their time indoors with.

You keep talking as though education has to happen NOW or else the kids are irreparably harmed. (And, further, that brick & mortar schools somehow are the only place that true education can happen.)  This isn't food or water or air.  Have you never known anyone who had to miss a year of school perhaps due to a serious illness?  Or because they couldn't handle their subjects?   Or seen young kids on the cusp between being able to start school in one year or the year after?

Let's put it in terms that fit the CARDboard:   Perhaps the default should be that the kids won't get a full grade level's advancement within the year. Think of it as an academic redshirt year for the K-12 schools.  All the kids will be more mature when they continue their studies. 

We all hope that the kids can get a good education during the year.  For some, independent study might be a better option.  For someone like me, I would have really enjoyed a year where I could have focused on the STEM areas that I enjoyed.  Others might spend all their time reading books. (And, no doubt, some will be allowed to spend all their time playing video games.)

This could be a time for those that are struggling to work through their weak areas.  If nothing else, they would be a year more physically mature when they get back to regular school.  

It won't be school as usual.  As always, it would be wrong to just say "Kid, you're a year older and although you didn't learn much, we're going to act like you did and promote you to the next grade."

[Farm93]

Great points M T

Also, I would suggest everyone review photos of those schools in other countries before applying other experiences to the USA.

In many the kids are at a desk surrounded by three walls of plexiglass.
In most cases the children are all at least 6 feet apart in all directions from other students.
In most the teacher is far away and often behind a shield of plexiglass.
The children are generally checked for symptoms prior to entry and everyone is wearing a mask.

Korea also has a very strict protocol should someone test positive (much like we see with the KBO). 
A student with a fever at school is taken by ambulance away from the school, and those in close contact are immediately placed into a contact tracing protocol.

In the USA several states are already opening schools.   In the USA, 
Kids are often 6 feet away from others in their row, but the next row is only 3' away.
Plexiglass is not common.
The masks are "recommended" and earlier observations report that in some schools less than ~50% of students wear masks.
As one school I saw, if someone has COVID19 only those that were within 6 feet of the child for at least 15 minutes would even be informed that someone tested positive for COVID.

Add in country level differences in COVID awareness and COVID case prevalence and it may not be safe to assume the USA schools will be fine because Australia or Germany or South Korea are doing OK.

I hope the low transmission rates are transferable to our country because the USA is doing very few of the best practices from around the world, but my guess is we will have results in schools consistent with our existing COVID experiences in other areas of life.

[Farm93]

Great points M T

Also, I would suggest everyone review photos of those schools in other countries before applying other experiences to the USA.

In many the kids are at a desk surrounded by three walls of plexiglass.
In most cases the children are all at least 6 feet apart in all directions from other students.
In most the teacher is far away and often behind a shield of plexiglass.
The children are generally checked for symptoms prior to entry and everyone is wearing a mask.

Korea also has a very strict protocol should someone test positive (much like we see with the KBO). 
A student with a fever at school is taken by ambulance away from the school, and those in close contact are immediately placed into a contact tracing protocol.

In the USA several states are already opening schools.   In the USA, 
Kids are often 6 feet away from others in their row, but the next row is only 3' away.
Plexiglass is not common.
The masks are "recommended" and earlier observations report that in some schools less than ~50% of students wear masks.
As one school I saw, if someone has COVID19 only those that were within 6 feet of the child for at least 15 minutes would even be informed that someone tested positive for COVID.

Add in country level differences in COVID awareness and COVID case prevalence and it may not be safe to assume the USA schools will be fine because Australia or Germany or South Korea are doing OK.

I hope the low transmission rates are transferable to our country because the USA is doing very few of the best practices from around the world, but my guess is we will have results in schools consistent with our existing COVID experiences in other areas of life.

[Goose]

I hope the low transmission rates are transferable to our country because the USA is doing very few of the best practices from around the world, but my guess is we will have results in schools consistent with our existing COVID experiences in other areas of life.

Maybe a bit better because the teachers and administrators can present a more united front than the politicians do. Masks may be "optional" from the District point of view, but if I were a teacher I am not going into a classroom unless everybody in the school wears a mask. That is no panacea, but at least it is something.

[Goose]

I hope the low transmission rates are transferable to our country because the USA is doing very few of the best practices from around the world, but my guess is we will have results in schools consistent with our existing COVID experiences in other areas of life.

Maybe a bit better because the teachers and administrators can present a more united front than the politicians do. Masks may be "optional" from the District point of view, but if I were a teacher I am not going into a classroom unless everybody in the school wears a mask. That is no panacea, but at least it is something.

[BostonCard]

Sweden has had a fairly high rate of COVID-19 because they didn't implement a lockdown.  But it doesn't seem to have affected their schoolchildren, who have the same proportion of cases as Finland, which did implement a lockdown and closed schools.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healt...SKCN24G2IS

BC

[BostonCard]

Sweden has had a fairly high rate of COVID-19 because they didn't implement a lockdown.  But it doesn't seem to have affected their schoolchildren, who have the same proportion of cases as Finland, which did implement a lockdown and closed schools.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healt...SKCN24G2IS

BC

[Goose]

Still, I draw from that shared well of history we baby boomers were taught in the fifties and sixties, referencing the kind of unifying leadership that FDR and Churchill showed at the beginning of WWII, and Lincoln as he brought the union together during the civil war. The leader who shares the danger and threat, embracing it, rather than covering it up. Roosevelt the day after Pearl Harbor, Churchill during the battle of Britain, Lincoln's Gettysburg address. The leader who shows courage and inspires courage when it is most needed. And in all three cases, reelection or not, assassination or not, the history I learned credits them with effective leadership.


I wanted them as icons and shared memory, not as point of view or taking sides. But I guess our divisions do go back now even into divisions over what was true even 70, 80, 150 years ago. I thought if we go back a few decades, we reach some common ground. Apparently not. I'm surprised and disappointed.

I think you have touched on the problem. It was never true that everybody in the country was "united" behind these leaders as persons. These leaders were effective because they were leading the nation toward a shared goal, victory in a war. The details of that were anything but "united", but that didn't matter because politics and the public were different in those eras.
The public didn't expect to know and like their leaders. The got newspaper coverage and (except for Lincoln) an occasional radio speech. The press didn't probe public figures private lives and reveal their associated misdeeds. The public was willing to follow somebody they disagreed with on many levels if the leader was rational in his explanations and was basically successful. Lincoln would have lost the 1864 election (probably) except the Army scored some important victories  at the last minute.
While there were bitter political rivalries and significant disagreements, politicians were expected to work out a consensus, not torpedo the other party no matter what. The public and the politicians both accepted that. Leaders like FDR, Churchill, and Lincoln had to make many compromises to get their programs adopted. They did that with good grace, at least in public. That was part of leadership. There were also a lot of things you didn't do. You may hate an opposition member, but in general you did not attack their character, only their position on an issue. In short, while there was unanimity on virtually nothing, these good leaders coupled with a rational public got it done.
In our society today, you need to "like" the leader, and the leader cultivates your friendship even if it means refusing to do what needs to be done. It is a cult of personality, not of ideas. We get random tweets from all sources attacking people personally. So and so  is "the worst". If someone disagrees with you, they are not just wrong, they are evil. You must oppose the other political party even if what they suggest is exactly what you supported last week, because they are "bad" and it is a zero sum game. Whatever you do, don't take a position that will piss off your "base", whatever you believe that base to be, even if you know it needs to be done. Don't try to change their minds, pander to them. If you don't, somebody will say you are "the worst" and game over. Whatever you do, don't compromise and make an agreement. Makes you look weak and not morally upright.
Nobody can be an effective leader in this climate. Even if a leader actually attempts to lead and is willing to take the heat, the public won't hear him because of the "noise" from the people who are about who, not what. This must change, or democracy won't survive. The curse of parties, while indeed bad, is nothing compared to the cult of personalities in which we find ourselves.

[Goose]

Still, I draw from that shared well of history we baby boomers were taught in the fifties and sixties, referencing the kind of unifying leadership that FDR and Churchill showed at the beginning of WWII, and Lincoln as he brought the union together during the civil war. The leader who shares the danger and threat, embracing it, rather than covering it up. Roosevelt the day after Pearl Harbor, Churchill during the battle of Britain, Lincoln's Gettysburg address. The leader who shows courage and inspires courage when it is most needed. And in all three cases, reelection or not, assassination or not, the history I learned credits them with effective leadership.


I wanted them as icons and shared memory, not as point of view or taking sides. But I guess our divisions do go back now even into divisions over what was true even 70, 80, 150 years ago. I thought if we go back a few decades, we reach some common ground. Apparently not. I'm surprised and disappointed.

I think you have touched on the problem. It was never true that everybody in the country was "united" behind these leaders as persons. These leaders were effective because they were leading the nation toward a shared goal, victory in a war. The details of that were anything but "united", but that didn't matter because politics and the public were different in those eras.
The public didn't expect to know and like their leaders. The got newspaper coverage and (except for Lincoln) an occasional radio speech. The press didn't probe public figures private lives and reveal their associated misdeeds. The public was willing to follow somebody they disagreed with on many levels if the leader was rational in his explanations and was basically successful. Lincoln would have lost the 1864 election (probably) except the Army scored some important victories  at the last minute.
While there were bitter political rivalries and significant disagreements, politicians were expected to work out a consensus, not torpedo the other party no matter what. The public and the politicians both accepted that. Leaders like FDR, Churchill, and Lincoln had to make many compromises to get their programs adopted. They did that with good grace, at least in public. That was part of leadership. There were also a lot of things you didn't do. You may hate an opposition member, but in general you did not attack their character, only their position on an issue. In short, while there was unanimity on virtually nothing, these good leaders coupled with a rational public got it done.
In our society today, you need to "like" the leader, and the leader cultivates your friendship even if it means refusing to do what needs to be done. It is a cult of personality, not of ideas. We get random tweets from all sources attacking people personally. So and so  is "the worst". If someone disagrees with you, they are not just wrong, they are evil. You must oppose the other political party even if what they suggest is exactly what you supported last week, because they are "bad" and it is a zero sum game. Whatever you do, don't take a position that will piss off your "base", whatever you believe that base to be, even if you know it needs to be done. Don't try to change their minds, pander to them. If you don't, somebody will say you are "the worst" and game over. Whatever you do, don't compromise and make an agreement. Makes you look weak and not morally upright.
Nobody can be an effective leader in this climate. Even if a leader actually attempts to lead and is willing to take the heat, the public won't hear him because of the "noise" from the people who are about who, not what. This must change, or democracy won't survive. The curse of parties, while indeed bad, is nothing compared to the cult of personalities in which we find ourselves.

[lex24]

Still, I draw from that shared well of history we baby boomers were taught in the fifties and sixties, referencing the kind of unifying leadership that FDR and Churchill showed at the beginning of WWII, and Lincoln as he brought the union together during the civil war. The leader who shares the danger and threat, embracing it, rather than covering it up. Roosevelt the day after Pearl Harbor, Churchill during the battle of Britain, Lincoln's Gettysburg address. The leader who shows courage and inspires courage when it is most needed. And in all three cases, reelection or not, assassination or not, the history I learned credits them with effective leadership.


I wanted them as icons and shared memory, not as point of view or taking sides. But I guess our divisions do go back now even into divisions over what was true even 70, 80, 150 years ago. I thought if we go back a few decades, we reach some common ground. Apparently not. I'm surprised and disappointed.

I think you have touched on the problem. It was never true that everybody in the country was "united" behind these leaders as persons. These leaders were effective because they were leading the nation toward a shared goal, victory in a war. The details of that were anything but "united", but that didn't matter because politics and the public were different in those eras.
The public didn't expect to know and like their leaders. The got newspaper coverage and (except for Lincoln) an occasional radio speech. The press didn't probe public figures private lives and reveal their associated misdeeds. The public was willing to follow somebody they disagreed with on many levels if the leader was rational in his explanations and was basically successful. Lincoln would have lost the 1864 election (probably) except the Army scored some important victories  at the last minute.
While there were bitter political rivalries and significant disagreements, politicians were expected to work out a consensus, not torpedo the other party no matter what. The public and the politicians both accepted that. Leaders like FDR, Churchill, and Lincoln had to make many compromises to get their programs adopted. They did that with good grace, at least in public. That was part of leadership. There were also a lot of things you didn't do. You may hate an opposition member, but in general you did not attack their character, only their position on an issue. In short, while there was unanimity on virtually nothing, these good leaders coupled with a rational public got it done.
In our society today, you need to "like" the leader, and the leader cultivates your friendship even if it means refusing to do what needs to be done. It is a cult of personality, not of ideas. We get random tweets from all sources attacking people personally. So and so  is "the worst". If someone disagrees with you, they are not just wrong, they are evil. You must oppose the other political party even if what they suggest is exactly what you supported last week, because they are "bad" and it is a zero sum game. Whatever you do, don't take a position that will piss off your "base", whatever you believe that base to be, even if you know it needs to be done. Don't try to change their minds, pander to them. If you don't, somebody will say you are "the worst" and game over. Whatever you do, don't compromise and make an agreement. Makes you look weak and not morally upright.
Nobody can be an effective leader in this climate. Even if a leader actually attempts to lead and is willing to take the heat, the public won't hear him because of the "noise" from the people who are about who, not what. This must change, or democracy won't survive. The curse of parties, while indeed bad, is nothing compared to the cult of personalities in which we find ourselves.

Well said. 

 I’ve used the “us” vs “them” quite a bit.  It goes beyond, imo, the “cult of personalities”. We are segregated ideologically.  Living in “bubbles.”  There has been a brobdingnagian increase in “landslide districts” in the past couple decades. 

Indeed, I think there is a credible argument that the biggest prejudice in our country is ideological prejudice. In part because it’s not only “allowed”, it’s supported.  Add a press that is increasingly ideologically based, the ability, through internet to constantly feed ones ideological bias by only reading sources with which one is ideologically in sync and add the often poisonous influence of social media and ....  

I’m an optimist at heart. I continue to believe we will work through this.  I continue to believe that the vast majority of people in this country are sick and tired of the division that is being thrust upon us.  The change is going to have to occur from the bottom up.  Because there simply aren’t any leaders out there that are invested in bringing us together.

[lex24]

Still, I draw from that shared well of history we baby boomers were taught in the fifties and sixties, referencing the kind of unifying leadership that FDR and Churchill showed at the beginning of WWII, and Lincoln as he brought the union together during the civil war. The leader who shares the danger and threat, embracing it, rather than covering it up. Roosevelt the day after Pearl Harbor, Churchill during the battle of Britain, Lincoln's Gettysburg address. The leader who shows courage and inspires courage when it is most needed. And in all three cases, reelection or not, assassination or not, the history I learned credits them with effective leadership.


I wanted them as icons and shared memory, not as point of view or taking sides. But I guess our divisions do go back now even into divisions over what was true even 70, 80, 150 years ago. I thought if we go back a few decades, we reach some common ground. Apparently not. I'm surprised and disappointed.

I think you have touched on the problem. It was never true that everybody in the country was "united" behind these leaders as persons. These leaders were effective because they were leading the nation toward a shared goal, victory in a war. The details of that were anything but "united", but that didn't matter because politics and the public were different in those eras.
The public didn't expect to know and like their leaders. The got newspaper coverage and (except for Lincoln) an occasional radio speech. The press didn't probe public figures private lives and reveal their associated misdeeds. The public was willing to follow somebody they disagreed with on many levels if the leader was rational in his explanations and was basically successful. Lincoln would have lost the 1864 election (probably) except the Army scored some important victories  at the last minute.
While there were bitter political rivalries and significant disagreements, politicians were expected to work out a consensus, not torpedo the other party no matter what. The public and the politicians both accepted that. Leaders like FDR, Churchill, and Lincoln had to make many compromises to get their programs adopted. They did that with good grace, at least in public. That was part of leadership. There were also a lot of things you didn't do. You may hate an opposition member, but in general you did not attack their character, only their position on an issue. In short, while there was unanimity on virtually nothing, these good leaders coupled with a rational public got it done.
In our society today, you need to "like" the leader, and the leader cultivates your friendship even if it means refusing to do what needs to be done. It is a cult of personality, not of ideas. We get random tweets from all sources attacking people personally. So and so  is "the worst". If someone disagrees with you, they are not just wrong, they are evil. You must oppose the other political party even if what they suggest is exactly what you supported last week, because they are "bad" and it is a zero sum game. Whatever you do, don't take a position that will piss off your "base", whatever you believe that base to be, even if you know it needs to be done. Don't try to change their minds, pander to them. If you don't, somebody will say you are "the worst" and game over. Whatever you do, don't compromise and make an agreement. Makes you look weak and not morally upright.
Nobody can be an effective leader in this climate. Even if a leader actually attempts to lead and is willing to take the heat, the public won't hear him because of the "noise" from the people who are about who, not what. This must change, or democracy won't survive. The curse of parties, while indeed bad, is nothing compared to the cult of personalities in which we find ourselves.

Well said. 

 I’ve used the “us” vs “them” quite a bit.  It goes beyond, imo, the “cult of personalities”. We are segregated ideologically.  Living in “bubbles.”  There has been a brobdingnagian increase in “landslide districts” in the past couple decades. 

Indeed, I think there is a credible argument that the biggest prejudice in our country is ideological prejudice. In part because it’s not only “allowed”, it’s supported.  Add a press that is increasingly ideologically based, the ability, through internet to constantly feed ones ideological bias by only reading sources with which one is ideologically in sync and add the often poisonous influence of social media and ....  

I’m an optimist at heart. I continue to believe we will work through this.  I continue to believe that the vast majority of people in this country are sick and tired of the division that is being thrust upon us.  The change is going to have to occur from the bottom up.  Because there simply aren’t any leaders out there that are invested in bringing us together.

[82 Card]

In your figure, the most cases at the time school was started were ~2500/day in a country of 52M and ~1000/day in a country of 83M.  That's about 4.8 and 1.2 daily cases per 100K.


In the US, there are currently close to 300K cases per day in a country of 320M.  That's about 94 daily cases per 100K, off that chart....

The US confirmed case numbers are bad but not quite that high. According to Worldometers charts, the 7 day average of new cases recently topped out at around 69,000/day, which works out to 21.2/100K.

[82 Card]

In your figure, the most cases at the time school was started were ~2500/day in a country of 52M and ~1000/day in a country of 83M.  That's about 4.8 and 1.2 daily cases per 100K.


In the US, there are currently close to 300K cases per day in a country of 320M.  That's about 94 daily cases per 100K, off that chart....

The US confirmed case numbers are bad but not quite that high. According to Worldometers charts, the 7 day average of new cases recently topped out at around 69,000/day, which works out to 21.2/100K.

[oregontim]

+1 to Goose and +1 to Lex24 on this. The larger causes of the lack of pandemic leadership. Not just the WH and enablers of this administration. I stand corrected.

I thought if we go back a few decades, we reach some common ground. Apparently not. I'm surprised and disappointed.

While there were bitter political rivalries and significant disagreements, politicians were expected to work out a consensus, not torpedo the other party no matter what. The public and the politicians both accepted that. Leaders like FDR, Churchill, and Lincoln had to make many compromises to get their programs adopted. They did that with good grace, at least in public. That was part of leadership. There were also a lot of things you didn't do. You may hate an opposition member, but in general you did not attack their character, only their position on an issue. In short, while there was unanimity on virtually nothing, these good leaders coupled with a rational public got it done.

In our society today, you need to "like" the leader, and the leader cultivates your friendship even if it means refusing to do what needs to be done. It is a cult of personality, not of ideas. We get random tweets from all sources attacking people personally. So and so  is "the worst". If someone disagrees with you, they are not just wrong, they are evil. You must oppose the other political party even if what they suggest is exactly what you supported last week, because they are "bad" and it is a zero sum game. Whatever you do, don't take a position that will piss off your "base", whatever you believe that base to be, even if you know it needs to be done. Don't try to change their minds, pander to them. If you don't, somebody will say you are "the worst" and game over. Whatever you do, don't compromise and make an agreement. Makes you look weak and not morally upright.

Nobody can be an effective leader in this climate. Even if a leader actually attempts to lead and is willing to take the heat, the public won't hear him because of the "noise" from the people who are about who, not what. This must change, or democracy won't survive. The curse of parties, while indeed bad, is nothing compared to the cult of personalities in which we find ourselves.

Well said. 



 I’ve used the “us” vs “them” quite a bit.  It goes beyond, imo, the “cult of personalities”. We are segregated ideologically.  Living in “bubbles.”  There has been a of immense proportions increase in “landslide districts” in the past couple decades. 



Indeed, I think there is a credible argument that the biggest prejudice in our country is ideological prejudice. In part because it’s not only “allowed”, it’s supported.  Add a press that is increasingly ideologically based, the ability, through internet to constantly feed ones ideological bias by only reading sources with which one is ideologically in sync and add the often poisonous influence of social media and ....  



I’m an optimist at heart. I continue to believe we will work through this.  I continue to believe that the vast majority of people in this country are sick and tired of the division that is being thrust upon us.  The change is going to have to occur from the bottom up.  Because there simply aren’t any leaders out there that are invested in bringing us together.

[oregontim]

+1 to Goose and +1 to Lex24 on this. The larger causes of the lack of pandemic leadership. Not just the WH and enablers of this administration. I stand corrected.

I thought if we go back a few decades, we reach some common ground. Apparently not. I'm surprised and disappointed.

While there were bitter political rivalries and significant disagreements, politicians were expected to work out a consensus, not torpedo the other party no matter what. The public and the politicians both accepted that. Leaders like FDR, Churchill, and Lincoln had to make many compromises to get their programs adopted. They did that with good grace, at least in public. That was part of leadership. There were also a lot of things you didn't do. You may hate an opposition member, but in general you did not attack their character, only their position on an issue. In short, while there was unanimity on virtually nothing, these good leaders coupled with a rational public got it done.

In our society today, you need to "like" the leader, and the leader cultivates your friendship even if it means refusing to do what needs to be done. It is a cult of personality, not of ideas. We get random tweets from all sources attacking people personally. So and so  is "the worst". If someone disagrees with you, they are not just wrong, they are evil. You must oppose the other political party even if what they suggest is exactly what you supported last week, because they are "bad" and it is a zero sum game. Whatever you do, don't take a position that will piss off your "base", whatever you believe that base to be, even if you know it needs to be done. Don't try to change their minds, pander to them. If you don't, somebody will say you are "the worst" and game over. Whatever you do, don't compromise and make an agreement. Makes you look weak and not morally upright.

Nobody can be an effective leader in this climate. Even if a leader actually attempts to lead and is willing to take the heat, the public won't hear him because of the "noise" from the people who are about who, not what. This must change, or democracy won't survive. The curse of parties, while indeed bad, is nothing compared to the cult of personalities in which we find ourselves.

Well said. 



 I’ve used the “us” vs “them” quite a bit.  It goes beyond, imo, the “cult of personalities”. We are segregated ideologically.  Living in “bubbles.”  There has been a of immense proportions increase in “landslide districts” in the past couple decades. 



Indeed, I think there is a credible argument that the biggest prejudice in our country is ideological prejudice. In part because it’s not only “allowed”, it’s supported.  Add a press that is increasingly ideologically based, the ability, through internet to constantly feed ones ideological bias by only reading sources with which one is ideologically in sync and add the often poisonous influence of social media and ....  



I’m an optimist at heart. I continue to believe we will work through this.  I continue to believe that the vast majority of people in this country are sick and tired of the division that is being thrust upon us.  The change is going to have to occur from the bottom up.  Because there simply aren’t any leaders out there that are invested in bringing us together.

[Mick]

Indeed, I think there is a credible argument that the biggest prejudice in our country is ideological prejudice. In part because it’s not only “allowed”, it’s supported demanded.  Add a press that is increasingly ideologically based, the ability, through internet to constantly feed ones ideological bias by only reading sources with which one is ideologically in sync and add the often poisonous influence of social media and ....  

I’m an optimist at heart. I continue to believe we will work through this.  I continue to believe that the vast majority of people in this country are sick and tired of the division that is being thrust upon us.  The change is going to have to occur from the bottom up.  Because there simply aren’t any leaders out there that are invested in bringing us together.

I think it was my third post about COVID when one of the Orange-Man-Bad crew demanded that I denounce Trump, and that there had to be something wrong with me because I didn't denounce Trump within three posts.

[Mick]

Indeed, I think there is a credible argument that the biggest prejudice in our country is ideological prejudice. In part because it’s not only “allowed”, it’s supported demanded.  Add a press that is increasingly ideologically based, the ability, through internet to constantly feed ones ideological bias by only reading sources with which one is ideologically in sync and add the often poisonous influence of social media and ....  

I’m an optimist at heart. I continue to believe we will work through this.  I continue to believe that the vast majority of people in this country are sick and tired of the division that is being thrust upon us.  The change is going to have to occur from the bottom up.  Because there simply aren’t any leaders out there that are invested in bringing us together.

I think it was my third post about COVID when one of the Orange-Man-Bad crew demanded that I denounce Trump, and that there had to be something wrong with me because I didn't denounce Trump within three posts.