OT: Are you sending your children back to in person school if given a different option?
I apologize if this topic has already been addressed. My kid’s district allowed parents to vote on in person or virtual learning this upcoming school year. They decided to allow both. The virtual learning is 9 weeks of live, virtual teaching with re-evaluation after that period. The other option is to send them back for full time for in person learning. My wife and I both agree that although we feel that in person in the best way to learn, and we have a very sociable child, we aren’t willing to subject our kid to that risk. I’d like to hear the opinions of other MgoBloggers with relevant experiences and decisions with younger children.
August 16th, 2020 at 12:04 AM ^
I'm doing the same thing. You're making the right call.
August 16th, 2020 at 8:13 AM ^
Nope. He is making a call. Not right or wrong. As are you. It is the general right-wrong / all-or-none thinking that is a problem.
You do what’s right for you. Weigh the risks of school Contagion vs the risks of social isolation and less ideal education and instilling a sense of fear and victimhood into children.
our kids go to school in person. They are healthy. We are healthy parents. We don’t live in a multigenerational home. If the any of those variables were different, then home schooling might make more sense, in my OPINION after analysis of FACTS
August 16th, 2020 at 8:23 AM ^
Fear? Victimhood? LOL!!! You're kind of proud of yourself, unnecessarily. My wife and I don't want our 9 yr old in school because he's had a shitty enough summer, we don't want him to get sick with something that's preventable just to sooth our own egos.
You posted that to tell OP how he's a bad person for fear mongering, but all you did was make an ass of yourself by trying to use fancy words.
August 16th, 2020 at 8:45 AM ^
“we don't want him to get sick with something that's preventable just to sooth our own egos.”
Do you send your kid to school during flu season? What about if strep is going around? Because those are also preventable in the same way and for your kid (assuming, which I hope to be the case, that he is otherwise healthy) they carry a slightly higher death rate than Covid. Why is this different to you?
August 16th, 2020 at 8:55 AM ^
There seems to be huge difference in long term problems related to C-19 than to flu. Influenza hits you, and then its gone (for the most part, not in all cases). C-19 hits you, and it appears far more likely to cause long term damage. I realize we know very little about this disease and its long term issues, but from what I've seen so far it appears way worse than influenza.
Also, influenza has a vaccine against the most prevalent strains each year. That's better than the long term unknowns and total lack of vaccine for C-19.
August 16th, 2020 at 9:33 AM ^
According to the CDC, more kids have died from flu this year than Covid-19 (thru mid July).
Also, it’s a little early to evaluate the long term damage to kids or anyone else.
August 16th, 2020 at 9:56 AM ^
schools were closed at the beginning of covid outbreak. 170,000 have died of it in the US. There is not vaccine, there is no prior immunity.
You comparison of "how many have died" without context is uninformed and arrogant.
August 16th, 2020 at 11:36 AM ^
No the CDC doesn't say this at all. And it's not even close numerically.
People keep saying the flue kills more people when they want to prop up the "same as flu and we don't blah blah blah for the flu" narrative.
Covid has already doubled the largest flu death year in the last 40 years. And we are not 2/3 of the way through the year.
https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/cdc-us-flu-deaths-winter/
The flu comparison is not only wrong on many important levels. It's very irresponsible for anyone to be repeating it given it takes less than a minute to find the facts online.
August 16th, 2020 at 12:18 PM ^
In fairness, he did say kids not Americans. That reference is probably correct, if only a small part of the story.
August 16th, 2020 at 12:56 PM ^
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku
if you look at the most recent CDC data:
For under 1 - numbers are essentially identical - 16 deaths from covid- 15 from flu.
For 1- to 4 (10 covid, 41 flu) and 5 to 14 (23 covid, 51 flu) - the mortality rate for the flu does certainly seem higher.
For every other age group, covid is worse than the flu (even 15 to 24 is 242 covid, 15 flu).
Those numbers might change if you factored in things like ICU visits, long term impacts etc., but suggesting that the health impacts for kids 1 to 14 is less than the flu is not some crazy, unsubstantiated, non-scientific idea. If you assert it for over 14 however, I think you are definitely misunderstanding or misinterpreting the current state of science.
August 16th, 2020 at 7:08 PM ^
For 1- to 4 (10 covid, 41 flu) and 5 to 14 (23 covid, 51 flu) - the mortality rate for the flu does certainly seem higher.
So the mortality rate is deaths per cases. ~20% of the country gets the flu each year. Probably higher in kids. There are 73M 0-17 year olds in the US. 14,600,000 of them probably had the flu. So 51/ 14.6M = 0.00003%
Only 1.6% of Americans have caught COVID. I think it is even fewer in children. So ~1,168,000 cases with 23 deaths. That's 0.0019%. No bad to have 2 in 100,000 kids die so long as they aren't your kids. However if half to 2/3rd of people get it like originally predicted that 600-900 kids, which sucks. And if everyone is going for heard immunity we're going to lose 20% of our old people (times half to 2/3rds.)
We'll be over 200,000 deaths by election day, but I haven't seen projections beyond that. Originally the estimate was 1.6 or 1.7M if we didn't slow the virus. Not sure if we're back on that or not.
I know my math is sloppy napkin math here, but people need to start using some denominators in here.
August 16th, 2020 at 9:39 AM ^
1. As you acknowledged, we don’t know anything about the long terms effectS of C19 because it is too new. Literally, it’s impossible to study long term effects until the long term. But, as you also acknowledged, flu does have long term effects in some. Strep is worse, there are numerous strains that cause significant heart damage. Also, if you want to scare the crap out of yourself if you are a parent, Google “PANS/PANDAS,” which is a horrible pediatric syndrome caused by an occult strain of strep. I am curious what you have seen that leads you to believe that C19 is “way worse” than flu, strep and other common diseases that kids deal with all the time.
2. Even with a flu vaccine, millions get the flu and tens of thousands die annually. C19 is too new so nobody has much resistance. In a year or two, even without a vaccine, many believe that enough of society will have resistance that it won’t be any different than the flu.
Still shouldn’t be taken likely and we still 100% have to protect those most at risk, but there are so many more similarities with the flu than differences from a policy / 10,000 foot view.
August 16th, 2020 at 10:02 AM ^
People act like something similar has never happened in the world. We are all lucky enough to live without risk of getting polio. Ask anyone old enough to remember the time before the polio vaccine, and they will tell you they all went to school despite the risk and without knowledge of how it was even contracted.
August 16th, 2020 at 12:14 PM ^
Well, I get my kids the flu vaccine. We don't have one for COVID yet, so that's a big difference right off the bat.
Also, this BS line that the flu kills more than C19 has to end. Right now there are 170k dead people in this country; that's 1/3 of the total number of people who have died in this country due to the flu this whole decade.
August 16th, 2020 at 12:17 PM ^
Flu kills more KIDS than Covid.
August 16th, 2020 at 12:44 PM ^
166 children under 17 died from the flu last year; I've yet to see the CDC report at the age level consistently but considering there were 3 kids under 7 who died last week in GA and TN due to COVID-19 it's a safe bet to assume that in the coming years as we get better analysis of death accounts we'd see similar numbers.
August 16th, 2020 at 1:04 PM ^
I can’t say I know all of the 3 kids of which you speak, but one of them is a 7 year old in GA who tragically drowned in a bathtub. Horrific, but decidedly not a covid death... yet it was report that way
August 16th, 2020 at 3:01 PM ^
The 7-year-old in Georgia died as a result of a seizure brought about by COVID-19, which unfortunately led to his drowning. That's equivalent to saying someone who had a heart attack while driving and died in the crash did so because of the accident. This 7-year-old (with no health issues) had a high fever, drowned in the tub, and was found to be C19-positive in the autopsy.
Also, a 15-year-old died yesterday in GA. There may have been "underlying health issues", though they weren't available at the time the story came out. And the reason it keeps happening in GA appears to be because those schools opened up early and kids were exposed to each other en masse. So again, I really wish people would stop hand-waving away the real dangers to younger people just because the vast majority of them haven't been in close proximity to each other for months.
August 16th, 2020 at 2:42 PM ^
That’s IF they are being recorded accurately, which is very debatable. Many have died WITH C19 and exacerbated underlying conditions rather than BECAUSE of it.
August 16th, 2020 at 8:50 AM ^
What he actually said is this isn’t a situation with an absolutely correct call. Each person, and this is key, has to look at all the options, facts, and potential outcomes and then make the call that they believe is best for their situation.
its absolutely fantastic that you and your wife are in a situation where one or both of you don’t have to work and can stay home with your kid but that is not everyone’s situation.
August 16th, 2020 at 9:03 AM ^
"...instilling a sense of fear and victimhood into children."
These are OP's words. What he actually said (highlighted by the quote above) is that keeping kids home means you are fear-mongering and teaching victimhood. Leave that out and I don't reply. But he chose to show his ass.
"Each person, and this is key, has to look at all the options, facts, and potential outcomes and then make the call that they believe is best for their situation."
Absolutely. I completely agree with this - but I will not put down people for making a fact-based decision on behalf of their kids. Unfortunately, with C-19, facts are still a little nebulous, so there is a lot of differing opinions, which is fine. But there is no reason to shit on people for nothing more than your decision to shit on them.
August 16th, 2020 at 9:29 AM ^
HIV is preventable
Coronavirus is not preventable. It may be controllable. But it is inevitable.
August 16th, 2020 at 9:44 PM ^
Remember to never let your kid get his driver's license. Countless kids die from auto accidents and it's easily preventable by never allowing him to be in a vehicle.
August 16th, 2020 at 11:09 AM ^
You are not instilling fear and victim hood into your child. Your explaining what is going on and making an educated decision on all options and information available. Doing what is right for a family doesn’t mean they are victims it means they are educated at what’s best for them
August 16th, 2020 at 7:19 PM ^
How's the teacher doing? Clerical staff? Janitorial?
I bet they're "multi-generational"!
Also, did you consider the FACTS that since schools reopened hundreds of students have tested positive? And we ZERO idea what their outcomes will be as of yet.
The honest truth is you seem more committed to your political narrative than your children's health! But by all means, protect them from "fear & victimhood" which you clearly feel are a greater risk to their future than the pandemic...
August 16th, 2020 at 12:10 AM ^
I have the same choice in my school and am opting for in-person without any hesitation. My kids are 9 and 12, in good health, and after assessing the pluses and minuses, I feel that they are more at risk of adverse outcome from being out of school (lack of socialization, depression, anxiety, stunted social-emotional development, not to mention inferior education) than they are from Covid. Discussed at length in this blog’s message boards, but Covid has an almost zero death rate for otherwise healthy kids. The flu and strep both have higher fatality rates for kids. Most states have had zero deaths of healthy kids from Covid. Plus, in my area (suburban NY), the kids are all socializing in huge groups, indoors and out, without masks (as are most adults). I respect those who don’t feel the same, but I urge everyone to try to look at the facts relating to covid in kids and not get caught up in the fear and headlines.
August 16th, 2020 at 12:17 AM ^
Good for you, the decision should be up to the parents. Though, many on this blog will think you are an awful parent, for not keeping your kids locked in the house.
August 16th, 2020 at 10:12 AM ^
Though, many on this blog will think you are an awful parent, for not keeping your kids locked in the house.
I suspect there will be many on this blog that think the awful parents are the ones not letting their kids get back to school.
We all have our own opinion of which option is best. Only the long term results will reveal which was the better option. Hopefully, both options will prove successful.
August 16th, 2020 at 5:48 AM ^
and when the kids come home and infect you?
August 16th, 2020 at 8:15 AM ^
They are less of a vector. Not a non-vector, but a much lower vector.
I remember the good old days when the line was “Flatten The Curve”.
August 16th, 2020 at 8:34 AM ^
Can you please explain how kids are "less of a vector" than adults? This just simply does not make sense to me. As far as I know, a human child's body is physiologically identical to a human adult's body. Is this not true? I'm pretty sure it functions the same way and has the same systems, but is just smaller. Does the virus realize it's in a child's body and say to itself 'okay, I'm in a kid, so I won't infect anyone else'?
And before you go spewing numbers, understand that children have been largely isolated from peer groups because they haven't been in school. So yeah, transmission numbers will be lower - virus' require density to spread. This is a basic fact of anthropology that 5 minutes on Google can resolve for you.
August 16th, 2020 at 10:57 AM ^
In response to 1VaBlue1:
obviously, with the the novelty of this pandemic, there is not a ton of data on the “why” children are less of a vector. Instead, there is the known entity that they are less of a vector... and then there are several hypotheses as to the why.
here is one link on the first part and this doesn’t even get into the Swedish and Icelandic data that is even more compelling that kids are not a significant method of spread:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200710100934.htm
As far as the why they are not vectors, it is likely multifactorial In medical school, the more touchy-feely folks would routinely say that pediatrics is its own specialty because children are not just smaller adults, their physiology IS slightly different. Things that might make them less susceptible to covid19 include: 1) a lower density of ACE2 receptors expressed in their lungs so that mechanism of entry into their cells is lower. 2) due to their contact with other kids in schools and daycare, they may have a more recent immunity to other coronaviruses and thus have some cross immunity and clear the infections well before a high viral load can ever be achieved enough that they are infectious. 3) children have a higher physiological reserve. If you have ever seen a healthy 8 year old recover from a ruptured appendicitis versus a healthy 40-year old versus a healthy 70-year old, the differences in recovery are astounding in the time the 8-year old gets back on his/her feet and running around.
I tend to go with postulates 1 and 2 considering children are a major vector for other viruses like flu.
August 16th, 2020 at 2:32 PM ^
You've never taken much physiology. They're different. Quite a bit. I'm not a pediatric physiology, but I've taken a pretty fair amount of normal and abnormal physiology for adults and pediatrics and I can tell you they are most definitely NOT the same.
August 16th, 2020 at 8:25 AM ^
This is a fair question. I am 44 and my wife is 42. Again, using the actual science and what we know today, my wife and I have over a 99% chance of surviving Covid - roughly the same as the flu and strep. So, they may infect us, but the risk there is not so significant that we want to risk the harms of keeping them home.
Being infected with covid isn’t the death sentence that the media is making it out to be. At least 45% (and numerous experts believe the number to be much higher) of those infected don’t even know they are infected - those are the asymptomatic carriers that we all keep hearing about. Of the remainder, again, for most, it’s not all that different than any other viral infection. The problem with Covid is that because of the fear mongering, up to the minute reporting of case counts, and general media coverage, society is treating Covid as an automatic death sentence, when for most it is not even close. However, the media report every single case of a younger, healthier person who either lr dies or comes close. we don’t hear about the millions of similarly situated individuals for whom covid was a non-event.
And, anticipating your next of “what if you then spread it to a relative who falls into a higher risk category” (which is also a very fair question for people to ask), my mother and in-laws are around 70. We have been seeing them regularly because currently, in NY, the covid positivity rate is low. When it was higher in April-May, we were much more cautions. If covid spikes in NY again, we won’t put them at risk and will avoid close contact with them - we will do what we did during that initial period: visit them but stay outside on a porch, standing a few feet further away than recommended, and wearing masks. Because we did a risk assessment and, while we love our parents, we can’t keep our kids out of school. That’s kind of my whole approach to this - those who are healthy and relatively low risk need to get back to life, but we need to double and triple down on protecting those in the higher risk segments of society. That will not work for every family (multi-generational homes, families where a parent is high risk, etc.) but it will work for many.
August 16th, 2020 at 10:10 AM ^
I very well may have made the same decision as you under the same circumstances. I do however wish that people would stop making comparisons to the flu that are demonstrably false.
In the US so far this year 2920 people between the age of 35 and 44 have died from Covid. 243 have died from the flu.https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku
It is harder to do complete comparisons to other years because CDC doesn’t break it’s age groups out as much, but in the most recent bad flu season (in which CDC estimates that about 61,000 people died, they estimated that 2803 between the ages of 18 and 49 died. Clearly the number that is between 35 and 44 is much less.
While deciding whether a risk is significant is inherently a subjective opinion, comparing two risks is much more objective. Based on this years data, with similar precautions in place for the flu and covid, the risk of covid in the 35 to 44 age group is an order of magnitude higher. In comparison with a previous bad flu year (with obviously significantly less mitigation measures in place), it is still probably 2 to 3 times higher. You can judge both those risks to be small, you should not suggest that they are the same.
The inclusion of strep really perplexes me. https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/Documents/Diseases%20and%20Conditions/Group%20A%20Strep.pdf
This paper suggests that strep deaths in the US are in the order of 1100 to 1600, an order of magnitude lower than the mortality rate from the flu in a low flu mortality year.
August 16th, 2020 at 6:04 AM ^
I get what you’re saying in regards to the adverse effects of CoVid shutdowns. It’s something I’ve been thinking about as well, but the issue isn’t as simple as “the kids are healthy and have a near zero death rate so they’re fine.” It’s the kids getting it and bringing it back home or spreading it in the community to others that AREN’T as healthy. Including teachers, parents, grandparents, etc.
The more people that have it, the more people they’re going to spread it to. The more people it spreads to, the more people are going to die from it. that’s kinda the issue we’re trying to avoid here and an issue a lot of parents aren’t considering in their decision. What I’m noticing is that the parents who think CoVid isn’t serious and don’t take precautions are universally deciding to send their kids back. And THAT’S incredibly dangerous. Sending your kids back makes it even more critical that health and safety guidelines are followed.
August 16th, 2020 at 8:33 AM ^
I understand what you are saying - every interaction risks more spread. It’s true. But we simply can’t stay in lockdown forever. It’s not feasible for society. How long are we willing to leave schools closed? How long are will willing to shut down businesses that people built over generations? We’ve been at this for 6 months. Keep in mind that the initial shut downs were to flatten the curve - eradicating covid was never the states goal. And while the covid response has been somewhat disjointed and imperfect, the curve is flattened. IN NY, which got hit first and the worst, despite the governor getting in TV daily berating the lack of ventilators, impending hospital overruns and threat of bodies piling up, that never happened. We never hit hospital capacity. Same with Florida and all of the other hotspots. Yes, cases surged, but our health system had the capacity to handle it. At what point do you believe we can go back to having a normal society? We can’t wait for a vaccine because that is not guaranteed. By the time it comes, tens of millions will experience financial ruin, kids will be mentally impacted for life and society as a whole may be changed to an unacceptable level. Wouldn’t it be better to start to resume normalcy generally but to better protect those most at risk?
As a final note, while I am not necessarily saying that lockdowns and some degree of distancing don’t work at all, the most locked down state since this started has been Hawaii. And Hawaii has done relative well. Until recently. Despite being strictly locked down, over the past 2-3 weeks, Hawaii has the steeped increase in cases of any state.
August 16th, 2020 at 8:40 AM ^
You haven't "been at this for 6 months." The US never fully shut down like European or Asian countries did. It's going to continue getting worse as schools and businesses reopen because they feel like they have to. The only thing that's going to get the US to the same place as Europe is a vaccine or a new administration that enforces an actual 6-week lockdown followed by reopening based on public health analyses that take into account the social health of children while completely excluding economic factors.
August 16th, 2020 at 9:10 AM ^
You act like flattening the curve is a one-time event. Like once it is happening, the hard work is done. That is absolutely not the case. As a community we must remain vigilant or everything will be for nothing as the next spike overwhelms the system.
It obviously doesn't have to be an all or nothing approach. A full on shut down doesn't have to be the answer, but sacrifices do continue to need to be made. Bars, restaurants, large gatherings (especially indoors) all still need to be avoided.
I'm hopeful that school can proceed in our community and maintain the communities low numbers. My fear is that school opening will be just one more sign to individuals that can't seem to grasp the situation that they can return to normal. If that happens our numbers will increase drastically.
August 16th, 2020 at 12:46 PM ^
Hawaii is an interesting case. IMO, they are a great example of why lockdowns are just delaying the inevitable. Since a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN will never happen, the virus will still be there - waiting.
Remember this allegedly started with ONE person. So doesn’t it stand to reason if ONE person still has it we are at risk from another explosion of cases!?
Hawaii is experiencing a huge increase because they opened up the parks, beaches, bars, restaurants and malls. Simple as that. The lockdown worked - until it was lifted.
Several months of extreme social distancing didn’t eradicate the virus. And it won’t on the mainland. It has destroyed much of the economy in Hawaii. And there’s no light at the end if the tunnel. They are just starting the phase that Michigan went through in April.
It seems that COVID is going to take its toll everywhere - it’s just a matter of time.
Protect the at-risk and let’s get on with life. Wear a mask in public to help contain the spread. Work from home where you can.
I believe “flattening the curve was the right answer. But wow they have really moved the goalposts!
August 16th, 2020 at 1:08 PM ^
This is such a great answer. It really threads the needle between the two extremes currently warring over covid in society. As you note, and as Hawaii demonstrates, unless we stay in lockdown forever, which is completely not feasible, once we ease the lockdowns, the virus will appear and take its toll. We need to get on with life, but should wear our masks when practical, work from home if we can do so, and all try to do simple things such as increased hand wash, staying home when even possibly sick and just maybe maintaining a touch more personal space. That will help flatten the curve, which was the original goal before the goal posts moved to complete eradication of Covid. I would also add that we should significantly increase measures to protect the elderly and most at risk, which will help keep down fatality which is the most important thing.
August 16th, 2020 at 2:21 PM ^
It's not clear whether the upsurge in COVID cases in Hawaii is the result of relaxing the restrictions, or too many individuals deciding that they no longer needed to heed them.
As a result, the planned relaxation of the quarantine rule governing incoming tourists might be on hold.
August 16th, 2020 at 4:20 PM ^
Right, and I don’t inherently disagree. Just the notion that “the vast majority of kids are healthy and will be unaffected,” isn’t the way this needs to be looked at when the issue is still about keeping the spread as low as possible.
The hard part is trying to find that medium ground where we open up and remain safe, and that is increasingly difficult to do as large pockets of our population still refuse to do the bare minimum in CoVid safety protocol.
I agree have to start opening up and moving forward as a society, but the more people want to drag their feet the longer it’s going to take for us to be able to do that and the more people will die as a result. And that’s ultimately what people have to weigh as we do continue to move forward.
August 16th, 2020 at 7:43 AM ^
"... kids are all socializing in huge groups, indoors and out, without masks (as are most adults).
So, adults in your area are socializing in huge groups indoors without masks? Just want to make sure I have that straight. Where do you live?
"... I urge everyone to try to look at the facts ..."
Yes, let's look at the facts. As far as the risk of kids transmitting the virus is concerned, they're a bit sparse at the moment. Probably not a big risk, but no one knows for sure.
"... and not get caught up in the fear and headlines."
Oh, so anyone keeping their kids at home is caught up in fear? Gotcha.
August 16th, 2020 at 8:42 AM ^
Responding to your questions in order:
1. I live in Long Island in NY (suburbs). But the reports of kids gathering in huge groups isn’t limited to my own area. My son has friends in other states and other towns, and they all post pics to insta and Snapchat - same thing seems to be going on in much of the country. Likewise, I have a ton of work colleagues across the country who report the same, for adults and children. That’s just reality.
2. Yes, kids can likely spread the virus. And see my comment above that for those who catch it, there is a 99% or higher survival rate unless they are in the at risk group. We need to protect those at risk. I agree. But we can’t shut down the entire world to do so.
3. Yes, anyone who keeps their kids home is caught up in fear. But I am not saying that negatively. For some - if they live with someone who is at risk, are regularly in close contact with the elderly, etc. - that fear is justified. For others, that fear is not justified. Because again, for kids, the death rate is so close to zero as to be almost nonexistent, and for most parents the death rate is less than 1%. What I mean is that the media has convinced so many people that this disease is something far worse than what it is, so people are avoiding it at all costs. But there are costs to our avoidance methods and they may be greater than the harm of what we are trying to avoid.
August 16th, 2020 at 12:25 PM ^
One can find an "expert" to defend any position ones chooses in this matter. There is no doubt that this virus is taking a significant psychological toll on most/all of us-I offer you as exhibit A. You have employed about every denialist talking point there is and your labeling of people here is nonsensical. Do yourself a favor and chill out...the ends you are going to to defend your position does you no favors. Make the best decision for your family and your neighbors' families.
The parents of our 11 and 13 year old grandsons are, at this moment, working through this very question. Our family discussion between this retired pediatric RN, my primary care Pediatric Nurse Practitioner spouse, my RN daughter, my Pediatrician brother, the 2 FP docs, the other 3 NPs and 3 RNs, the 2 physical therapists and the 2 public school teachers is certainly interesting...oh, and the niece and nephew who are in med school. Our family is not in the "a little knowledge is dangerous" crowd. This is not a "fear" event for us. I don't know what the parents are going to finally) decide here...but it will be a very thoughtful and informed decision.
Regardless, the strong consensus in our family is that this is a federal governmental failure of epic proportions.
August 16th, 2020 at 1:41 PM ^
Who asked your opinion on the federal government’s response? Seriously. People are debating whether or not to go to school, not how we got here. Not everything in the world requires a discussion of whether or not you like trump. Also, aside from the federal government, this has been a failure on a worldwide basis. Nobody was prepared for this. But frankly, not sure what could have been done differently. This virus seems to spread regardless of what we think we are going to stop it.
August 16th, 2020 at 6:46 PM ^
You can keep repeating this crap, but it doesn't make it factual.
The FACT is that this has not been a failure on a worldwide basis.
It HAS been a failure here in the United States of America.
The richest country on earth - with the best available health and medical experts and resources - is home to 4% of the world's population, 25% of the coronavirus cases, and 22% of the coronavirus deaths.
The data show that the U.S. has failed to manage and control the virus.
And, contrary to what many might claim, those of us who feel this way aren't looking for the numbers to be at zero. But, they should be in line with what every other economically-developed democracy has managed.
August 16th, 2020 at 9:42 AM ^
I agree 100% with what you said. In addition, especially for younger kids, they need to build up their immune systems by being exposed to various pathogens.
August 16th, 2020 at 10:14 AM ^
I'm choosing to keep my kids home because I have that luxury. Do you think socialization in school will be affected when they are sitting 6 ft apart from one another wearing masks all day? I assume at lunch they will be spread out. I don't know if recess will remotely resemble what we are used to seeing.
In theory, I wouldn't think this would be anything like a normal school year.
I'm trying to gauge opinions as opposed to starting a confrontation. I'm genuinely asking a question. More than half of the kids in our district are going to be in school in person.