PlagueWatch 2020-23 - Coronavirus

[Chicago 1995]

I just talked to my son who lives with wife and three children in Salt Lake City and he's pretty upset with the districts decision to go 100% online through Oct 31 at least. His argument is that the needs of elementary school kids, and especially kids from poorer families, are getting short shrift in the decision-making process and they will be the ones screwed the most by the "100% online" decision. Many of these kids don't have computers at home (the school district is giving loaners but of course not internet access), many will lack the supervision needed to keep a young child focused and many will lack even a quiet, safe place to work.

Anyway he felt the decisions weren't about the kids, they were made in the interests of adults. And especially in the interests of more well-to-do adults who may have one spouse or family member or nanny who can stay home and supervise the online learning tasks. My initial thought was that he might be viewing this one-sidedly and taking it too far. But the more I think about it the more I think he might be right. For poorer families and/or single working parent families the decision to go 100% online will be devastating. Many of these kids likely will never make up the ground they lose this year. But the adults (parents, teachers, school administrators) are being kept safe, even if come at a cost to the kids.

Now it's a complicated issue with no perfect (or even very good) answers, I admit. But bottom line - the fact that the adults couldn't figure out a way to have at least the very youngest students getting some in-person instruction at least part of each week is pretty damning. I think.

I'm on a school board up here in Chicago's northern burbs, and we're going fully remote through at least October, and that was a gut wrenching decision for the board, faculty and administration. It's an impossible decision with no good answers, but I don't think the idea that this is discounting the kids and is only thinking about adults is fair.

It does seem as though your son is discounting the risk that kids (1) are much more efficient spreaders of the disease than once thought; and (2) the non-fatal, long term health risks COVID-19 presents not just to kids, but to anyone infected. There's also the emotional toll on kids old enough to understand the virus and the fear and risk that being in school creates. Mine -- 6th and 8th grade -- were very uneasy to go back to school for that reason. They don't want to make my wife and I -- or worse, my 79 year old mother -- sick. They don't want to get sick themselves. I also had serious concerns about the in-person learning environment. If it is done right -- not like that school in Georgia that's went viral -- I don't think the environment is terribly conducive to learning -- no better than remote instruction.

Your son isn't wrong otherwise. Students from lower income families without technology and internet access will suffer. Special education students will suffer. Kids in at-risk homes where school is their safe harbor will and have suffered. The fate of those students has kept me up at night. Literally. How to we weigh the risk to their lives and their families lives vs. the education they are losing?

The pandemic's been kind of an ultimate stress test of our societal safety net. It's become clear to me at least that schools are asked to fill too big a role in that safety net for working parents, and we need to find alternative so that schools aren't the only backstop. How we do that steers directly into PPB material that we can't get into, but I hope that when we are through this, that's a discussion society has -- even if it is off limits here.

[Neals384]

I think I am a realist, and know I’m a pessimist. I don’t recommend the pessimism part. Nevertheless, there doesn’t seem to be much reason for optimism re relatively painless solutions to the COVID puzzle just now. Among my working assumptions is that when people avoid realistically dealing with problems, it’s highly likely that they will reach a point where there are no good answers left. When such a point is reached, the unpleasant working rule is: choose the least bad answer.

This commonplace observation merits serious consideration right now. That should begin with a clearheaded understanding of what “There are no good answers left, so choose the least bad answer” means. Most important, it means: no matter which answer is chosen, bad things will happen. This point should be emphasized, not cruelly, but firmly, hardheadedly, realistically. The goal, therefore, should be to choose the answer that will produce the fewest bad results.

One candidate for least bad option is supported by a growing number of expert scientific and medical professionals: “Shut it down, start over, do it right.”

https://uspirg.org/resources/usp/shu...er-do-it-right

Understandably, many will cry foul at such a harsh solution. It will cause pain. Yet, the working assumption is that for the foreseeable future, all policies will cause pain.

Is it accurate to say that an overwhelming majority of Americans think that several months were wasted at the beginning of the crisis? (Not unanimity; overwhelming majority.) Is it plausible that we should clearheadedly face the painful reality that there are no good (i.e., painless) answers left, at least for the immediate future? Should we hope for leaders who will tell the truth about our incredibly difficult and dangerous straits, set forth several approaches, straightforwardly state that no approach on offer is without significant pain, and recommend the least bad (but very painful) option?

Is what we’re doing [what are we doing?] the least bad option? Having, apparently, missed the chance for a relatively good option, what is the least bad option? For the next few months (2? 3? 4?), is “Shut it down, start over, do it right” the least bad option?

As a realist, have you asked yourself, "what is the objective of another shutdown?" Tread water for another three months? The first shut down made sense as it gave us a chance to catch up with the medical and other impacts of the crisis.

second question: What is the cost to families, businesses and government of a second shutdown? How many will simply go under? How many relief bills will it take to support a second shutdown, and will the accumulating mountain of federal debt have serious long-lasting consequences?

[YmoBeThere]

As a realist, have you asked yourself, "what is the objective of another shutdown?" Tread water for another three months? The first shut down made sense as it gave us a chance to catch up with the medical and other impacts of the crisis.

One can argue whether or not the first shutdown achieved what you state. Given what is happening from California across to Florida and nearly everywhere in between, given daily death tolls, etc. this hardly seems the case to me.

[rsvman]

Now why would you say that out loud rsvman?!

Fortunately, I never actually said it, I just typed it into my computer.

[budwom]

One can argue whether or not the first shutdown achieved what you state. Given what is happening from California across to Florida and nearly everywhere in between, given daily death tolls, etc. this hardly seems the case to me.

yes, we collectively blew it the first time around. To answer the original question, I think we DO have to tread water until there is a vaccine...

This doesn't mean we have to shut everything down. It DOES mean that we have to stop being knuckleheads, require people to wear masks, prohibit large gatherings, be they indoors or out. Unfortunately, too many people have concluded that this isn't a problem for them, so expectations that we'll get the virus under control should be limited.

[Bluedog]

I'm on a school board up here in Chicago's northern burbs, and we're going fully remote through at least October, and that was a gut wrenching decision for the board, faculty and administration. It's an impossible decision with no good answers, but I don't think the idea that this is discounting the kids and is only thinking about adults is fair.

It does seem as though your son is discounting the risk that kids (1) are much more efficient spreaders of the disease than once thought; and (2) the non-fatal, long term health risks COVID-19 presents not just to kids, but to anyone infected. There's also the emotional toll on kids old enough to understand the virus and the fear and risk that being in school creates. Mine -- 6th and 8th grade -- were very uneasy to go back to school for that reason. They don't want to make my wife and I -- or worse, my 79 year old mother -- sick. They don't want to get sick themselves. I also had serious concerns about the in-person learning environment. If it is done right -- not like that school in Georgia that's went viral -- I don't think the environment is terribly conducive to learning -- no better than remote instruction.

Your son isn't wrong otherwise. Students from lower income families without technology and internet access will suffer. Special education students will suffer. Kids in at-risk homes where school is their safe harbor will and have suffered. The fate of those students has kept me up at night. Literally. How to we weigh the risk to their lives and their families lives vs. the education they are losing?

The pandemic's been kind of an ultimate stress test of our societal safety net. It's become clear to me at least that schools are asked to fill too big a role in that safety net for working parents, and we need to find alternative so that schools aren't the only backstop. How we do that steers directly into PPB material that we can't get into, but I hope that when we are through this, that's a discussion society has -- even if it is off limits here.

This varies greatly by age. Perhaps that's somewhat true for your children who are in 6th and 8th grade. Probably not so true for K-3. What is a 5-year old supposed to do? Stare at a computer screen all day? The things I've seen say the goal is to give them about an hour of instruction a day in many districts...School for those youngest students is also largely about the social interactions and maturation -- almost as much as the education/learning itself. In fact, I'd argue that the social education is a large chunk of school for all ages, but is particularly important in the younger years. I'm sympathetic with the teachers/admins stance to an extent (my sister is a teacher who also has an upcoming Kindergartner as a parent), but I do think there should have been SOME in person instruction for children 5-8. They need it badly. There's a reason that my sister is begrudgingly sending her child to a private (in person) Kindergarten because she realizes this as well. Private schools are all choosing to be open because they recognize parents won't necessarily pay full freight for fully remote instruction. Based on that alone, I think there is an admission that remote learning is sub-par to (modified) in person learning, even in this environment. Otherwise, you wouldn't see the huge private/public schools divide.

[rsvman]

This just in...a DIY vaccine! The following is copy/pasted from something I got in my inbox yesterday:



Self-Experimenting with DIY COVID Vaccine

A group of Boston-based biohackers that includes renowned Harvard geneticist George Church is testing a home-brewed SARS-CoV-2 vaccine on themselves, according to MIT Technology Review.

The do-it-yourself intranasal vaccine was designed by Preston Estep, PhD, one of Church's former grad students. It's a "subunit" vaccine, using peptides that match parts of SARS-CoV-2 to stimulate an immune response.


The Rapid Deployment Vaccine Collaborative (RADVAC), formed in March, has sent the vaccine free of charge to some 70 people. Participants receive the materials in the mail and must mix and administer the vaccine themselves.

Estep said he believes he doesn't need FDA oversight because participants are mixing and giving the vaccine themselves, and because no money changes hands. The FDA didn't return a request for comment from MIT Technology Review.

Estep developed the vaccine by reading papers on MERS and the first SARS virus, and has published a white paper that enables anyone to copy his work.



There was a link to the "white paper," which essentially says that this is an experiment you are performing on yourself, and that it could be a complete failure and/or cause immediate or delayed mild or severe bodily harm, and that the vaccine in question hasn't been studied by anybody at any time and has obviously not been approved for use. It further states that this is not an experiment, therefore is not subject to IRB review, etc.


I wonder what's next? Maybe a YouTube video showing us how to make our own vaccine in our garage?

[DukieInKansas]

How to restart schools is not an easy decision from either the school's side or the student's side. My heart goes out to all involved in the decision making process.


I've seen comments floating around various places that seem to indicate that some people think teachers aren't doing anything, while still being paid, if they aren't teaching in person. As in most things, communication is so important. I would like to see more school districts put out information to the general public about how the virtual teaching works - how are classes handled, how is "attendance" taken/tracked for both the students and teachers. Allegedly, in the spring remote learning set up, there were teachers in a major city that weren't going online or checking in and also many students. I'm assuming this is true of a small minority but I can see where it is a concern. I hope that the teaching/learning process is evolving as they go so that the best learning opportunities are presented for the students.

[devildeac]

This just in...a DIY vaccine! The following is copy/pasted from something I got in my inbox yesterday:



Self-Experimenting with DIY COVID Vaccine

A group of Boston-based biohackers that includes renowned Harvard geneticist George Church is testing a home-brewed SARS-CoV-2 vaccine on themselves, according to MIT Technology Review.

The do-it-yourself intranasal vaccine was designed by Preston Estep, PhD, one of Church's former grad students. It's a "subunit" vaccine, using peptides that match parts of SARS-CoV-2 to stimulate an immune response.


The Rapid Deployment Vaccine Collaborative (RADVAC), formed in March, has sent the vaccine free of charge to some 70 people. Participants receive the materials in the mail and must mix and administer the vaccine themselves.

Estep said he believes he doesn't need FDA oversight because participants are mixing and giving the vaccine themselves, and because no money changes hands. The FDA didn't return a request for comment from MIT Technology Review.

Estep developed the vaccine by reading papers on MERS and the first SARS virus, and has published a white paper that enables anyone to copy his work.



There was a link to the "white paper," which essentially says that this is an experiment you are performing on yourself, and that it could be a complete failure and/or cause immediate or delayed mild or severe bodily harm, and that the vaccine in question hasn't been studied by anybody at any time and has obviously not been approved for use. It further states that this is not an experiment, therefore is not subject to IRB review, etc.


I wonder what's next? Maybe a YouTube video showing us how to make our own vaccine in our garage?

Or, perhaps a lot of new addresses on Copperhead Row...

[OldPhiKap]

I wonder what's next? Maybe a YouTube video showing us how to make our own vaccine in our garage?

Phht. We've been hitting that for weeks on TikTok. Although it somehow involves basting steak in butter, a cat, and a size ten woman dancing in a size four dress.

But it's guaranteed to cure you.

[gumbomoop]

As a realist, have you asked yourself, "what is the objective of another shutdown?" Tread water for another three months? The first shut down made sense as it gave us a chance to catch up with the medical and other impacts of the crisis.

second question: What is the cost to families, businesses and government of a second shutdown? How many will simply go under? How many relief bills will it take to support a second shutdown, and will the accumulating mountain of federal debt have serious long-lasting consequences?

You raise fair points. I don’t imagine I will persuade you that the “Shut it down, start over, do it right” option may be the most promising — though, as with all options, very painful — path forward. I will, however, repost the link, which purports to be a statement by hundreds/thousands of scientists, doctors, nurses, researchers. These folks think they’re realistic, as do I. The “do it right” part is the key, and undoubtedly less controversial than the phrase “shut it down.”

https://uspirg.org/resources/usp/shu...er-do-it-right

You’re right that we have agonizing choices. I have seen serious, plausible arguments from various perspectives, with the obvious exception of, “It is what it is.”

Here’s a key passage that directly responds to your second question:

”The best thing for the nation is not to reopen as quickly as possible, it’s to save as many lives as possible. And reopening before suppressing the virus isn’t going to help the economy. Economists have gone on record saying that the only way to “restore the economy is to address the pandemic itself,” pointing out that until we find a way to boost testing and develop and distribute a vaccine, open or not, people will not be in the mood to participate.”

Clearly, some people do now, and will continue to, participate in a partial reopening. But a clear majority have thoroughly changed their behavior, participate minimally, and hope desperately for breakthroughs in treatment and a vaccine.

As to a mountain of federal debt, that is a major issue, a bad thing. Yet the new Trump Republican Party has not been faithful, to put it mildly, to its previous commitment to fiscal responsibility.

[Jeffrey]

I'm on a school board up here in Chicago's northern burbs, and we're going fully remote through at least October, and that was a gut wrenching decision for the board, faculty and administration. It's an impossible decision with no good answers, but I don't think the idea that this is discounting the kids and is only thinking about adults is fair.

I agree, it’s definitely not an accurate description. Children don’t want their parents to get sick and possibly die. And, children certainly don’t want to be part of the reason why.

Thank you, very much, for volunteering your time and energy to serve on your school board! It’s a difficult position, in good times, and extremely difficult today. Your efforts are greatly appreciated!

[Jeffrey]

School superintendent, in Texas, died yesterday from Covid. He was only 46 years old.

https://www.caller.com/story/news/lo...19/3298572001/

[cato]

How does that work? Our school is the opposite - if you start blended (half in person, half remote), you can probably switch to full remote. But if you start full remote, no guarantees that you can switch to blended. Which to me makes a lot more sense - if they are at capacity in the classrooms, how are they going to add another kid who was previously full remote?

Tomorrow is our deadline to tell them our preference (school doesn't start for a month). We gave preliminary indications so they could begin making policy but these are largely binding. Then they have to figure out the math. We had a zoom town hall last night and it seems like our principal is working 24/7 to figure this out in a way that is both safe and educational. She mentioned a lot of factors she is struggling with that I had not even considered, like how do you do drop off and pickup in a physically distanced way, particularly on a cold and/or rainy day (NY public school where most kids walk).

This is very similar to how things are playing out in our district, except that there is no blended option. I have gained a lot of confidence in our school district leadership through this, as well as most of the school community.

But wow has this also brought out the CRAZY in some parents.

[gumbomoop]

But wow has this also brought out the CRAZY...

Speaking of crazy, threats to Fauci and family.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ts-coronavirus

And while some 2016 come-home-to-Trump women are leaving him, others are down the Plandemic rabbit hole.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...plandemic-moms

[davec]

The pandemic's been kind of an ultimate stress test of our societal safety net. It's become clear to me at least that schools are asked to fill too big a role in that safety net for working parents, and we need to find alternative so that schools aren't the only backstop. How we do that steers directly into PPB material that we can't get into, but I hope that when we are through this, that's a discussion society has -- even if it is off limits here.

The one problem I see with your hope is that our society does not seem to have discussions any more. It's more just two sides condemning and trying to out-yell each other.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

This is very similar to how things are playing out in our district, except that there is no blended option. I have gained a lot of confidence in our school district leadership through this, as well as most of the school community.

But wow has this also brought out the CRAZY in some parents.

To clarify, if there is no blended option, is the choice fully remote or five days a week in school? If so, how are they handling that with class sizes? Blended is generally the solution to having to split the class in half to minimize the number of kids in the classroom, but not being able to double the number of teachers.

Agreed on the Crazy parents. We have been fortunate not to have as many as I would have thought, but they are still making their presence felt. I think a lot of the questions for our principal are being flowed through the heads of the PTA so that the principal doesn't have to deal with ridiculous and/or repeated questions. We all need to advocate for our own kids but at some point people need to determine whether their kid's specific needs can be sacrificed for the greater good of the community - not everyone is getting this.

As with the shutdowns, I don't think that one size fits all for school plans. Areas where numbers aren't as bad have more flexibility to open (though need to be carefully monitoring numbers and ready to shut down if things escalate). As others have stated, in person learning is particularly important for younger kids, so greater efforts need to be made to have them in the classroom. The flip side of that is that their learning style is not as conducive to sitting still at a desk six feet from others, and they are less able to follow directions, so that adds a degree of difficulty. I'm not sure how the teachers would feel about this, but it might make sense in some districts to have elementary schools open and middle and high schools fully remote.

[Chicago 1995]

This varies greatly by age. Perhaps that's somewhat true for your children who are in 6th and 8th grade. Probably not so true for K-3. What is a 5-year old supposed to do? Stare at a computer screen all day? The things I've seen say the goal is to give them about an hour of instruction a day in many districts...School for those youngest students is also largely about the social interactions and maturation -- almost as much as the education/learning itself. In fact, I'd argue that the social education is a large chunk of school for all ages, but is particularly important in the younger years. I'm sympathetic with the teachers/admins stance to an extent (my sister is a teacher who also has an upcoming Kindergartner as a parent), but I do think there should have been SOME in person instruction for children 5-8. They need it badly. There's a reason that my sister is begrudgingly sending her child to a private (in person) Kindergarten because she realizes this as well. Private schools are all choosing to be open because they recognize parents won't necessarily pay full freight for fully remote instruction. Based on that alone, I think there is an admission that remote learning is sub-par to (modified) in person learning, even in this environment. Otherwise, you wouldn't see the huge private/public schools divide.

Socializing and social education is an incredibly important part of school at all ages, and try as we might, Zoom, Facetime, Teams and the like don't fill that need completely. Summer's been a gift to my 8th and 6th grader, who have been able to do some socializing outdoors while socially distanced. They miss their friends terribly. I get it. I miss my friends too. We're working on putting together pods and creating outdoor learning opportunities so that kids can -- while socially distanced and masked -- still get some socializing.

FWIW, I don't think there's any real dispute that remote learning isn't as effective as in person learning. For me, when asked to vote on a return to school plan, it was that the difference wasn't substantial enough to justify the risk to students, faculty and the community. It wasn't an easy vote, by any means, but ultimately, that's the point on which my vote turned.

[cato]

To clarify, if there is no blended option, is the choice fully remote or five days a week in school? If so, how are they handling that with class sizes? Blended is generally the solution to having to split the class in half to minimize the number of kids in the classroom, but not being able to double the number of teachers.

You nailed it, with an asterisk. The choice is 100% online for the school year, with a possibility to go in-person at mid-year if space is available, or in-person school five days a week, local health conditions permitting. Our county is on the state’s “monitoring list,” so right now in-person school would not be permitted unless the district can get a waiver (long story, short: it’s a big county and local conditions are more favorable than the county at large). Unless things improve rapidly, in-person school will start remote at the beginning of the year and then we will see. When/if students, teachers and staff can go in-person, the ratios should work to allow three feet of distance between the kids at a minimum. Why three feet is acceptable, I do not know.

We do not have any final details, but it sounds like there will be no mixing between classes, so it will just be groups of 10ish kids and their teacher in their classroom all day, except when it is their turn to go outside as a group.

We are extremely fortunate in that our district is K-6 with facilities that tend to have enough space to bring in mobile classrooms, tents, etc. The kids already each lunch outside year-round, except the 15-20 days a year it rains.

Agreed on the Crazy parents. We have been fortunate not to have as many as I would have thought, but they are still making their presence felt. I think a lot of the questions for our principal are being flowed through the heads of the PTA so that the principal doesn't have to deal with ridiculous and/or repeated questions. We all need to advocate for our own kids but at some point people need to determine whether their kid's specific needs can be sacrificed for the greater good of the community - not everyone is getting this.

In our case, at least one of the most opinionated and aggressive parents has capture the PTA. The dynamic is unfortunate, to say the least. I think things are staring to change after terms like “Covidiot” and “Trumper” started flying on social media and at least one person got busted for throwing around inaccurate information and misrepresenting other people’s views.

As with the shutdowns, I don't think that one size fits all for school plans. Areas where numbers aren't as bad have more flexibility to open (though need to be carefully monitoring numbers and ready to shut down if things escalate). As others have stated, in person learning is particularly important for younger kids, so greater efforts need to be made to have them in the classroom. The flip side of that is that their learning style is not as conducive to sitting still at a desk six feet from others, and they are less able to follow directions, so that adds a degree of difficulty. I'm not sure how the teachers would feel about this, but it might make sense in some districts to have elementary schools open and middle and high schools fully remote.

Another one of our blessings is that the district, county and state all seem to be making data driven decisions, following health guidelines and actually revising positions as more information becomes available. And it is still a complete mess!

[budwom]

I guess we're about to embark on thousands of classroom experiments with regards to the virus...with so many variables at play (e.g. amount of virus in a community, class sizes, health and age of teachers and staff, community buy-in to mask wearing, on and on) it may be difficult to draw conclusions for a while...however, I do hope that success and failure stories circulate in a dispassionate fashion (ha) so we can maybe draw some conclusions.

I completely understand why many schools are choosing not to open. I'd argue that Vermont has perhaps the best shot at opening in September , given our small population, little virus in the state (only one or two people hospitalized in the entire state), we're limiting class sizes by 50% (half the kids go to school Monday and Tuesday, the other half Thurs and Friday, Wednesday is a free for all Zoom day) and people are generally buying in to social distancing and mask wearing..

And yet, fully half the population here(via a poll) don't want the schools to open, administrators and teachers are extremely wary...if we can't get it done here with our favorable (and fortunate) characteristics, I have no idea where it can be done.