9 ms·

Somehow nobody seems to feel a need to justify why would we make any changes* to in-person schooling. Instead it just seems to be a foregone conclusion that hav

Somehow nobody seems to feel a need to justify why would we make any changes* to in-person schooling. Instead it just seems to be a foregone conclusion that having kids in school is dangerous. Why is split learning even on the table? Who are we trying to protect? The kids? The teachers? Are most people in these hyper-partisan democrat areas (I'm speaking from a US perspective, but it's largely the US that has voluntarily wrecked now almost 2 years of education) aware that the kids are not at serious risk of COVID? Are they aware that, not only is the mortality of common comparisons like Influenza way higher, but that the common rebuttal of "but what about long COVID" is basically an evidenceless assertion and there is no evidence that children are getting permanent damage from their largely asymptomatic COVID infections? Are they aware that, even if it were right to try to prevent kids from ever getting infected with SARS-2 (spoiler: it's not), that we don't even have quality studies proving that going to school is even associated with greater COVID infection? Are they aware that, unlike the H1N1 pandemic, it's actually pretty miraculous that SARS-2 almost entirely spares children? That therefore to undergo these measures like school closures and constant indoor masking of toddlers, and 6 foot distancing, and plastic dividers, and restricted extracurricular events, has no relation to actually keeping children safe, except insofar as those measures very clearly harm the wellbeing of children? I weep for what we've done to children throughout this. We as adults are supposed to be the ones saying, "hey, even if there's risk to us adults, you guys are more important, and we're never going to ask you to sacrifice your life out of some misguided effort to prevent the transmission of an endemic highly infectious human coronavirus, and on the contrary we will make whatever sacrifices are necessary to keep you guys growing and developing". Instead we turned around and said, "kids are inherently gross, they're spreading this killer virus like crazy, if they develop a cough and hug their grandmother and the grandmother later dies of COVID then they killed their grandma". As someone who lives in California - which together with New York and Illinois has led the country in absurd and ineffective and incredibly authoritarian COVID policy - I feel like I don't recognize my fellow citizens. * Well, any changes because of COVID specifically. Obviously there's things like later school start times for teenagers, etc that are no-brainers that should have been implemented long ago

brendoelfrendo 5y ago
> Instead we turned around and said, "kids are inherently gross, they're spreading this killer virus like crazy, if they develop a cough and hug their grandmother and the grandmother later dies of COVID then they killed their grandma". But boy, wouldn't that suck? I have a couple thoughts here: 1) Kids spend a lot of time with adults, so yes, they could get grandma sick. They could also get their teacher sick, or the school nurse, or other support staff. Good luck convincing the teachers to put their health on the line; they're already underpaid and overworked. 2) Several metro areas have been running short on pediatric ICU beds. COVID is way less risky for kids, but still risky enough to overwhelm our medical system, so preventing spread should probably be given some level of priority. On the whole, I'm glad that our school systems moved fast to figure out an alternative solution during the pandemic. I'm less glad that we haven't tried other strategies as those alternative solutions have shown clear gaps in effectiveness, and I'm upset that children who depend on the school environment for socialization, focused learning, and even food have been left behind.
- blitzar 5y ago
  I'm upset that there are children who depend on the school environment for food. And it isnt even a small number of children at that.
  - brendoelfrendo 5y ago
    Agreed! It’s a problem that the US hasn’t spent nearly enough effort on, and the pandemic pointed a big ugly spotlight at it.
handrous 5y ago
> Why is split learning even on the table? Who are we trying to protect? The kids? The teachers? Are most people in these hyper-partisan democrat areas (I'm speaking from a US perspective, but it's largely the US that has voluntarily wrecked now almost 2 years of education) aware that the kids are not at serious risk of COVID? It was to protect staff & their families, and generally reduce community spread. Schools this year, that are fully back in person, are barely holding it together. There aren't enough subs. Trying to go fully in-person everywhere last year probably would have fallen apart, for that reason. It still might, this year. It's bad. I agree that the harm outweighed the benefit by a long shot if we're talking just about the kids, but I don't think we'd have been able to keep fully in-person school running last year anyway. The ones that went in-person suffered badly, in some cases worse than fully-online cohorts. The only way to fix it would have been a policy of having teachers & students who very likely were COVID-exposed but not actively ill-feeling come in until it was proven that they were COVID-positive—but that policy would also have increased spread, so I wouldn't guarantee that'd actually improve the situation of having too many staff out for quarantine.

brendoelfrendo 5y ago

> Instead we turned around and said, "kids are inherently gross, they're spreading this killer virus like crazy, if they develop a cough and hug their grandmother and the grandmother later dies of COVID then they killed their grandma". But boy, wouldn't that suck? I have a couple thoughts here: 1) Kids spend a lot of time with adults, so yes, they could get grandma sick. They could also get their teacher sick, or the school nurse, or other support staff. Good luck convincing the teachers to put their health on the line; they're already underpaid and overworked. 2) Several metro areas have been running short on pediatric ICU beds. COVID is way less risky for kids, but still risky enough to overwhelm our medical system, so preventing spread should probably be given some level of priority. On the whole, I'm glad that our school systems moved fast to figure out an alternative solution during the pandemic. I'm less glad that we haven't tried other strategies as those alternative solutions have shown clear gaps in effectiveness, and I'm upset that children who depend on the school environment for socialization, focused learning, and even food have been left behind.

blitzar 5y ago
I'm upset that there are children who depend on the school environment for food. And it isnt even a small number of children at that.
- brendoelfrendo 5y ago
  Agreed! It’s a problem that the US hasn’t spent nearly enough effort on, and the pandemic pointed a big ugly spotlight at it.

handrous 5y ago

> Why is split learning even on the table? Who are we trying to protect? The kids? The teachers? Are most people in these hyper-partisan democrat areas (I'm speaking from a US perspective, but it's largely the US that has voluntarily wrecked now almost 2 years of education) aware that the kids are not at serious risk of COVID? It was to protect staff & their families, and generally reduce community spread. Schools this year, that are fully back in person, are barely holding it together. There aren't enough subs. Trying to go fully in-person everywhere last year probably would have fallen apart, for that reason. It still might, this year. It's bad. I agree that the harm outweighed the benefit by a long shot if we're talking just about the kids, but I don't think we'd have been able to keep fully in-person school running last year anyway. The ones that went in-person suffered badly, in some cases worse than fully-online cohorts. The only way to fix it would have been a policy of having teachers & students who very likely were COVID-exposed but not actively ill-feeling come in until it was proven that they were COVID-positive—but that policy would also have increased spread, so I wouldn't guarantee that'd actually improve the situation of having too many staff out for quarantine.