Opening schools increase the spread of COVID-19 ~24%

Part of what frustrated me about the original decision about whether to open schools was that, at least at that time, there were not enough N95 masks to protect teachers. The N95 masks were proven in theory and practice to work even back then.

It seems to me that if we had had enough of these masks, then we could have had a discussion 9 months ago that was closer to the one we are having now about sending vaccinated teachers in to work. It is not clear to me whether the vaccine or the N95 mask is more effective at preventing covid (although the N95 is a heck of a lot less convenient.)

There still would have been the fear that kids would have taken the infection home. But there would have been more options.

We had a lot of our leaders talking about opening schools being important, but not want to develop the strategy or spend the money to open them safely (particularly given the more limited information available at the time.)

Dude, were you seriously & unironically citing a “US News & World Report” article written by the grifter Rebekah Jones as “research”?

How about poolside in Puerto Rico?

Asking for a friend.

It’s offensive that y’all are stealing my schtick!

Nathan Poe would beg to differ. :wink:

In the New York Times “The Morning” free email this morning:

’Not enough to sort of open’

With the U.S. economy growing rapidly, millions of people have returned to work. Yet there is still one large group of Americans whose employment rates remain far below their prepandemic levels — mothers of young children.

Consider this data, which Moody’s Analytics compiled for The Morning:

image

The explanation is obvious enough. Many schools and day care centers have not returned to normal operations. They are open for only a few hours a day, a few days a week or on alternating weeks, making it difficult for parents to return to a full-time job. And parenting responsibilities still fall disproportionately on women.

This situation is unlikely to change over the final month or two of the current school year. But it raises a major question about the start of the next school year, in August and September: Will schools fully reopen — every day, Monday through Friday, and every week?

If they do not and instead maintain a hybrid approach, it will exact a heavy cost on American women. The biggest issue of gender equality in 2021 may well be whether schools return to near-normal this fall.

“Fully opening schools is the single most important thing,” my colleague Claire Cain Miller, who writes about gender and work, told me. “Obviously, parents can’t get back to work without that.”

“It’s not enough to sort of open,” said Emily Oster, an economist at Brown University who studies parenting. “We are going to need to figure out how to make it possible to open normally.”

Is it safe to open?

Fortunately, the available evidence indicates that schools can safely return to normal hours in the fall. Nearly all teachers have already had the chance to be vaccinated. By August, all children who are at least 12 are also likely to have had the opportunity. (The Pfizer vaccine is now available to people 16 and up, and federal regulators appear set to approve it for 12- to 15-year-olds in coming weeks.)

Few younger children — maybe none — will have been vaccinated by the fall. But data from both the U.S. and other countries suggests that children rarely infect each other at school. One reason is that Covid-19 tends to be mild for younger children, making them less likely to be symptomatic and contagious.

Even more important, this coronavirus rarely harms children. For them, the death rate resembles that of a normal flu, and other symptoms, like “long Covid,” are extremely rare. Covid presents the sort of small health risk to children that society has long accepted without closing schools. A child who’s driven to school almost certainly faces a bigger risk from that car trip than from the virus.

Of course, the risk from Covid is not zero, which is why many school districts are still grappling with what to do in the fall. Covid has so thoroughly dominated our thinking over the past 14 months that many people continue to focus on Covid-related issues — even highly unusual or uncommon ones — to the exclusion of everything else.

Covid does present a minuscule risk to children. And there will also be some teachers and other school employees who choose not to be vaccinated or who cannot receive a vaccine shot for health reasons; some of them may need to remain home if schools reopen.

For these reasons, a full reopening of schools will bring real, if small, costs and complications. Communities will have to weigh those costs against the enormous damage that closed schools are doing to American women.

But, but, the foremost experts in schools and public health say that the push to reopen schools is rooted in both sexism and misogyny (plus racism). :roll_eyes:

PS. The lack of self-awareness in NYT writers continues to astound, with bits like this as if Leonhardt & his colleagues aren’t at least partially responsible for the phenomenon he describes:

Plus, virtually everything he’s saying in this piece could have been said last summer – many of us were looking at studies from abroad to inform our assessment of school risks – and states/districts that opened fall 2020 (not waiting until fall 2021) have shown that it was safe to do so all along.

2 Likes

PPS. In case this snarky bit

was lost on anyone, the NY Post recently reported what was obvious to anyone with eyes at the time, that the CDC’s Orwellian-titled “school reopening guidance” was directly influenced (some portions written) by national teachers unions such as AFT (of which CTU is a local affiliate)

I mean, the insurance industry lobbies about stuff that matters to us, and that we are close to. And sometimes language our lobbyists recommend gets into regulations and laws.

I’d be shocked if the teachers’ unions didn’t have a hand in the policy. They shouldn’t be the only voice, but it would be very wrong to exclude them from the process.

1 Like

So the union argued to insert a caveat around possible updates to the guidance depending on what we may learn about variant transmission and exceptions for teachers with high risk conditions.

Are the public health officials going to be able to understand the practical limitations of how spread could be controlled in a typical classroom and what additional arrangements may be needed to meet certain objectives?

Couple things:

  1. CDC “guidance” is not meant to be “policy.” I have no issue with teachers unions lobbying lawmakers on behalf of their members. Most people (incorrectly, imo) view CDC as an objective, scientific organization, with their recommendations based on science. There’s absolutely a place for policymakers to take other, non-scientific views into account when forming policy.
  2. It’s clear other interest groups were not included in this process. Perhaps schoolkids & parents need a lobbying org. Imo, the CDC shouldn’t be the place for that.
  3. It’s very clear that the “reopening” guidance, including parts that we now know were influenced by unions, had the opposite effect: providing cover for unions & districts to keep schools closed.

Some schools were opened, some schools were closed. Seems like the guidance was used to inform decisions locally. Did we have science on the variants? Seems like they are spreading more among children than the initial strain. Haven’t people with certain conditions always been high risk?

Even for “pure science”, teachers know more about how classrooms are set up, what kind of ventilation is possible in the typical school, etc. It’s a mistake not to listen to experts.

An interesting tidbit that I ran across is that parents and students in “hybrid” learning are more unhappy than either kids who returned to school OR kids who are doing fully remote learning. Apparently, when you go all-in remote, in most places, you can make it work. But hybrid gives you the worst of both worlds.

Yep, I was saying that last summer, too.

It’s a worst of all possible worlds situation:

  • a partial in-person schedule is hard for working parents
  • hybrid usually just means only some of the students are there at a given time, but most students are there at least sometimes, which doesn’t really do much to decrease exposure, especially for teachers.
  • when hybrid kids are not in-person in school, they’re probably covered by a hodge-podge of care providers, which only serves to increase overall community exposure
  • makes more work for teachers who have to either accommodate synchronous-remote learners along with those in the classroom or come up with both in-person and asynchronous-remote lesson plans
    Plus, some other things I probably am not thinking of - those were off the top of my head and were obvious last summer, too.

I’m personally happy that the CDC had discussions with education professionals when developing school attendance guidelines.

We don’t know if they did that; we only know they talked to union officials. :wink:

Also, at the same time CDC was letting AFT rewrite their guidelines, several researchers say CDC misinterpreted the data & results of their studies, including at least one the CDC itself published, resulting in “harmful policy.”

That highlights the challenge with COVID restrictions: When deciding to close businesses/schools, you have to decide whether the restrictions will do more harm than good.

The entire question about how to handle the schools is a fascinating thought experiment: there’s harm in closing/virtualizing schools. Does the benefit of impeding disease transmission outweigh that harm?

Even objective armchair quarterbacks will have valid differences in opinion.

1 Like

My kids wore masks, and were exposed to kids with COVID, and they never caught COVID. It was very rare in my district to have a quarantined student develop COVID - almost all of the kids who did have COVID caught it from outside of the school, usually from a parent.

We did have some stupid parents who caught COVID and sent in their kids to school anyway.