I was being halfway serious. My wife’s office has committed everyone in that office to home/remote work until August 2021 at a minimum. And they expect a good chance of that being extended, possibly into 2023. The philosophy undergirding that policy is “de-densification” of the workplace. I assume the same principle applies to public schools, especially if you consider that they also are a workplace. On an analogy to school shootings . . . “if we can save just one child’s life!” An extremely cautious, risk-averse precautionary principle type of thinking might clearly believe the safest course to protect all lives is to keep everyone home. With schools it is at least an implicit argument someone might make. I saw a report somewhere that something on the order of 12-15% of parents are planning NOT to send their kids to school this fall, regardless of whatever measures schools may put into place. That’s a pretty high percentage of cautious thinking. I don’t see how that could work. Unless at the Federal level, and it would take another multi-bubillion dollar Act to accomplish it.
Waiting til little Bobby and Mary bring home the virus from school and pass it on to Mom, Daddy, Grand Pa and Grand Ma!
As much as people like to lambast conservatives over this, its conservative states on the bottom of that list. Something to think about for liberals counting on the virus to help bring Trump down. It probably will rally his troops
Um...Nobody lives in Nebraska.....and No one visits Nebraska. LOL. Same with Kentucky. LOL. Missouri is a battleground state.
simpler answer is that mitigation measures don't to squat, and it just spreads at different rates depending on population density
simpler answer is mitigation measures don't do squat, and it just burns through the population at different rates depending on population density
There is something to be said about keeping people away from each other. Opening up early in some states reversed downward trends. I definitely agree with you about population density
lol because conservative would rather lock their children up rather than half them wear a piece of cloth over their mouths
12-15% ? Does that include e-learning? If e-learning is available the number will be far higher. Where I live the percentage that will select e-learning over in class participation (if both are available) is nearly 2-1.
This is false. There are studies that say the opposite. The latest study from South Korea (65,000 sample) found children 10-19 to spread it the same as adults). Children under the age of 10 are half as likely to spread it as adults. That doesn’t even address the fact leading experts have been saying children can and are carriers and spreaders.
Did I need to apologize for falsely thinking you were being sarcastic or not Os? It would have to work. If there isn't a comprehensive plan that sufficiently aids parents who have to quit working to watch their children, the plan would essentially doom millions of parents to lose everything, the plan would undoubtedly ensure a whole lot of children go hungry and loose housing. We already have the highest poverty and child poverty rates in the OCED before the pandemic, and like you mentioned there is already many households keeping their kids home with no aid. An absolute disgrace our country has not already started working on such programs. Now I agree with you OS, the correct, moral, humane strategy we should be taking is to prevent as many as we can from dying, which should not only include children, but all citizens. The only real way we could be addressing this pandemic with that goal in mind, IMO is going on a major nationwide lockdown similar to what we saw in Italy, where people stay in their homes for 3+ months to effectively stop the spread, with citizens needing approval by officials to leave their homes for any necessities. This would have to come with either a complete rent&mortgage freeze + UBI, or just a very large UBI that covers everyone's needs. So what is the goal, and what are we willing to do as a nation. If the goal is to prevent as many deaths as possible - major lockdown If the goal is only to prevent child death - UBI for parents If the goal is for everybody to eat **** - we got a TERRIFIC start, all we need to do is stay straight
that is not logically consistent. Mitigation is in large part about decreasing density, and then you admit decreased density decreases rate of COVID impact (which saves hospital capacity and buys treatment time). It’s not politics, sorry. your horizontal bar graph, by the way, is more about calendar timing than anything else. Yes, hospitals are better prepared now, but NY and NJ got blitzed before we knew what we were dealing with. Anyway, on topic, how can anyone defend the governor telling individual districts how to handle safety? It’s tribal grandstanding. Let the districts assess the data and their local situation and their modalities and modify accordingly. Masks do help enormously, @Commodore. They don’t prevent at 100% but the data overwhelmingly shows they help. But heck, just tell people they can’t wear seatbelts anymore b/c a given governor’s notion of “freedom.”
seriously. I usually remember north and south dakota . nebraska needs a sister so we can remember it . We should add puerto rico and then make " new nebraska" so we have 52 , like a deck of cards
