Trump's Reckless Push To Reopen Schools Is An Admission Of Failure
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
U.S.
Trump's Reckless Push To Reopen Schools Is An Admission Of Failure
July 10, 2020, 11:38 AMIn April, the White House unv eiled ” Guidelines for Opening Up America Again ,” which call for business and other activities to resume in staggered phases, depending on local progress in containing the virus.
The guidelines, which are influential but not binding, say states can enter the first phase of reopening if they have a “downward trajectory” of documented cases over 14 days or a lower percentage of positive tests over that time period. Schools should only reopen in the second phase ― after an additional two weeks with cases going down.
Now, though, as the president insists against all evidence that the virus is under control ahead of the November election, those guidelines have gone out the window. Trump is not saying cases should go down before schools reopen. He’s saying schools should open no matter what.
Cases have risen over the previous 14 days in most states, according to a New York Times coronavirus database , with alarmingly high numbers of infections in states that took Trump’s encouragement to “liberate” themselves from public health recommendations. Nationally, the daily death toll is still below its April peak, but the number of new infections has set six daily records in 10 days.
And there’s no indication that things will get better soon, said Leana Wen, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University. Wen has argued that the only way to make it safe to reopen schools is to get the virus under control in the general population. Part of the strategy likely involves closing some businesses, such as bars and nightclubs.
“We need to do the hard work now in order to have any hope of schools reopening safely,” Wen said.
In his various remarks this week, the president hasn’t said anything about the possibility of closing down businesses or curtailing economic activity. Instead, he’s gushed about the jobs numbers, the stock market, the “pretty amazing stat” that out of thousands of children infected in New Jersey, only one has died. He’s whined that European countries are reopening schools without acknowledging that they’ve controlled their outbreaks. And he’s railed against governors who haven’t committed to sending kids back into classrooms five days per week.
“They don’t want to open because they think it will help them on Nov. 3rd,” Trump said Thursday. “I think it’s gonna hurt them on Nov. 3rd. Open your schools.”
A poll last month suggested most voters worry about reopening schools this fall. But that doesn’t translate into some cheap political benefit for the president’s opponents. School closures are horrible. Kids aren’t learning and their parents are miserable. People probably understand, however, that there’s a grim balancing act, that their sacrifice might buy a general reduction in illness and gasping death.
Recognizing a scientific consensus that the virus spreads by people breathing and talking near each other for extended periods, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said schools ought to try to keep students six feet apart. Since most schools don’t have enough space to do that, some governors are announcing schemes that would allow different groups of students to take turns going to class two or three days per week.
Children in an elementary school class wear masks and sit as desks spaced apart during summer school at Happy Day School in Monterey Park, California. Gov. Gavin Newsom says the reopening of California schools for the coming school year will be based on safety — not pressure from Trump. (Photo: FREDERIC J. BROWN via Getty Images
Instead of working with Congress to help schools find more space, or to ramp up testing for the virus, or to afford cleaning and personal protective equipment, or to invest in ventilation systems that could reduce the number of virus particles circulating through classrooms, the White House has decided all of a sudden that the CDC guidance is actually bad and should be changed.
Trump tweeted this week that he disagreed with the CDC “on their very tough & expensive guidelines for opening schools” and “will be meeting with them!!!” Vice President Mike Pence, chair of the administration’s coronavirus task force, then said that there would be new guidance for schools and that the White House never intended for states to actually follow the original recommendations.
“If states can’t meet those guidelines, then they’re not safe to reopen,” Wen said.
But the White House has seemingly settled on a new mantra. “The virus is with us, but we need to live with it,” as a senior official told NBCNews .
Congress, for its part, is on recess, but might pass another coronavirus stimulus bill later this month. Democrats have proposed $100 billion for schools, while Republicans are preoccupied with stopping a feared wave of coronavirus-related lawsuits against schools and businesses that open up ― a tacit admission that doing so won’t be remotely safe.
The school situation is starting to look like a crisis. Staying home has awful consequences for children, and the American Academy of Pediatrics has said the ultimate policy goal should be for kids to be physically back in school full time, noting that children seem less likely to spread the virus or suffer severe illness. (The AAP said Friday , however, that “areas with high levels of COVID-19 community spread should not be compelled to reopen against the judgment of local experts.”)
“The severe negative impacts of keeping schools closed, including mental and social development, are well documented, including by pediatricians,” White House spokesman Judd Deere said in an email. “The president wants to see schools open and the administration is committed to working in partnership with university presidents, superintendents, principals, counselors, teachers, health professionals, parents, and students to ensure in-person learning resumes in a safe and healthy way.”
But the administration is acting like it does not actually want schools open in the fall, said Ashish Jha, professor of global health at Harvard University.
“On the one hand their words are saying schools must open,” Jha said. “Their actions suggest they’re giving up on schools being open in large parts of the country. You can say whatever you want, but schools will not be able to open and stay open with the kinds of outbreaks we’re seeing.”
Here’s what’s going to happen, Jha said, in places that head into the school year without controlling the outbreaks first: The business community will pressure local governments to open the schools so that working parents can return to their jobs. COVID-19 symptoms may be mild in children, but teachers will start getting sick, their unions will revolt, and schools will close again. The whole year could be lost.
“We have one shot to open schools this fall and we’re squandering it,” Jha said
Tags
Who is online
120 visitors
If Walmart, BLM Protests, Home Depot, Lowes, Publix, Liquor Stores and any other place that is open (Never Closed), and is still allowed to stay open because they are considered "Essential", Schools should be too.
Schools are VERY Essential .... to the Children
!
[deleted]
That's so Cute !
All School age children only come from "Trump Supporting Parents" ?
Because opening up huge mega stores to a limited amount of shoppers is the same thing as crowding 20 - 40 children in the same classroom. Right?
Where have you seen Door Monitors, limiting the amount of folks allowed in so-called "Essential Stores" ?
Ain't happenin'.......anywhere !
Mask Priority....Yes !
Body Count ..... NO !
Got any Pics ?
I know this is not a serious comment that you are making, but I will respond anyway 'cause it amuses me.
Looks like I will have to go to a HomeDepot type store today. I'll wear a mask and gloves. I will be in the store with its 30 foot ceilings perhaps 20 minutes. I will pass by only 5 or 6 other customers (most of them masked) even though there may be 100 in the store - it's just that big.
I can then avoid going to any store again for 1 or 2 weeks.
So my exposure time will be maybe 2 hours a month vs. a small classroom with 8 foot ceilings and total exposure time per month of what - 120 hours or so.
Home Depot, Lowes, and Walmart. AND I have seen all 3 stores turn away people not wearing masks.
That's a lie! You can even go onto YouTube and watch LOTS of videos of people throwing tantrums when they are turned away.
No door monitors in Russia......
Just sayin'.
Right, because Russia is such a non militaristic non totalitarian state.
Just sayin'.
You said....and I quote:
2.3 Ozzwald replied to It Is ME @ 2
"Because opening up huge mega stores to a limited amount of shoppers is the same thing as crowding 20 - 40 children in the same classroom. Right?
I'm the one that spoke of limiting those without masks.
See 2.3.2 It Is ME replied to Ozzwald @ 2.3
"Mask Priority....Yes !
Body Count ..... NO !"
Stop being Joe Biden and stealing others words as if it was your own idea.
I have seen them at several different stores!
(In fact, I have also seen them marking a line to the entrance with tape at every 6 feet)
And many stores have signs saying:
No Mask-- No Admittance!
Most have the tape, and some say "wear a mask", but none of them limit the amount of bodies allowed in a store.
[deleted]
Do you even know what a "Point" is ?
THE "POINT" !
Touting social distancing as the most effective means to control spread of the virus while voicing alarm over inadequacy of social distancing in school settings really does send a confusing message. Do the social distancing recommendations work or not? Opening schools would directly test those recommendations for social distancing.
Trials of distance learning using technology haven't proven to work very well. So, classroom teaching is still the most effective means of education. And the need to limit exposure to the virus has placed greater emphasis on teaching what is necessary rather than on social activities and extracurricular activities. The pandemic really is forcing the system of education to determine what is essential while trimming the unessential.
Forcing schools to open during the pandemic may actually improve education by eliminating nonessential subject matter and classroom activities.
You are asking too general a question. Social distancing of 6 feet does not work if someone is yelling, coughing or sneezing but it is quite effective for normal talking. Social distancing cannot stop forced air movement that circulates within a room from spreading airborne droplets containing the virus.
In schools, we should take exceptional precautions which include social-distancing, masks, cleaning of hands and surfaces, not touching one's face, proper air filtration and circulation, and minimizing the time students must be in close proximity (i.e. classrooms only when necessary).
Good point. You might be right.
That only underscores that we don't know how effectively social distancing controls spread of the virus. If the virus is airborne, as empirical evidence suggests, then the virus will linger in the air for hours. Airborne spread of the virus indicates that separation must include time as well as distance.
People are social distancing while standing in line. But as the line moves forward, each person eventually occupies the same air space as preceding individuals. Air circulation disperses the virus but that also spreads the virus.
What the evidence suggests is that reducing the amount of viable virus transmitted to the air really is the most effective means of controlling spread of the virus. Once the virus is introduced into the air then the virus will spread. Social distancing isn't as necessary when people are wearing an appropriate face covering.
What the empirical evidence is suggesting would be that the government response would be more effective by educating the public about wearing face coverings and for the government to distribute appropriate face coverings. Face coverings would appear to be much more important than testing to control spread of the virus.
The pandemic is forcing scrutiny of all nonessential activities. And the pandemic is forcing recognition that some activities considered essential really aren't essential, after all.
There will always be unknowns.
Are you of the opinion that we should not engage in social distancing? It sure seems that way based on your comments. And if you do realize that social distancing is an important safeguard, what is the point of noting the obvious fact that we do not know everything about this virus related to social distancing?
The only thing the doctors/scientists/researchers know for certain is that they don't know. Many have publicly stated that little is known for certain about the coronavirus. The pandemic isn't going to be stopped by studying the coronavirus to death.
The only thing they know for certain? Good grief man do you think the scientific community is incompetent? The scientific community knows a hell of a lot more about this virus than simply knowing that there are unknowns.
And if you inserted the phrase 'for certain' as semantic wiggle room then I will agree that scientists know very little about reality with certainty. For example, scientists do not have 100% certainty that the Earth orbits the Sun but the data suggesting this is true is absolutely overwhelming and the confidence is spectacularly high.
I am of the opinion that expending more effort on adoption of face coverings would eliminate the need for social distancing. The current effort is focusing attention on the wrong priority. For all we know, social distancing may be be completely ineffective in controlling spread of the virus once the virus has been introduced into the air.
I am of the opinion that reopening schools wouldn't be a problem provided everyone is properly trained how to use a face covering and provided access to appropriate face coverings.
I am of the opinion that the emphasis on testing bears more responsibility for poor control of virus spread. We've taken our eye off the ball so now we are swinging and missing. Contain the virus and it won't spread; that's just common sense. We don't need to believe in science to trust common sense.
Why? Where do you find the data that suggests face coverings obviate the need for social distancing in the general public? I am not objecting to you having an opinion, but rather am interested in the empirical data at the foundation of your opinion.
There is an extensive body of evidence for medical personnel using face coverings when examining and treating patients with compromised immune systems. Face coverings have proven very effective against transmitting known pathogens (including viruses) to immunodeficient patients.
Standard practices and protocols for medical treatment provides the evidence being requested. Examination and treatment of patients with compromised immune systems precludes social distancing. Examining and treating an immunodeficient patient often precludes the patient wearing a face covering to protect themselves.
In the case of the SARS-CoV-2 virus we are all immunodeficient. Standard medical practice is to wear a face covering to avoid transmitting a pathogen to an immunodeficient patient. The purpose of the face covering is to avoid transmitting pathogens and not to protect the wearer.
Then you propose everyday people walk around with the same protective face coverings as frontline medical professionals?
On what basis do you find that a practical course of action?
Immunocompromised patients in a health care setting are usually placed on neutropenic precautions. This includes healthcare workers to utilize a gown, gloves, and mask. In addition, no visitors and no fresh fruit, vegetables, or flowers are allowed in the patient's room. The patient is usually in a private room too, if possible.
Immunocompromised patients should only interact with those providing direct medical or nursing care.
That is misleading. Healthy individuals are not immunodeficient or immunocompromised. Healthy people have a normal functioning immune system which is triggered when a pathogen invades the body. An immunocompromised individual cannot produce an immune response to a pathogen.
Based on what? From what has been observed so far, social distancing is effective in preventing the spread of the virus and even more so when coupled with a face mask. Masks and distance are most effective when used together.
That may have been true at the beginning of the outbreak. But research is ongoing and much more has been learned about the virus since then.
Actually, that's exactly how it's going to stop the pandemic. Only by studying the virus will science and come up with a vaccine, medical treatments, and preventive measures.
It can also be spread by droplet.
In case you haven't noticed, the general public has been walking around with the same face coverings used by medical professionals for routine practices.
Characterizing the face coverings as 'protective' and implying that standard medical practices for routine care correspond to frontline conditions for the pandemic is only a weak attempt to move the goal posts.
On the basis that medical professionals have been recommending the use of face coverings to drastically reduce or prevent spread of the coronavirus.
Knowing how you roll, you have reserved a special definition for the phrase 'routine practices' within which you will equivocate. Your prior comment, however, ...
... is clearly talking about serious protective gear. Very much unlike the disposable coverings, home-made masks made from handkerchiefs, bandanas, etc. that most people are wearing.
Further, medical professionals necessarily are wearing gear to protect themselves too, not just protecting their patients.
If Trump thinks that opening the schools is a good idea, how about he puts Baron in PS.
This assumes that students and faculty will no longer go into quarantine if they have been in contact with someone who develops Covid-19.
Without quarantine it will work something like this: 1 student gets sick and is out for a couple of weeks. They will have to study remotely or the teacher will need to prepare lessons for them. Then a few days later 2 or 3 more. Then in a few more days 2 or 3 and so on. I doubt if every one in the class will get sick but there will be times when several are out at once and the teacher will be dealing with trying to keep them up to speed.
Then of course some time in the semester, the teacher will get sick and will be out for 2-3 weeks adding one more disruption as a sub tries to figure out the lesson plans. Will the constantly disrupted face to face classes be better than simply doing all virtual classes?
Really - I don't know.
There's another factor as well-- eventually some of the kids will get the virus. Probably most will be asymptomatic. They will come home as infect their entire family....
Another probable scenario: A kid gets the virus in class. When school's he meets his sibling in antoher class-- they walk home together, 5 feet apart-- doubtful.
(Or after class someone picks them up, and they sit right next to each other in the car when they are picked up).
Next day, the 2nd kid goes back to class and infects some kids in his class...who brings it home to his family...
And so on.
And wherever they eat lunch (in classroom? Cafeteria?) they have to remove their mask to eat...
Perhaps this case is a preview of what will happen when we have a schoolroom full of students. They couldn't handle this correctly with only 5 students.
Yes - that's why I'm working from the assumption that quarantine will not be used as a containment strategy. With this strategy they would not close down even a class of 25 let alone 5.
Instead, elementary schools will need to use a "cohort" immunity strategy. (Kind of like "herd" immunity.) Basically get it over with - provide an environment were everyone in a cohort gets sick as soon as possible and then move on.
High school gets trickier since, last time I was in high school, students moved from class to class - not all students in the same class. Teachers teach different groups of students. So the spread is not contained in a single group of students or a single teacher.
Of course you can't avoid common areas like lunch rooms and restrooms and school buses.
You're saying that there would be no social distancing? If that is the proposal than ''room'' requirement won't be a problem but the virus will spread much quicker and then there are the teachers, what if they get the virus. If there is social distancing than the room requirement grows and most schools do not have the room for this.
From what I've read so far most school districts are not paying any attention to DeVos or Trump and are taking a different approach. From what I've seen social distancing will be required and the student will not have a 5 day school week, more like 2 to 3 day week with the alternating groups attending in-person classes.
I don't believe it to be a good idea but if you do not quarantine, that's pretty much their strategy.
I hope this is not a duplicate reply -
Social distancing and masks probably work pretty well at a HomeDepo environment with 30 foot ceilings where you are only in there for 20 minutes or so. But a classroom - for hours - with teachers and students talking - not so much.
I agree with you on that. It's a difficult situation any way you look at it. It would seem to me that if they are going to reopen the schools, that every precaution be taken. What they are at the moment is distancing and masks.
Other factors for classrooms are that the kids can be tested daily and that children are very resistant to the coronavirus. A classroom of elementary kids is much safer than, say, a bunch of cubicles with working professionals on the job and that is safer than a group of elderly people engaging socially.
A classroom of elementary kids is much safer than, say, a bunch of cubicles with working professionals
Agreed. Though how well will masks and social distancing work in the classroom?
I think they are saying the infection rate of children exposed to the virus is only about 8%. But is that risk for the entire semester, or is that a single exposure rate each day? (Think about the survival rate of WWII American bomber crews. 90% chance of surviving each mission but they had to fly 25 or so missions. No - I'm not saying the kids will die - just miss school.)
So if you test and 1 student is positive - what is the drill? Quarantine the entire class and teacher? Quarantine only the student and their family?
A lot of teachers and administrators are trying to figure this out with only the partial data now available. I just can't predict that this will be better for the students and teachers than "Zooming".
They will help, but my point is that the biology of the young children is actually the strongest factor.
I have no idea what they might do. The point is that a good precaution is to test to gain information that then enables prudent action.
Hard to say. Child development is complex. College students can easily do zooming, but elementary school kids are all developing social skills, etc. at this age. I do not know what implications this might have.
Let's not assume that all children are healthy with no underlying conditions. Many children have underlying conditions, asthma for one. Also, we have teachers and I saw a report today that 1 in 4 teachers have some kind of underlying condition.
This situation is highly complex and for every question, we think that we've answered more pop up.
A year from now we will have the data to make the correct decision for today ...
Looks like 1/3 of the teachers are 50 or older. Death rate for that group is significantly greater (2%-4%) than for the population as a whole and much greater that that of young students (close to 0). Assuming you don't get that sick, recovery is still longer for that age group. So what every they try to do in the classroom will be disrupted by intermittent and unpredictable absenteeism.
I was speaking in very general terms. There are always special cases in any scenario.
My comment was not directed to you personally but to all of us not to forget those children that will require special handling.
Then there are special needs children.
I really want to see the so-called ''powers that be'' take every child's situation into the equation.
Studies out of England are showing that you do not retain immunity if you recover. They estimate that immunity may only last a few months.
The monkey studies are showing protection and Fauci says it is reasonable to assume there is some level of protection with antibodies.
Yes, but it may be short lived immunity.
Basically get it over with - provide an environment were everyone in a cohort gets sick as soon as possible and then move on.
But what about when all these kids go home after school to their parents and siblings...?
I don't think you can get elementary school kids to practice social distancing or wear a mask for a whole school day.
or wear a mask for a whole school day.
I agree.
And anyway, we're not going to feed them all intravenously-- so they will have to remove masks when they eat lunch.
and if trump delayed the opening of schools?
the left would have said trump failed to open schools on time.
but anyway...
First off he can't, but secondly if he actually did that then for the first time in almost 4 years I would say he made the right call.
so trump cant delay the opening of schools, but the left is pissed at him for opening schools...
that seems about par for the course for today's left
He can't and he isn't.
so trump cant delay the opening of schools, but the left is pissed at him for opening schools...
Nope.
They are pissed off at him for advocating the opening of schools.
Since he's the President some people will assume he's being advised by competent professionals-- so if he advocates re-opening so strongly, some people will assume he's advocating a smart move-- and follow his lead.
He would have finally done something right.
that some bs right there... LOL
no matter which way trump went... the left would say it was wrong.
Not true at all. It isn't my fault that he finds a way trip on his own clit when he does something as simple as sitting down.
[deleted]
I didn't think it was that funny, but okay I guess.
no matter which way trump went... the left would say it was wrong.
Well, at least there's one thing we can be grateful for: whichever way a Democratic politician goes..the right would never, ever, say they were wrong!
/sarc
A report from Manatee County Florida.
Almost 470 kids have tested positive for coronavirus in Manatee County, state says
In a report dated Friday, the health department said a total of 468 children have tested positive for the novel coronavirus responsible for the COVID-19 respiratory disease. A week earlier, 332 people 17 and younger had tested positive, according to the health department.
A total of 1,070 children have been tested in Manatee since the start of the pandemic, for a positivity rate of 43.7%, up from 35.7%, a week earlier.
By comparison, the county’s overall positivity rate as of Saturday was 9%. The county has a total of 4,632 cases, as of Sunday, meaning 10.1% of those who have tested positive in Manatee County were children.
Statewide, a total of 17,073 children have been infected with the coronavirus, or 24.2% of those tested. In Florida, 6.7% of those who have tested positive are children.
Four children have died.
Almost 470 kids have tested positive for coronavirus in Manatee County, state says
And then there's the situations in the rest of the state:
Florida Sets Coronavirus Death Record, Hours After Gov. DeSantis Said State Had ‘Stabilized’
Florida set a new record for coronavirus deaths Tuesday, one of several metrics that show the state’s coronavirus crisis is still getting worse, even as Gov. Ron DeSantis claimed at a news conference Monday afternoon that the state’s situation had “stabilized.”
When Baron Trump is enrolled and walks through the doors of a public school that is fully opened during this pandemic, 5 days a week, the I might possibly start listening to the current administration.
I don't know-- some people are saying that the schools near Mar a Lago are pretty good....???
There is only one common-sense solution to all of this...but unfortunately it's not the good old days....
Where's the tar and feathers?
I guess after the veterans and grandparents in nursing homes abandoned to the virus, the switch is to send in the kids since they can't vote.