To be honest, I don't think there is a good answer. No matter what, there will be big negatives.
This kinda sums up the whole debate...
I've been out in it every day because of Target, so it's not a big deal for me, as long as common sense prevails
THIS right here-far far far far too many started out and remained in a fear "bubble" and the longer you stay in your bubble the harder it is to break out. Opposite can be said as well-too many never felt that fear bubble and now refuse to acknowledge the risk at all. And so there can't be a consensus on what is reasonable to do.
Anyone who works with the public now or who is an essential worker is in the unfortunate position of being more at risk of catching covid but their salaries are not based on Covid. This is hopefully a once in a lifetime situation and we will return to working in safer conditions soon.
Good point. Why were restaurant workers considered essential???? and for minimum wage. Nursing home workers didn't sign up to be essential-yet they go to work every day in a high risk environment. Did anyone give up animal products to protect our meat packing plants? No?
Thank you. It’s amazing how you can be fine for a few days then spend a whole night huffing and puffing.
Ugh that sucks, Hope you have more and more good days. I can empathize with the breathing - nasty virus (very covid like but wasn't) in December and the only times I felt like breathing was normal was when I was on steroids. My PCP finally got me on a regular inhaled steroid beginning a couple weeks ago and it's definitely helping-so 6 month recovery time from that illness.
What is troubling to me, the teachers' unions do not seem to be interested in the actual science, they are asking questions that are seeking to manipulate into irrational fear rather than looking for answers that are known already in many cases. The unions have had almost 4 months to look at the science and they did nothing. They've even had more than enough time to order and coordinate their own studies if they did not trust the scientific research that is already there
No one did anything other than wring their hands...and the data is that younger kids transmit and get infected at far far far (there will always be outliers before people start spewing the articles on the outliers) due to their physiology. Why is this a "novel" coronavirus that doesn't act like previous viruses and then make the comparison that young kids are "germ factories" and now want to point to CV behaving like the usual? Legitimate concern on making sure schools do have adequate funding to clean, teachers have N95/face shields as needed etc..
It makes no sense for the districts with little to no C19 exposure to remain closed, and it makes no sense for a district with uncontrolled outbreaks to reopen. It should be based on local conditions, not mandated from a state or national level.
You...mean...use logic, data and common sense?????????? nope not gonna happen.
South Korea began relaxing social distancing guidelines in May
people.com
None of that had to do with schools spreading virus. and if Korea and Hong Kong insist on no cases ever again before things can stay open then they will never get to normal. Even a hypothetical vaccine will not be a magical solution.
Yes there is a risk reopening schools. I am not sure why people think life didn't have risk before and therefore we should expect zero risk at all ever again. something will always bring a risk. Mitigate best you can, evaluate what works, adapt. And give the schools the MONEY to do so-this country really doesn't need another 25 billion dollar fighter jet!
Studies about viral loads and hopefully more details on risk of infection rates will be coming soon. That may also help. There is all this concern about "asymptomatic" transmission, but severity of cases correlated with high viral loads in the
susceptible person, so if a viral load is so low that no symptoms show-just how much virus particles are being put out there? The other key point is one needs to be
susceptible to the virus in first place. Starting to see some studies modeling that less than 40% of population is even susceptible although that is very very preliminary and I am always leary of statisticians trying to model a disease