You have decided it is worth the risk to your family in your judgement. Fine. But to which risk are you referring? The risk to your children? How about the risks to the teachers? How about the other staff? How about the child's grandparents? How about the other children in the classroom and their families? You are asking a large number of people to take considerable risk because you have decided classroom education RIGHT NOW is "worth the risk."
Nobody is suggesting the end of classroom education. The question is whether doing the best we can with distance learning for a time and postponement of classroom eduction until better treatments and/or vaccines come on line is a better choice. It is really not a big sacrifice to ensure the safety of about 4 million teachers and maybe another million or two staff persons.
Assuming the death rate is optimistically only 0.2%, that is about 12,000 teachers and staff deaths. Ignoring the thousands of other deaths originating from these cases, are you really saying that 12,000 deaths is a realistic price to pay so your child can go back into the classroom NOW rather than next year? Really?
The fact that this would be a very bad choice seems an "obvious fact and not open for debate."
GP isn’t proposing that only their child attend school. Instead, it’s an entire generation of children who will benefit from the delta of an extra in-person year of instruction.
Similarly, whatever factor you apply to count deaths, you can only count deaths above the baseline when considering the change in school policy.
It’s quite far from your side of “obvious fact and not open for debate”, IMO.
I quoted “obvious fact and not open for debate” from the previous note. Sarcasm on my part. My point is that this is NOT black and white and the net benefit of reopening is NOT an "obvious fact."
Nobody is suggesting the end of classroom education. The question is whether doing the best we can with distance learning for a time and postponement of classroom eduction until better treatments and/or vaccines come on line is a better choice. It is really not a big sacrifice to ensure the safety of about 4 million teachers and maybe another million or two staff persons.
Assuming the death rate is optimistically only 0.2%, that is about 12,000 teachers and staff deaths. Ignoring the thousands of other deaths originating from these cases, are you really saying that 12,000 deaths is a realistic price to pay so your child can go back into the classroom NOW rather than next year? Really?
The fact that this would be a very bad choice seems an "obvious fact and not open for debate."