> But few governments have weighed the costs and risks carefully.
I'm not entirely comfortable with the narrative that the costs and risks weren't weighed carefully.
It wasn't that the pros and cons weren't weighed. Every human decision involves the weighing of pros and cons.
For every decision that harms someone, a person decided that the harms were justified because of some other goal they deemed necessary.
The solution is not to generally apply more careful and scientific thinking, because the problem is not a lack of careful and scientific thinking. The agencies in charge are full of people who study this exact problem for a living and are fully qualified and trained for it.
What we're really grappling with is a clear mismatch of priorities between the decision makers and the "decision-makees." Why didn't their study and training lead to a decision that we're all comfortable with? If someone is to blame for this poor decision, why have they not been indicted -- and if we, the public, are to blame for our complicity, why haven't yet we acknowledged our mistake?
No one wants to point the finger out of fear of being called divisive. But these children will grow up soon and one day ask, "Why us?" I hope we have a better answer for them than, "There was much we didn't know..."
It's just getting harder and harder, as more and more is revealed, to believe that the costs and risks weren't weighed based on what harm or benefit would come to specific individuals instead of how specific policies would help or hurt specific politicians and political interests. Schools were closed even though children were at the least risk, but nursing homes were forced to accept COVID-positive transfers even though the elderly were at the greatest risk.
> Schools were closed even though children were at the least risk
Schools aren't closed to (primarily) protect the kids. Where did you get that idea?
Schools are closed to protect the teachers, the families, and anyone those people contact that would be infected by those kids spreading infection at schools and then bringing the infection into households.
If the schools weren’t closed to protect the kids, then that seems to bolster the claim in the headline, “closing the world’s schools caused children great harm.”
Children, who have the least agency and the least blame for the situation they find themselves in, were being asked to take a pretty big hit for the benefit of many of those who actually did have more agency and blame.
We closed the schools just fine but still had a real hard time getting universal mask wearing (for instance) to happen. Yet again, children suffer to pay for the selfish decisions of the adults.
> If the schools weren’t closed to protect the kids, then that seems to bolster the claim in the headline, “closing the world’s schools caused children great harm.”
Absolutely, it did!
But is that more harm than if their parents, siblings, grandparents, or friends got sick or died from covid?
In short: Does that harm outweigh, balance, or is it overwhelmed by the harm caused but not closing schools?
That's not an easy question.
That being said, while I disagree with how the article's initial positioning on this topic (that governments didn't weigh the harms), I 100% agree with the rest of the article and I hope governments use this as an opportunity to improve education by learning from these experiences.
> We closed the schools just fine but still had a real hard time getting universal mask wearing (for instance) to happen. Yet again, children suffer to pay for the selfish decisions of the adults.
This is sounding suspiciously like a nirvana fallacy.
All solutions for managing COVID are imperfect, and the defenses are layered. I struggle to believe there is any scenario where school closures are not a useful tool in the COVID prevention toolkit.
Would it be nice if other measures were more effective and school closures could be used more sparingly?
> but nursing homes were forced to accept COVID-positive transfers even though the elderly were at the greatest risk.
Yeah. Remind me who ordered that, and whether they're out of office over it? That's so blatantly wrong that it should rise to the level of criminal endangerment, even if nobody died from it. And I'm pretty sure that people did die from it, at which point it's at least manslaughter. Yes, I want that politician charged, because that was the clearly predictable result of that insanely wrong-headed decision.
It's not clear to me that this was a poor decision. You can't send children to school if there are no teachers. And the teachers were not going to put their lives on the line for those jobs. Teachers are well aware that whatever is going around among the students will get to them. They get every cold and ever flu.
If school boards said, "We're staying open for the sake of the children", teachers would have said, "Fine, watch them yourselves."
Compared to that, remote learning was a no-brainer. It's obviously deeply imperfect, and that cost students, but it at least made schooling possible. That literally may not have been the case any other way: send the students to a school building and they may have been the only ones there.
Honestly, I wonder if remote learning couldn't be better for at least some student populations. I have family who were bullied terribly (think on the level of "attacked by a crazy person with a knife at school" and "sexually harassed by teachers") and they probably would've benefited from an easier way of getting away from their tormentors instead of having to quit school and get a GED.
I know that's not a one-size-fits-all thing, people are social after all and isolation causes its own issues, but I sort of wonder if remote learning can't become an option for kids, especially those who are poorly-served by their local schools.
Does this pass for an argument now? Plenty of teachers are also severely at risk, and there is good reason to think that many would have died painful, preventable deaths had they taught in person.
This comment confuses me. The teachers themselves are worthy of moral consideration, and that doesn't change because they are going to be dead later anyways. The alternative also would have done considerable damage. Plenty of kids would have witnessed their teachers literally give up their life to teach them. Do you think those kids would view that as worthwhile?
Not necessarily. There is an opposing argument that we need to accept the risk of death as a part of life. When does a population decide the risk has been reduced enough? I could argue we are well past that point.
As a culture we have completely lost touch with the natural cycles of life. The boomers in positions of power have clearly prioritized their own safety at the expense of the upcoming generations.
That's probably inflammatory. But it's a popular opinion where I'm from that isn't vocalized in the media.
Without trying to say one take is right or wrong, this can in a lot ways be reduced to the security vs freedom tradeoff.
"Keeping schools closed was necessary to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed" is a different argument from "teachers don't want to face the mortal peril of in-person instruction," and not the one that was made in favor of keeping schools closed.
There are half a million COVID deaths last year. There are around 30,000 deaths a year from automobile accidents. COVID is more deadly than automobile accidents, by an order of magnitude.
What a joke. Please read about excess mortality before saying stupid things. Most people who die in car crashes wouldn't have died otherwise. Huge numbers of people who died "from COVID" would have died from something else.
"Summing up the excess mortality estimates across all countries in our dataset gives 3.3 million excess deaths. In contrast, summing up the official COVID-19 death counts gives only 2.1 million deaths."
Interestingly enough, their conclusion was that covid deaths are being undercounted:
"At the time of writing, the world’s official COVID-19 death count is 2.9 million. Our results suggest that the true toll may be above 4.5 million."
lol so in a year where tons of the developing world was forced into food insecurity as a byproduct of Covid response and lockdowns, they want to attribute every excess death to "Covid"?
My research says this claim is false. The mortality rate for COVID-19 for all age groups is much higher that mortality rates for drivers.
How I compared the risks:
In New York the mortality rate for COVID-19 for all age groups over 18 was found to be at least 0.2%[1]. The CDC[2] reports 18-29 years at 0.5%, 30-39 at 1.4%, 40-49 at 3.5%, 50-64 at 16.4%.
There were 36,560[3] motor vehicle related deaths in 2018 in the US. With 273,602,100[4] cars on the road one could make a rough estimate of mortality of 0.013%. This number is conservatively high since it does not include passengers.
- Using confirmed cases as the denominator significantly overstates the fatality rate, because a large share of the total infections is never confirmed
- "All age groups over 18" elides huge disparities between the younger and older age groups. It also obscures large differences in risk between those with comorbidities vs those without. The CDC does not make this easy to parse out, but in Canada after their first wave, "100% of the COVID-involved deaths under the age of 45 as of July 31 had at least one other disease or condition certified on the medical certificate of death." https://web.archive.org/web/20210219195135if_/https://www150...
- New York as a region had one of the highest fatality rates of the entire pandemic
- Covid is a "one-and-done" risk as far as we know, while the risk of a car accident is repeated year after year for as long as one drives on the roads. Even in the absence of vaccines, the risk of death from Covid is unlikely to remain as high in 2024 as it was in 2020.
The most sound way to run this sort of comparison is something like "how many in risk group X (say, people aged 30-39 with no comorbidities) died in 2020 from Covid vs how many in that group die in a typical year from auto accidents?"
If you want to say that overweight 60 year old teachers with diabetes should not have been forced back to in-person instruction you'll get no argument from me.
If you feel a different form of analysis would change the outcome please feel free to provide us with the data and your conclusions.
I took it as far as I felt I needed to. When I saw that the risk due to COVID to even a young and generally more healthy demographic was still an order of magnitude bigger I didn't feel I needed to dig further. Car accidents are already a big enough source of risk that I personally take measures to reduce it and support societal interventions to reduce it further. COVID is much worse.
> When I saw that the risk due to COVID to even a young and generally more healthy demographic was still an order of magnitude bigger
You didn't see that though, you just goofed the numbers. Confusing CFR with IFR (and comparing that with absolute risk from car accidents) is just way off base.
19 teachers per 100000 received intensive care through June 2020, and it's unclear if any died. Sweden's motor vehicle death rate is relatively low, 2 per 100,000 over an entire year (vs. 11 in the US), but that's over the entire population, not just teachers.
The effects of school closures on SARS-CoV-2 among parents and teachers
This article says that keeping schools open without masks or quarantines doubled covid risk for teachers and also affected partners as well as students' parents. It concluded that "keeping lower-secondary schools open had minor consequences for the overall transmission" but "results for teachers suggest that measures to protect teachers should be considered." They estimated 9 parents (out of 646K), 1 teacher (out of 73K), and 1 partner (out of 47K) died from covid. However the data only appear to be through July.
In 2020 in California, some 51,000 people died from covid vs. 3,723 from traffic crash injuries.
I haven't found exact statistics for both covid and crashes in 2020, but it looks like around 20% of covid deaths are in the 24-54 age range, as are around 45% of crash deaths, for an estimated 10,000 covid deaths vs. 1675 crash deaths in that age range.
So in spite of California's high traffic crash rate, covid deaths seem to have been a much greater risk in 2020 for the 24-54 age group.
As someone who is literally studying to be a teacher, I don't think teachers were being entirely reasonable throughout the pandemic. Particularly a little later on when we didn't have vaccines yet, but knew more about how the virus spread and were somewhat better at treating it.
Yes, teachers didn't sign up for this. Neither did grocery store workers or—in many cases—even nurses and other hospital staff. Everyone did what they had to to stop the world from collapsing.
Lots of grocery store workers, nurses, and doctors sat the pandemic out too. Grocery stores needed to increase pay to keep people. Where I am, nurses were often in short supply. Anecdotally know a bunch of physicians who took the past year off.
> It's not clear to me that this was a poor decision.
I can tell you, around here, infection rates clearly tracked with school closures, and did so independently of other lockdown measures.
So I frankly do not buy any narrative that claims that school closures weren't justified as a means to control spread.
School closures are clearly a tool in the arsenal for controlling spread, and the decision then becomes one of context: how bad are local infection rates, what is the trend line, etc, and is the reduction in infection rates from school closures justified when considering the downsides.
My children (Quebec) were in class all of last year, except for a 10 day period in January - the tail end of a local lockdown at the height of the third wave.
Infection rates were certainly higher due to schools opening, but other decisions - and a population that was mostly tolerant of restrictions - mitigated that. We wore masks, we limited contact and we stayed home to the extent possible. As a result, schools were able to stay open.
But staying home surely wouldn't help if the virus came home with Little Billy? And I'm guessing nobody wore masks and limited contact with their own children in their own homes...
If a child or a teacher at a school caught covid, the entire class was fully quarantined for a minimum of 14 days and two negative covid tests were necessary for anyone in that class to return. Classes were kept fully isolated from one another, and children had to wear masks in class for a significant part of the year.
No teacher at our school (~600 children) caught covid, and only 3 classes were closed.
What I'm getting at is: it was fully possible to open up schools, provided you have a government and a population that is willing to accept restrictions in other areas. _It's a choice to close schools and demand that indoor restaurant dining stay open_.
I would go one step further. We wouldn't have had to close schools for so long or at all if we had responded aggressively to Covid before the outbreak got large. South Korea largely controlled their outbreak without lockdowns because they aggressively tested, contact traced, and quarantined in the early days of the pandemic. Today, South Korea has something like 1/300th as many deaths even though it has about 1/5th the population of the United States.
The US had its first confirmed case on the same day as South Korea but was much slower to respond. Had we had a more robust response, we might not have had to make these tough choices about closing schools.
This, and not just the US, the West in general. Everyone concerned about the long term consequences of these closures needs to look no further than our leadership mostly ignoring it and thinking we were somehow immune. Heck, even after taking some measures, many parts of the nation/world then reopened too early only to see multiple surges.
There were intimations at closing down the border from President Trump, howls of racism were made. Nancy Pelosi went down to Chinatown and asked what was the president afraid of.
The president tried to take action, but politics was and is involved. We have a report from last week saying that scientists were afraid to speak up because of fear for saying orange man bad was correct.
If you believe these super simple arguments of hard lock downs would have worked, then look at how the guy at imperial college who screwed us all over with his horrible forecasts. He said “lockdown to save is all.” Then proceeds to visit his mistress, one of the two had coronavirus! How do you think we could legitimately implement a lockdown when the people who scream lockdown do not implement it themselves (athletes sneaking ladies, Newsome, Whitmer, etc.).
It is certainly not true that South Korea's measures have succeeded in eliminating community spread, which has been significant (if not at the same level as the U.S.) since the start of winter. East Asians seem to be more resistant to SARS-CoV-2: their new case rate of about 1/20th the U.S. (1/4 on a per-capita basis) is translating into a death rate around 1/300th of ours.
Lockdowns have been largely orthogonal to school closures -- much of Europe kept its schools open while pursuing even more draconian lockdown measures than blue states in the U.S. "Just lockdown, test, and trace harder" is not the lesson from South Korea.
Fauci admitted in the first month of the lockdown that he only considered medical concerns, not educational or economic.
So:
1) He was the wrong guy to be setting policy during corona.
2) This was known a year before his emails were released, which point to an international conspiracy of virologists attempting to maintain corona, and likely GoF, funding.
Without billions in govt. funding, their labs (and careers) disappear.
The various virologists worked a circuit between US, Canada, Australia and China. All 4 countries are involved in a coverup that various journalists have exposed.
A loud minority of twitter mob participants shouted "You want to kill grandma!" every time anyone tried to discuss the full costs of the lockdowns. People don't want to risk their careers saying things that are unpopular with twitter mobs (especially in academia). So now we're effectively governed by emotional neurotics and government can no longer make reasonable decisions based on a dispassionate cost-benefit analysis.
There is no such thing as dispassionate cost benefit analysis (or at least, there isn't outside of a very narrow range of specific cases).
Cost benefit analysis for big complex issues like coronavirus requires the identification and quantification of things that are really difficult to identify and quantify, and there's no easy way to do that without some form of subjective value judgement.
CBA done properly is a good way to make these judgements explicit and transparent. CBA done badly is a good way to hide those judgements behind a load of figures. Neither is dispassionate.
The entire point of a republic and bureaucracy is to have that dispassionate cost benefit analysis. It's to be done by people that shouldn't be subject to the mob mentality.
It's not about not getting fired. It's about having the person that can make the cold dispassionate, but ultimately best choice. If we are still getting decisions based mostly on emotion the usefulness is vastly diminished.
Ugh, Twitter mobs? Governments that got the pandemic "under control" gained approval ratings, the ones that messed up, well, that I agree with Biden aide that quipped "Covid is the best thing that ever happened to [Biden]". Had Dumbass & Co. got it under control, he would've probably won the reelection...
> But these children will grow up soon and one day ask, "Why us?" I hope we have a better answer for them than, "There was much we didn't know..."
It's a good lesson that life is messy and unpredictable and society can only do so much to shield us from that.
If they cannot come to grips with the idea that a year of their education was sacrificed to try and save lives during a global pandemic, that's on them. Kids around the world and throughout history lose education for way worse reasons.
For instance, when I was growing up I lost at least a year to teacher strikes. My teachers went on strike for months at least once at every level of my education, Elementary, Secondary, and University (Yes, I was paying for it. I lost more than half a semester. No I wasn't refunded or credited for the next year or anything.)
I wish I could say I lost that time because we were trying to save lives, instead of "My teachers union was happy to use my education as a bargaining chip in trying to negotiate for a better collective agreement, and my school board would rather let me and everyone else go without than give the teachers union what they wanted"
At least "we were trying to slow a pandemic and save lives" sounds heroic.
I live in a city with 95% adult vaccination (at least one dose) and the government has just announced that they are exploring how to open schools at an indeterminate date in the future.
If we can’t just go back to normal now, then why don’t we just give up?
Once all the kids are vaccinated (and BTW even the WHO is taking a cautious approach on this given that it's unclear whether young children are at more risk from Covid or the shots), what's the plan for preventing variants from developing in the developed world? In animal reservoirs? In the large numbers of vaccinated people who still wind up hosting (usually minor and asymptomatic) infections?
If vaccine escape happens because the UK had its schools open then I find it very difficult to believe "we vaccinate everyone at once and the virus just goes away" was ever a realistic prospect in the first place.
From what I understand, there is a good chance that the pool for variants is limited, and that vaccinations (or a past infection) give decent immunity for new variants. Even for a variant with an immune escape, ie. you are not immune and might even spread it, your past exposures will make a serious case with hospitalisation unlikely. Immune escape is not a boolean attribute.
We've done well with vaccinations, though nowhere near close to 95% and we're still in the longest lock down world wide with no real signs of things going back to normal.
But there are signs that things are getting better. Its a long time betweeen now and September, let's give it time to see how things go. As long as the trend is moving in the right direction and governments give back their emergency powers( we have an Ontario government that just granted themselves a longer stay on their power even though we're doing really well in terms of vaccinations nd case counts) then maybe be patient and let things play out.
These aren’t mutually exclusive, it’s not like there was enough time to come up with something better.
Wealthier households with a well functioning family unit did well perhaps even better than normal, poorer ones and or ones that had family issues most likely resulted in a much poorer outcome than normal schooling.
How much did it actually impact children we won’t know for quite some time, it would all depend on how many of them will catch up and how the education system would adapt to the new gap(s).
So much of school is socialization with other human beings. Beyond academics, children need to experience being in a group and learning about how people are supposed to interact with each other. And most of this is not explicitly taught, but acquired through trial and error and simple monkey-see, monkey-do. You can't get that level of interaction and fidelity online.
Sure. But then you end up with adults who are incapable of socialization outside of school. Maybe having children develop making friends outside of school is a good idea.
I'm looking at it in terms of critical periods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period), and mostly geared toward elementary school children. Where they would be acquiring the basic stuff of interacting with other people. I wasn't trying to imply that children cannot learn these things outside of school. But being around so many peers in an environment geared towards interaction seems ideal.
Can you cite something that describes this? As far as I know all the research suggests that you can learn certain things at any time after your brain has matured enough for the skill but not before. So putting off a year of school has no negative effects.
My kid is <6 and goes to a private daycare run by a publicly traded company in partnership with my wife's employer, a large biotech.
They figured out PPE and distancing protocols about six weeks after initial shutdown and all kids were back in class. To our knowledge, there were no known covid outbreaks (all parents and staff are emailed when a staff or student is diagnosed).
Hi Throwaway - sounds like Bright Horizons at Genentech? My 3 year old was at Bright Horizons at UCSF and they were even faster (~5 days) to figure out protocols to keep kids in the program so their essential worker parents could fight this war. Hard decisions were made and tradeoffs happened.
This whole narrative is insane. I can't help but think there's an underlying objective to drive for additional funding to fix a problem that does not exist.
Kids did not go from learning 100% to 0%. Let's make an argument that, perhaps (and I don't believe this either) they learned 50% of what they would have learned in person. Half.
OK. How much harm does that cause?
For reference, I have two kids who went remote the entire year. I am very aware of what work they did.
OK. What's the lifelong harm of learning half of history, health, geography, social studies and underwater basket weaving for a single school year?
None. Zero. Less than a rounding error.
Please raise your hand if missing half of what you learned in tenth grade history (or almost any subject for that matter) would have destroyed your life as an adult?
From my perspective, the only subjects that could suffer would be the sciences, math. This, because they are incremental. Half of math in a year does mean you lost half of the incremental steps needed to go on to the next stage.
How bad is this? Not bad at all. Just do some remedial work next year and stop whining about it. Seriously, kids today have no clue how hard we had to work in school decades ago. In high school I regularly had to stay up until midnight or so to do homework.
The point is: Adult life isn't easy. It requires hard work and sacrifice. What better time to teach kids about reality than in school, when all they have to worry about is school?
Well, they don't have the time in a new school year to do that?
Drop some of the bullshit courses and add extra time with what matters!
This is where I go into a rant. Sorry. I'll keep this comment to the US for now.
Our K-12 educational system is an abject disaster. We give our kids to this system for well over a decade and what we get in return isn't something to be proud of.
What?
Answer a very simple question:
What is a high school graduate in the US good for? If you had to hire a high school graduate in the US, what job would you give them?
Let's make a list:
- Stacking boxes
- Answering the phone
- Making coffee (with training)
- Washing dishes
- Waiting tables
- Fast food order taking
- Amusement park "associate"
- etc.
In other words, after spending over a dozen years in the educational system we graduate young adults devoid of marketable skills, to the point they barely qualify for the simplest minimum wage jobs.
College? Sure. Yet, not everyone goes to college. And if you truly care about raising the poverty line you have to deliver more out of a dozen years in an educational path than barely being good enough to stack boxes.
As my oldest kid approached the end of his "stay" in high school I made it a point to put him through actually useful learning, bot formal and informal. He came out of high school with a nanodegree from Udacity as well as a solid range of skills he learned from me, from woodworking to manual and CNC machining, welding, electronics and coding. While his college friends were struggling to find anything that paid more than minimum wage he was making triple minimum wage in his first job with no prior work experience.
That is the value of an education that develops real marketable skills vs. the bullshit we like to call "education".
Harsh words? Sure. Please provide me with your list of what a high school graduate could be hired to do without significant further instruction to earn anything above minimum wage. I'll wait.
That's the perspective from which I say that this idea that missing some instruction for a year caused kids irreparable harm. From my point of view we cause more harm --lifelong harm-- by not delivering young adults with a reasonable set of marketable skills after a dozen+ years in educational institutions. One way to look at it is that this is a massive waste of a dozen years.
should attempt to start with a shop class / home economics being mandatory like Gym was when i was in highschool... Thankfully they were available to me - to many of my friend's kids don't even have the option these days as the shops and kitchen labs are closed due to costs... but they sure fund the shit out of sports.
Among other things, I had a year of technical drafting in high school. I also had a year of photography (including film development, printing, etc.). My first two jobs out of high school were: Customer service at a professional photo laboratory and then technical drafting at a film studio. I have zero debt from college.
Nobody leaving high school is going to make money sipping wine while discussing the finer details of Roman history. Sorry to take such a harsh line on this. Culture and context is VERY important, of course. We just don't need 12+ years of it.
The first 12+ years of school is our "young-adult factory". We get one shot (over 12+ years) to produce young adults with a solid future. We do not do a good job of this. We waste a good deal of that time with pursuits that will not deliver measurably significant improvement to the rest of their lives. That's a crime. In this context 2020 was a rounding error.
You are making it sound like the main thing we learn at school are hard facts and memorizing. As you yourself point out, that's hardly the case and most of us can attest how little we recall from those classes we didn't care about (and later in life discovered how amazing and highly logical topics they actually were).
The key is social interaction. The most important thing you can teach your small kid (2-4 of age) according to psychologists is to be well socially integrated. Its a major booster for rest of the life, and also in cumulative form. And it transfers also to later age. This was completely taken from all kids affected by school closures. We all know by heart how fucked up, toxic and disconnected from real world the online socializing is. Well, this is the only thing kids had for more than a year.
Ideal schools teach much much more, but I don't think many of us went to those, I for sure didn't. So the social part remains the most important thing schools gave us, and our kids don't have even that.
I don't claim I know whats best, that's anyway highly subjective based on one's interest. But I am damn sure for the kids this was the net loss that will reverb for rest of their lives in negative manner. What would be actually really great if psychologists for a change came up with something useful for general population - some sort of easy-to-implement-globally course/program how to compensate this harm once kids come back to school.
> most of us can attest how little we recall from those classes we didn't care about (and later in life discovered how amazing and highly logical topics they actually were).
Exactly. There's a term for this: Opportunity cost. I would suggest we need to devote all of high school to creating a solid path into both college and non-college professional/trade jobs. As an example, five years of high school history is simply ridiculous. It is utterly worthless for anyone other than those who might go on to college to get a history degree. And, BTW, I love history. I am simply looking at the opportunity cost.
Sir Ken Robinson's old TED presentation is relevant here [0]. A better system would be one where the path optimizes based on a range of criteria rather than treating every single kid as the same block of clay. This is much harder than the cookie-cutter approach we take over 12+ years.
"All kids have tremendous talents and we squander them".
"If you were to visit education as an alien and asked what it's for? <snip> You would have to conclude <snip> The whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors"
> The key is social interaction.
Absolutely agreed. My comment does not address this at all. There is a legitimate claim that 2020 had social effects we don't yet understand. I can't speak to this other than to say that I watched my kids manage this quite successfully. I have not seen any ill effects.
> But I am damn sure for the kids this was the net loss that will reverb for rest of their lives in negative manner.
I think you are wrong. The proof is simple: Look at what kids went through during the world wars. I assure you this was worse than 2020. In my own family history, kids survived genocide. They went on to become perfectly capable, balanced and successful adults. It did not wreck their lives. I think this narrative is false and defeatist.
…proceeds to describe an unreasonably substandard school district. If your district really is decent, there is no good future. Without a well-educated population, the nation will fail.
> proceeds to describe an unreasonably substandard school district
What you might not understand is that these issues are not uncommon throughout the US. Not just in K-12 but also college/university. Otherwise excellent schools are stuck with bad teachers or professors who cannot be fired or otherwise dealt with because of the range of protections afforded to them. Job performance issues that would get anyone fired in any other job have no effect on teachers. More accurately, the process is long, difficult and very expensive.
So, no, my description of a couple of bad teachers in our district does not turn our district from good to bad. There are probably hundreds of teachers in the various schools we have in the district. Only a few of them are bad and, objectively speaking, should have been replaced years ago.
The best I can suggest is that you google "why bad teachers don't get fired" and read a few articles on the subject. You can be in a good school district and still have these issues.
The bottom line is that our system of education does not optimize for results that matter. Truly good/brilliant teachers should be recognized and paid more. Bad teachers should be filtered out of the system as quickly as possible.
Here we are, talking about an article that claims kids got shafted for having issues for ONE school year and we can't get rid of bad teachers who affect MILLIONS of kids over DECADES. How does that make any sense at all? The same bad teacher teaching science badly for twenty-five years is worse than what may have happened in 2020.
One of the things my kids tell me with some frequency is that when I teach them science I bring it to life, it is fun, engaging and interesting. Same subjects covered in school, we just explore deeper and wider than they would ever cover. Inspiration is massively important with kids. You can destroy a kids' interest in a subject by doing a shitty job teaching it.
This article doesn't take into account that maybe the kids didn't all get sick because closing the schools helped stop the spread of COVID in kids. It's like saying I exercised and lost weight so clearly that exercise was a waste of time, I would have lost weight anyway.
Isn't the Covid rate in kids exceptionally low? Closing offices only barely slowed the rate of progress in adults but closing schools helped children, who are less at risk, a lot?
No. The rate for ages 5-17 was actually slightly higher than that of adults 18-49, which was higher than the rate for 50-64, which was higher than the rate for 65+.
What was much lower for kids was the severity of their illness. For every 100k kids that got it, about 600 were hospitalized. For 18-49 it was about 2400. For 50-64, 7200. For 65+, 21000.
See the CDC data on the page mulvya linked in a parallel comment.
We had a person running for government office in Oregon loudly proclaim over and over, "Why do we have have to have these mask mandates and rules. Oregon has one of the lowest infection rates"..
Some people just seem to get cause and effect mixed up.
Or the threads all over twitter this winter alleging 'funny numbers' because the flu cases were so low last year.. Imagine that, when everyone is social distancing, we have our lowest amount of influenza ever.. it must be a great conspiracy to manipulate the numbers..
> Imagine that, when everyone is social distancing, we have our lowest amount of influenza ever..
And yet the explanation for Covid spreading so much during the winter is popularly held to be that people weren't social distancing and were selfishly refusing to follow the guidelines. I mean, how is it that these measures were simultaneously almost 100% effective against influenza and clearly much less so against Covid?
You need to look at other countries. Sweden kept their schools open, and not only did not a single child die, but the prevalence among teachers was no greater than in the general population.
Oy. This article is silly. In March of 2020 when schools started to close we did not know the full impact of COVID. decisions were made with the best knowledge AT THE TIME. Also we still don’t know the full impact of COVID. This article has a sample size of 1 year. As a parent of 3 with a child who started Kindergarten in September and did the entire year virtually—I’d rather deal with the fallout of having to “catch her up” than the fallout of her being asymptomatic and potentially killing me, my wife, one of her brothers or her teacher. I feel like that would be greater harm. We made/make decisions in real time with limited information—I regret none of my decisions with my kids schooling.
This yes. Though, I'm still mad that they vaccinated old people first instead of children so that they could return to school sooner. Old people are retired and can stay at home. Yes it sucks, they're lonely yada yada but ffs they already lived their lives, why should the next generation botch their edication just so the old people can travel again sooner?
This was entirely the correct decision given that old people are often at substantial risk from Covid, and children almost none. "Old people are retired and can stay at home" betrays huge ignorance of differing socioeconomic conditions as well as social needs of the elderly.
But old people can self isolate. How are they at risk if they stay at home? Children might not be affected that much, but still spread it, and apparently much harder to keep inside 24/7. Playgrounds were as crowded as always. My neighbor told me that her daughter was one of five children from the entire class staying at home, for the remaining 20 kids, their parents got a written confirmation from their employers stating they're essential, and thus their children were eligible for "emergency care". Ridiculous.
I'm not entirely sure things would have dragged along so much had we just eliminated children as spreaders first.
Can they self isolate? Do old people not need to go to the grocery store, doctor's offices, the hardware store to get parts for their broken toilet, etc?
This paper which was published in May 2020 established that the IFR of Covid was in the 0.05% range for people under 70, lower for those without comorbidities. It was peer reviewed and published by the WHO in October 2020. There is no excuse for how long it has taken people to come to a more accurate assessment of the risks of Covid -- and public opinion polling shows the public is still grossly overestimating that risk.
This would be accurate, if only those school age children didn't have older teachers or parents. Although children are rarely (though in some cases fatal) symptomatic there is evidence that they spread COVID, just as they spread many other colds and flus every school year. This is not a virus that should make us question the germ theory of disease. I understand the want for children's education and emotional well being, but that shouldn't require other adults to be hospitalized or die.
We already had hospitals in many states fill-up and turn away other ICU patents, because they were full.
When would such a scientific decision have been made? Certainly, some time after October 2020, so maybe January or February of 2021? Many schools were re-opening at lower density and with testing by early 2021.
Now that we have a vaccine and adults can choose to be immunized (and/or immunize older children) that's less of a question and more of a family decision, but in May of 2020 there was much we didn't know. Almost certainly, opening schools would have sped up the spread/development of variants.
Flip it around and ask, what if the virus was only deadly/debilitating to 10% young children, and parents/businesses wanted to mandate sending children to school so their parents (with <0.01% death rate) could work? Would that have been responsible?
> This would be accurate, if only those school age children didn't have older teachers or parents.
Then this should have been handled on a case-by-case basis. What share of families actually have an elderly or otherwise at-risk relative living at home with them? What share of teachers were actually in a high risk category? These questions were easily answerable by the middle of 2020 but all such nuance was thrown out in favor of "COVID is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS to EVERYONE and we have to shut EVERYTHING (except Wal-Mart, naturally) down to stop it!"
> This is not a virus that should make us question the germ theory of disease. I understand the want for children's education and emotional well being, but that shouldn't require other adults to be hospitalized or die.
How is this not an argument that one could make in favor of closing schools and shutting down society to prevent the spread of influenza? The difference is just one of degree, not kind.
Yearly flu vaccines are available for elderly and high risk populations. Typically all personnel (medical, orderly, food service) in hospitals are required to take flu vaccines (as well a TB and others) every year. Not available with COVID until Jan-March.
With a death rate (using ICU intervention and the latest treatments) death rates in developed countries are still 5-15x higher than typical flus, and hospitalization rates are more than 10x higher. It also appears to be much more (r0 2x higher) transmissible (especially the delta variant). Those are differences in degree that create difference in kind. They cause the overload of ICUs, preventing treatment of other diseases and increasing all death rates!
Influenza does not normally kill 600k people in the US (with masks, social distancing, remote schooling, etc the flu effectively didn't exist this year). Hospitals don't normally run out of respirators and morgue space. These are all well reported and documented.
Three months after the publication you site, the nuance you're looking for was available (in Jan-Feb) when many schools partially opened (with lower density and masks). So all I see is a straw man.
> Hospitals don't normally run out of respirators and morgue space. These are all well reported and documented.
I'm surprised people still believe the whole "overloaded hospitals" thing, it's a canard driven by selective reporting from a few very under-resourced jurisdictions like Lombardy and low-income NYC. Overall hospital occupancy was lower through 2020 than it was in prior years because people were scared away from hospitals and staff were furloughed.
The delta variant is a totally unsurprising development in the evolution of a virus: more transmissible and less lethal.
Closing schools in March 2020 was acceptable. Closing them after summer 2020 was ridiculous, as the data made clear. Many countries chose to keep schools open (e.g. Switzerland) and demonstrated that it was safe, not to mention the right thing to do. Your comment looks like it was written in March 2020.
They're learning from playing with other kids. I've seen more parents go for walks and kids playing outside than ever before. They don't want to sit at home all day. So they socialize and play sports more now. Pickup Soccer, Biking, and so on. It's great for their mental health and development to be doing things on their own, figuring out the world, without parental supervision. You can learn so much from team sports.
Private schools in the Bay Area quickly adapted to the situation and stayed open, while even the wealthiest district public schools took a long time to follow. My two cents: school boards were much, much slower to adapt lessons from elsewhere in teaching students when compared with how fast healthcare adapted to managing patients. The lack of adaptability in a changing environment is the true damning weakness.
Um, children can still spread covid. Even if they have a low chance of dying ignoring that its not binary and you can have long term health effects even if you don't die they can make family members and teachers/staff sick and get them killed. Children are really good at spreading illness.
No, you should stop spreading misinformation. Children are micro-spreaders. In countries that kept schools open, teachers have not fallen ill at a higher rate than other adults in the community.
What's most annoying in this situation is that this conclusion was clear from the very beginning, and we hear it only now, when it is too late. And should you have brought this up when it should have been brought up, you would have been branded as insensitive murdering killer Trump supporter. Good job journalists speaking out when it doesn't matter.
I'm a teacher (in Denmark, of 7th to 9th grade). I have been against lockdowns from the beginning. Personally, it was easy for me. I got paid and had more control over my work life under the lockdowns.
Online teaching is bullshit and everyone who has the slightest knowledge of kids knows it. I have no doubt whatsoever that the lost months are going to cost my pupils in their further education.
My own children are at university and are both now seeing therapists, despite being robust, smart, high achievers.
I know lots of people who have tested positive for Coronavirus: my son, numerous colleagues, lots of my pupils. Nobody was hospitalised. Most of them had no or very few symptoms.
Lockdowns were a mistake, a very serious, media-fuelled mistake that is going to continue fucking us for many years to come.
108 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 155 ms ] threadI'm not entirely comfortable with the narrative that the costs and risks weren't weighed carefully.
It wasn't that the pros and cons weren't weighed. Every human decision involves the weighing of pros and cons.
For every decision that harms someone, a person decided that the harms were justified because of some other goal they deemed necessary.
The solution is not to generally apply more careful and scientific thinking, because the problem is not a lack of careful and scientific thinking. The agencies in charge are full of people who study this exact problem for a living and are fully qualified and trained for it.
What we're really grappling with is a clear mismatch of priorities between the decision makers and the "decision-makees." Why didn't their study and training lead to a decision that we're all comfortable with? If someone is to blame for this poor decision, why have they not been indicted -- and if we, the public, are to blame for our complicity, why haven't yet we acknowledged our mistake?
No one wants to point the finger out of fear of being called divisive. But these children will grow up soon and one day ask, "Why us?" I hope we have a better answer for them than, "There was much we didn't know..."
It's just getting harder and harder, as more and more is revealed, to believe that the costs and risks weren't weighed based on what harm or benefit would come to specific individuals instead of how specific policies would help or hurt specific politicians and political interests. Schools were closed even though children were at the least risk, but nursing homes were forced to accept COVID-positive transfers even though the elderly were at the greatest risk.
Schools aren't closed to (primarily) protect the kids. Where did you get that idea?
Schools are closed to protect the teachers, the families, and anyone those people contact that would be infected by those kids spreading infection at schools and then bringing the infection into households.
Children, who have the least agency and the least blame for the situation they find themselves in, were being asked to take a pretty big hit for the benefit of many of those who actually did have more agency and blame.
We closed the schools just fine but still had a real hard time getting universal mask wearing (for instance) to happen. Yet again, children suffer to pay for the selfish decisions of the adults.
Absolutely, it did!
But is that more harm than if their parents, siblings, grandparents, or friends got sick or died from covid?
In short: Does that harm outweigh, balance, or is it overwhelmed by the harm caused but not closing schools?
That's not an easy question.
That being said, while I disagree with how the article's initial positioning on this topic (that governments didn't weigh the harms), I 100% agree with the rest of the article and I hope governments use this as an opportunity to improve education by learning from these experiences.
> We closed the schools just fine but still had a real hard time getting universal mask wearing (for instance) to happen. Yet again, children suffer to pay for the selfish decisions of the adults.
This is sounding suspiciously like a nirvana fallacy.
All solutions for managing COVID are imperfect, and the defenses are layered. I struggle to believe there is any scenario where school closures are not a useful tool in the COVID prevention toolkit.
Would it be nice if other measures were more effective and school closures could be used more sparingly?
Sure.
But we don't live in that world.
Yeah. Remind me who ordered that, and whether they're out of office over it? That's so blatantly wrong that it should rise to the level of criminal endangerment, even if nobody died from it. And I'm pretty sure that people did die from it, at which point it's at least manslaughter. Yes, I want that politician charged, because that was the clearly predictable result of that insanely wrong-headed decision.
If school boards said, "We're staying open for the sake of the children", teachers would have said, "Fine, watch them yourselves."
Compared to that, remote learning was a no-brainer. It's obviously deeply imperfect, and that cost students, but it at least made schooling possible. That literally may not have been the case any other way: send the students to a school building and they may have been the only ones there.
I know that's not a one-size-fits-all thing, people are social after all and isolation causes its own issues, but I sort of wonder if remote learning can't become an option for kids, especially those who are poorly-served by their local schools.
Many of them were at greater risk of death from driving to school than they were from Covid.
I haven't heard any discussion about this question, at all, and frankly, it disturbs me, today's children are tomorrow's adults.
Somehow, I don't think, "think of the teachers," or "we didn't think it through" will be good enough for them.
As a culture we have completely lost touch with the natural cycles of life. The boomers in positions of power have clearly prioritized their own safety at the expense of the upcoming generations.
That's probably inflammatory. But it's a popular opinion where I'm from that isn't vocalized in the media.
Without trying to say one take is right or wrong, this can in a lot ways be reduced to the security vs freedom tradeoff.
When hospitals are overcrowded any injury has a higher mortality rate. Teachers not wanting to die is a totally fine reason to close schools, too.
There are half a million COVID deaths last year. There are around 30,000 deaths a year from automobile accidents. COVID is more deadly than automobile accidents, by an order of magnitude.
What a joke. Please read about excess mortality before saying stupid things. Most people who die in car crashes wouldn't have died otherwise. Huge numbers of people who died "from COVID" would have died from something else.
The World Mortality Dataset: Tracking excess mortality across countries during the COVID-19 pandemic
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7852240.2/
"Summing up the excess mortality estimates across all countries in our dataset gives 3.3 million excess deaths. In contrast, summing up the official COVID-19 death counts gives only 2.1 million deaths."
Interestingly enough, their conclusion was that covid deaths are being undercounted:
"At the time of writing, the world’s official COVID-19 death count is 2.9 million. Our results suggest that the true toll may be above 4.5 million."
How I compared the risks:
In New York the mortality rate for COVID-19 for all age groups over 18 was found to be at least 0.2%[1]. The CDC[2] reports 18-29 years at 0.5%, 30-39 at 1.4%, 40-49 at 3.5%, 50-64 at 16.4%.
There were 36,560[3] motor vehicle related deaths in 2018 in the US. With 273,602,100[4] cars on the road one could make a rough estimate of mortality of 0.013%. This number is conservatively high since it does not include passengers.
[1] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-se... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e1.htm#T1_down [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in... [4] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicle...
- Using confirmed cases as the denominator significantly overstates the fatality rate, because a large share of the total infections is never confirmed
- "All age groups over 18" elides huge disparities between the younger and older age groups. It also obscures large differences in risk between those with comorbidities vs those without. The CDC does not make this easy to parse out, but in Canada after their first wave, "100% of the COVID-involved deaths under the age of 45 as of July 31 had at least one other disease or condition certified on the medical certificate of death." https://web.archive.org/web/20210219195135if_/https://www150...
- New York as a region had one of the highest fatality rates of the entire pandemic
- Covid is a "one-and-done" risk as far as we know, while the risk of a car accident is repeated year after year for as long as one drives on the roads. Even in the absence of vaccines, the risk of death from Covid is unlikely to remain as high in 2024 as it was in 2020.
The most sound way to run this sort of comparison is something like "how many in risk group X (say, people aged 30-39 with no comorbidities) died in 2020 from Covid vs how many in that group die in a typical year from auto accidents?"
If you want to say that overweight 60 year old teachers with diabetes should not have been forced back to in-person instruction you'll get no argument from me.
I took it as far as I felt I needed to. When I saw that the risk due to COVID to even a young and generally more healthy demographic was still an order of magnitude bigger I didn't feel I needed to dig further. Car accidents are already a big enough source of risk that I personally take measures to reduce it and support societal interventions to reduce it further. COVID is much worse.
You didn't see that though, you just goofed the numbers. Confusing CFR with IFR (and comparing that with absolute risk from car accidents) is just way off base.
Open Schools, Covid-19, and Child and Teacher Morbidity in Sweden
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2026670
19 teachers per 100000 received intensive care through June 2020, and it's unclear if any died. Sweden's motor vehicle death rate is relatively low, 2 per 100,000 over an entire year (vs. 11 in the US), but that's over the entire population, not just teachers.
The effects of school closures on SARS-CoV-2 among parents and teachers
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/9/e2020834118
This article says that keeping schools open without masks or quarantines doubled covid risk for teachers and also affected partners as well as students' parents. It concluded that "keeping lower-secondary schools open had minor consequences for the overall transmission" but "results for teachers suggest that measures to protect teachers should be considered." They estimated 9 parents (out of 646K), 1 teacher (out of 73K), and 1 partner (out of 47K) died from covid. However the data only appear to be through July.
I haven't found exact statistics for both covid and crashes in 2020, but it looks like around 20% of covid deaths are in the 24-54 age range, as are around 45% of crash deaths, for an estimated 10,000 covid deaths vs. 1675 crash deaths in that age range.
So in spite of California's high traffic crash rate, covid deaths seem to have been a much greater risk in 2020 for the 24-54 age group.
Yes, teachers didn't sign up for this. Neither did grocery store workers or—in many cases—even nurses and other hospital staff. Everyone did what they had to to stop the world from collapsing.
I can tell you, around here, infection rates clearly tracked with school closures, and did so independently of other lockdown measures.
So I frankly do not buy any narrative that claims that school closures weren't justified as a means to control spread.
School closures are clearly a tool in the arsenal for controlling spread, and the decision then becomes one of context: how bad are local infection rates, what is the trend line, etc, and is the reduction in infection rates from school closures justified when considering the downsides.
My children (Quebec) were in class all of last year, except for a 10 day period in January - the tail end of a local lockdown at the height of the third wave.
Infection rates were certainly higher due to schools opening, but other decisions - and a population that was mostly tolerant of restrictions - mitigated that. We wore masks, we limited contact and we stayed home to the extent possible. As a result, schools were able to stay open.
No teacher at our school (~600 children) caught covid, and only 3 classes were closed.
What I'm getting at is: it was fully possible to open up schools, provided you have a government and a population that is willing to accept restrictions in other areas. _It's a choice to close schools and demand that indoor restaurant dining stay open_.
The US had its first confirmed case on the same day as South Korea but was much slower to respond. Had we had a more robust response, we might not have had to make these tough choices about closing schools.
The president tried to take action, but politics was and is involved. We have a report from last week saying that scientists were afraid to speak up because of fear for saying orange man bad was correct.
If you believe these super simple arguments of hard lock downs would have worked, then look at how the guy at imperial college who screwed us all over with his horrible forecasts. He said “lockdown to save is all.” Then proceeds to visit his mistress, one of the two had coronavirus! How do you think we could legitimately implement a lockdown when the people who scream lockdown do not implement it themselves (athletes sneaking ladies, Newsome, Whitmer, etc.).
Lockdowns have been largely orthogonal to school closures -- much of Europe kept its schools open while pursuing even more draconian lockdown measures than blue states in the U.S. "Just lockdown, test, and trace harder" is not the lesson from South Korea.
So:
1) He was the wrong guy to be setting policy during corona.
2) This was known a year before his emails were released, which point to an international conspiracy of virologists attempting to maintain corona, and likely GoF, funding.
Without billions in govt. funding, their labs (and careers) disappear.
The various virologists worked a circuit between US, Canada, Australia and China. All 4 countries are involved in a coverup that various journalists have exposed.
Cost benefit analysis for big complex issues like coronavirus requires the identification and quantification of things that are really difficult to identify and quantify, and there's no easy way to do that without some form of subjective value judgement.
CBA done properly is a good way to make these judgements explicit and transparent. CBA done badly is a good way to hide those judgements behind a load of figures. Neither is dispassionate.
So I don't think it's just the Twitter mobs...
It's a good lesson that life is messy and unpredictable and society can only do so much to shield us from that.
If they cannot come to grips with the idea that a year of their education was sacrificed to try and save lives during a global pandemic, that's on them. Kids around the world and throughout history lose education for way worse reasons.
For instance, when I was growing up I lost at least a year to teacher strikes. My teachers went on strike for months at least once at every level of my education, Elementary, Secondary, and University (Yes, I was paying for it. I lost more than half a semester. No I wasn't refunded or credited for the next year or anything.)
I wish I could say I lost that time because we were trying to save lives, instead of "My teachers union was happy to use my education as a bargaining chip in trying to negotiate for a better collective agreement, and my school board would rather let me and everyone else go without than give the teachers union what they wanted"
At least "we were trying to slow a pandemic and save lives" sounds heroic.
If we can’t just go back to normal now, then why don’t we just give up?
It's not that much further to vaccinate kids though, we are almost there.
In the UK schools have been open, and the new variant is rampaging through, if we hit vaccine escape it will be because of actions like this.
If vaccine escape happens because the UK had its schools open then I find it very difficult to believe "we vaccinate everyone at once and the virus just goes away" was ever a realistic prospect in the first place.
I"m Canadian, Ontario specifically.
We've done well with vaccinations, though nowhere near close to 95% and we're still in the longest lock down world wide with no real signs of things going back to normal.
But there are signs that things are getting better. Its a long time betweeen now and September, let's give it time to see how things go. As long as the trend is moving in the right direction and governments give back their emergency powers( we have an Ontario government that just granted themselves a longer stay on their power even though we're doing really well in terms of vaccinations nd case counts) then maybe be patient and let things play out.
No. Lack of school doesn’t create harm. Attempting to shoehorn traditional schooling into an online form certainly can.
Wealthier households with a well functioning family unit did well perhaps even better than normal, poorer ones and or ones that had family issues most likely resulted in a much poorer outcome than normal schooling.
How much did it actually impact children we won’t know for quite some time, it would all depend on how many of them will catch up and how the education system would adapt to the new gap(s).
What? You're going to let your children have playdates? In the middle of a pandemic?!
They figured out PPE and distancing protocols about six weeks after initial shutdown and all kids were back in class. To our knowledge, there were no known covid outbreaks (all parents and staff are emailed when a staff or student is diagnosed).
Capitalism wins again.
Kids did not go from learning 100% to 0%. Let's make an argument that, perhaps (and I don't believe this either) they learned 50% of what they would have learned in person. Half.
OK. How much harm does that cause?
For reference, I have two kids who went remote the entire year. I am very aware of what work they did.
OK. What's the lifelong harm of learning half of history, health, geography, social studies and underwater basket weaving for a single school year?
None. Zero. Less than a rounding error.
Please raise your hand if missing half of what you learned in tenth grade history (or almost any subject for that matter) would have destroyed your life as an adult?
From my perspective, the only subjects that could suffer would be the sciences, math. This, because they are incremental. Half of math in a year does mean you lost half of the incremental steps needed to go on to the next stage.
How bad is this? Not bad at all. Just do some remedial work next year and stop whining about it. Seriously, kids today have no clue how hard we had to work in school decades ago. In high school I regularly had to stay up until midnight or so to do homework.
The point is: Adult life isn't easy. It requires hard work and sacrifice. What better time to teach kids about reality than in school, when all they have to worry about is school?
Well, they don't have the time in a new school year to do that?
Drop some of the bullshit courses and add extra time with what matters!
This is where I go into a rant. Sorry. I'll keep this comment to the US for now.
Our K-12 educational system is an abject disaster. We give our kids to this system for well over a decade and what we get in return isn't something to be proud of.
What?
Answer a very simple question:
What is a high school graduate in the US good for? If you had to hire a high school graduate in the US, what job would you give them?
Let's make a list:
In other words, after spending over a dozen years in the educational system we graduate young adults devoid of marketable skills, to the point they barely qualify for the simplest minimum wage jobs.College? Sure. Yet, not everyone goes to college. And if you truly care about raising the poverty line you have to deliver more out of a dozen years in an educational path than barely being good enough to stack boxes.
As my oldest kid approached the end of his "stay" in high school I made it a point to put him through actually useful learning, bot formal and informal. He came out of high school with a nanodegree from Udacity as well as a solid range of skills he learned from me, from woodworking to manual and CNC machining, welding, electronics and coding. While his college friends were struggling to find anything that paid more than minimum wage he was making triple minimum wage in his first job with no prior work experience.
That is the value of an education that develops real marketable skills vs. the bullshit we like to call "education".
Harsh words? Sure. Please provide me with your list of what a high school graduate could be hired to do without significant further instruction to earn anything above minimum wage. I'll wait.
That's the perspective from which I say that this idea that missing some instruction for a year caused kids irreparable harm. From my point of view we cause more harm --lifelong harm-- by not delivering young adults with a reasonable set of marketable skills after a dozen+ years in educational institutions. One way to look at it is that this is a massive waste of a dozen years.
One of my kids regularly...
Nobody leaving high school is going to make money sipping wine while discussing the finer details of Roman history. Sorry to take such a harsh line on this. Culture and context is VERY important, of course. We just don't need 12+ years of it.
The first 12+ years of school is our "young-adult factory". We get one shot (over 12+ years) to produce young adults with a solid future. We do not do a good job of this. We waste a good deal of that time with pursuits that will not deliver measurably significant improvement to the rest of their lives. That's a crime. In this context 2020 was a rounding error.
The key is social interaction. The most important thing you can teach your small kid (2-4 of age) according to psychologists is to be well socially integrated. Its a major booster for rest of the life, and also in cumulative form. And it transfers also to later age. This was completely taken from all kids affected by school closures. We all know by heart how fucked up, toxic and disconnected from real world the online socializing is. Well, this is the only thing kids had for more than a year.
Ideal schools teach much much more, but I don't think many of us went to those, I for sure didn't. So the social part remains the most important thing schools gave us, and our kids don't have even that.
I don't claim I know whats best, that's anyway highly subjective based on one's interest. But I am damn sure for the kids this was the net loss that will reverb for rest of their lives in negative manner. What would be actually really great if psychologists for a change came up with something useful for general population - some sort of easy-to-implement-globally course/program how to compensate this harm once kids come back to school.
Exactly. There's a term for this: Opportunity cost. I would suggest we need to devote all of high school to creating a solid path into both college and non-college professional/trade jobs. As an example, five years of high school history is simply ridiculous. It is utterly worthless for anyone other than those who might go on to college to get a history degree. And, BTW, I love history. I am simply looking at the opportunity cost.
Sir Ken Robinson's old TED presentation is relevant here [0]. A better system would be one where the path optimizes based on a range of criteria rather than treating every single kid as the same block of clay. This is much harder than the cookie-cutter approach we take over 12+ years.
"All kids have tremendous talents and we squander them".
"If you were to visit education as an alien and asked what it's for? <snip> You would have to conclude <snip> The whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors"
> The key is social interaction.
Absolutely agreed. My comment does not address this at all. There is a legitimate claim that 2020 had social effects we don't yet understand. I can't speak to this other than to say that I watched my kids manage this quite successfully. I have not seen any ill effects.
> But I am damn sure for the kids this was the net loss that will reverb for rest of their lives in negative manner.
I think you are wrong. The proof is simple: Look at what kids went through during the world wars. I assure you this was worse than 2020. In my own family history, kids survived genocide. They went on to become perfectly capable, balanced and successful adults. It did not wreck their lives. I think this narrative is false and defeatist.
[0] https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_do_schools_kill_c...
…proceeds to describe an unreasonably substandard school district. If your district really is decent, there is no good future. Without a well-educated population, the nation will fail.
What you might not understand is that these issues are not uncommon throughout the US. Not just in K-12 but also college/university. Otherwise excellent schools are stuck with bad teachers or professors who cannot be fired or otherwise dealt with because of the range of protections afforded to them. Job performance issues that would get anyone fired in any other job have no effect on teachers. More accurately, the process is long, difficult and very expensive.
So, no, my description of a couple of bad teachers in our district does not turn our district from good to bad. There are probably hundreds of teachers in the various schools we have in the district. Only a few of them are bad and, objectively speaking, should have been replaced years ago.
The best I can suggest is that you google "why bad teachers don't get fired" and read a few articles on the subject. You can be in a good school district and still have these issues.
The bottom line is that our system of education does not optimize for results that matter. Truly good/brilliant teachers should be recognized and paid more. Bad teachers should be filtered out of the system as quickly as possible.
Here we are, talking about an article that claims kids got shafted for having issues for ONE school year and we can't get rid of bad teachers who affect MILLIONS of kids over DECADES. How does that make any sense at all? The same bad teacher teaching science badly for twenty-five years is worse than what may have happened in 2020.
One of the things my kids tell me with some frequency is that when I teach them science I bring it to life, it is fun, engaging and interesting. Same subjects covered in school, we just explore deeper and wider than they would ever cover. Inspiration is massively important with kids. You can destroy a kids' interest in a subject by doing a shitty job teaching it.
No. The rate for ages 5-17 was actually slightly higher than that of adults 18-49, which was higher than the rate for 50-64, which was higher than the rate for 65+.
What was much lower for kids was the severity of their illness. For every 100k kids that got it, about 600 were hospitalized. For 18-49 it was about 2400. For 50-64, 7200. For 65+, 21000.
See the CDC data on the page mulvya linked in a parallel comment.
See Table 2 of https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
Some people just seem to get cause and effect mixed up.
Or the threads all over twitter this winter alleging 'funny numbers' because the flu cases were so low last year.. Imagine that, when everyone is social distancing, we have our lowest amount of influenza ever.. it must be a great conspiracy to manipulate the numbers..
And yet the explanation for Covid spreading so much during the winter is popularly held to be that people weren't social distancing and were selfishly refusing to follow the guidelines. I mean, how is it that these measures were simultaneously almost 100% effective against influenza and clearly much less so against Covid?
I think viral interference is the real explanation here: https://www.insighttherapeutics.com/publications/insights/20...
I'm not entirely sure things would have dragged along so much had we just eliminated children as spreaders first.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v...
We already had hospitals in many states fill-up and turn away other ICU patents, because they were full.
When would such a scientific decision have been made? Certainly, some time after October 2020, so maybe January or February of 2021? Many schools were re-opening at lower density and with testing by early 2021.
Now that we have a vaccine and adults can choose to be immunized (and/or immunize older children) that's less of a question and more of a family decision, but in May of 2020 there was much we didn't know. Almost certainly, opening schools would have sped up the spread/development of variants.
Flip it around and ask, what if the virus was only deadly/debilitating to 10% young children, and parents/businesses wanted to mandate sending children to school so their parents (with <0.01% death rate) could work? Would that have been responsible?
Then this should have been handled on a case-by-case basis. What share of families actually have an elderly or otherwise at-risk relative living at home with them? What share of teachers were actually in a high risk category? These questions were easily answerable by the middle of 2020 but all such nuance was thrown out in favor of "COVID is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS to EVERYONE and we have to shut EVERYTHING (except Wal-Mart, naturally) down to stop it!"
> This is not a virus that should make us question the germ theory of disease. I understand the want for children's education and emotional well being, but that shouldn't require other adults to be hospitalized or die.
How is this not an argument that one could make in favor of closing schools and shutting down society to prevent the spread of influenza? The difference is just one of degree, not kind.
With a death rate (using ICU intervention and the latest treatments) death rates in developed countries are still 5-15x higher than typical flus, and hospitalization rates are more than 10x higher. It also appears to be much more (r0 2x higher) transmissible (especially the delta variant). Those are differences in degree that create difference in kind. They cause the overload of ICUs, preventing treatment of other diseases and increasing all death rates!
Influenza does not normally kill 600k people in the US (with masks, social distancing, remote schooling, etc the flu effectively didn't exist this year). Hospitals don't normally run out of respirators and morgue space. These are all well reported and documented.
Three months after the publication you site, the nuance you're looking for was available (in Jan-Feb) when many schools partially opened (with lower density and masks). So all I see is a straw man.
I'm surprised people still believe the whole "overloaded hospitals" thing, it's a canard driven by selective reporting from a few very under-resourced jurisdictions like Lombardy and low-income NYC. Overall hospital occupancy was lower through 2020 than it was in prior years because people were scared away from hospitals and staff were furloughed.
The delta variant is a totally unsurprising development in the evolution of a virus: more transmissible and less lethal.
Online teaching is bullshit and everyone who has the slightest knowledge of kids knows it. I have no doubt whatsoever that the lost months are going to cost my pupils in their further education.
My own children are at university and are both now seeing therapists, despite being robust, smart, high achievers.
I know lots of people who have tested positive for Coronavirus: my son, numerous colleagues, lots of my pupils. Nobody was hospitalised. Most of them had no or very few symptoms.
Lockdowns were a mistake, a very serious, media-fuelled mistake that is going to continue fucking us for many years to come.