Magical thinking about school openings in US

[Shermann]

As I understand it, the justification that schools can be opened safely this fall is based on the following two assertions:

1) The risk to children getting severely ill from CV-19 is low
2) There is no evidence children can cause significant spread of CV-19

I accept assertion 1 as the science and data clearly back this up. However, assertion 2 appears to be based on a logical fallacy. It has not been demonstrated that unaffected children can be largely immune to CV-19 as opposed to being merely asymptomatic. While the inverse has not be demonstrated either, I believe the default position should be that children can cause significant spread. This belief is compatible with having an abundance of caution related to this health crisis.

If you accept my definition of this default position, you have no choice to reject assertion 2 as it represents a shifting of the burden of proof. If you accept that assertion 2 is not sound, you must also reject the justification that schools can be opened safely.

I don't know of any children who live alone and can socially distance. Schools are at risk of creating a "mixer" environment where children spread it to each other and then to their parents and grandparents, fueling the pandemic further.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

1. Also the mixing

Would mutate the virus.

Maybe it will become less bad but more likely it will become worse.

[smirkymonkey]

2. I worry about teenagers like my 16 year-old niece who has asthma.

If she does get it and gets sick, what are the chances she will have serious complications, or worse? A lot more children have asthma these days than when I was growing up. Almost nobody had it back then.

[gratuitous]

3. Even accepting the arguments

A certain level of definitions is required here. Let's say that children getting severely ill from Covid-19 is a low risk. How low? One kid in a classroom of 25 would be a 4% rate of severe illness. (How about school districts where class sizes are routinely larger than 25 students? Two, maybe three kids get infected and have severe illness.) Do we even know at this point what the R-naught rate of transmission is? If the rate is above one, a class of 25 could have 8 or more kids severely ill within six weeks.

What about teachers, particularly teachers at increase risk due to age, medical history, and other factors? What do they do if one of the students in their class tests positive? Are there adequate replacements lined up? Or will teachers be expected to risk their health if not their lives just to obey DeVos' order that kids need to be back in class? What kind of financial assistance is going to be available to schools, especially in cash-strapped districts? If it's between none and bupkis, this sounds like one of those unfunded mandates conservatives hate so much.

There's a lot of questions here, and not many answers. I'm not an educator, but I'd be real hesitant to put my life on the line for this half-baked proposal.

[Yavin4]

4. My question is: Do we have enough data to support either assertion?

If so, please cite the source and there should be multiple sources.

Lack of data has haunted us since the virus was first discovered.

[guillaumeb]

5. The true motivation is to create the illusion of normalcy.

The very rich crooks in the Trump Administration will not be affected, and neither will their children be affected.

[Shermann]

9. I don't believe so, this is why establishing the default position is so critical nt

[lapucelle]

6. Assertion 2 is a flaw in reasoning that has a name: argumentum ad ignorantiam

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-from-Ignorance

[Caliman73]

7. Assertion 2 has not really been tested.

The Trump administration asserts 2 from information reported in European countries or other countries that have managed to suppress the spread of the virus.

The main reason I reject the plan of opening schools is not necessarily based on whether assertion 1 and 2 are sound. I simply do not believe anything that Trump pushes, is in the interest of the people. That simple.

Trump's lack of coherence, information, and leadership on this virus just makes accepting anything that comes from the administration impossible. Like I said, they are basing their information on countries that have managed the spread of the virus over all in their countries. They are talking about countries where the highest rate of infection is 300 new cases per day (Germany). We are in the tens of thousands of new cases per day here and have no unified approach to stop the spread and no coordination between state and federal government to approach the virus.

Trump's desire to open schools is nakedly political. He does not care about children, or citizens, or science, or anything other than a short term political victory.

[unblock]

8. Do we know the long term effects of mild or asymptomatic cases?

There's some concern that tiny blood clots can cause long term damage even in cases where the original exposure was mild or even asymptomatic.