Teachers are ready to quit rather than put their lives at risk • Hacker News Board

Re: Teachers are ready to quit rather than put their lives at risk

#831

Post by ironmagma » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 3:31 AM UTC

mantap wrote: post #808

hodgesrm wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how the moneyed interests really have much to do with the COVID-19 response in the US (or lack of it). Few of the people refusing to wear masks belong to the idle rich.

There is nothing special about America in that respect. Plenty of people around the world are not wearing masks when they are supposed to. What sets America apart is the hyper-shorttermism: go into a lockdown, then come out of it in the middle when it becomes clear that the lockdown has economic consequences (which should have been obvious). Then, go back into lockdowns when it becomes clear that coming out of lockdo…

Other countries have had second lockdowns or are thinking about it as well, including China. Also, no one in America wants to bankrupt their own businesses (except the lower side of the lower class). Our downfall is our reliance on "repeatable" profits which we then waste by giving them to the rich who then hoard them and don't spend enough.

Re: Teachers are ready to quit rather than put their lives at risk

#832

Post by yongjik » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 3:33 AM UTC

schoolornot wrote: post #825

oramit wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually chose stomp over eradicate because I wanted to imply that there would still be some left but that it would be a manageable amount. That's interesting that you took it the opposite way; I'm sorry for the confusion. I agree, eradication was probably impossible in the United States. What I thought we all agreed on at the start of this thing was to lock down so we could "flatten the curve". Remember that? Whil…

JFK international airport is a 20 minute ride from the heart of Manhattan and we have a "transportation security agency" that can't find physical contraband in a suitcase much less be expected to be gatekeepers of health for the nation. Suppose we drastically lower transmission. How many times should NYC and the surrounding areas be locked down because someone flew in from a country with loose contagion protocols? Be…

Logistically, it's easier to force everyone arriving into mandatory two-week quarantine, than finding a contraband whatever hidden in a sea of suitcases.

What's lacking is political willpower.

Re: Teachers are ready to quit rather than put their lives at risk

#833

Post by rayiner » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 3:37 AM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #734

rayiner wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Island.

Sorry is the implication that the US is in the state it’s in because infected people are continuously walking across the border and infecting more people? If no, then being an island isn’t really relevant here.

No, it’s because 100 different people (according to genetic studies) started separate chains of infections in New York City due to international travel, immediately overwhelming any efforts to do contact tracing.

Re: Teachers are ready to quit rather than put their lives at risk

#834

Post by Pinguinsan » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 3:40 AM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #45

doopy-loopy2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deaths in children are essentially 0

The mortality rate in children would leave us with something like 10k dead kids country-wide if the virus is permitted to spread to everyone. Mortality isn't the only issue, either. We're seeing plenty of signs some folks survive, but with long-term health impacts. (An overwhelmed medical system will kill vulnerable kids in non-COVID ways, too. Mortality of things like car accidents and asthma attacks and suicide go…

How many kids have long term effects?

Re: Teachers are ready to quit rather than put their lives at risk

#835

Post by enraged_camel » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 3:41 AM UTC

rpiguy wrote: post #430

enraged_camel wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Schools across Europe have opened. Children rarely spread the disease. Doctors recommend schools open. False on all three counts. Stop spreading misinformation and propaganda, thanks.

All three are true, you are denying science. I am very tired of this anti-science crowd peddling fear. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...

Before accusing me of denying science, you should actually read the underlying material and try to think about it critically. The AAP guidelines the article is referencing were written more than three weeks ago, when most states were in the middle of a lull between the first wave that we had in March and April and the second one that is starting. It also contradicts CDC's own, current guidelines, which state that remote learning is the safest option for people of all ages.

Please see the updated statement from AAP's top pediatrician: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...

Furthermore, the AAP guidelines don't say anything about teachers or school staff. It is written purely with kids in mind. When asked about this in an NYT interview, Dr. Sean O’Leary, who helped write the guidelines, said:

"We’re pediatricians. We’re not educators. We don’t want to tread in space where we don’t belong."

In other words, they don't give a shit about teachers or school staff. Well, maybe we should? At least a quarter of American teachers are over 50, and more than third of them have pre-existing conditions. Reopening schools for in-person instruction will decimate them.

Lastly, even if kids themselves are not strong vectors for transmission, there is literally tens of millions of them in the USA that are of K-12 age. What do you think is going to happen when they go on to infect their parents and grandparents?

Re: Teachers are ready to quit rather than put their lives at risk

#836

Post by rayiner » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 3:42 AM UTC

mynameisvlad wrote: post #713

rayiner wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CDC issued guidelines, and Trump had regular calls with the governors to coordinate. It’s more or less the same thing Merkel’s government did. They delivered what federal stockpiles they had. What else were they supposed to do? It’s the states fault that there weren’t any test kits, tracing and isolation infrastructure, etc. Obviously it would have helped if Trump wasn’t a counterproductive buffoon that contradic…

> It’s the states fault that there weren’t any test kits, tracing and isolation infrastructure, etc. Why exactly is this the states' fault? This seems like something that would be far more effective at the federal level. It's the exact same argument as the parent comment, it shouldn't be up to states to create tracing and isolation infrastructure, test kits, etc. Putting that burden on the states is exactly how we go…

> Why exactly is this the states' fault?

Because it was their responsibility. The CDC, as well as about 235 years of law, was absolutely clear about this: https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/phl101/PHL101-Unit-5-16Jan09-S... (slides 8, 10).

> This seems like something that would be far more effective at the federal level.

Maybe that’s a discussion we can have for next time. But the point is that we had a very long-standing division of labor that states knew about, but they didn’t prepare. You can’t have a debate about changing the division of responsibility during a pandemic. The idea that someone else should have been in charge isn’t an excuse when the responsibility had been assigned to you. Put differently, the CDC presentation I linked to, which says the CDC is just there to provide “expert assistance” wasn’t a surprise to anyone.

> It's the exact same argument as the parent comment, it shouldn't be up to states to create tracing and isolation infrastructure, test kits, etc.

But it was. Just like it was up to France or Germany to do those things, and not some EU agency. Italy isn’t blaming the eCDC for its own lack of preparation.

> Putting that burden on the states is exactly how we got to the place we are in.

No, we got into the place we’re in because states shirked a responsibility that had plainly been assigned to them. (And in fact, was inherently theirs as a matter of the very structure of our federation).

> Without effective federal support and direction, no solution will be effective since inter-state travel exists and there's 50 different states that will come up with 50 different solutions, some more effective than others.

Canada, Australia, Germany, etc. all managed to do this just fine.

Re: Teachers are ready to quit rather than put their lives at risk

#837

Post by ideals » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 4:01 AM UTC

theonething wrote: post #744

electriclove wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very pleased by the decision from the top in California today about keeping schools remote until things get better. The only complaint I have is how long it took to get there. Tons of people at hundreds/thousands of school districts and private schools throughout the state have spent incredible effort debating and planning and so much effort could have been saved if the decision from the top was made earlier.

Why do you believe keeping schools closed is better than reopening? Have you looked into the research? Most of my findings indicate that the benefits of opening safely outweigh the the risks and the adverse effects of school closure (to the children, families and society) outweigh the benefits. Just one quote out of many: > Weighing the health risks of reopening K-12 schools in fall 2020 against the educational risks…

> Most of my findings indicate that the benefits of opening safely outweigh the the risks and the adverse effects of school closure (to the children, families and society) outweigh the benefits.

Did you read the original-original comment? This is exactly what they're talking about man

Re: Teachers are ready to quit rather than put their lives at risk

#838

Post by war1025 » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 4:02 AM UTC

Izkata wrote: post #822

oramit wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually chose stomp over eradicate because I wanted to imply that there would still be some left but that it would be a manageable amount. That's interesting that you took it the opposite way; I'm sorry for the confusion. I agree, eradication was probably impossible in the United States. What I thought we all agreed on at the start of this thing was to lock down so we could "flatten the curve". Remember that? Whil…

> because I wanted to imply that there would still be some left but that it would be a manageable amount. Go for "decimated" next time, rare to see it used right ;)

Decimate means you kill 1 out of every 10. It's probable that we decimated the virus and more. It's just that doesn't really make a difference.

Re: Teachers are ready to quit rather than put their lives at risk

#839

Post by pbz » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 4:09 AM UTC

Izkata wrote: post #822

oramit wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually chose stomp over eradicate because I wanted to imply that there would still be some left but that it would be a manageable amount. That's interesting that you took it the opposite way; I'm sorry for the confusion. I agree, eradication was probably impossible in the United States. What I thought we all agreed on at the start of this thing was to lock down so we could "flatten the curve". Remember that? Whil…

> because I wanted to imply that there would still be some left but that it would be a manageable amount. Go for "decimated" next time, rare to see it used right ;)

As in 10% reduction?

Re: Teachers are ready to quit rather than put their lives at risk

#840

Post by adolph » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 4:14 AM UTC

shreyansj wrote: post #642

adolph wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the denominator. There is no free lunch. If there is an estimate for death prevention, what is the estimated cost in lives? Given that death is a certainty for all, how many lost person-days do the 50k deaths represent? Since the lock down means no normal activities such as routine doctor visits, how many person-days would be lost due to undetected illness or delayed treatment? Staying locked in is a st…

Here's the other side - How many deaths are acceptable? If death is a certainty for all, should we just get rid of the health care systems? Should we stop research into some of the diseases? Which ones? How many person-days/productivity has been lost because of preventable deaths? We are talking about a 4/6/8 week lockdown, that's not long term, that's immediate term.

No, no, please don’t waste time constructing persons of straw. One insinuating that my position is “get rid of healthcare” is especially odious since the counterfactual I raised was one considering impacts of preventative care missed due to lockdowns. You made a rhetorical claim: “locked in for 6 weeks and if that had prevented 50000 deaths, how is that not worth it?”

How do you know if it is worth it or not if you don’t know the cost of being locked in for 6 weeks? Ignoring the other track doesn’t seem a path to a well considered decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem