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

"If transit itself were a global super-spreader, then a large outbreak would have been expected in dense Hong Kong, a city of 7.5 million people dependent on a public transportation system that, before the pandemic, was carrying 12.9 million people a day. Ridership there, according to the Post, fell considerably less than in other transit systems around the world. Yet Hong Kong has recorded only about 1,100 COVID-19 cases, one-tenth the number in Kansas, which has fewer than half as many people. Replicating Hong Kong’s success may involve safety measures, such as mask wearing, that are not yet ingrained in the U.S., but the evidence only underscores that the coronavirus can spread outside of transit and dense urban environments—which are not inherently harmful."

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/612979/

The government would function more efficiently if the GOP wasn't so dead set on blocking any form of reform or efficiency. It's not a coincidence that once any Dem gets into office the GOP becomes the party of No.

Try to reform healthcare? Nope. Try to cut military spending? No. Establish oversight over federal slush funds? Nope.

Having the government burn tons of money is absolutely playing into the hands of those arguing to weaken government for personal profit. The GOP are completely fine burning cash because they can just blame the Dems and use that as an argument to privatize core government functions.

So once again, much of it comes back to GOP obstructionism.

Schools can do many things either directly or implicitly, with some variations based on local laws. Here are some that I’m aware of:

1. Have an exam to pass up to the next grade. This isn’t necessarily intended to be malicious but it means that kids who are struggling, have less than fully supported disabilities, unstable home environments, etc. aren’t in their stats for the higher grades but will be in the comparison schools.

2. Have a graduation requirement that, say, you pass a ton of AP exams. Struggling students are probably going to bail when the odds aren’t looking good.

3. Not offering support services: charters have a financial incentive not to hire specialists for special needs, psychologists, librarians, cafeteria workers, etc. Parents will often pull kids over to the public schools where they’ll get more support, which also makes the cost differential and difficulties accurately comparing performance more pronounced.

4. Favor high levels of family support: academic performance tracks closely with family wealth so anything which favors affluence will have the effect of removing more lower-performing kids. That can be homework requiring laptops which aren’t provided, having a schedule or location which doesn’t work well for transit users, after school / weekend clubs or courses with supply fees, etc.

5. Tailor the curriculum to attract certain types of student: require things like taking Latin/Greek or a STEM load, don’t offer much in the way of arts/music/sports, or simply requiring more classes total, etc.

Again, this doesn’t need to be malicious - it just means that you’re encouraging kids who aren’t hyper-focused on academics and well supported to go elsewhere. That makes the numbers harder to accurately compare with public schools who have to serve everyone and also confounds the question of how many of those kids would have been high performers at any school. People like to say this pushes them to be better, and that’s true in some cases but not as many as lore would have it and tends to ignore the kids who burn out but would have done well with a bit less pressure.

> There are not infinite number of hospital beds. In NY they were past the limits for a month, killing med staff and also ptsd for them. This was barely avoided in Seattle

To be frank I've stopped caring enough to follow the news in detail anymore (which itself probably says something), so I don't know whether the rest of your comment is accurate or not. However, I can attest firsthand that this part pertaining to Seattle is completely false.

I live in Seattle and have had multiple friends/family members hospitalized with covid19. We were nowhere close to overwhelming hospital capacity. At the beginning of all of this, we had a massive field hospital in Century Link stadium set up and shut down without seeing a single patient, as well as a hospital ship which was supposed to harbor here but ended up being redirected (I believe to Los Angeles) because we didn't need it. Even now with the resurgence that's been happening, our metrics around ICU utilization are where we're performing best:

https://coronavirus.wa.gov/what-you-need-know/covid-19-risk-...

Metrics | Value | Goal | Meeting Goal

Percent of licensed beds occupied by patients | 60.3% | Percent of licensed beds occupied by COVID-19 cases | 3.7% | Other sources -

Field hospital being set up in Seattle: https://www.king5.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/centur...

That hospital torn down 2 days later with no record of serving a single patient: https://www.king5.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/centur...

U.S. Navy Hospital ship originally meant for Seattle redirected to Los Angeles: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-navy-hospital-ship-depart...

---

I'm assuming good faith and that you're simply worried just like everyone is, but you are spreading misinformation here. Again, I can't really attest with good knowledge to anything other than Seattle, but the fact that you are wrong about that makes me skeptical of the rest of your comment.

I don't see it that way. I think my language was neutral.

Your statement: "I wouldn't frame it as pro reopening school people prioritize schooling over life though. That sounds pretty bad and doesn't seem fair" takes a very specific cultural frame as well.

Plenty of people choose to risk their lives (or the lives of others) for all sorts of causes. I have as well. This statement sounds bad only if you take the position that staying alive trumps all other considerations. That's a very modern, Western perspective. Which is not to say Americans and Western Europeans act to protect lives at all costs, but to slightly generalize, Americans and Western Europeans morally believe that protecting lives is worth all costs. When that's not done, that's a moral compromise.

People risk lives to volunteer in dangerous countries, to skydive, for ideological causes, for God and country, to be #1 in athletics competitions, or to earn enough to feed their families. All of those reflect different value systems. The exact same statement: "Would you risk you life to protect your honor by ____?" will make you sound like a horrible person if you say "yes" in some cultures and "no" in others.

I don't think saying "I am glad to risk a few lives to make sure kids get an education" sound bad or seems unfair, and I don't think any less of people who say it. It's just a different value system from mine.

Where I do have problems is where people push their value system on others. I understand see the public health perspective, where your actions affect my health and my decisions affect your health.

But when my actions don't effect you (for example, keeping my child home), I should be able to follow my values. That goes broadly too -- if you decide not to teach your kids evolution, that should be your choice too.