Christ this is an exercise in motivated reasoning.
We get constant reminders that just cause you work at Harvard doesn't mean you aren't a moron https://twitter.com/j_g_allen/status/1326947260731711489

"Kids are different, schools are important" - this is the common version of "educators don't matter more then the economy, the rich need their workers" /1

Immediately jumps to the "risks beyond covid" which is the go to for anyone about to downplay the risks of covid. To kids, educators, families and the community /2

Brings out the Crocodile tears of privelge for the "low income students" ignoring that those parents are most Leary of sending their kids back. actually let's be honest he doesn't actually care what they want, he thinks he knows whats best for them /3

claims 6ft has weak scientific basis, without providing evidence just his word. Also ignores the arguments it isn't enough, while also dismissing the BROAD coalition of experts who have settled on that as the distance that maximizes safety and practicality /4

acknowledges the reality of airborne transmission while dismissing 6ft, without considering that a reduction in distance will INCREASE potential transmission by packing people into small rooms? More people, more breathing. /5

love the justification paragraph "so long as baseline risk is low enough" well then I suppose the argument just ends there right? /6 https://www.covidexitstrategy.org/ 

I have heard 0 discussion of masks but less distancing prior to this. in fact No masks and 6 ft at restaurants seems to be a big spread problem, so masks and 3 ft seems a similar if less dangerous reduction in safety. /7

In fact I am constantly reminded that it isn't "one strategy" that keeps us safe but instead a combination of strategies. apparently he missed the memo on that? /8

Claims kids catch the virus less. Except EVERYONE studying this admits we don't know exactly what goes on with kids because we don't test them enough. in fact evidence is increasing that asymptomatic spread among kids might be adding to community spread. /9

claims kids don't spread it, then admits this isn't a claim the evidence supports but writes it in such a way to make it seem he's still right. /10

Makes the argument "kids don't die" which is true. but it also is a herd immunity style argument. and we don't know enough about long term lung damage, heart damage, brain damage. It might be nothing, but at least some caution is warranted. /11

Also for someone so concerned with children he ignores the emotional challenges of quarantine, of family members getting ill, of educators getting ill, and of the potential long term effects of dealing with a death you might internalize as your fault. /12

After he makes his "final point" then he is worried about educators seems indicative of actually caring. /13

mentions the type of mask educators are supposed to wear, with no instructions on how we get them. Everyone I know is supposed to buy their own. seems fair. /14

Ah I see finally we have the "safe buildings expert" mentioning ventilation. as a passing, "do this" with absolutely no acknowledgement of how hard that is in our school buildings, even many new buildings. I mean maybe instead of writing an article, go figure out that /15

then we end with the "there is no zero risk" which is just the propaganda language of " some of you will die for the economy and I am fine with that" cautions that we shouldn't close if things get bad, just magically flip back to 6 ft, as if that doesn't require planning /16

so here again, we have another argument minimizing educators risk, misrepresenting science, by an individual that has literally no concept of what doing the work of teaching is like. I'm angry, I'm exhausted, and I'm so fucking worn out by this. /end