Read on Twitter
Lately I've felt really conflicted on this, esp. in regards to elementary schools (like the one where I work), but ultimately I'm not convinced by this line of argument. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/opinion/schools-closing-covid.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20201117&instance_id=24179&nl=the-morning®i_id=69890341&segment_id=44682&te=1&user_id=b82a7e771b8fa91242a323846c4d184a
There's a good scientific + developmental argument to be made that we should make an extra effort to keep elementary schools, and only elementary schools, open. But most of these op-eds and public officials are talking about ALL schools. Elementary, middle, high school.
Next, none of these op-eds are acknowledging that 50% or more of students in any given NYC school are currently full-remote. Safer schools have been possible only on the backs of thousands of remote students. How can we judge from that what fully open schools would be like?
And: "Schools are necessary for the economy as well. If they are not open, many parents cannot work." I thought the argument was "close other businesses but keep schools open." But now you say schools should be open so that parents can work...presumably at open businesses.
The sad reality is that shutting schools down seems to be the only thing that finally pressures other businesses with higher transmission risks to close. Because, parents can't work. The only thing that would circumvent this dynamic is more targeted state action.
I actually would 
a world where we make every effort to keep elementary schools open but have upper grades remote + close all other businesses. Provide income support. But that's not exactly what these op-eds are reaching for. They're talking out of both sides of their mouths.
a world where we make every effort to keep elementary schools open but have upper grades remote + close all other businesses. Provide income support. But that's not exactly what these op-eds are reaching for. They're talking out of both sides of their mouths.
