I'm angry about yet another of these pompous assholes going all "I'm an expert, here's why those teachers, I'm sorry teachers unions, they are the convenient evil, are being hysterical and should just listen to me the actually smart one."
So let's take a look/1 https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1361664148707422210

after setting the stage for how reasonable he is it then gets into the "they aren't listening to me, so they don't follow the science." The science around this is unsettled, and he spends the article arguing for conditions weaker then the recent CDC guidance /2

So basically what he's saying is "this is my scientific opinion based on these resources, if your resources disagree they are wrong and you are being hysterical." a common theme in these discussions is how the teachers are scared, or anxious, and just need to calm down /3

Also common hand in hand with that is the implication that each of these individuals is the only one who truly understands, and that there is no way the teachers could ever understand. /4

He makes the claim 6ft is just too much to ask. Let's start with the study he lists which states that 1 m or MORE is good, and "protection was increased as distance was lengthened" /5

But honestly the distance isn't the thing. It is acknowledged at this point that Sars-cov-2 transmission is airborne in indoor environments. so 6ft is a proxy for reducing the density of individuals in the room. /6

When you are forced to share a less then 1000 sq ft space generally with poor ventilation, with a group of people for anywhere from 1-7ish hours the fewer people in the room the safer for everyone. /7

so combining significant distance with fewer people in a space that probably doesn't meet ventilation requirements is a significant safety factor. Halving the distance and then consequently Doubling the people is very risky. /8

because again, we aren't talking about a stroll through the store, we are talking about staying with people for hours at a time, talking, at times loudly, and potentially eating /9

and he knows this is a reasonable concern that he doesn't have an argument against, so he just attacks the CDC guidance for considering educator safety for a change. /10

Then he brings up the testing his district is doing. missing some key details. 1. How often do they test? 2. Who is getting tested? 3. is it Mandatory (if it's not, it really isn't representative of the incident of illness in the population) /11

without a lot of context we don't really know what that % he offers means, and if it tells us anything. But even if we do accept it as what he implies it tells us there are two things that are super important /12

first, the low % is WITH the safety conditions he wants to reduce, so he just ignores the way they contribute to the low incidence rate. Second, testing changes the situation, since it catches asymptomatic individuals before they spread illness / 13

He then argues that the "union" (it's not an accident he keeps saying that instead of "teachers") is opportunistic for tying their guidance to the CDC, then says they aren't tying it to the CDC in the same paragraph /14

he then refers to "one year anniversary of remote education in America" his district is hybrid not remote, remember how much he just talked about their distance and testing? /15

and it is one year since the unofficial "start" of the pandemic in the U.S. but what went on in schools in march-june and what is going on now are completely unrelated and dissimilar, and also there was the summer in between. /16

at least he isn't completely dishonest with himself even if he is with the reader. when he starts talking about europe opening in the summer and fall he says "seemed to not have spread." /17

see that is the biggest problem we have so far, no where that the disease is uncontrolled but schools are open are we doing surveillance testing, so we don't actually know if it is spreading in schools, and that doesn't get into contact tracing challenges/inconsistencies /18

he dismisses studies that go against his chosen endpoint, (there are more then a few that show opening schools increases community disease level) and goes with the old "It's people getting together" trope of personal responsibility types/19

in reality there was another study in Wisconsin recently published by the CDC (these reopening types ignore it) that showed the effect daycare, workplaces and schools had on transmission. /20

hell later on he actually mentions the Wisconsin study that says "open schools" while ignoring the other one published at the same time. And he brings up a NC study pointing out they used things like "6ft distancing" while arguing to reduce distancing /21

He brings up an Atlanta study (It's small) points out the asymptomatic testing, without acknowledging the implication that the rest of the studies he hangs his hat on didn't have that, then glosses over 28% of cases were not from non compliance, not an insignificant amount /22

and the fact that he says 72% were from "non compliance" includes the implication that everyone will stay compliant all the time for multiple hours at a time together for 6-8 hours a day. teachers everywhere wonder if he has ever met a child with that statement /23

we should also discuss his use of contact tracing. It is inconsistent, and relies on the CDC 15 min/6ft (with his desires there would be a LOT more quarantine periods for a lot more people) something that is about practicality as much as science /24

The NFL and the CDC published a study demonstrating that much shorter periods and farther distance can cause infection, but without a guideline like that with cases as high as they are contact tracing would be impossible. /25

and frequently it still is. In many situations "community transmission", the place he claims most cases were from, is actually just the term for " we can't track down a direct source. in fact in september before things got crazy MA, the state he lives in /26

and a state doing at least a decent job with contact tracing, could not account for the origin of 50% of cases. perhaps he shouldn't be so confident in his conclusions, unless they aren't based on science but instead his feelings /27

if you look at how general he is on private schools that's on purpose, and a talking point he took from the MA governor. Many private schools have testing programs, something he complained earlier on about funding in his public school /28

Many private schools had severely declining enrollment prior to this, so consequently had more space for social distancing. and many private schools are hybrid, like his district, which he is complaining about /29

also important though, private school teachers make less money, have worse benefits and don't generally have a union, making organizing for their safety a challenge on many fronts. do you think they don't feel the same as the public school teachers he attacks? /30

I would imagine they do at similar rates (no group is monolithic) and also, please show me the database tracking cases in private schools. I know cases are reported to DPH, but who is collecting the data on cases in those schools? /31

I see he enjoys his straw man. No one said zero risk, well i'm sure some people do, but that isn't the thrust of disagreements over school safety. /32

He is careful as he flits between "make things safe for educators" and "stop whining you fussy scaredy babies" but the subtle way he dismisses the concern over bringing the disease home to your family is downright disgusting /33

He brings back the NC study, where again, he wants to do things less safe then they did. and the Wisconsin study, while ignoring the other Wisconsin study. as well as the Michigan study that ties safety to community transmission rates. and numerous others disagreeing /34

He completely dismisses the garbage condition of so many American schools as "eh we can't handle that right now" ignores the effect universal screening testing has on keeping rates low (he knows we should but doesn't want to acknowledge the hurdle) /35

Then jumps at 3 ft again when all of his sources for safety point to 6 (remember even his systemic review states "greater distance lowers transmission) /36

He claims "many educators and their representatives have proposed waiting out this school year. " interesting that he has links for everything else but not that claim. /37

Ah here is the one paragraph about the families of color. at least he isn't using them as a cudgel to justify what he really wants as much as these "reopening advocates" typically do. /38

He is really obsessed with 3 ft, and notice how he talks about fixing HVAC with "affordable" solutions. and he lives in MA, it's currently 40 out on a unseasonably warm day in February, you think sitting in a room with open windows is feasible? /39

he mentions prioritizing youngest grades and highest needs students (how much you want to bet his kids are in elementary school) and that is something almost everywhere is doing already /40

and here we are the end of a multi page diatribe by a man of privilege railing on the fears of the teachers in his community, and extending that out nationwide to make his hissy fit seem more moral. all so he could say "3ft good" "6ft bad" repeatedly orwell would be proud. /41

ultimately every article from these people boils down to the basic idea that If I go to work, get Covd-19 and die, my children having to grow up without a father is less important then what they want for their kids. /42

If my wife goes to work gets covid 19 and dies, my children growing up without a mother is less important then what they want for their kids. /43

If either of us gets it and ends up with long term morbidities, effecting the health and wellness of our family, that's less important then what they want for their kids. /43

anyway, the science on schools and covid is unsettled, but very much implies that they are no different then any other place and if you reduce safety you increase spread. and that ignores the risk with the new variants. Don't listen to selfish whiny jerks. /end