Second Semester 2020/21 School Year

Kids definitely need to be in school, regardless of what the infection numbers look like.
Why wasn't anyone pushing for remote learning during the winter months in previous years? Flu season hits hard every single year, leaving huge groups of kids sick. Not to mention how they can pass it on to "grandma and grandpa" at Sunday dinner... And I guess we should just let kids die from flu complications.

"We're going to keep an eye on any situation where things look grim or infection numbers start climbing, and if that happens, we'll switch schools over to Model C. We'll drop all the specifics tomorrow, on Friday," Joe Biden said.

So, where's that "war profiteer" now, the one who was acting so high and mighty claiming there was zero chance we'd ever see Model C again?

Larry Walker24 said:"We're going to keep an eye on any situation where things look grim or infection numbers start climbing, and if that happens, we'll switch schools over to Model C. We'll drop all the specifics tomorrow, on Friday," Joe Biden said.

So, where's that "war profiteer" now, the one who was acting so high and mighty claiming there was zero chance we'd ever see Model C again?

Looks like I called it again. 🤔

Robert Hernandez11 said:Most of the county—if not the whole thing—will probably flip to the C model curriculum starting March 29th...

It’s fine if you want to find joy in something that most sane people would find absolutely pathetic and deranged, though I suppose I shouldn't count the folks clinging to the #newnormal crowd.

Capak was going on about the stats and everything: we're seeing a massive spike

We're looking at nearly 1,900 new infections today, and honestly, things are getting pretty messy in three specific areas—California, Florida, and Washington, D.C.—where we've seen over 1,000 new cases alone. According to Capak, the only way we actually stop this climb is if everyone just sticks to the rules they laid out.

boldotter2 said:The fallout from letting kids just "deal with it naturally" includes about thirty cases of severe long COVID in children who were perfectly healthy before, plus one child who died. Are those really acceptable casualties for "natural immunity," just because it didn't happen at YOUR school or right in front of YOUR eyes?

What I really want to point out is that these serious cases definitely happen in kids, even if they don't spread the virus as easily. Actually, since so many kids get infected, statistically there are way more of these cases than any potential deaths or side effects from vaccines!

So, wouldn't it be better to just vaccinate the adults to protect the kids? Instead of using children as cannon fodder just so adults can grab a Starbucks and act like anti-vaxxers at a local pub?

No one is denying that kids get hit hard sometimes, but those cases are rarer than other childhood illnesses and fatal outcomes. Plus, the overall damage from those cases seems smaller than the collective harm done to all the kids and teens who feel like they're under house arrest or stuck staring at screens because they're being shielded from COVID, which many pass without any symptoms or with very mild ones.

There aren't enough vaccines for everyone. That’s why we started by vaccinating high-risk groups—to minimize fatalities and ensure people survive with milder symptoms.
(And within that specific group, vaccine side effects represent much less harm than death or serious complications from the virus itself.)

To me, it makes sense to prioritize the workforce first, especially those in constant contact with people—healthcare workers, daycare staff, teachers... but if supplies are limited, then you focus on the most vulnerable groups and let everyone else make their own choice so the economy can keep moving forward.

I'm not quite sure why it sounds like kids are being used as cannon fodder just by sending them to school.

Just a few years ago, the pneumococcal vaccine wasn't mandatory; instead, parents vaccinated their kids if they were well-informed by their pediatrician or online forums (which I wasn't) and/or if they could afford it (not everyone can). Some kids suffered nasty consequences, like pneumonia or chronic ear infections, and some even died from bacteremia... And some grandparents got sick while babysitting. Others didn't, because they had already fought off those same illnesses as kids and were immune.

By "protecting" our little ones—those we keep isolated from the community or force to stay home—we aren't giving them the chance to build immunity through natural exposure. It's not just about COVID; lately, there have been fewer cases of chickenpox and measles. These are illnesses kids usually breeze through, but encountering them for the first time as an adult can be fatal...

Schools in 10 counties might switch to remote learning starting Monday, and Fuchs is sounding the alarm on how this hits kids mentally

President Biden said The Administration is going to hash out whether we need to roll out the C-model nationwide

Quote:>

Word on the street is that high schoolers and older middle schoolers in the NYC area—minus the seniors—might be heading to Zoom classes this Monday. Nothing's set in stone yet, obviously, but we're hearing it’ll likely get the green light at the local Headquarters this Friday. If it happens, students would be stuck on the C-model through Thursday, right before the spring break kicks in on Friday.

>

Does the virus somehow just skip high school seniors? It’s not like they aren't packed into classrooms where twenty-five kids are squeezed into a forty-square-meter room. Do they think these students are just flying into school or taking the subway through an empty city?

Like I’ve already pointed out, if fourth-year students spent their time with teachers reviewing everything from the last four years of English, math, and American literature, then maybe we could say schools are actually preparing them for the SATs. But as it stands, I can't wrap my head around it, because they are being fed brand-new material right up until the final bell—something they could easily do via Zoom just like any other kid. And for those under the impression that vocational students will be left behind in terms of hands-on training because of remote learning, let's be real: they’re already being sidelined because businesses don't want them on-site due to the risk of spreading the virus anyway.

"Things are getting out of hand again in Split County. The infection rate is climbing fast—we’re looking at 312 new COVID-19 cases today, which means basically one in every three people getting tested is coming up positive.

Dr. Željko Karin, the Director of the Department of Public Health, told us that this spike is being driven by several specific hotspots.

We're talking about two high schools over in Imola and two care facilities in San Diego where residents have fallen ill. On top of that, about 20 students on an Erasmus exchange caught it, plus an employee at one organization who was attending some kind of work training. "

"

Raymond Perez9 said:Does the virus somehow just skip high school seniors? It’s not like they aren't packed into classrooms where twenty-five kids are squeezed into a forty-square-meter room. Do they think these students are just flying into school or taking the subway through an empty city?

Like I’ve already pointed out, if fourth-year students spent their time with teachers reviewing everything from the last four years of English, math, and American literature, then maybe we could say schools are actually preparing them for the SATs. But as it stands, I can't wrap my head around it, because they are being fed brand-new material right up until the final bell—something they could easily do via Zoom just like any other kid. And for those under the impression that vocational students will be left behind in terms of hands-on training because of remote learning, let's be real: they’re already being sidelined because businesses don't want them on-site due to the risk of spreading the virus anyway.

High school seniors are adults. Most of them are already 18 by the start of the school year, and by the end, you probably have some who are 19.
Adults don't spread viruses; it's the kids. 🧐

Though, technically, you can hold adults legally accountable without needing parental permission if they refuse to wear masks or act out, so maybe it's easier for the teachers to actually enforce the rules that way.

I'm a little confused about this idea of learning new stuff until the very end of the year. Is senior year meant to be a prep course for exams, or is it just a standard academic year with a regular curriculum?
By your logic, it sounds like high schools are three-year programs followed by a one-year prep course.

Susan James said:High school seniors are adults. Most of them are already 18 by the start of the school year, and by the end, you probably have some who are 19.
Adults don't spread viruses; it's the kids. 🧐

Though, technically, you can hold adults legally accountable without needing parental permission if they refuse to wear masks or act out, so maybe it's easier for the teachers to actually enforce the rules that way.

I'm a little confused about this idea of learning new stuff until the very end of the year. Is senior year meant to be a prep course for exams, or is it just a standard academic year with a regular curriculum?
By your logic, it sounds like high schools are three-year programs followed by a one-year prep course.

No, it doesn't imply a 3+1 structure at all. My point is this: if remote learning is an option for every other high schooler, why isn't it an option for the seniors? What is the actual reasoning there?

The way things are set up now, professors for various subjects have to commute to campus just to teach these specific students while simultaneously running online classes for the underclassmen. If we are supposedly protecting freshmen, sophomores, and juniors from the virus, what is the justification for leaving seniors and their teachers exposed? It’s fundamentally illogical.

As for the burden of learning new material right up to the final bell, look at the reality of a student's life: they spend seven hours in class, plus another two hours commuting back and forth, meaning they are out of the house for nine hours a day. Once they get home, they spend at least two more hours on homework, plus nearly every night working on their capstone projects. We are looking at a minimum of 11 to 12 hours of intense mental labor daily, and that's without even touching the necessary review of everything they've learned over the last three years. Are we honestly expecting them to keep the entire four-year curriculum perfectly memorized at all times?
When exactly are these kids supposed to find time in a 24-hour cycle to review every subject for their final exams? I know it might not be a massive issue this year, but they are currently dealing with the psychological fallout of the pandemic, constant masking, and all that. These are young people, and we shouldn't be breaking them mentally right at the starting line. Where are all those psychologists who were so vocal about "prioritizing mental health" when it was convenient?

driftingtinker said:Schools in 10 counties might switch to remote learning starting Monday, and Fuchs is sounding the alarm on how this hits kids mentally

President Biden said The Administration is going to hash out whether we need to roll out the C-model nationwide

Quote:>

Word on the street is that high schoolers and older middle schoolers in the NYC area—minus the seniors—might be heading to Zoom classes this Monday. Nothing's set in stone yet, obviously, but we're hearing it’ll likely get the green light at the local Headquarters this Friday. If it happens, students would be stuck on the C-model through Thursday, right before the spring break kicks in on Friday.

>

Give me a break. After two years of dealing with strikes and sexual abuse scandals, they're suddenly worried about how this affects kids' mental health?
Mookie is a total genius compared to our ministers.🍿

So, basically, the whole lockdown thing back in the fall got pushed back by like two weeks just because of Fuchs's nonsense.

Here’s the actual data if you want to see it:

driftingtinker said:Schools in 10 counties might switch to remote learning starting Monday, and Fuchs is sounding the alarm on how this hits kids mentally

President Biden said The Administration is going to hash out whether we need to roll out the C-model nationwide

Quote:>

Word on the street is that high schoolers and older middle schoolers in the NYC area—minus the seniors—might be heading to Zoom classes this Monday. Nothing's set in stone yet, obviously, but we're hearing it’ll likely get the green light at the local Headquarters this Friday. If it happens, students would be stuck on the C-model through Thursday, right before the spring break kicks in on Friday.

>

Man, I don't know, maybe not🤦🤦
back when the numbers were triple what they are now in November, we all just kind of played dumb and stuck to these quarantine schools because, well, everyone thought they knew better and assumed schools could just handle anything.🙄
I suppose things should ideally return to a normal, in-person routine this coming week, and then hopefully, during the holiday break, everything might finally start to settle down a bit.

Susan James said:No one is denying that kids get hit hard sometimes, but those cases are rarer than other childhood illnesses and fatal outcomes. Plus, the overall damage from those cases seems smaller than the collective harm done to all the kids and teens who feel like they're under house arrest or stuck staring at screens because they're being shielded from COVID, which many pass without any symptoms or with very mild ones.

There aren't enough vaccines for everyone. That’s why we started by vaccinating high-risk groups—to minimize fatalities and ensure people survive with milder symptoms.
(And within that specific group, vaccine side effects represent much less harm than death or serious complications from the virus itself.)

To me, it makes sense to prioritize the workforce first, especially those in constant contact with people—healthcare workers, daycare staff, teachers... but if supplies are limited, then you focus on the most vulnerable groups and let everyone else make their own choice so the economy can keep moving forward.

I'm not quite sure why it sounds like kids are being used as cannon fodder just by sending them to school.

Just a few years ago, the pneumococcal vaccine wasn't mandatory; instead, parents vaccinated their kids if they were well-informed by their pediatrician or online forums (which I wasn't) and/or if they could afford it (not everyone can). Some kids suffered nasty consequences, like pneumonia or chronic ear infections, and some even died from bacteremia... And some grandparents got sick while babysitting. Others didn't, because they had already fought off those same illnesses as kids and were immune.

By "protecting" our little ones—those we keep isolated from the community or force to stay home—we aren't giving them the chance to build immunity through natural exposure. It's not just about COVID; lately, there have been fewer cases of chickenpox and measles. These are illnesses kids usually breeze through, but encountering them for the first time as an adult can be fatal...

Man, this is some heavy misinformation. Like, seriously.

First off, let's talk about scarlet fever. That isn't really a disease you just "get over," it's something you have to TREAT. Before we had antibiotics, scarlet fever was a massive killer of children. Entire cities used to go into quarantine because of outbreaks! It’s only thanks to science that we even call it a "childhood illness" today. I guess anyone sane 150 years ago wouldn't have just let their kids "get over" scarlet fever.

And regarding this whole "building immunity" thing, does that apply to tuberculosis, polio, measles, or anything like that? Of course not. The only reason those aren't around anymore is because of progress in science, medicine, and better hygiene for everyone.
Does that logic work for HPV? For a long time, people thought it was harmless, until they realized it could cause some pretty scary consequences. Should we have just let it run through the population then? Just a side note, we've only known about SARS-CoV-2 for about a year.
Even the chickenpox myth—the chance of a grown adult getting a severe case if they didn't have it as a kid is actually LOWER than the chance of someone who *did* have it getting a nasty case of shingles later on! Plus, there's a vaccine for those who haven't had it.

If you really look at it, there isn't any disease worth "getting over." There just isn't.

Even from an economic standpoint—the biggest growth and most stable economies happen where sickness is at its lowest! I feel like I've said this a million times on this forum already, and I guess I don't even want to argue about it anymore. Nobody, anywhere, ever let a disease run wild while maintaining a stable economy. No one.
If you look at how the pandemic played out, the virus situation was actually worst in places where the economy was already struggling before the pandemic hit.

The bottom line is that attitudes like "this is just how it is," "there's no other way," or "whatever God wills" are just really defeatist and loser-ish. It represents a total surrender. Maybe it's not obvious right away, but in the long run, it's inevitable.

boldotter2 said:Man, this is some heavy misinformation. Like, seriously.

First off, let's talk about scarlet fever. That isn't really a disease you just "get over," it's something you have to TREAT. Before we had antibiotics, scarlet fever was a massive killer of children. Entire cities used to go into quarantine because of outbreaks! It’s only thanks to science that we even call it a "childhood illness" today. I guess anyone sane 150 years ago wouldn't have just let their kids "get over" scarlet fever.

And regarding this whole "building immunity" thing, does that apply to tuberculosis, polio, measles, or anything like that? Of course not. The only reason those aren't around anymore is because of progress in science, medicine, and better hygiene for everyone.
Does that logic work for HPV? For a long time, people thought it was harmless, until they realized it could cause some pretty scary consequences. Should we have just let it run through the population then? Just a side note, we've only known about SARS-CoV-2 for about a year.
Even the chickenpox myth—the chance of a grown adult getting a severe case if they didn't have it as a kid is actually LOWER than the chance of someone who *did* have it getting a nasty case of shingles later on! Plus, there's a vaccine for those who haven't had it.

If you really look at it, there isn't any disease worth "getting over." There just isn't.

Even from an economic standpoint—the biggest growth and most stable economies happen where sickness is at its lowest! I feel like I've said this a million times on this forum already, and I guess I don't even want to argue about it anymore. Nobody, anywhere, ever let a disease run wild while maintaining a stable economy. No one.
If you look at how the pandemic played out, the virus situation was actually worst in places where the economy was already struggling before the pandemic hit.

The bottom line is that attitudes like "this is just how it is," "there's no other way," or "whatever God wills" are just really defeatist and loser-ish. It represents a total surrender. Maybe it's not obvious right away, but in the long run, it's inevitable.

So why don't we just lock ourselves away completely for a few months and call it a day?

urbantinker8 said:Man, I don't know, maybe not🤦🤦
back when the numbers were triple what they are now in November, we all just kind of played dumb and stuck to these quarantine schools because, well, everyone thought they knew better and assumed schools could just handle anything.🙄
I suppose things should ideally return to a normal, in-person routine this coming week, and then hopefully, during the holiday break, everything might finally start to settle down a bit.

I’m pretty much done with Plenki Fuchs. CNN is reporting that after yesterday's "absolutely not," he's already pivoted to "definitely maybe." 🙂

It feels like schools are the only way to limit mobility without everyone losing their minds and screaming about it.

A three-week stretch away from school might actually be a decent call, especially once people start getting sick from holiday gatherings and the heat starts kicking in.

If I heard correctly, they're even looking at shutting down restaurants in four different states.

driftingtinker said:I’m pretty much done with Plenki Fuchs. CNN is reporting that after yesterday's "absolutely not," he's already pivoted to "definitely maybe." 🙂

It feels like schools are the only way to limit mobility without everyone losing their minds and screaming about it.

A three-week stretch away from school might actually be a decent call, especially once people start getting sick from holiday gatherings and the heat starts kicking in.

If I heard correctly, they're even looking at shutting down restaurants in four different states.

Just a bunch of clueless idiots.☕

driftingtinker said:I’m pretty much done with Plenki Fuchs. CNN is reporting that after yesterday's "absolutely not," he's already pivoted to "definitely maybe." 🙂

It feels like schools are the only way to limit mobility without everyone losing their minds and screaming about it.

A three-week stretch away from school might actually be a decent call, especially once people start getting sick from holiday gatherings and the heat starts kicking in.

If I heard correctly, they're even looking at shutting down restaurants in four different states.

Which four counties are we talking about?

EDIT: Found them.

It honestly blows my mind every single time how many people just don't get that Chicago and Cook County aren't the same thing.