Do school closures really help reduce the spread of the coronavirus?

Apr 8, 2020
1
1
15
This is very strange reasoning.
It is well established that:
1) children are likely to have asymptomatic infection;
2) asymptomatic people can spread the infection;
3) virus spreads easily in closed quarters.

So you would want to put a crowd of children in close proximity with adults, some of whom may be in high risk group? And who will be teaching these kids when teachers get sick?

I am truly puzzled at the argument presented in this text.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Honey West
Mar 15, 2020
1
1
15
I'm thinking the same thing. It reads as if the author didn't really think this through. I would add to your comment, students will be taking the virus home and now their parents will take it to work. Then who will be working? Also, stagger school start times? The bus routes would be unfeasible. Teachers would be expected to work 12 hour days. Without a doubt, the author did not think before typing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Honey West
Apr 8, 2020
1
0
10
I agree with the comments here. I don't know who wrote this article, but they haven't any common sense. If school closures didn't matter, why did Wuhan close them? Why do they remain closed even after ending the lockdown? Children are notorious for bringing colds home to their families. Every child who catches will be able to spread the virus to everyone in an exponential manner. Many older workers work as lunchroom personnel. I mean, what if there is a baby sibling at home and Susie Q. brings home the virus? What if grandma is living at home, too? Asymptomatics do spread the disease, and it incubates before symptoms even appear. This is total jabberwocky. It should have been run on
"April FOOL'S Day." There haven't been studies, because they are not needed. It's common sense.
 
Apr 8, 2020
1
0
10
I agree with the previous comments. Having just retired as a high school teacher, it would be highly unlikely to ask students to keep social distancing. Kids like to converse and share (on almost everything) and they can't say no to their peers. Then with recent teaching techniques, such as cooperative learning, grouping, and with class sizes spacing is is unlikely. Also observed, is the lack of hygiene exhibited by some students.
On the bright side (?), parents now get to spend more time with their children!!!!
 
Apr 9, 2020
1
0
10
Really!! I am shocked with this piece! by a senior writer??
The argument, evidence, reasoning and logic are so stupid then we have to argue and explain here that it is nonsense. Livescience editors should have done a better job..
 

Urquiola

BANNED
Jan 18, 2020
38
2
555
Perhaps kids have a milder Coronavirus disease than adults, but in the trip back and forth home they can spread the V-19 to people who can have a severe disease. it is known that kindergarten kids have higher mortality and morbidity than those at home; once a bit taller, kids are not that feeble, but the lessons is at school, they get diseases at any age. Blessings +
 
Apr 14, 2020
1
0
10
Whoever wrote this has never worked in a school. Schools are big germ tanks much like an airplane. Why practice social distancing for everything, then say it isn't necessary in a school? Think about how restaurants are reconfiguring their seating. It isn't possible to do that when there are 20+ students in a class. Also, if students /teachers /staff become ill, they would have a good legal case against the school for "negligence" This is another example of how non-educators think decisions can be made because there's reseach out there to "support" what they want it to say. Well, a lot of the research for this article is also coming from non-educators. That pretty much makes all the claims for opening the schools invalid. There would be more truth to the article if they would have interviewed a Superintendent or Principal and used that information instead.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY