Join the Pledge to NOT Reopen Schools in the Fall

LAUSD and SDUSD have pledged to NOT reopen in the fall for in-person classes until their budgets are fully restored AND the state implements universal weekly covid-19 testing, contact tracing and quarantines. ALL school districts should join them and here is why:

Racial and Social Justice

As millions of people worldwide continue to risk covid-19 infection, tear gas and beatings in protests demanding racial and social justice, forcing teachers and students back to the classroom would likely have the opposite effect. Consider that the cops kill around 225 African Americans a year, but Covid has already killed around 27,000 African Americans in just three months (roughly 23% of Covid deaths in the U.S. are among African Americans), far higher than their representation in the population. Since African Americans, Latinos and Pacific Islanders are the groups most affected by illness, complications and death from Covid-19, reopening the schools to in-person learning places them at particular risk. For these reasons, reopening the schools would be potentially genocidal.

Another social justice issue in the schools are the rights and the safety of students, staff and teachers with disabilities, many of whom are at increased risk of complications and death from Covid-19, due to age and underlying health conditions (including one-third of all teachers).  Both CDC recommendations for returning to school, and common decency, suggest these people should be allowed to work from home for their own safety. Not permitting this could be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and would certainly undermine the districts’ goal of creating equity and socially just classrooms.

Economic Necessity

School districts across the nation are facing historical budget shortfalls due to the lost tax revenues caused by the pandemic. Up to 300,000 teachers could lose their jobs. Yet all proposals for reopening the schools have included extreme measures of increased hygiene, social distancing and the use of PPE inside the classroom, as well as enforcement of social distancing outside the classroom, temperature checks and screenings before class, and arrival and departure control. All this will require increased staffing and would be impossible with the budget cuts.

In contrast, implementing a 100% Distance Learning (DL) model would save districts tens of thousands of dollars in reduced utility bills and maintenance costs. They would need far less PPE and hygiene equipment and disinfectants. They wouldn’t have to spend any money on screening students and staff and isolating sick individuals.

Furthermore, if one-third of teachers and staff exercised their right to work from home because of their age or underlying health conditions, there would not be enough staff on campus for in-person learning to be possible. Even if the districts had the money to hire more teachers or substitutes and classified staff, there aren’t this many available. On the other hand, if districts compelled teachers and staff to return to their school sites, many might refuse, for their own safety, and the districts would still have a shortage. Or they could sue their districts for violating their rights under the ADA, costing the districts millions in legal expenses at a time they are already facing historic budget shortfalls.

It has been argued by many, most notably Donald Trump and Steve Mnuchin, that the country cannot afford to shut down again. However, just the opposite is true. Without mitigation, the CDC and WHO predict 60-70% of all humans will catch this disease (that’s 196-230 million Americans). At a 3.8% mortality rate, that would be 7.6 million U.S. deaths! Even if only half that number got sick or died, this would still disrupt the production and distribution of food and other basic services because of the lack of sufficient healthy workers, and could result in famine, even here in the U.S.

In contrast, a study of the Spanish flu pandemic showed that regions with the most aggressive social distancing policies had the fewest deaths and the quickest economic recoveries. Keeping schools closed is an essential part of this. The longer you spend indoors with people outside your immediate family, the greater the exposure to germs and the greater your chances of becoming infected. This is true for students and even more so for teachers and aids, who must spend hours inside a potentially infectious room. Studies show that Keeping Schools Closed Significantly Reduces Transmission rates. Closing schools early and keeping them closed is one of the best ways to curtail a pandemic. Keeping them closed reduces infection rates by 40-60%.

Protecting the Mental and Social Health of Our Children

It has been argued that the mental and social health of our children are suffering because of the lock downs, the denial of in-person classes and the opportunity to interact with friends, peers and teachers. It has been further argued that since children do not get as sick or die as often as older people, we are doing them more harm than good by keeping them home.

There are numerous problems with this reasoning, the most significant being that children do get infected and can spread the disease to their teachers, family members and community, thus exacerbating the spread of the pandemic and the devastating social and economic costs, even if they don’t personally die from it. Worse, some of the people who die from the reopening of schools and businesses could be their own family members, turning them into orphans. This would arguably be much worse for their mental and social well being than distance learning.

While it’s true that children tend to not get as sick or die as often as older adults, some still do, particularly if they have underlying conditions. About 3.6% of all U.S. cases have been in children. Their illness can last for up to two weeks, and 20% of them required hospitalization, either of which can severely impair their performance in school. And, of course, there’s the rare, but deadly, Kawasaki-like syndrome that has affected dozens of kids so far.

But even if an individual student made it through the school year without any family members getting sick, it is still unclear that the social benefits of being in the classroom would outweigh the costs. Under the strict rules required for in-person learning, schools will feel unfriendly, scary, and dystopian to children. After waiting in long lines to take their temperatures, instead of being greeted by a warm smile or touch, they will face adults who repeatedly warn them to stay 6 feet apart from their friends and to keep their masks on and their hands away from their faces. They’ll have no idea what their peers or teachers might be thinking or feeling with their faces hidden behind masks. They won’t be able to sit together at lunch, or hug or high five each other. And what about K-5 students? Do we really think they will be able to keep their hands off their own faces, let alone those of their peers and teachers? When they fall down and get hurt, will their teachers stand with their arms crossed, admonishing them to suck it up and get back to work because there can be no touching during a pandemic?

Even if we could make a strong case for reopening the schools, they will almost certainly have to shut down again, well before the end of the semester, forcing everyone back into a full-time distance learning (DL) model. This would be much more disruptive to their learning and social development than starting with DL in the fall and sticking with it until the pandemic ends. We already know this will happen based on the many countries that have tried it. Israel was prompted to reclose their schools because of renewed Covid outbreaks, including 130 cases at a single school. France had a similar experience when they reopened their schools. In the town of Skellefteå, Sweden, a teacher died and 18 of 76 staff tested positive at a school with only 500 students. Preliminary results from an antibody study in Sweden showed high rates of infection among children, suggesting there was significant spread in the schools. And in Montreal, nearly an entire class tested positive after one student fell ill, despite social distancing. Health authorities believe this was a case of classroom transmission.

Frankly, as a teacher and a parent, I am appalled and perplexed that my district has not already announced its intention to implement 100% DL for the 2020-2021 school year. We know we are still at the beginning of this pandemic. We know that it will get worse, particularly when schools and businesses open up further. We know people will continue to die at rates far exceeding seasonal flu. We know that the deaths, critical illness and long-term organ damage will disproportionately affect people of color and poor people and that this will be exacerbated by anything that increases the spread of the disease, like opening schools. And we know our children’s education and social-emotional health will suffer throughout this pandemic, no matter what we do, but will certainly suffer worse if the pandemic spirals out of control because we have irresponsibly and prematurely opened everything up. 

So why aren’t we doing the one thing we know will save lives: Distance Learning?

Race to the Bottom-36% Spike in New Covid Infections

On Saturday, 6/12/20, there were over 140,000 new Covid infections worldwide, the largest single day spike to date, and the U.S. is leading this ghoulish race to the bottom.

A leaked CDC Document shows that the U.S. had a 36.5% spike in new Covid-19 infections between June 6 and June 9, by far the worst spike of any country in the world. The next worst hit countries, India, Russia and Peru, all showed spikes of less than 5%, while Brazil, Spain, Italy and Germany showed declines. 

21 states have reported increased infections, and 9 are seeing increased rates of hospitalizations, including California, the hardest hit state in the country, where new infections have surpassed 2,500 nearly every day since Memorial Day. Yesterday (June 12, 2020), California had 3,627 new cases, according to worldometer. Over the past 2 weeks, there have been nearly 500 new cases in San Mateo County (61.6 new cases per 100,000), more than double the Governor’s benchmark for reopening (e.g., less than 25 per 100,000 over a 2-week period). In San Francisco, there have been 404 new cases over the past 2 weeks (46 per 100,000 residents), which is nearly double the Governor's benchmark. LA, which is the hardest hit county in the state, chalked up nearly 19,000 new cases over the past 2 weeks for a rate of 186.7 per 100,000, nearly 7.5 times the Governor's benchmark. San Diego County had nearly 1900 new cases over the past two weeks, for a rate of 57 per 100,000.

It is clear that the surges of new infections have been caused primarily by the reopening of businesses and the lifting of Shelter-In-Place (SIP) restrictions. Scientists also believe that Memorial Day outings contributed to the spikes and that the anti-police brutality protests likely did, as well.

Loud yelling (as occurred at the protests) is known to increase the spread of droplets and likely undermined the moderate protections afforded by masks. This fact is particularly relevant to schools, where speaking in a “teacher voice” would also increase airborne droplets, and where students, who sometimes get frustrated or angry, may yell at each other or staff.

According to Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, continuing to open things up will cause an additional 100,000 deaths by September (and that’s before flu season has even begun, when the compounding effects of the two diseases will likely cause the daily death toll to go out the roof).

Now is NOT the time to reopen schools. Keeping students and teachers home is one of the best documented ways to slow the pandemic AND save lives (for evidence of this, read here, and here, and here). Furthermore, if we care about racial justice and equity, then we must keep the schools closed. African Americans, Latinos and Pacific Islanders are the groups most affected by illness, complications and death from Covid-19. Reopening the schools to in-person learning will put these members of our community at particular risk. However, let’s not forget that one-third of all teachers are at elevated risk, regardless of ethnicity, due to age and underlying health conditions.

More False Prophets of Science

At the 6/12/2020 meeting of the San Mateo High School District school board, Dr. Suneil Koliwad, a professor of medicine at UCSF, argued that it is “exceedingly unlikely that schools will be a vector for virus transmission.” He further argued that masks, social distancing and good hygiene were sufficient to keep the R₀ below 1.

So, are his claims credible or valid?

If the goal is to keep the rate of community infection low enough to not overwhelm hospitals, AND if he is right about masks, social distancing and hygiene being sufficient to keep the R₀ below 1, then the answer is maybe. We don’t really know what the R₀ is when the shelter-in-place (SIP) has been lifted and schools reopen. And there are very few localities that ever got their R₀ below 1, even with social distancing, so this question hasn’t really been answered. However, sending teachers and students back to school will bring a lot more people into close, indoor proximity than was occurring during the SIP and, even with masks, distancing and hygiene, this could bring the R₀ back up well above 1, creating a surge that overwhelms hospitals, as is currently happening in Houston, parts of Southern California, and many other regions of the country.

If, on the other hand, we’re talking about preventing children from getting sick, potentially developing the deadly Kawasaki-like syndrome, or spreading it to vulnerable teachers, staff and family members, then the answer is NO—it is NOT safe. If our goal is to keep the R₀ below 1 and prevent an explosion of new cases, as occurred in New York, Italy and Spain, then the answer is NO—it is NOT safe.

Dr. Koliwad seems to think that teachers’ resistance to reopening the schools is entirely about their own delusional fears of death, or that of their students.

It would be tragic for any students or teachers to die (and mostly preventable if we kept the schools closed), and not unlikely, considering one-third of all teachers are at elevated risk for severe covid-19 complications or death due to age and/or underlying health conditions. However, there are far bigger issues to worry about, like the estimated 1.2 million deaths we could see by the end of the year, even with mitigation, or the 6-7 million deaths we could see without mitigation (e.g., sending people back to work and school) if 60-70% of all Americans get infected and the mortality rate holds at 3.8%. Or the famine that we could all suffer because so many farm workers, grocery store workers, meat packers, and fish processors are becoming ill.

While there may not yet be any controlled scientific studies proving transmission between students and staff, there is considerable anecdotal evidence, including numerous school outbreaks that have prompted schools to reclose. Two weeks after reopening their schools, Israel was prompted to reclose them because of Covid outbreaks, including 130 cases at a single school. France had a similar experience when they reopened their schools. In the town of Skellefteå, Sweden, a teacher died and 18 of 76 staff tested positive at a school with only 500 students. Preliminary results from an antibody study in Sweden showing high rates of infection among children, suggest there was significant spread in the schools. And in Montreal, nearly an entire class tested positive after one student fell ill, despite social distancing. Health authorities believe this was a case of classroom transmission.

It should be obvious that in-person learning will be more risky than distance learning. Indoor environments are the riskiest places to be during a pandemic. The longer you spend indoors with people outside your immediate family, the greater the exposure to germs and the greater your chances of becoming infected. This is true for students and even more so for teachers, who will be expected to spend hours inside a potentially infectious room. Studies show that Keeping Schools Closed Significantly Reduces Transmission rates. Closing schools early and keeping them closed is one of the best ways to curtail a pandemic. Keeping them closed reduces infection rates by 40-60%.

Dr. Koliwad argues that schools are like hospitals, but safer, directing us to the article by Atul Gawande, in the New Yorker on how employees at Boston’s Mass General Brigham Hospital have kept their workplace infection rates low. However, despite arguing for the efficacy of face masks, hygiene and following the “six-foot rule,” Gawande concedes that in some cases, infectious droplets can travel at least twenty feet, and that loud talking, as is typical in a classroom, generates significantly more droplets than quiet talking. He also concedes that some activities, like performing in a choir, can be extremely dangerous, like the outbreak in Washington, where 52 out of 60 members of a choir were infected by one infectious person during a single 90-minute practice session. Choir, by the way, is a common course offering at K-12 schools.

Another fallacy in Dr. Koliwad’s argument that schools are like hospitals, but safer, lies in the assumption that in-person learning is an essential service, like hospitals. But a doctor cannot perform surgery remotely on a patient, whereas teachers can teach remotely. Furthermore, while the best examples of distance learning are likely inferior to the best examples of in-person learning, the health of our children, their families and their teachers, is far more important. Even if they missed school entirely for a year or two, it would be preferable to losing one or both parents, or allowing the pandemic to spin so out of control that our food supply was threatened.

Another problem with Dr. Koliwad’s argument is that educators have even less access to effective PPE than medical workers. In hospitals, employees have surgical masks, which Gawande explains are far more effective than the typical two-layer cotton mask worn by most people. The surgical masks create a tighter seal around the face and they breath more easily, making it less likely that wearers will pull them down and expose themselves, or that droplets leak in or out through the gaps. Furthermore, the surgical masks have an electrostatic charge applied to them that helps trap viral particles. Cloth masks lack this feature.

Gawande also talks about how they’ve brought the “stringent antiseptic standards of the operating room into…other parts of our institutions.” Problem is, hospitals are operated by health professionals who are trained in these antiseptic standards and who’ve had years to practice them and make them part of their professional culture. Educators have not had this training, nor this practice. Worse, what about students, particularly K-5 students? It is completely absurd to think that kindergartners are going to not touch their faces, let alone those of their peers and teachers. It’s also hard to imagine the teacher remaining six feet away from a sobbing child who has fallen down and hurt herself, while gently admonishing her, through his mask, to suck it up and get back to work because there can be no touching during a pandemic.

Part of this change of culture, according to Gawande, includes calling out colleagues when they have lapses in protocols. That might work in a hospital setting, with the common training and understanding employees share regarding hygiene, but not in a school, where students regularly defy teachers, refuse to follow rules, and sometimes get loud and belligerent when called out for misbehavior. And we’ve all experienced moments in public where someone has called out a neighbor or stranger for walking too close, spitting or committing some other violation of the rules of hygiene.

Like so many other scientists and doctors who are jumping on the back-to-work bandwagon, Dr. Koliwad is allowing the confirmation bias to direct his thinking, even at the expense of violating his commitment to do no harm. He repeatedly referred to evidence that supported his desire to have students return to in-person learning, while providing no examples of this evidence (the Gawande article, didn’t actually support his claims). And while one could argue that distance learning is also doing harm to students, I don’t see how anyone could argue that it’s doing more harm than 116,000 deaths so far, particularly when in-person learning under the conditions of social distancing, mask wearing, health screenings, etc., will not come close to approximating the conditions of school prior to the pandemic. Particularly when you consider that students will not be able to see the smiling faces of their teachers or peers, or sit together at lunch, or hug or high-five each other, or even work collaboratively in teams and at lab benches.

What is the Best Instructional Model Amidst the Pandemic?

An Analysis of Blended vs. Distance Learning Models 

(By a group of San Francisco Bay Area Teachers)

While blended learning offers the obvious appeal of enabling students to return to campus part-time, we must first ask some critical questions: Will the quality of blended instruction be stronger than synchronous distance learning? Will it increase meaningful connections and improve mental health for students? Does it merit the investment of resources, while justifying the risk of disease?

1. How does blended learning impact the amount of instructional time students receive?

Current blended learning models assume that class sizes must be reduced by half to two-thirds. Any models that limit class sizes will be profoundly inefficient, as they inherently cut back direct instruction by 50% to 66%. For example, if teachers are limited to teaching 12 students at a time instead of 35, they would need to repeat the same lesson plan 3 times over for a single section of students. Not only is it an inefficient use of teachers’ time, but it also carries the significant cost of reducing the number of instructional minutes that students access. To illustrate, the second chart below compares the average amount of structured classroom time across each of the recent bell schedule proposals (as of 6/7/20):

A quarter system model further exacerbates the loss of direct instructional minutes; teachers would need to cover double the amount of material in half the time. To put it more concretely, with the A/B/C Day model, teachers would need to squeeze what they would normally spend 9 hours teaching over 2 weeks into 2.25 hours over one week. Any benefits that students might gain from in-person instruction are thus outweighed by significant losses in direct instructional minutes.

2. Can teachers create impactful online learning if most of their working hours are devoted to in-person instruction?

The current blended learning model proposes that students access curriculum online on days they are not at school. Yet if teachers spend the majority of their time recycling the same content to smaller groups of students in person^[1], logic dictates that there are not enough hours in the day to also prepare screencast lessons for students at home. To ask them to teach all day and then create and manage additional distance learning is unrealistic and unsustainable -- a recipe for teacher burnout.

If teachers lack the capacity to create enriching online content for students to access from home, they may likely resort to assigning greater loads of what is traditionally experienced as homework. Students will ultimately spend the majority of their week studying in isolation at home, disconnected from their peers and teachers, with limited access to asking questions in real time.

From an equity perspective, at-risk students historically also tend to struggle more with homework completion. In fact, our district’s alternative school, Peninsula High School, typically does not assign any homework for that very reason. Models that rely heavily on students engaging in independent work from home without the supportive presence of their teachers may further widen existing achievement gaps.

Finally, it should be noted that with a distance learning model, we could still build in opportunities for students to come to campus as the need arises. For example, a distance learning schedule could potentially incorporate on-campus supports for specific populations (e.g. English Learners, students with IEP’s, etc.).

3. Does blended learning offer more opportunities for connection compared to synchronous distance learning?

One of the strongest arguments that can be made in favor of in-person learning is that it helps promote connection and community. While this is certainly true in a traditional school setting, the stringent safety measures required for in-person learning could end up making school feel like a stale, cold, almost dystopian experience. After waiting in long lines to take their temperature, students will be greeted not by a warm smile or touch, but by adults repeatedly warning them to stay 6 feet apart from their friends. When they look around the classroom, they may have little idea what their peers might be thinking or feeling, with faces hidden behind masks. Students may go through the day without seeing a single smile. Instead, their limited hours at school will be marked by relentless reminders that they must stay ever vigilant against a deadly virus.

Students' most connecting experiences often occur during brunch, lunch, open periods and extracurricular activities. Most of these opportunities will now be stripped down due to safety restrictions. Because synchronized online courses can meet more frequently, ironically they offer more time to connect. Distance learning can provide a safe space for teachers to facilitate community using technology, such as Zoom breakout rooms. Teachers will have the ability to support group work, visit chat rooms, answer questions, and give feedback in real time.

	A/B/C Days	A/B Days	Distance Learning
Average frequency of connection	Once or twice per week (Total 7.5 hours /week)	2 to 3 days per week (Total 11.25 hours/week)	5 days per week (Up to 20 hours/week)
Quality of connection	Controlled, distant, obscured nonverbal cues with masks, tainted with fear of contamination		Safe, open, relaxed
Teacher-guided group work	Impossible in person due to social distancing restrictions		Possible via online meeting tools

Ultimately, physical presence in itself does not automatically equate to engagement and community. One must consider the quality of that presence. Is it possible that daily connections with others virtually might be at least as beneficial as less frequent contact in person -- especially when you can actually see others’ faces and exchange ideas without an awkward, anxious space in between? Furthermore, are we not resourceful enough that we can establish other creative means of helping students connect? Given the proper resources, intentional community building and social-emotional learning can very well be built into distance learning models.

4. Will the in-person model be an effective use of resources?

In-person learning models carry a high and perhaps hidden overhead cost, in that they ultimately strip time away from the essential work of delivering high-caliber instruction -- the core mission of school itself. As of early June, we have just two months to figure out how to prioritize our limited time and resources. Would it be wiser to dedicate this time toward thoughtful development of a strong online learning system, or will we devote our energy toward overhauling the existing structures of our school in order to accommodate a physical return to campus?

a.    Will blended learning be the most efficient use of our time and energy?

Reopening schools safely will require a huge lift in terms of time spent planning and modifying existing systems:

●     District and site administrators must take on the entirely unfamiliar role of becoming experts in disease prevention measures, coordinating the execution of an extensive list of CA COVID-19 Industry Guidelines in order to reopen.

●     Site administrators will need to draft an unprecedentedly complex master schedule, enforce consequences to breaches in safety rules, and mitigate concerns that arise as individuals become infected.

●     Teachers will need to restructure their curriculum in order to accommodate the drastic reduction in direct instructional minutes, while also learning to juggle between in-person and online learning.

●     Counselors will spend the first several weeks of school untangling the inevitable flood of scheduling conflicts and changes, pulling them away from supporting students’ academic, social-emotional and college readiness needs.

b.    Is returning to school a financially sound idea?

Our school district is facing an impending budget deficit. Distance learning would reduce facilities cost significantly that could be re-invested in curricular development.

●     Schools closed to students would cut down on utilities and facility maintenance costs.

●     No money would be needed to fund disinfection and protective equipment, or to increase staffing for sanitization, symptom monitoring and contact tracing systems.

c.    Will efforts to reopen schools ultimately detract from our ability to offer quality distance learning if a resurgence occurs?

Infectious disease experts have warned that a new resurgence of outbreaks is likely to occur with the coming flu & cold season. Consider recent events in South Korea and France, where hundreds of schools had to close just days after reopening. Would it not be more strategic to start the school year with a strong and consistent distance learning model, in the plausible event that schools will need to close again?

 Although the current proposal makes it seem as if schools can seamlessly flow back and forth between blended and distance learning, the reality is that such transitions will likely be disruptive and detrimental. Although distance learning is neither ideal nor perfect, in the midst of this global crisis, it offers simplicity, predictability and stability -- all of which ultimately benefit our students.

5. Which educational model best guarantees student and staff health and safety?

The reality is that active transmission of COVID-19 continues to occur daily in our community, at a rate that has not shown signs of slowing despite widespread closures. Until a cure or vaccine is broadly available, it is misleading to tell families that it is “safe” for their children to return to school. One can only say that there is a lower or higher risk of disease transmission at any given moment; safety is not a promise that can be guaranteed with any authenticity.

For better or worse, the decisions that we make today will have a direct impact on the health and safety of over 9,000 students and school employees, and their families. New research indicates that COVID-19 poses not merely a threat of death, but also debilitating long-term illness and permanent cardiovascular damage -- including for young or otherwise healthy patients (see Washington Post or SF Chronicle articles, or the latest Atlantic article on how COVID-19 is lasting several months for thousands). If someday, students or staff end up suffering lifelong health impairments as a direct result of contracting COVID-19 at school, will we be able to look back and say it was all worth it?

When recently surveyed, two-thirds of our district’s teachers expressed a preference for distance learning over the proposed blended learning model. As the experts in their field, we would hope that teachers’ perspectives in determining the best options for student learning would be acknowledged and valued.

Within our schools, our teachers are arguably our greatest asset. If we are to ask the majority of them to come into school against their wishes, we would hope that the benefits would far outweigh the risks. If we are to ask them to put not only their own health at risk, but also that of their partners, their children, and their loved ones, we would hope that in-person learning is an absolutely necessary cost that cannot be avoided in order for students to access quality education. Yet is it truly essential? Is there evidence that it will even be superior, from an instructional or mental health perspective? We feel the answer is “no.”

In summary, distance learning increases access to direct instruction, enables teachers to focus 100% on developing quality online curriculum, and ensures safety for staff and students. A blended model is unlikely to increase social connectedness in ways we would hope, and poorly allocates precious educational funding and resources. We will end up risking the lives of many in exchange for poorer quality education.

---

^[1] For example, with the A/B/C quarter system model, a teacher with 3 sections of the same course would have to repeat the same lesson plan 9 times over the course of 3 days.

A Letter From Another Teacher

Anyone who has not experienced this virus first-hand and who is naively adopting this herd-immunity mentality is, as you stated, completely absurd. After weeks of being sick with the virus myself and yesterday, learning that my best friend’s fiancé just died of this virus, I cannot emphasize enough that this illness is nothing to make light of. I am shocked to read our county leader’s approach to “reopen” our community using a herd immunity approach. There is no scientific proof that people who carry antibodies from the virus are in fact immune. In addition, even though wider-spread testing is available, the majority of it is faulty with many false-negatives. International research also shows prevalence of re-infection, even after recovering.

As teachers, our job is to create a safe and effective learning environment. I would hope the District has that same intention for its staff—to provide a safe and healthy working environment for teachers as well. Welcoming everyone back on campus before an effective vaccine or treatment is discovered is a breach to both of those premises, placing both students and teachers and all families involved in an exceptionally unsafe environment. 

As much as I value students and love teaching, I cannot risk my life to continue in a position that would place my entire health and the future well-being of my family in jeopardy. My parents are in the high risk categories and I am the sole family member who would be able to take care of them if they got sick. I want my parents to be alive ten years from now. In addition, I feel concerned about the blended learning approach, given how much the virus affected my respiratory system, and the uncertainty of being “safe” given no guarantee of immunity. If we move into a blended school model, I will need to take into consideration my position as it would place both my health as well as my family’s health at risk. 

In terms of instructional practices, I feel carrying out effective teaching on site during this time is unviable. So much time, energy and focus would be placed on enforcing social distancing protocol, disease prevention and germ elimination that, in essence, learning would fall to the wayside. It would be impossible to deliver quality material and carry out exercises in the classroom with so many restrictions and serious health risks looming in the background. A carefully thought out home learning model is the best way to ensure learning is streamlined and we can continue to deliver content effectively, while eliminating as many risks as possible. In addition, as research shows the long incubation period with relatively low symptoms for this illness coupled with the propensity for carriers to show no symptoms, returning to campus sets the entire community up for an even worse outbreak. I stand in solidarity with you and your message to the District leaders and board representatives. I hope they will reconsider any action to sanction anything but Distance Learning for Fall 2020.

Please feel free to share with any stakeholders involved. Thank you so much for all you are doing to lead our Union.

In solidarity,

Anonymous

When to Be Skeptical of the Experts

As the “reopen” movement forges blindly ahead, we are seeing more and more health experts coming out of the woodwork to support the drive back to work and school. Contrary to their own recent arguments in support of social distancing and sheltering-in-place (SIP), many are now claiming it is safe, though nothing has changed to make it so. Their messaging is irrational, inconsistent and risks undermining people’s trust in science at a time when evidence-based decision making is most critical, and at a time when people have already lost trust in so many other social institutions.

I am not talking about the quacks and snake oil peddlers whom I discussed in my piece, Careful Which Health Experts You Follow. Here I’m talking about well-respected experts in the fields of epidemiology, infectious disease and pandemics, like Dr. Thomas Frieden, former head of the CDC, one of the most trusted scientific institutions in the U.S., and Dr. Scott Morrow, Health Officer for the County of San Mateo, California, (the epicenter of the region’s biotechnology industry).

Rule #1: Be Skeptical of Science in the Service of Capital

Dr. Morrow, who is a physician with degrees in Public Health and Business, is reopening San Mateo County with the express purpose of “increasing the immunity of the population” [and to] “minimize economic damage." This move is in complete disregard for the lack of scientific evidence to support the efficacy of a Herd Immunity policy and, worse, in complete disregard for the lives of all the higher-risk people who will die as a result. But it is clearly in service of capital, as his stated goal is to diminish the economic damage caused by the SIP.

Scientists do NOT know whether individuals who’ve been infected with Covid-19 gain a robust or lasting immunity, drawing into question whether herd immunity is even possible. According to the CDC, “it remains uncertain whether individuals with antibodies (neutralizing or total) are protected against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2, and if so, what concentration of antibodies is needed to confer protection.” If our immune response to Covid-19 is similar to seasonal coronaviruses, the prognosis is not good, since there is evidence of people being reinfected by seasonal coronaviruses in as little as 80 days.

Even if herd immunity was possible, it might not be achievable through deliberate social mixing. Most experts believe we would need 70-80% of a population to have been infected. Nowhere on the planet have we come close. Even in New York City, the hardest hit region to date, less than 20% of the population has been infected, suggesting that the city could suffer more severe outbreaks in the coming months. London is estimated to have a 17.5% infection rate and Madrid has a 11.3% rate. But we do know that encouraging direct social interactions (e.g., work and school) will cause a surge of infections and deaths, which is highly unethical and contrary to the concept of “do no harm.” In New York City, there have been 16,877 deaths to date from Covid-19, and this is with an outbreak so severe that the healthcare system was on the verge of collapse, with people dying because of a lack of ventilators and ICU beds.

Rule #2: Be Skeptical of Scientists Who are “Woke”

As the protests over police violence continue, numerous health experts have come forward saying things like social justice matters more than social distancing and that it’s okay to for large groups to gather, if they’re fighting for a good cause. For example, Dr. Thomas Frieden (former head of the CDC) said the threat to Covid control from protesting outside is tiny compared to the threat to Covid control created when governments act in ways that lose community trust. And Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins, said that in this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.

However, if being in crowds was dangerous for gun-toting Republicans at the Michigan statehouse, how can it suddenly be safe for progressives to mass protest against police violence now? The risks of mass gatherings do not physically change based on the motivation of the participants. If anything, the anti-police brutality protests might be more dangerous than other mass gatherings, since the use of tear gas by the police could exacerbate the spread of droplets containing Covid-19, while also damaging people’s respiratory systems and making them more vulnerable to infection. Furthermore, while Frieden thinks the benefits of the protests outweigh the risks, the current CDC chief thinks the protests will spur new outbreaks and that all protesters should get tested.

The argument that social justice matters more than social distancing is not a binary choice, nor necessarily true. You can fight for social justice in dozens of ways that are consistent with social distancing. But if we don’t continue to socially distance, there will be a surge of new infections and deaths which, based on recent trends, will disproportionately affect poor people and people of color, thus worsening social injustice. Plus, social distancing provides immediate protection against a deadly disease, including immediate benefits for people of color, whereas social protesting does not necessarily result in any social change or improved health outcomes, let alone immediate ones. 

Contrary to Nuzzo’s claim, the health consequences of not protesting cannot be worse than the health consequences of the virus. If the health of people of color was compromised by racism before the pandemic, it continues to be so now, but with the additional risk of illness or death from Covid-19. Unless the protests somehow caused an immediate reduction in the illness and death caused by racism, which they can’t, we are likely to see an increase in mortality for poor people and people of color precisely because the large gatherings could increase the infection rate of Covid-19. Interestingly, Black Lives Matters, Seattle, has explicitly cautioned against attending mass protests for this reason.

Yet, even if we take a more long-term view and presume that the protests will result in significant changes in policing and race relations, how much will that improve the health and longevity of African Americans? Consider that the cops kill around 225 African Americans a year, but Covid has already killed around 25,000 African Americans in just three months (roughly 23% of Covid deaths in the U.S. are among African Americans). Thomas Frieden suggests that the protests will somehow help in Covid control (presumably by reducing the racism that causes a disproportionate number of African American Covid deaths), but it’s hard to see how. The high rate of black covid deaths are happening primarily in poor communities and may be due as much to poverty as systemic racism. The same is true of police murders, which occur overwhelmingly in poor communities. Indeed, roughly the same percentage of African Americans die at the hands of cops as live in the poorest communities in America.

It is understandable that doctors and scientists, like most of the rest of the country, are outraged by the daily police murders in this country; the persistence of institutional and overt racism; the government’s complete disregard for our health, safety and social wellbeing in the face of the pandemic; the mass economic suffering; the anxiety and fear about the future; and should want to express that outrage in the streets. However, they’ve known for some time that racism, poverty, and other social inequities have serious negative impacts on life expectancy, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, not just from the obvious reasons (e.g., less access to good healthcare, healthy diets, clean environments), but from the long-term destructive effects of cortisol, which is overproduced in people who are subjected to chronic stress. (For an excellent explanation of the biology of stress and the effects of cortisol, watch the PBS Documentary: Unnatural Causes: Is Inequality Making Us Sick).

If this is what Frieden and Nuzzo are talking about, why weren’t they leading or calling for social protests for each of the 1,004 people fatally shot by the police in 2019, or the hundreds killed by police in 2020, prior to George Lloyd? Why haven’t they been leading or calling for protests for the 275 people a day who die from their work-related injuries? Or the 120,000 people who die each year from workplace stress? Or the 90,000-360,000 who die yearly from air pollution?

None or this is to say people shouldn't protest. There are plenty of excellent reasons to do it, including the hope it will inspire positive changes, but the scientists should be honest and let people know that doing so increases their risk of contracting coronavirus, and the risk of intensifying community spread. It is great that they are starting to identify racism as a cause of the disproportionately poorer health outcomes in African Americans, instead of the tired and scientifically unsubstantiated notion that it is genetics. But it's time for them to do the same with class.