Why A Covid Vaccine Will NOT Lead to a Return to Normal

First, there has been considerable socioeconomic and political fallout from the pandemic and the failure of governments to protect their citizens, both physically and financially, that will forever change how people interact and earn a living. Many businesses have gone under and will never return. It’s been estimated that 50% of all U.S. restaurants and museums will never come back. Many businesses are realizing they function just as effectively with their employees working from home, so why return to office building and continue paying rent and utilities?

But from a purely medical perspective, the idea that a vaccine will suddenly or even slowly allow us to gather in large crowds without masks may be pie in the sky, and here’s why:

1.      For things to truly go “back to normal,” which I believe, for most people, means being able to gather in large groups, indoors, without masks, without obsessive handwashing, without anxiety that anyone in the room might be another super spreader, AND being able to send their kids back to daily, 100%, in-person school, there would have to be enough immunity in the population for the virus to die out and disappear completely. Experts use the term “Herd Immunity” to refer to this condition.

2.      We have fully achieved herd immunity with Smallpox, which is now considered extinct, through a combination of an incredibly effective vaccine and an incredibly effective worldwide collaboration to distribute and administer the vaccine. We’ve come close to eradicating Polio. The reason we have not is due to several factors, including governmental policy failures in several countries, but also because Polio immunity is much more complex than Smallpox immunity and creating effective vaccines has been much more difficult. Similarly, with mumps, measles, rubella, diphtheria and many other deadly scourges of past centuries, we’ve come close, but because of anti-vax hysteria (people refusing the vaccines for their children out of the irrational and scientifically debunked fear that the vaccine was more dangerous than the disease), outbreaks continue to crop up.

3.      To reach herd immunity, we need 60-80% of the population to be immune. Herd immunity means that enough people have acquired immunity that the virus can no longer take hold in the community, even though some people may still be susceptible.

4.      Problem #1: we still don’t know how effective the Covid-19 vaccine will be. If it’s 70% effective (meaning 70% of those who get it will develop immunity) and 80% of the population receive it, the result will be 56% of the population develops immunity (70% x 80% = 56%)—probably too low to reach herd immunity.

a.      The FDA has said it will accept any vaccine that proves to be safe and at least 50% effective. Yet no manufacturer has yet completed their studies and published any data on their vaccine’s effectiveness, so this is still a big unknown.

b.      50% effectiveness won’t get us close. Even if 100% of Americans get a vaccine that’s only 50% effective, we’d end up with only 50% of the population acquiring immunity

5.      Problem #2: In the U.S., over 20% of the population has vaccine hysteria and has said they will refuse any vaccine, period, end of story. Another 30% is still on the fence. According to CIDRAP, roughly 51% of Americans said they’d get the vaccine. And in the most recent studies of people's willingness to take the vaccine, researchers found that only 51% of people would take the vaccine if it's only 50% effective, and only 61% if the vaccine was 90% effective. Both of these rates are too low to create herd immunity. So, if we do nothing to change this (as we’ve done so far), that leaves only 40-50% of the population that would get vaccinated. So, even if the vaccine is 100% effective (and no vaccine is), we will end up with only 50-60% of the population acquiring immunity, which is far too low to reach herd immunity. This could change, easily, with an effective and vigorous public health outreach campaign (e.g., TV, billboards, social media, etc, promoting how the road to normalcy is developing herd immunity, and the quickest way to herd immunity is for everyone to get vaccinated), combined with strong public health policies (e.g., no one is allowed into school or the workplace without proof of having been vaccinated).

6.      Problem #3: We don’t yet know if the covid-19 vaccine will produce full or partial immunity. Coronaviruses, in general, and covid-19, specifically, tend to produce partial, short-term immunity in those who have been infected. Consequently, people can, and have, caught Covid-19 twice. And the second bout can actually cause worse symptoms than the first one. Vaccines tend to produce more robust immune responses than actual infections, due in part to dosing and the use of adjuvants. Even so, the covid-19 vaccine might still only produce partial or short-term immunity and/or require regular boosters. If this is the case, it would be much hard to reach herd immunity, as people would have to remember to go in for their regular boosters.

7.      Problem #4: Coronaviruses are RNA viruses (they contain no DNA), which tend to mutate and evolve at a much higher rate than DNA viruses (like pox viruses). Consequently, we may be faced with new strains and even new species of deadly coronaviruses each year, requiring completely new vaccines each year, as is the case with influenza. Many of the vaccines currently under testing for covid-19 are designed to recognize the spike protein common to all coronaviruses, which, theoretically, would protect us against all new coronaviruses, but it remains to be seen if this will in fact be true. It is entirely possible that covid-19, or some other coronavirus, will evolve the ability to evade the vaccine.

8.      Problem #5: Vaccines often have varying degrees of efficacy in different age and health cohorts. For example, the covid vaccine might be 80% effective for healthy 20 to 50-year-olds, but only 40-50% effective for infants and toddlers or for those over the age of 80.

9.      Problem #6: Even if one of the vaccines completes its clinical trial by the end of the year, it could take another 6-12 months before enough can be produced and distributed to the general public. So, even if it turns out to be 90% effective, and even if 70-90% of the population agree to take it, masks and distancing will not be going away soon. Some experts are saying we should brace for another 2-3 years of masks and social distancing.

 

Teachers Are Expendable Commodities for Capital; They Will Be Among the First to Receive New Covid Vaccine

Capitalists make their profits by paying workers less than the value of the goods or services they produce. The math is pretty simple. The less they are given in wages and benefits, the greater the profits. However, bosses can't pay us nothing. If we starve to death, we can no longer produce commodities or earn them profits. Furthermore, if we're dead, we cannot buy their products, either. What about K12 teachers? We don't produce any goods or services that are sold for a profit. But we do two things that are essential for capitalism: (1) we provide free babysitting for other workers and (2) we train future workers to have the basic skills necessary to labor and consume. Hence, the hysterical demands of politicians at all levels of government to immediately reopen K12 schools across the country, despite the high infection rates and regular outbreaks stemming from these openings.

There is, of course, a solution, both to the safety of K12 schools, as well as the economic and health crisis facing the planet: END THE PANDEMIC. 

This can, theoretically, be accomplished with an effective vaccine, which we are supposedly close to having. The Protocols for Equitable Distribution of Covid Vaccine, written up by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, has placed K12 teachers near the top of the list for highest priority to receive the vaccine. Phase 1a would vaccinate high risk health workers. Phase 1b would vaccinate high risk, comorbid members of the community. And Phase 2 would vaccinate all K12 teachers. These groups would be the highest priority Americans to get the vaccine, well ahead of K12 age school kids, their families, and well ahead of other high risk, truly essential workers (e.g., those in the food production and distribution industries).

So, if we are perfectly capable of teaching safely from home, as we have done throughout the country, now, for 5 months (including last spring), why give teachers higher priority than say Amazon warehouse workers (20,000 of them have already been infected), or meat packing workers (dozens of them have already died from Covid).

ANSWER: They want all of us back in the class room for 100% in-person teaching (as they always have) for that free babysitting, so that everyone else can go back to crowded, unsafe indoor jobs (before it is safe to do so) or to jobs that no longer exist.

But why should I complain? As a teacher, I'd get protection well before the rest of the country. I'd be able to go back to my normal life, eat at indoor restaurants, get tattoos and massages, hug strangers, and not feel the slightest anxiety over contracting coronavirus.

Here are some reasons to be concerned:

1. They may be rolling out the vaccine prematurely, before it has been adequately safety tested, as prompted by Trump's demand that it be made available immediately. Originally, experts, like Fauci, were saying that spring or summer 2021 would be the earliest it would be ready. Now they are saying it could be as early as Nov or Dec 2020. So, is it safe? Have they done sufficient testing? If so, why were they originally saying it would take another 6-8 months to adequately safety test it?
2. No vaccine has ever been 100% effective. The rules for this vaccine are that the feds can only approve it if it is at least 50% effective (i.e., 50% of those who receive the vaccine gain full immunity). I have not seen any published reports about how effective any of the covid19 vaccines are that are currently being tested. However, if we are given a vaccine that is only 50% effective and forced back into the classroom before the general public has been vaccinated, 50% of us will still be vulnerable to being infected by our students.
3. I have likewise seen no published data on how long-lasting the immunity is through vaccination. Generally, vaccines produce more robust immune responses than one would get from an actual infection, but what if this vaccine still only provides short-term immunity, like one gets from an actual covid infection?
   
4. Lastly, a full 20% of the public has flatly refused, preemptively, to take the vaccine, while another 31% are unsure if it's safe and leaning toward refusing it (see here , here, and here). The feds have done nothing to educate the public or to sway this 31% who are on the fence. So, even if the vaccine was 90% effective, but only 50% of the public took it, only 45% of Americans would gain immunity.

Therefore, teachers need to stay vigilant and start preparing several defenses: 

1. Demand that no teacher be asked to return to the classroom until EVERY student has been vaccinated and REFUSE entry to ALL students who cannot prove they've been vaccinated (like we currently do with MMR, Pertusus, etc).
2. Demand transparency on the effectiveness of the vaccine (What percentage of vaccinated patients acquire immunity? AND how long does that immunity last?) and its safety
   
3. Demand that the return to in-person teaching be optional (teachers who feel they are at higher risk be given the choice to continue teaching from home)
4. Demand that other safety protocols continue until the pandemic is truly over (masks; social distancing; smaller class sizes; daily health checks at the front desk) and NOT assume that the vaccine has solved the safety problem

Why Aren't the Democrats Fighting Back?

 

Trump has repeatedly said there won’t be a peaceful transition of power if he loses. He’s also said he wants to stay in power 3 or more terms. All of these are clearly unconstitutional. They clearly indicate his desire to rule the country as a dictator. And if it were to pass, it would be tantamount to a coup d’etat.

 

Yet no Democrats are calling for impeachment hearings. None are calling for Trump’s immediate removal from office, or Congressional hearings into the coup plot. They’ve even dropped all attempts to delay the SCOTUS nomination until after the election, which essentially hands Trump the most powerful weapon he has for carrying out his coup: Appealing to the Supreme Court to give him the victory, as they did for George W Bush. The only difference is that the Court was already far more right wing before RBG died than it was in 2000. Add one more right-winger, 3 of whom would be Trump appointees, and the odds in his favor go up even more.

 

Pelosi and Schumer, the 2 top Dems, could barely muster feckless pleas for the Republicans to do the “right thing.” Fat chance, and they knew it. The only Dem to make any speech-length argument on Thursday was Bernie Sanders. But the only solution he could come up with was to beg everyone to vote, arguing that a Biden landslide would make it impossible for Trump to deny the vote. He even told us to drop our fight for “an agenda that works for all, and not just a few” until after Biden is elected, in a desperate appeal to win his base over to Biden, while not alienating Biden’s corporate backers.

 

Of course, nothing makes it impossible for Trump to deny the vote. He denies things daily that are far less controversial. And if he is willing to publicly conspire to violate the constitution, why should anyone believe that the scale of his loss would matter to him? He’ll just say it was rigged.

 

The Sanders argument (which is also being made in editorials and by other politicians), is essentially a concession in advance. Biden only needs to win by 1 electoral college vote for it to be a legitimate victory. Not 200, nor even 1000. The Sanders argument implicitly allows Trump to interpret anything less than a landslide as justification to stay in power if he loses.

 

Even Biden has dropped his earlier arguments that Trump was attempting to create a dictatorship, adopting the naïve and conciliatory stance that it’s all just bluster and there’s nothing to it. But if that was true, then why the rush to get a new right-wing supreme court justice seated before the elections?

 

Ultimately, the Democrats would much rather hold their noses and accept another 25-40 years of a right-wing court, and a potential Trump dictatorship, and along with it, all the violence and death he has threatened to unleash against his opponents and protesters, than face the prospect of a working class revolt that spins out of their control. Indeed, that is exactly what Trump’s threats of post-election state repression are intended to do: suppress any resistance by workers, students, immigrants, middle class liberals.

 

This is why Dems focused on Russiagate in their impeachment attempt, instead of the crimes Trump has publicly confessed to (no chance of workers rising up over this issue). This is why the Democratic Party and its billionaire supporters have all embraced the BLM movement, since it corrals mass public outrage into harmless demands for racial justice that pose no threat to capitalism or their wealth. Even better, its philosophical underpinning, Critical Race Theory, is entirely consistent with the identity politics they’ve adopted to replace their traditional base in the labor movement. We don’t need to pay people more or provide them with healthcare or affordable housing. We just need more woman and people of color in the boardrooms and in Congress.

 

Imagine what might happen if the thousands of people who’ve been protesting in the streets for racial justice were to suddenly start demanding the arrest of the CEOs and corporate boards of Amazon, Tyson, GM, Tesla, and Universities, for profiteering off the pandemic that is disproportionately killing Black, Latino and Indigenous people. Or the arrest of Trump for mass murder, for lying to the public about the dangers of Covid (as confirmed in the Woodward tapes), and his herd immunity policy, which has killed 208,600 Americans (again, disproportionately black and brown). Or if they were to change their chant from “Black Lives Matter” to “Workers’ Lives Matter.” What if, instead demanding the cops stop killing black people, they were to demand that the cops stop killing poor people (the overwhelming majority of victims of cop shooting are poor)? Or, instead of handing over trillions of dollars to Wall Street, they demanded trillions to the unemployed, underemployed, and those who don’t earn enough to support their families? “Not Dying for Wall Street!” And how about demanding that trillions more be spent to ramp up testing, contact tracing and PPE for truly essential workers, and free healthcare for all? Or trillions to convert our infrastructure from fossil fuels to renewables, and the creation of a green new deal with good paying, green union jobs for local communities? And what if they demanded that the money to pay for all this came from the trillions we currently spend on subsidies to corporations? And from higher corporate and capital gains taxes? How about increased taxes on stock market transactions and mineral extraction? And slashing the military budget and making peace with Russia, China, Iran, instead of constantly competing with them for hegemony?

 

While all these are completely reasonable demands, and most are desired by the majority of Americans, they would be interpreted by our leaders, Dems and Repubs, alike, as a threat to their wealth and power, particularly if they were being yelled in the street by mobs. Even more so, if those demands were accompanied by trash fires, vandalism and looting.

 

Our leaders know full well that, as the pandemic persists and likely worsens in the coming months; as more and more people become destitute because of lost jobs, evictions, foreclosures, and death and illness to family bread winners; as people become increasingly desperate to go outside and play, socialize, spend time with friends and family; as climate crises (like deadly fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, ice storms, floods, droughts and food shortages) become more common and more destructive; people will become more desperate, angry and willing to go out into the streets and protest. And their protests could very well become more aggressive and violent than what we’ve seen so far.

 

This is what both parties of Wall Street fear the most. And what a Trump dictatorship promises to quell, through state violence and the violence of his shock troop supporters.

 

But what if Biden is right and it is all just bluster?

 

Trump could still win legitimately. Or, perhaps Biden will win, despite offering his supporters nothing other than “I’m not Trump.” Either way, there are a lot of quite important things, (possibly the most important things), that simply won’t change. Here’s what we can expect in 2021:

·        a continuation of the herd immunity policy and hundreds of thousands more covid deaths

·        no serious investment in public health or plan to provide free or cheap healthcare for all

·        no effective plan to curtail the climate crisis and, consequently, an increasing number of people displaced and killed because of it

·        no significant change to policing, or reduction in the 1,000 people killed by cops each year, nor even a reduction in the disproportionate number of black people killed by the police

·        no reduction in the number of immigrants deported nor an effective path toward citizenship

·        continuing provocations with China and/or Russia, bringing us closer to nuclear war

·        continued bailouts for Wall Street and the country’s largest corporations; peanuts, or nothing, to the poorest and most destitute members of society

·        a wealth gap that continues to grow worse, increasing class tensions and threat of popular uprisings

·        If we are lucky, we’ll get a vaccine that has an 80% effectiveness, but that still can’t end the pandemic.  Here’s why:

o   51% of Americans have said they would either refuse it, no matter what, or they were scared and unlikely to take the vaccine,

o   Without a public health campaign to educate and encourage vaccine use (and there has been none to date), the best we can hope for would be 40-50% of the public gaining immunity, which is not enough for full herd immunity, as too many people would still be vulnerable and could catch and spread the virus

o   (80% effectiveness x 50% vaccination rate = 40% of the public gains immunity)

Pandemic May Not End If We Don't Address Anti-Vax Hysteria

The quickest way to end the Covid-19 pandemic is by reaching herd immunity, which is to say, getting enough people immune to the disease that it no longer spreads easily, thus protecting everyone, including those few who still haven't acquired immunity. Typically, there are two ways to reach herd immunity: mass vaccination programs, which have effectively eradicated many deadly diseases in the U.S. (e.g., small pox, tetanus, polio, diphtheria) and mass infection. Problem is, unlike influenza, chickenpox, mumps, measles and many other familiar diseases, Covid-19 infection does not appear to produce long-lasting or robust immunity, meaning people could, theoretically, catch it multiple times and continue spreading it through the community. This leaves mass vaccination as our best hope.

Anthony Fauci said he was cautiously optimistic that by the end of 2020, we would have data confirming that at least one of the current vaccines being tested for Covid 19 was safe and effective. In theory, that could mean we'd have enough doses by mid-2021 to vaccinate a sufficient number of Americans to reach herd immunity, thus bringing an end to the pandemic. (For the current status of vaccine trials, click here).

Problem is, 20% of Americans say they will refuse to take the vaccine, and another 31% say they are unsure. So, even if the vaccine was 100% effective (no vaccine is), that would mean only 49% of American would develop immunity, which is not enough to reach herd immunity. Consequently, the virus would continue to spread through communities, sickening and killing people. In reality, a vaccine could be approved if it is at least 50% effective. So, worst-case scenario, we get a 50% effective vaccine, with only 49% of Americans taking it, and we end up with only 24.5% immunity, far far away from the 60-75% needed to reach herd immunity.

While it is easy to disparage these anti-vaxxers as stupid or selfish (the behavior certainly is), doing so won't browbeat or shame them into changing their behavior and is, therefore, unproductive. And at this critical time, it is imperative to find solutions that are effective. If the 31% of Americans who are on the fence can be convinced to change their minds, we'd have 80% of Americans willing to take the vaccine, and that COULD bring us to herd immunity (assuming the vaccine was 75% effective).

Part of the problem, of course, is STUPID and SELFISH behavior by politicians, particularly Trump, which have contributed to the misperception that this disease is not that serious or that it's a hoax. As long as people believe this, why should they want to do anything inconvenient or unpleasant (like wear masks & socially distance themselves), or that they erroneously believe is risky (like get vaccinated)? So, the first challenge will be getting all leaders and media to start listening to, respecting and complying with the health experts and encouraging the rest of us to do so, too.

However, there were already plenty of Americans who were terrified of vaccines well before the current pandemic started. So, even if all leaders were to suddenly start wearing masks and telling everyone to comply with social distancing policies, these people might still refuse to take the vaccine, thus perpetuating the pandemic. Therefore, we also need a well-researched and well-executed public health campaign that acknowledges their fears, but then convinces them of the safety of the vaccines and encourages them to participate in the mass vaccination program, not only for their own health and safety, but because it will help end the pandemic and return us to normal more quickly.

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.

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