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

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.

Crisis Continues to Worsen

Over the past week, the U.S. surpassed 4 million covid infections, more than 25% of the world's total, despite having only 4.3% of the world's population. We are also on track to surpass 150,000 deaths by the end of the day. These grim milestones can be blamed on oligarchy's relentless drive to force people back to work under unsafe conditions and their unwillingness to provide any financial relief to the millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans, as well as Donald Trump's continual lies about safety, the science of covid, and his undermining of the scientific experts.

There are now 12 states in the Critical Red zone (>25 new daily infections per 100,000 residents), with California poised to join this rogue's gallery soon, and 23 in the orange. According to Harvard's Path to Zero website, regions in the Red need to implement immediate lock downs, and those in the Orange are strongly recommended to do so, both to bring down cases to a manageable level and not overwhelm hospitals, but also to reach the Green zone, where an opening of the economy can be more effectively monitored and controlled. This means that 70% of the country needs to immediately lock down (compared with 64% just 5 days ago). Indeed, health experts have been saying for days that the entire country needs to shut down.

California, which once led the nation in caution, now has had more covid cases than any other state, including New York. 71% of its counties are now in the Critical Red or Dangerous Orange zones and require immediate lock down.

It is clear from the map that U.S. and South America are the hardest hit regions of the world, but the WHO just announced on Friday that Europe's premature lifting of restrictions is driving a resurgence of infections there. Eastern Europe has been particularly hard hit, with record or near record daily infections in Romania and Ukraine, and 5,000 or more daily infections in Russia.

From Bad to Dire: 64% of U.S Requires Immediate Stay-at-Home Orders

As you can see from the map, the U.S. no longer has any green states (On Track for Containing the Virus), whereas less than 2 weeks ago, we still did. 32 states are now in the Red (>25 new daily infections per 100,000 residents) or Orange zones (10-24 new daily infections per 100,000 residents), or 64% of the country, and should implement Stay-at-Home orders, according to Harvard's Path to Zero website. This is a 10% increase over 4 days ago, and a 52% increase in the past week!

California now has 16 counties in the critical red zone (a 33% increase over 4 days ago), and 20 countries in the dangerous orange zone, for a total of 36 counties (61% of the state) requiring immediate mandatory lock downs in order to bring the infection rate back to a manageable rate. Additionally, while the state had 6 counties in the green zone (less than 1 new daily infection per 100,000 residents, and on track for containment) just 4 days ago, it now has only 3, indicating that even its most remote and sparsely populated regions are getting slammed and that the state is moving further away from containment.

Pandemic Spiraling Out of Control

Four days ago, there were 7 states in the critical Red Zone (over 25 daily new infections per 100,000 residents) averaged over the past seven days, a critical situation which researchers at Harvard say should trigger automatic mandatory lockdowns. In none of these states has a statewide lockdown been implemented. Now there are 11 states in the red zone (as of 7/14/20), with Arkansas and California poised to join this group by the end of the week. Yesterday, the nation broke the world's one-day record with 71,750 new infections, according to Worldometer, while California, Florida and Texas chalked up 9,687, 10,181 and 12,235 new infections respectively.

The number states entering the dangerous Orange Zone, where the Harvard researchers say statewide lockdowns are highly recommended, has also been on the rise. Four days ago, there were 14 states in the orange, or 21 states in the red/orange zones combined. Now there are 26 states in the red/orange zones combined, or more than half the country that should be in lockdown.

Why Do the AAP, NEA and AFT Continue to Demand a Reopening of Schools?

This week (7/10/2020), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the two largest teachers’ unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers AFT) released a joint statement calling for the return to live, in-person instruction this fall, even as the number of new covid infections skyrockets throughout the country. “Educators and pediatricians share the goal of children returning safely to school this fall. Our organizations are committed to doing everything we can so that all students have the opportunity to safely resume in-person learning.”

Here is a critique of the AAP’s position and how it is being inappropriately promoted.

The fact they put out this statement now, when daily new cases are rising in 36 states and the country has been recording over 60,000 new cases daily for the past week, shows their complete disregard for the health and safety of the children and teachers for whom they advocate, not to mention a complete disregard for the recommendations of the health experts, and a complete disregard for the health and safety of the students’ family members.

Indeed, pandemic experts at Harvard recommend the immediate lockdown (including schools) of any region recording more than 10 new infections per 100,000 (more than 60% of the states are already at this point). Similarly, pandemic expert, Michael Osterholm, is calling for a complete national lockdown, followed by thorough testing and contact tracing to bring the pandemic back under control and allow for a subsequent gradual resumption of life, as has been effectively accomplished in places like China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy. And, more specifically with respect to schools, the CDC has said that reopening the schools is the highest risk for increasing the spread of Covid-19.

If they were truly concerned with the health and safety of children and their teachers and families, why not put out a statement that says, “We will do everything possible to ensure high quality distance learning until it is truly safe to resume live, in-person instruction,” rather than continuing to push for in-person learning this fall, when it is clear that the pandemic will still be raging?

Even if we locked down the nation now, as Osterholm has recommended, it will take months to bring infection rates down to where they were in May, after the first set of lockdowns were implemented, back when infection rates were only a fraction of what they are today. It should also be clear there is no way to resume in-person learning with all the recent budget cuts. With the myriad logistical problems, like lack of space to physically distance students, lack of sufficient custodians to sanitize rooms, lack of soap, paper towels and PPE, lack of nurses, and lack of money to purchase of these resources. With the unwillingness of teachers to come back under the current, unsafe conditions. With the numerous large districts, including LAUSD, the nation’s largest, already stating they will not reopen this fall. With the likelihood that each positive case that arises will result in scores of teachers, staff and students being sent home and placed in quarantine. With the likelihood that schools will be forced to shut down again soon after reopening because of the surge of new infections.

So, why is the nation’s largest association of children’s doctors still pushing this deadly plan, rather than upholding their oath to do no harm? Why are the nation’s teachers’ unions still pushing for a policy that their members oppose? Why continue promoting a criminal proposal that is starting to die on its own because of the intractable logistical impediments to its implementation?

To answer this, one might consider last week’s “School Reopening Roundtable,” hosted by the AFT, where Elizabeth Warren dismissed the worries of teachers over the risks of reopening and told them the best thing they could do was vote for Joe Biden in November. Yet why would voting Democrat change anything? All across the country, Democratic governors (including Maine, California, N. Carolina, Kansas), prematurely reopened their economies when infection rates were still on the rise. And House Democrats overwhelming supported the CARES Act’s multitrillion dollar corporate bailout, funded in part through cuts to education and other social services. And what about Biden’s role in the Obama Administration, which slashed education funding and promoted privately run charter schools? Does anyone really believe that, as president, Biden will restore education funding to its pre-2008 levels?

Ironically, Covid-19 is now inversely related to the markets, thanks to the $3 trillion funneled into the markets by the Fed, a policy supported by nearly every Democrat in their support for the CARES Act. The irrational exuberance of traders hinges upon the criminal drive to get workers back to work, which itself is dependent on getting schools to reopen to provide “free” babysitting.

Maybe the AAP, AFT and NEA are okay with a few thousand kids dying, out of the millions who attend K-12 schools, but what about the millions of vulnerable educators and family members who they will infect? Is their goal to help cull America of its older and medically vulnerable workers, so health insurance companies no longer have to pay for their expensive cancer, diabetes, heart, arthritis and blood pressure medicines? Is their goal to help school districts and corporations reduce insurance costs by reducing their share of higher-risk employees? Is their goal to reduce payroll costs by reducing the number of higher wage veteran employees?

The irony is that the more we let this spin out of control, the longer it will take for the economy to recover.

Everyone wants a return to normal, but not at the risk of death. Everyone agrees that live, in-person education is better than remote, online learning, but not when a pandemic is raging out of control.

Unfortunately, we are going to have to suck it up for a while longer and continue living lives of social isolation and privation. It means schools and teachers’ unions must start planning for better quality distance learning than was provided last spring, even though this should have started months ago, as it did with the University of California and CSU systems. It means the pediatricians need to start advocating for ways to improve children’s mental and physical health while sheltering in place, instead of wantonly trying to force them into apocalyptic schools where they won’t be able to see any smiles, touch anyone, get close to anyone, get hugs when they’re hurt, share toys and equipment, interact with friends and family members in other classrooms. Where they’ll have to stand in line daily for temperature checks and have adults constantly warning them to put their masks back on and get away from that person they’ve gotten too close to. It means the politicians, including the Democrats, must commit to providing everyone with the money and resources they need to survive until the pandemic ends, and ensure there is sufficient PPE and safety protocols in place for all truly essential workers. It means implementing a national lock down and mandatory mask-wearing, and spending the money to dramatically increase testing and contact tracing, so that once the infections start to decline, quarantines can be implemented to prevent new flare-ups from turning into full blown outbreaks.

Do Educators Die of Covid? Yes They Do! Do Children Die of Covid? Yes, They Do, Too!

Chalkbeat reports that 78 educators have already died from Covid in NYC, just from the first wave of the pandemic to hit the city. Health experts are warning that NY will likely see a resurgence, like the rest of the country, threatening the lives of countless more educators.

Of those 78 deaths, 38% were among paraprofessionals, even though paraprofessional represent only 17% of the education workforce. They are also disproportionately people of color.

And in Arizona, 3 teachers caught Covid after sharing a classroom for Summer School & one of them died.

Despite the mounting evidence that kids, even very young ones, not only catch covid at the same rate as adults, but can also transmit it to others, and despite averaging close to 10,000 new covid infections daily for the past week, Florida has mandated that all schools be open for live, in-person instruction in the fall. A seventeen-year old has already died of the virus in Florida, and more are likely to die as Governor Desantis allows the pandemic to rage out of control in his state. Florida is also seeing rising numbers of the deadly multi-system inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) in children, a problem that will also likely rise with the reopening of schools and the failure to initiate a mandatory state-wide shelter in place, as recommended by many health experts.

In New York, over 80 kids were diagnosed with MIS-C as of early May, and 5 had died. If they reopen their schools to live, in person lessons in the fall, they, too, will likely see a tragic increase in MIS-C diagnoses and deaths, as well as the deaths of more teachers and paraprofessionals.

Why It's Hard for Americans to Trust the Experts

Is it any wonder that Americans don’t trust politicians, American institutions, even scientists? That they continue to go to crowded public places without masks, deny that covid infects children or that they can spread it to vulnerable adults, in spite of the solid evidence to the contrary?

Why should they trust the scientists when the scientists keep changing the “science?”

Certainly, part of the problem is the general public’s lack of understanding of how science works: Scientists makes hypotheses based on current data and then constantly revise and improve those hypotheses as new data comes in. Thus, what was considered the best explanation in February could look significantly different today, now that we have so much more data on how covid-19 spreads and how it affects the body. This can be confusing and frustrating to the lay person, particularly when politicians and the media continue to hype the now discredited preliminary data. Consider how many people still believe that vaccines cause autism, even after this myth has been repeatedly disproven in controlled scientific studies, (an excellent article on this topic here) and even after its main proponent, Andrew Wakefield, had his medical license revoked for publishing the fraudulent data behind this myth.

But there is a bigger problem when supposedly objective scientists make public statements about what is considered best scientific practice that are NOT based on scientific evidence at all, but on the dictates of politicians and capitalists, which is exactly what the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) seemed to be doing this week by buckling to the demands of Donald Trump and agreeing to change their guidelines for how to reopen K-12 schools, thus facilitating Trump’s dictate that ALL SCHOOLS MUST REOPEN ASAP.

In a glaring example, CDC director Robert Redfield said there’s no evidence that children drive the spread of coronavirus. While it is true there are many factors driving this pandemic (e.g., stupid back-to-work policies that force workers and consumers together without adequate PPE; people cramming into bars without masks; poorly trained and equipped employees at assisted living facilities and prisons), to say that children do not drive the pandemic is scientifically inaccurate and misleading. It implies that we don’t need to worry about sending our kids into crowded classrooms, that they are not going to bring the virus home and expose vulnerable family members, and that reopening schools will have little or no effect on the number of new infections.

It is so misleading and dangerous that even Trump’s own controversial health advisor, Deborah Birx, had to back away from Redfield’s statement, saying there isn’t enough data to arrive at that conclusion; the data is complete. Not enough children have been tested.

But we do have compelling evidence that kids catch the virus at the same rate as adults from two different studies, one from Germany and one from China. And this study from Switzerland, published on the CDC’s own website just last week, shows that symptomatic children shed just as much virus as adults, indicating they can, indeed, spread the virus to others. (Which makes one wonder if the CDC director even looks at his agency’s own website, let alone reads the latest scientific studies).

We also have considerable anecdotal evidence of the virus spreading in schools and daycare facilities, including among children. There were 950 infections at Texas childcare centers as of the end of June, with a third of the cases occurring among the children. And, as the UK reopened, schools there quickly become the second leading source of new outbreaks, after home care centers. France and Israel had to close schools soon after reopening because of new outbreaks among kids. There was also a cluster of juvenile infections after a high school swim party in Arkansas. And nearly an entire class in Quebec contracted covid, despite physical distancing and hygiene measures, after an infected student came to class, which strongly supports the hypothesis that children can, indeed, drive the spread.

Many back-to-school proponents argue that kids don’t get as sick as adults and rarely ever die. While this is true, statistically-speaking, it does not justify reopening schools. First, and most significantly, if kids can transmit the disease, and the evidence shows that they can, then they can spread it to vulnerable staff and family members. With one-third of all teachers being at elevated risk of severe symptoms and death due to age and underlying health conditions, not to mention all the children living with grandparents, and all those living with family members who have diabetes, heart disease, cancer, kidney and liver disease, reopening the schools would be criminal!

However, kids do catch the virus and sometimes get quite ill and die. Based on the preliminary and incomplete data we have, in many parts of the U.S. and Europe, mortality rates for children age 10-19 are in the range of 0.1-0.5%. These numbers probably reflect only the minority of infections that were symptomatic and bad enough to require treatment and/or hospitalization. Consequently, the sample sizes are small and the percentages are likely inflated. But if we divide these percentages by 10, since it’s estimated that there are 10 times as many infections as are currently documented, that would bring the mortality rate down to 0.01-0.05%. With roughly 50 million K-12 students in the U.S., if 50% of them contracted the virus, and 0.01-0.05% died, there would be 2,500-12,500 juvenile deaths. This, too, should make us question the safety and efficacy of reopening the schools.

If it wasn’t safe to go to school in May, when most of the nation’s schools were first shut down and infection rates were miniscule compared with today, then why would it be safe to return to school in August and September, when infection rates are going out the roof? Especially with watered down “safety” protocols?

Last night, I watched a San Francisco Unified School District Town Hall Meeting on Reopening, in which an unprepared and incompetent representative from San Francisco’s Department of Public Health bumbled incoherently through a set of talking points on school “safety” measures she clearly had never seen before. The guidelines she read were only recommendations and they only applied when conditions permitted. For example, students were to have 9 feet between them, except when this wasn’t possible. Then they could be as close as 3 feet from each other, which is only half of the standard 6 feet, which is, itself, insufficient to protect against aerosolized particles. Windows were to be opened, except in the numerous rooms that lack windows. Schools could choose to do temperature checks, or trust parents to do it at home. If someone passed the health screening at the beginning of the day, and got sick later, they’d be sent home (but apparently, all those who were in contact with that individual would remain).

It was absolutely appalling to witness SFUSD and the health dept being so ill-prepared on a recorded public forum with thousands of live viewers, but even more so when you consider the stakes. It gave me absolutely no confidence that either institution could be trusted to protect the health and safety of my child, or his teachers and school staff. Many of the families participating asked questions like, “Would the district base its decision to reopen on the recommendations of the CDC?” But if the CDC is weakening its recommendations to appease Trump and Wall Street, then they’re not going to keep our children and their teachers safe either.

The only safe and rational option is to:

·       Keep schools closed to live, in-person instruction until the pandemic is over

·       Provide sufficient teacher training, time and extra pay to develop higher quality remote learning experiences

·       Provide parents training and resources to help them support their children in their remote lessons and with their mental health and social development

·       Keep ALL workers home who are not truly essential for our day to day survival (e.g., workers who help produce food, utility services, emergency services and healthcare), or who cannot be provided a safe, uncrowded, well-ventilated work environment with adequate PPE

·       Provide everyone with the money and resources necessary to survive, including protection from evictions and foreclosures and utilities shut-offs

·       Provide safe childcare options to parents who are essential workers, including support for their children’s remote learning experiences

Nearly 50% of California is Orange or Red-Why Isn't It Under Lockdown?

A new Covid tracker from Harvard maps out the number of new daily infections U.S. counties per 100,000 residents. Regions with at least 25 new daily infections per 100,000 people are designated code-red and stay-at-home orders are necessary. Regions with 10-24 new daily cases per 100,000 residents are designated code-orange and it is highly recommended that they, too, implement stay-at-home orders. 

Looking at this map of California, it is clear that nearly half the state is in the orange or red zone (24 counties), while 34 are in the yellow or green (as of 7/2/20). However, of the counties in the yellow, four of them are at 9.5 or higher, and are therefore very close to slipping into the orange zone. In all, six counties are in the 9.0-9.9 range, putting them at risk of slipping into the orange.

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?

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.