Here is a somewhat sobering add-on to that.

Yeah…there is literally nothing to stop the boogaloo boys and all the neo-nazis from just going into protests and throwing people into vans and driving off. We’ve seen pretty clearly this summer that the actual cops are totally down with white supremacists. What would stop them from doing this?

Remember how libruls worried that if Sanders go the nomination, the right wing and media would label him a leftist, and it would cost votes, and we said it didn’t matter WHOM the Democrats nominated, they would do that anyway?

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

About 1/4 of our staff is anti-maskers to the point of saying they would refuse to wear a mask.

Man.

Educators are supposed to be educated.

Yeah. Well. So I’m seeing comments all over the place saying, “Hey, what’s this shit about not being able to enforce a mask policy? Schools seem to be able to enforce skirt length, and spaghetti straps. Oh…snap!”

Okay. Your spaghetti straps didn’t kill anybody.

And you didn’t spend your day switching your skirt every 30 seconds.

And the teacher sent you to the office when it was convenient, and that was the end of it. There wasn’t a classroom full of kids that switched back and forth between clothes any time the teacher turned her back. Nor did they cluster in that alcove by the gym to violate the policy until an adult came near, and then switch back.

I guarantee there are a million kids who think the mask rule is as dumb and pointless and the dress code policies, and they will violate it as often as they can to prove their courage and wisdom. With the tacit support of some of the teachers.

That’s American schools in 2020.

How to Reopen Schools: What Science and Other Countries Teach Us
The pressure to bring American students back to classrooms is intense, but the calculus is tricky with infections still out of control in many communities.

By Pam Belluck, Apoorva Mandavilli and Benedict Carey
July 11, 2020

link https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/11/health/coronavirus-schools-reopen.html?fbclid=IwAR1eaVtVh7cg625vf46u6klRJlQQg3AorJP-v2opXz5BatF85Qz4vp6HuGE

As school districts across the United States consider whether and how to restart in-person classes, their challenge is complicated by a pair of fundamental uncertainties: No nation has tried to send children back to school with the virus raging at levels like America’s, and the scientific research about transmission in classrooms is limited.

The World Health Organization has now concluded that the virus is airborne in crowded, indoor spaces with poor ventilation, a description that fits many American schools. But there is enormous pressure to bring students back — from parents, from pediatricians and child development specialists, and from President Trump.

“I’m just going to say it: It feels like we’re playing Russian roulette with our kids and our staff,” said Robin Cogan, a nurse at the Yorkship School in Camden, N.J., who serves on the state’s committee on reopening schools.

Data from around the world clearly shows that children are far less likely to become seriously ill from the coronavirus than adults. But there are big unanswered questions, including how often children become infected and what role they play in transmitting the virus. Some research suggests younger children are less likely to infect other people than teenagers are, which would make opening elementary schools less risky than high schools, but the evidence is not conclusive.

The experience abroad has shown that measures such as physical distancing and wearing masks in schools can make a difference. Another important variable is how widespread the virus is in the community over all, because that will affect how many people potentially bring it into a school.

For most districts, the solution won’t be an all-or-nothing approach. Many systems, including the nation’s largest, New York City, are devising hybrids that involve spending some days in classrooms and other days online.

“You have to do a lot more than just waving your hands and say make it so,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, a professor of the practice at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “First you have to control the community spread and then you have to open schools thoughtfully.”

The transmission puzzle
Though children are at much lower risk of getting seriously ill from the coronavirus than adults, the risk is not zero. A small number of children have died and others needed intensive care because they suffered respiratory failure or an inflammatory syndrome that caused heart or circulatory problems.

The larger concern with reopening schools is the potential for children to become infected, many with no symptoms, and then spread the virus to others, including family members, teachers and other school employees. Most evidence to date suggests that even if children under 12 are infected at the same rates as the adults around them, they are less likely to spread it. The American Academy of Pediatrics has cited some of this data to recommend that schools reopen with proper safety precautions.

But the bulk of the evidence was collected in countries that were already in lockdown or had begun to implement other preventive measures. And few countries have systematically tested children for the virus or for antibodies that would indicate whether they had been exposed to the virus.

Infectious disease specialists have been modeling schools’ impact on community spread beginning as far back as February.

In March, most modelers agreed that closing schools would slow the progression of infections. But wider measures, like social distancing, proved to have a far greater containing effect, overshadowing the results of school closings, according to recent analyses.

The risk of reopening “will depend on how well schools contain transmission, with masks, for instance, or limiting occupancy,” said Lauren Ancel Meyers, a professor of biology and statistics at the University of Texas, Austin, who has been consulting with the city and school districts. “The background community transmission rate in August will also be a factor.”

In Austin, for example, which like cities in Florida and Arizona has seen a recent acceleration in new cases, the estimated infection rate now is about seven per 1,000 residents. That means a school with 500 students would have about four carrying the coronavirus. “The school might be able to contain those, depending on the measures it takes,” Dr. Meyers said.

If not, schools could help incubate outbreaks, given that they’re enclosed facilities where students, especially younger ones, are likely to have great difficulty social distancing, never mind wearing masks. Even if it turns out that children do not spread the virus efficiently, all it would take is one or two to seed new chains.

The evidence from abroad
So far, countries that reopened schools after reducing infection levels — and imposed requirements like physical distancing and limits on class sizes — have not seen a surge in coronavirus cases.

Norway and Denmark are good examples. Both reopened their schools in April, a month or so after they were closed, but they initially opened them only for younger children, keeping high schools shut until later. They strengthened sanitizing procedures, and have kept class size limited, children in small groups at recess and space between desks. Neither country has seen a significant increase in cases.

There have not yet been rigorous scientific studies on the potential for school-based spread, but a smattering of case reports, most of them not yet peer-reviewed, bolster the notion that it is not inevitably a high risk.

One snapshot comes from a study in Ireland of six infected people (two high school students, an elementary student and three adults) who spent time in schools before they were closed in March. The researchers analyzed 1,155 contacts of the six patients to see if any had been found to have confirmed coronavirus infection. The contacts included participants in school activities that could be fertile ground for transmission, like music lessons on woodwind instruments, choir practice and sports. None of the students appeared to have infected any other people, the authors reported, adding that the only documented transmission of the virus was to two adults who were in contact with one of the infected adults outside of school.

But there have been school-based outbreaks in countries with higher community infection levels and countries that apparently eased safety guidelines too soon. In Israel, the virus infected more than 200 students and staff after schools reopened in early May and lifted limits on class size a few weeks later, according to a report by University of Washington researchers.

Case studies in some countries suggest differences in virus transmission in younger children compared to older children.

In one community in northern France, Crépy-en-Valois, two high school teachers became ill with Covid-19 in early February, before schools closed. Scientists from the Institut Pasteur later tested the school’s students and staff for coronavirus antibodies. They found antibodies in 38 percent of the students, 43 percent of the teachers, and 59 percent of other school staff, said Dr. Arnaud Fontanet, an epidemiologist at the institute who led the study and is a member of a committee advising the French government.

“Clearly you know that the virus circulated in the high school,” Dr. Fontanet said.

Later, the team tested students and staff from six elementary schools in the community. The closure of schools in mid-February provided an opportunity to see if younger children had become infected when schools were in session, the point when the virus struck high school students.

Researchers found antibodies in only 9 percent of elementary students, 7 percent of teachers and 4 percent of other staff. They identified three students in three different elementary schools who had attended classes with acute coronavirus symptoms before the schools closed. None appeared to have infected other children, teachers or staff, Dr. Fontanet said. Two of those symptomatic students had siblings in the high school and the third had a sister who worked in the high school, he said.

The research also indicated that when an elementary school student tested positive for coronavirus antibodies, there was a very high probability that the student’s parents had also been infected, Dr. Fontanet said. The probability was not nearly as high for parents of high school students. “When I look at the timing, we think it started in the high school, moved into the families and then to the young students,” he said.

Dr. Fontanet said that the findings suggest that older children may be able to transmit the virus more easily than younger children.

That pattern may also be reflected by the experience in Israel, where one of the largest school outbreaks, involving about 175 students and staff, occurred in Gymnasia Rehavia, a middle and high school in Jerusalem.

There are different theories about why older children would be more likely to transmit the virus than younger children. Some scientists say that younger children are less likely to have Covid-19 symptoms like coughs and less likely to have strong speaking voices, both of which can transmit the virus in droplets. Other researchers are examining whether proteins that enable the virus to enter lung cells and replicate are less abundant in children, limiting the severity of their infection and potentially their ability to transmit the virus.

What schools can do
Testing for infections in schools is essential, public health experts said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends testing of students or teachers based only on symptoms or a history of exposure. But that will not catch everyone who is infected.

“We know that asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic spread is real, and we know that kids are less likely to show symptoms if they’re infected than adults,” said Dr. Megan Ranney, an emergency medicine doctor and expert in adolescent health at Brown University. Schools should randomly test students and teachers, she said, but that may be impossible given the lack of funding and limited testing even in hospitals

Countries that have reopened schools have implemented a range of safety guidelines.

Some countries initially brought back only a portion of their students — younger children in Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Switzerland and Greece; older children in Germany, according to the report by University of Washington researchers. Belgium brought back students in shifts on alternate days.

Several countries limited class size, often allowing a maximum of 10 to 15 students in a classroom. Many place desks several feet apart. Several countries group children in pods or cohorts with social interaction largely restricted to those groups, especially at recess and lunchtime.

Mask-wearing policies vary. In Asia, where the practice of wearing masks during flu season is common, many countries are requiring masks in school. Elsewhere, some countries required masks for only some students or staff, such as teachers in Belgium and high school students in France, according to the University of Washington report.

In Germany, students who test negative for the virus do not have to wear masks, according to the report, which said that since opening schools, Germany has seen increased transmission of the virus among students, but not school staff.

The C.D.C. has outlined steps schools can take to minimize the risks for students, including maintaining a distance of six feet, washing hands and wearing masks.

“The guidelines are already exceptionally weak,” said Carl Bergstrom, an infectious diseases expert at the University of Washington in Seattle. He and others said they feared that the recommendations would get watered down even more in response to political pressure.

The C.D.C. has been working on new recommendations for reopening schools for several weeks, in consultation with organizations like the National Association of School Nurses, according to a C.D.C. spokeswoman. The five planned documents include guidance on symptom screening and face masks, and a checklist for parents or guardians trying to decide whether to send their children to school. But they do not include any information on improving ventilation or curtailing airborne spread of the virus.

Schools will need to ensure that they circulate fresh air, whether by filtering the air, pumping it in from the outside, or simply by opening windows, said Saskia Popescu, a hospital epidemiologist at The University of Arizona. School nurses like Ms. Cogan will also need protective equipment like gloves, gowns and N95 masks.

There are differences in how other countries are responding when coronavirus cases are identified in schools, with some countries, like Israel, closing entire schools for a single case and others taking the more targeted approach of sending students and teachers in an affected classroom into home quarantine for two weeks.

Dr. Kathryn Edwards, an infectious disease specialist and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, is advising Nashville schools on reopening approaches. She said the district is still evaluating how far apart desks should be. “Some people say you only need three feet and others say you need six feet, and others wonder with the aerosol issue, do we need more distance?”

Dr. Edwards said she was disappointed by Nashville’s decision, announced Thursday, to conduct classes online for the first month of school, at least until Labor Day.

Keeping schools closed for a prolonged stretch has worrisome implications for social and academic development, child development experts say. It also became evident this spring that denying children a real school day deepened racial and economic inequalities.

“There is really damage to kids if they don’t go to school,” Dr. Edwards said. “I think we have got to think of the kids and getting them back to school safely.”

I think she’s right.

I don’t expect any effort from Biden to lead. He’s not a leader. And he isn’t going to lay out a vision for the future this country needs. But he will certainly be more responsive to mass pressure. He can be leveraged into doing some things that are helpful to some degree. Trump can’t. Trump can’t even…you know…tell people they should wear masks.

It’s hard not to see this as a deliberate culling of the population, actually. Someone please tell me I’m wrong.

From the beginning, it was believed that elderly populations would be hit hardest. And what better way to free up Social Security payments, and better yet…Medicare expenditures? The other hard hit group will be the “essential workers,” who will be hit hardest in urban areas, and frankly, they are disproportionately minorities. So fuck them. And they penciled it out…estimates of 1 – 2 million killed…most of whom fall in one of the above two categories…and that works out as a win for sociopathic oligarchs. That’s not enough deaths to create a labor shortage and put upward pressure on wages, so…no downside to just letting the coronavirus rip right through those people we see as more of a liability than an asset.

Carry on, America.

wv wrote:

I was thinking about Cigarettes. Cigs kill what, half a million Americans. But the Gov can make laws about ‘where’ you can smoke.

I guess the mask-thing is a bit like that. You are free to not-wear-a-mask in your home, etc, but when it will affect others, its different.

Obviously, the folks that have a deep distrust of the system, are worried that this is a slippery slope, and the Gov is coming to get their guns and blah blah.
So much fear. If we’d actually ‘had’ a more honest Gov all these years, people might not be so distrustful nowadays. Ah well.

w
v

This needs some examination. I don’t know what else to conclude other than that the deliberate framing of masks as a civil rights issue is…you know…mass murder.

I fully understand that there is legitimate concern and debate about the economic consequences of a “duck and cover” policy, and I understand that finding a balance between the health concern and the economic concern is difficult.

But this administration isn’t just encouraging people to “go back to work” and keep the economy ticking. It is deliberately not promoting simple safety precautions, and refusing to do anything to limit the spread of the disease.

We have:

1. A president and vice-president who refuse to wear masks.
2. The framing of masks as a civil rights issue (which is ridiculous, imo)
3. A refusal to continue financing tests
4. No effort to do any contact tracing
5. Not only a neglect to gather data, but an active effort to distort data – and this one is pretty big because it would be pretty easy to require daily data input of positive/negative tests, demographic information, and severity/symptoms information that could be instantly pooled.
6. They suppressed the CDC guidelines for re-opening
7. They have muzzled Fauci and other health experts

So…not only are they remiss on encouraging basic precautions to slow the spread of the virus while telling people to go back to work…they are suppressing efforts to fight the disease.

wv wrote:

Cool.

I prettymuch disagree with most of that. And i submit, the evidence is not just Bernie vs Biden. Thats just one example among hundreds. For starters there’s Bernie vs 99 Senators. These radical-progressive-anarchist-antifa-lead uprisers voted over and over and over for Corporate-Dem-Senators and Corporate-Rep-Senators.
Over and over and over. Its not just about Trump or voting for people that might beat Trump, etc.

If this country really had a large segment of progressive, informed, critical thinkers there would be evidence in the Senate. There aint.

Wanna look at the House of Rep? Whats ‘that’ look like. A smattering of progressives here and there.

So, no, I aint buying it. I think the bewildered herd will be baffled and confused and entertained and self-absorbed again, in a few weeks. And the very small number of committed critical-thinkers will be bashing on, relentlessly, as per usual.

w
v

But this is kind of tricky because people don’t vote for candidates who represent their policy opinions. (And there aren’t many progressives to vote for, and where they do appear on the ballot, the big money machine backs their opponent).

There is a disconnect between the things people want the government to do, and the people for whom they vote. People, as you well know, vote on slogans or whatever. They vote on gut feelings. Or name recognition.

People, by an overwhelming majority, want universal health care. And better pay. And a clean environment. And so on. Why they don’t vote for candidates who will work for those policies is a separate, baffling question. But we have a general idea of why.

So we have all those MAGAs who hate the government because they’ve been screwed, and they vote for a guy who is going to screw them even more, and they love him. There is a disconnect.

But the dissatisfaction is real. Even if people aren’t clear on the “underlying systemic-problem.”

What people need is a more convincing version of Bernie Sanders to lead the way. We need someone bold. Someone who could tell those crowds of people to go on strike. They would do it. And they would win. We’re “this” close to forcing real concessions out of the owners. I think this IS different. But I also think it won’t go anywhere unless somebody harnesses it. And right now, the only person who can is Sanders, and he long ago decided he wouldn’t.