[ajphdiv]

Assuming children do not spread covid-19 as much as adults, it would be fair to say they still do spread at some degree. Therefore, the question is what is the risk tolerance that is acceptable to society? Are we as a society willing to accept that some adults will be infected and/or die as a result of children going to school? What's the acceptable risk tolerance for teachers? If there is an assumption that some teachers will die, how many is too many?

[Mountain_Skies]

There is an acceptable risk because we already accept the risk from children being vectors for spreading annual seasonal diseases that do end up killing adults and children. What is that level? Doubt anyone wants to specify an exact number because then they will be forever tarred with that number of deaths. One thing is very obvious about this pandemic: the degree to which it has been politicized has made it impossible to respond in a manner that is similar to other threats of similar risk.

[harikb]

> respond in a manner that is similar to other threats of similar risk

Is there another example in the U.S where U.S citizens reacted reasonably and averted disaster?

[snowwrestler]

> There is an acceptable risk because we already accept the risk from children being vectors for spreading annual seasonal diseases that do end up killing adults and children.

This seems to be a common thought, but it is an error to assume that incidence of death = acceptance of death.

The truth is, the socially and politically acceptable incidence of death from seasonal communicable diseases is 0. Yes, deaths still occur, but that is in spite of absolutely tremendous investment of resources to try our very best to get it down to 0.

To pick on the flu, for example, there is no tactic or resource that we have available that we have not deployed. We have invested many $billions to create an annual national vaccination program that aims for 100% uptake and is even backed by a special liability regime to manage lawsuit risk. It is the largest vaccine program we have for any disease.

We have also invested (and continue to invest) additional $billions in studying every aspect of the disease, how it invades the body, how it spreads, how it harms people, etc. We have spent even more to create public awareness of flu symptoms, treatments, and appropriate behaviors.

The fundamental difference between the flu and COVID-19 is the possibility of significant asymptomatic or presymptomatic contagion. With the flu, you're not really contagious until you are symptomatic, so getting people (including kids) to stay home when they feel sick does as much good as a lockdown would. We don't really know for sure with COVID-19. So far it seems like a big possibility, hence the emphasis on masks, separation, stay at home, etc.

Also unlike the flu, we don't know what COVID-19 does to the human body. We don't know how long post-infection immunity lasts, and we don't know what chronic ailments might linger with survivors.

The reality is that we can't compare it with "other threats of similar risk" because we don't know what the risk is yet. That's why it is appropriate for the current response to COVID-19 to differ from the way we fight the flu and other more well-understood communicable diseases.

[leetrout]

My wife is a teacher and my daughter will have to return to day care if schools resume.

What bothers me the most is that just like retail / grocery store workers we put people with the lowest earning potential and generally worst benefits directly in the path of this. I don’t want to get COVID but unless I convince my wife to quit her job my odds of getting it greatly increase due to situations out of my control.

[matz1]

I don't want to get covid either but the risk is low enough that it doesn't bother me at all. I try to live my life as it was before pandemic as much as i can.

[rhacker]

At least in the United States, I suspect that the adults spreading it are doing it enough that it won't even register as a blip on the radar.

[BurningFrog]

Even when kids go to the physical school, teachers could still video in for the teaching.

Yeah, sounds a bit crazy, but could probably be made to work.

[markvdb]

Let's say you're putting a group of twenty-five random sixteen year olds together without a live coach. What could possibly go wrong?

[wang_li]

They could hire one or two 19-20 year old proctors to be in the room with the kids. Would be pretty safe.