I like the phrase "exposure budget", I hope you don't mind if I steal it. I've been thinking of things the same way, though my #1 "budgetary priority" right now is probably "open schools" over everything else, including seeing friends—and I say that as someone with zero children.
Even child psychologists have reversed their stance on returning to school. They've realized that the trauma of having a teacher die is worse than not socializing for a few more months.
At the current virus levels, it is expected that at least two teachers and 60 students will die every day in the USA if we reopen schools.
That is of course out of hundreds of thousands of teachers and millions of students, but if it's your teacher or your friend, it doesn't really matter how many millions didn't die that day, does it?
Picking out that you said "current virus levels" I completely agree.
There is no timeframe for getting the virus levels under wraps. It's a matter of determining what the risk is.
I'd put it like this for myself, if the risk to the students and teachers is MORE than some already known risk factors we have out there (driving) then let's not do it.
If the risk to students and teachers is similar or less than some already known risk factors then we can consider opening.
I'd also like to see a plan of something like (not exactly this I'm no expert).
If someone from a class is confirmed with COVIDthe whole class closes for 2 weeks (goes remote). If there are 3 cases at the school they close for 2 weeks. If there are 3 schools in the district and there's less than XYZ miles then the district closes for 2 weeks.
This is a rough idea but we can easily handle 2-4 weeks off at a time given a case of COVID. So if we're opening lets be cautious and imitate other countries who have done well.
What you describe is very similar to the new rules in California. When the county gets to a certain level of containment, schools will open, and otherwise will basically follow the plan you just described, with closures based on cases within the school and/or district.
People keep saying "a few more months." What is the evidence for this? We are not going to have a vaccine developed, tested, and deployed to 300 million people in a few months. Nor are we going to grow Asia-level mask compliance, quarantine enforcement, and contact tracing within the Trump presidency. Now that it's a tribal issue, it probably can't be done at all.
It really seems like we're in this for a few years.
I was being optimistic. Although during the 1918 pandemic, after the third wave, mask compliance went way up as people finally realized the thing was real and was deadly. So maybe it'll get better.
Also, at least right where I live in Santa Clara county, we're almost at the point of reopening again. I see 99.9%+ mask compliance here, and the numbers are trending down (albeit slowly).
I suspect based on the Governor's new policies that my kids will be back in school before Thanksgiving, until things get bad again and the have to leave again.
If we reopen schools, how many teachers and students will die in traffic accidents that could have been avoided by WFH? Should we WFH forever and wrap the kids in bubble wrap to avoid that trauma too?
Also, where did you get those numbers from? I would have expected teachers to be at far higher risk of death than students.
> If we reopen schools, how many teachers and students will die in traffic accidents that could have been avoided by WFH?
Many fewer, especially given that for students it usually involves walking or short drives through residential neighborhoods.
> Should we WFH forever and wrap the kids in bubble wrap to avoid that trauma too?
Obviously not. There is clearly a point where it makes sense to go back. But now isn't that time.
> Also, where did you get those numbers from? I would have expected teachers to be at far higher risk of death than students.
It's based on the CDC mortality data combined with the number of school kids.
The teacher estimate is harder because we don't know exactly the age breakdown of the teachers, but it's based on the assumption that 30% of teachers are over 50 and putting the rest in the 20-30 risk group, which is probably too low.
The actual number of teachers is lower just because there are only about 1 teacher per 30 students.
Which is why your numbers look wrong, because if there's 1 teacher for every 30 students and also 1 teacher dying for every 30 student deaths, that implies the risk of death for the two groups is equivalent.
My broader point, though, is that life requires calculated risk and tradeoffs. If the standard is "no child should ever experience a teacher dying from corona", and we WFH until that risk becomes <1/adult/year, then we're disregarding things like kids committing suicide due to isolation, health issues left untreated due to the pandemic, domestic violence etc. School is a literal lifeline for many children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Thanks! I suspect that public health authorities wouldn't like this, as they do not want people to feel that they can "spend" at all unless it's essential. But that doesn't seem like something we can actually sustain until the vaccine, so I have found the concept helpful.
