Sometimes, just like the fake Lancet surgisphere "global" study, the numbers don't quite add up even internally, and there's something weird going on. What? We don't immediately know. Maybe minor. Maybe not. Often, this is pointed out in real time, but ignored. Have to slow down.
For some cases, the risk is worse; it's haphazard childcare (not good from infection prevention stand-point) on top of lack of access to social services. Better to figure out how to prioritize most vulnerable as soon as possible based on realistic understanding or relative risk.
-
-
So if more parents who have the $/means to keep their kids home actually do so, doesn’t that reduce the burden of schools (resources, congestion, aerosols, etc.) for the marginalized/low-income/front-line parents who can’t? Does it help prioritize those children’s safety?
-
I would agree that’s how we should do it. Let people who need to, or who can afford to do remote education do so—and thus also free up resources and space for those who cannot or need to be in person for specific reason.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
