Yeah, I’m not that hopeful. Just too many fault lines in our society right now.
The practicality and legality of a travel ban from both the states and the fed is an open question. Would love for it to be as simple enough that Biden could strong arm the country into some sort of effective response, but I can’t say that I’m hopeful it would happen.
Regarding the effect of school closures, there’s a study here by the UK Institute for Fiscal Studies. Here’s one of their headline results:
Socio-economic gaps in learning time during the lockdown are large and larger than before the lockdown, especially for primary school children. Before the lockdown, learning time was fairly homogeneous among primary school children, but this changed during the lockdown: the richest third of primary school children spent about four and half hours per week more on learning than the poorest third of primary school children.
Lest you think this is a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and bad parenting thing, it’s more complicated than that:
With home learning implemented suddenly and with little national or local guidance, schools offered dramatically different packages of support to their pupils. Around half of primary schools, and nearly 60% of secondary schools, offered some active learning materials, such as online classes or online chats. But these resources were 37% (24%) more likely to be provided to the richest third of primary (secondary) school children than to the poorest third.
Differences in schools’ home learning packages are magnified by different resources at home. Around one in eight children were either using a phone or had no device to access online schooling resources. Of even more concern, 22% of primary school children and 10% of those in secondary school did not have access to a dedicated study space at home.
Also of interest, in a study published in the BMJ and using Imperial College’s CovidSim simulation package, the study authors demonstrate that under the assumption of no vaccine for several years, closing schools probably decreases R yet increases the eventual number of deaths. The reason is that allowing the virus to spread in a low-risk population allows for the development of some level of population immunity, thus decreasing the severity of second and third waves. It’s like a more limited version of the Sweden strategy. In the context of somewhere like the US where the virus is poorly controlled, it’s therefore not clear that closing schools will reduce the number of people who die even if it reduces case numbers. I’m not suggesting using this as the basis for public policy, but it does show that things are complicated.
I am going to get annoying but anyone saying things are going to be OK in the US and Europe are just wrong. The hospitals are already full, most people don’t give a shit and winter is coming. Bring out your dead.gif.
Especially college football. As if the colleges and the NCAA don’t make enough money off the backs of these players with no compensation, now they have the opportunity to get a life threatening disease in order to line the pockets of the schools and the NCAA.
I mean it’s not like the players have to play right? I managed a degree or two without stepping onto a football field. I’d love it if they would organize and claim their rights but at some point don’t we recognize that these guys are out there because they want to be out there? (nm answer in the CFB thread if at all to avoid derail)
She’s fine and all, but she runs some remote islands with a total population of under 5 million.
That’s the minor leagues of country-running. Even Bill de Blasio has a tougher job than that.