Covid 19 -

[b0son]

The evidence (based on previous pandemics, especially 1918), and modelling, both suggest there are significant benefits to school closures. Schools are closing almost Europe-wide.

It's the UK that are going with the controversial idea of isolating the at-risk population and business as usual for everyone else. It's a largely untested idea and the evidence is anecdotal at best.

Evidence FOR school closures: https://www.educationnext.org/closin...public-health/

I dont know about you, but those graphs put up a pretty compelling argument IMO.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by b0son

The evidence (based on previous pandemics, especially 1918), and modelling, both suggest there are significant benefits to school closures. Schools are closing almost Europe-wide.

It's the UK that are going with the controversial idea of isolating the at-risk population and business as usual for everyone else. It's a largely untested idea and the evidence is anecdotal at best.

Evidence FOR school closures: https://www.educationnext.org/closin...public-health/

I dont know about you, but those graphs put up a pretty compelling argument IMO.

And to help portray a balanced view, evidence that supports NOT closing schools:

http://theconversation.com/australia...they-be-133432

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/o...l-closing.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...96f_story.html

And an article that presents both points of view:

https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/healt...xpert-c-747069

My take: the jury is out on the effectiveness of proactive closures. Seems to me that there is evidence that support both sides.

There's no doubt that reactive closures of schools will occur.

[Citroënbender]

Wearing my war medal, after a foray into Colesworths:

[b0son]

Originally Posted by FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0

http://theconversation.com/australia...they-be-133432

Presents no evidence closures are ineffective, simply a bunch of measures that should be employed if they're not. All the evidence provided was FOR clsoures.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/o...l-closing.html

Relies on the assumption that kids arent vectors. We know they can get sick. We know it can be spread asymptomatically. It seems logical to assume kids can spread it while being mild or asymptomatic.

Also mentions that while they didnt reduce the number of infections, they did slow the spread of influenza - this is precisely what we are trying to achieve.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...96f_story.html

paywalled, so cant comment...

Seems to me that there is evidence that support both sides.

If you take the time to read your links, I think you'll find there was no actual evidence AGAINST presented.

There is an assumption (relied on by government) that if you close schools, kids go to the mall. This is where responsible parenting comes in. It's a flapping pandemic. You make sure the kids stay home, you make sure there are consequences to non-compliance. You give police the right to enforce those consequences.