Heartbreaking article from the New Yorker FINALLY has libs questioning remote learning

We flattened the curve and flattened their futures:

While we dutifully stayed home to flatten the curve, children like Shemar were invisible. https://t.co/Dy6qfeGUiz

— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) September 29, 2020

This article also calls out the New York Times over its interpretation of the bogus South Korea study that panicked parents and teachers:

The irresponsible and anti-scientific reporting about South Korean #COVID19 data by @nytimes is the real scandal, as @AlecMacGillis describes powerfully in this @NewYorker essay, because it scared teachers & parents into forcing kids out of school. https://t.co/zpvKFnnyIl

— Avik Roy (@Avik) September 29, 2020

From the article:

Previously, the debate about reopening had consisted of people offering examples of success and failure in a handful of countries: advocates cited France, Australia, and Sweden, among others; opponents cited Israel, where the hasty reopening of schools, along with a broader ending of lockdowns, had led to a resurgence of cases. But the South Korean findings seemed to be based on a much larger set of data.

Some researchers immediately found problems with the study’s conclusions, pointing out that the sample of children who had become sick was exceedingly small. Also, noted Alasdair Munro, a clinical-research fellow in pediatric infectious diseases at University Hospital Southampton, in the United Kingdom, it was not clear whether older children had passed the virus to adults or had got it at the same time and shown symptoms earlier.

“That study had methodological flaws that several of us pointed out,” Allen, the Harvard public-health professor, said. “But the headline took off.” Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist who has become an influential voice on the pandemic response, tweeted, “I personally know parents who changed their whole next year because of the article. . . . The takeaway people got was 10-year-olds can transmit as much as adults.”

But Twitchy readers already knew this:

Bombshell crumbling? Caution urged over NYT article on that South Korea study and schools reopening https://t.co/CwsowI00gK

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) July 20, 2020

But the point here is that these schools are closed down right now and there’s no science to back that up:

All over the world, schools reopened. But not in Baltimore. Not in NYC. Not in DC. (Despite low covid positivity rates.) For the marginalized, those who need schools the most, they remain closed—contrary to the science. https://t.co/xObrjharUp via @AlecMacGillis

— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) September 28, 2020

And even libs are finally figuring this out:

Remote schooling is a nightmare for equity. https://t.co/ML9nMJNpFh

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) September 28, 2020

A lot of people won't want to read this @AlecMacGillis story but they need to: There has always been a gulf btw public ed & private. But the new disparity is stark: in many cities, children in private schools are going & children in public schools are not. https://t.co/tdPL390kvZ

— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) September 28, 2020

Why aren’t we all doing more for the kids left behind by online learning? Shouldn’t we all be mentors/tutors— can employers and universities help form partnerships? Why aren’t stars doing Sesame Street & Schoolhouse Rock type lessons? https://t.co/PtYlldxA2l

— jodikantor (@jodikantor) September 28, 2020

This story is gut-wrenching. We cannot leave an entire generation of low-income kids behind.https://t.co/eX9kSWi8Rw

— Rep. Ro Khanna (@RepRoKhanna) September 28, 2020

Of note, THIS HAS BEEN CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING and experts that Dr. Michael Osterholm said early on that there’s a good argument to be made to keep schools open:

Fwiw, Osterholm said on the podcast that closing schools might not be the best idea. https://t.co/eAIg7H9YVd

— Greg Pollowitz (@GPollowitz) March 11, 2020

But, instead, we just wrote off a year of school. It’s awful.

***