We need to close the bars and gyms, and focus on reopening schools the right way

For schools to open safely we need to refocus our priorities, say medical experts.

close bars reopen schools

Extraordinarily difficult decisions are being made right now across the country, as school administrators, public health officials and local governments attempt to answer the question of how—or whether—to send kids and teachers back to school this fall.

The biggest voices have picked up their megaphones to amplify the debate, with the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and the White House all coming out in support of reopening schools. Other organizations, such as the National Federation of Teachers, have urged a gradual, cautious approach.

In almost every conversation about reopening schools, however, the focus has been on what schools need to do: Temperature screens, frequent testing, student cohorts, in-school health clinics, planning for outbreaks, spacing out desks, serving lunch in classrooms, staggering arrivals, alternating schedules, requiring masks, washing hands.


Recently the New England Journal of Medicine published its own paper on reopening schools, voicing its support for reopening elementary schools but shifting the focus away from a laundry list of to-dos and must-haves for beleaguered school administrators, underfunded school districts and overtaxed teachers.

Instead, the health and education experts who wrote the opinion focused on what should be painfully obvious to all of us by now:

Reopening schools safely isn't about what schools need to be doing. It's about what our country needs to be doing. And we're not doing it.

The sad truth is, no amount of safety preparations, hand-washing or social distancing is going to make schools safe to open when coronavirus transmission is unchecked in the community that school serves. In communities where the virus is not under control, the minute schools open their doors, the virus will walk in along with the kids, as has already been demonstrated.

As the NEJM article explains, "It would be best—and evidence from many countries demonstrates that it's possible—to lower community transmission rates by means of stringent control measures this summer so that schools can reopen this fall with an acceptable level of safety."

Epidemiologists have been urging all summer that communities work to get their transmission ratio down to 10 (or fewer) new daily cases per 100,000 people before reopening schools—although with the virus out of control in many states, some infectious disease experts have suggested that the case ratio could be as high as 25 in 100,000 before shut-down measures need to be put into place.

Under conditions of controlled community spread, however, schools could reopen with more confidence, as long as they were also supported and funded appropriately. "We believe that primary schools should be recognized as essential services—and school personnel as essential workers—and that school reopening plans should be developed and financed accordingly," the NEJM article notes.

Controlling community spread of the virus is an achievable goal, as has been observed in other countries where schools have managed to reopen without seeing an accompanying spike in transmission—but, as the authors note, that requires both national leadership and responsible local prioritization:

"The path to low transmission in other countries has included adherence to stringent community control measures—including closure of nonessential indoor work and recreational spaces. Such measures along with universal mask wearing must be implemented now in the United States if we are to bring case numbers down to safe levels for elementary schools to reopen this fall nationwide."

This perspective echoes that of many public health experts. "This should be a national priority," Anita Cicero, deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told Pro Publica. "It's measurably more important than reopening bars and restaurants."

And therein, apparently, lies the real problem. We have chosen, as a country, to prioritize non-essential services and activities like bowling alleys and restaurants over schools.

The authors of the NEJM paper, Dr. Meira Levinson of the Harvard School of Education and epidemiology experts Dr. Müge Çevik and Dr. Marc Lipsitch, addressed the risks and benefits of children and teachers returning to schools based on a review of all the available clinical and field evidence about children and coronavirus infection. The paper also reviews in depth the main reasons why in-person school is such a high priority—reasons that are familiar by now to most parents who have been following the issue, including "essential educational, social, and developmental benefits; neither the economy nor the health care system will be able to return to full strength given parents' caretaking responsibilities; and profound racial and socioeconomic injustices will be further exacerbated."

As their risk-benefit analysis makes clear, however, the risks of reopening schools can only be lowered to an acceptable level by controlling the virus transmission rate in the communities that schools serve—getting to that crucial 10 in 100,000 people ratio, or below it.

"The fundamental argument that children, families, educators, and society deserve to have safe and reliable primary schools should not be controversial," the authors write. "If we all agree on that principle, then it is inexcusable to open nonessential services for adults this summer if it forces students to remain at home even part-time this fall."

So how do we make schools safe to reopen? We choose to, by making decisions that prioritize controlling the spread of the virus.

We choose to open schools for kids by choosing to wear masks.

We choose to open schools for kids by choosing not to open non-essential services for adults.

We choose to open schools for kids by choosing to fund schools so that they can afford the services, tools and staff they desperately need in order to follow public health recommendations.

We choose to open schools for kids by making responsible decisions—the kinds of "adult" decisions our kids are relying on all of us to make.

"Our sense of responsibility toward children—at the very least, to protect them from the vicissitudes of life, including the poor decision making of adults who allow deadly infections to spiral out of control—is core to our humanity," the authors write. We can be the grownups our kids need us to be.

Close the bars. Close the bowling alleys. Close the gyms, the indoor restaurants, the indoor movie theaters.

That way, we can really show that we prioritized reopening schools.
<p> Siobhan Adcock is the Experts Editor at Motherly and the author of two novels about motherhood, <a href="" target="_blank">The Completionist</a> and <a href="" target="_blank">The Barter</a>. Her writing has also appeared in Romper, Bustle, Ms., McSweeney's, Slate, Salon, The Daily Beast, The Chicago Review of Books and elsewhere. She lives in Brooklyn with her husband and daughter. </p>

I felt lost as a new mother, but babywearing helped me find myself again

I wish someone had told me before how special wearing your baby can be, even when you have no idea how to do it.

My first baby and I were alone in our Brooklyn apartment during a particularly cold spring with yet another day of no plans. My husband was back at work after a mere three weeks of parental leave (what a joke!) and all my friends were busy with their childless lives—which kept them too busy to stop by or check in (making me, at times, feel jealous).

It was another day in which I would wait for baby to fall asleep for nap number one so I could shower and get ready to attempt to get out of the house together to do something, anything really, so I wouldn't feel the walls of the apartment close in on me by the time the second nap rolled around. I would pack all the diapers and toys and pacifiers and pump and bottles into a ginormous stroller that was already too heavy to push without a baby in it .

Then I would spend so much time figuring out where we could go with said stroller, because I wanted to avoid places with steps or narrow doors (I couldn't lift the stroller by myself and I was too embarrassed to ask strangers for help—also hi, New Yorkers, please help new moms when you see them huffing and puffing up the subway stairs, okay?). Then I would obsess about the weather, was it too cold to bring the baby out? And by the time I thought I had our adventure planned, the baby would wake up, I would still be in my PJs and it was time to pump yet again.

Slowly, but surely, and mostly thanks to sleep deprivation and isolation, I began to detest this whole new mom life. I've always been a social butterfly. I moved to New York because I craved that non-stop energy the city has and in the years before having my baby I amassed new friends I made through my daily adventures. I would never stop. I would walk everywhere just to take in the scenery and was always on the move.

Now I had this ball and chain attached to me, I thought, that didn't even allow me to make it out of the door to walk the dog. This sucks, I would think regularly, followed by maybe I'm not meant to be a mom after all.

Keep reading Show less

Sorry, you can’t meet our baby yet

Thank you for understanding. ❤️

In just over three weeks, we will become parents. From then on, our hearts will live outside of our bodies. We will finally understand what everyone tells you about bringing a child into the world.

Lately, the range of emotions and hormones has left me feeling nothing short of my new favorite mom word, "hormotional." I'm sure that's normal though, and something most people start to feel as everything suddenly becomes real.

Our bags are mostly packed, diaper bag ready, and birth plan in place. Now it's essentially a waiting game. We're finishing up our online childbirth classes which I must say are quite informational and sometimes entertaining. But in between the waiting and the classes, we've had to think about how we're going to handle life after baby's birth.


I don't mean thinking and planning about the lack of sleep, feeding schedule, or just the overall changes a new baby is going to bring. I'm talking about how we're going to handle excited family members and friends who've waited just as long as we have to meet our child. That sentence sounds so bizarre, right? How we're going to handle family and friends? That sentence shouldn't even have to exist.

Keep reading Show less

It's science: Why your baby stops crying when you stand up

A fascinating study explains why.

When your baby is crying, it feels nearly instinctual to stand up to rock, sway and soothe them. That's because standing up to calm babies is instinctual—driven by centuries of positive feedback from calmed babies, researchers have found.

"Infants under 6 months of age carried by a walking mother immediately stopped voluntary movement and crying and exhibited a rapid heart rate decrease, compared with holding by a sitting mother," say authors of a 2013 study published in Current Biology.

Even more striking: This coordinated set of actions—the mother standing and the baby calming—is observed in other mammal species, too. Using pharmacologic and genetic interventions with mice, the authors say, "We identified strikingly similar responses in mouse pups as defined by immobility and diminished ultrasonic vocalizations and heart rate."

Keep reading Show less