Where I live the K-12 teachers have not been teaching in person for almost a year. The average age of those teachers is just over 40. They are being given very high priority in vaccination without the agreement or even suggestion that they will return to in person learning. If they were teaching in person one could make a case for vaccination, but that is not the case. The number in this cohort is very large and is absolutely taking vaccine from those in actual danger. What is the rationale behind this?
Well, at least in my state / area, the kids are starting to come back.
IN GENERAL, teachers tend to be older than the “average” adult population. Yes, it’s true that young children don’t seem to have as bad of a reaction to the virus, nor do they spread it as much. HOWEVER, the teachers would be in a contained area with them with (possibly) insufficient air circulation for extended periods of time - all of those increase the chances of contracting the disease. They also do spend time together, which would further spread the disease. Finally, it seems like everyone and their uncle are clamoring for the schools to open back up for in-person learning. Put all of that together, and, yes, teachers should be near the top of the list - certainly well before my sorry behind.
At what level are these decisions being made? For example, maybe teachers being given high priority is happening statewide, but teachers not teaching in person is only happening in your district?
This is a good question. Two of the counties had hybrid teaching, which has been discontinued as cases mount. All of the twenty something other counties had remote only. And if the decision was linked to return to classes I would not have much problem, but it is not.
I kind of agree – my brother and I, both in our forties with no medical conditions that would make us high-risk, will probably both be vaccinated early on because we’re in prioritized occupational categories (but working remotely at the moment). And I feel kind of guilty and uncomfortable about that. (For me, anyway – my brother has an immunocompromised kid, so he probably should get priority for a totally different reason than he actually got priority.)
But, OTOH, it’s really hard to vaccinate all-and-only-those members of a profession who are working in person, or about to go back to working in person, without adding additional layers of red tape, so trying to do anything more complicated than prioritizing the whole occupational category just slows the whole process down. I’d also assume that most school districts are planning to return to in-person teaching by fall if not sooner, and are vaccinating their staff as preparation for that.
First, as noted above, this is a decision that has varied state by state and indeed between different districts. Here in Oregon individual school districts are allowed to make their own determination whether to do F2F instruction, hybrid, or online-only as long as certain benchmarks and safety guidelines are met . Additionally we all know there is no universal consensus on appropriate COVID-19 vaccine distribution. The CDC guidelines are pretty good but several states have eschewed those guidelines. The CDC recommends that “those who work in the education sector (teachers and support staff members) as well as child care workers be included in phase 1b. “
Also as noted, the average age of teachers – and school staff in general – tend to skew older. This is the crux of the issue.
Children are almost as likely to contract COVID-19 as other age groups. Per the American Academy of Pediatrics: "As of January 7, nearly 2.3 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic. About 171,000 new child COVID-19 cases were reported last week … Children represented 12.5% of all cases in states reporting cases by age."
Per the Kaiser Family Foundation: “Adults 65 and older account for 16% of the US population but 80% of COVID-19 deaths in the US, somewhat higher than their share of deaths from all causes (75%) over the same period”.
(My bold in both quotes)
Also per the CDC: Recent evidence suggests that compared to adults, children likely have similar viral loads in their nasopharynx, … similar secondary infections rates, and can spread the virus to others." but that “evidence suggests that as many as half of pediatric infections may be asymptomatic.” (Same link).
In other words, children are nearly as likely as older adults to become infected but are much less likely to show symptoms.
So the theory is, OP, that 1) kids are contacting COVID-19 at a much higher rate than previously believed and 2) they can easily spread said virus to their teachers and other school support staff who generally fall into a higher-risk category. This is because they are often asymptomatic and do not know (and their parents / families do not know) that they are infected. So, kid goes to school, spreads COVID-19 around the school, infecting others including school staff that, on average, have increased vulnerabilities thus causing COVID-19 to spread to an even greater degree than it already is.
Also (and, I’m a teacher so I speak from experience here) getting kids to stay masked is like herding cats. I spoke with my doctor a few months ago about this and she is of the opinion that many front-like workers such as grocery store staff are actually much safer than teachers because not only are most people following masking and social distancing guidelines in a store (unlike children in a school), but their interactions with customers are quite brief compared to the interactions teachers have with their students – oftentimes teachers spend an hour or more in close proximity or in poorly ventilated rooms with possibly COVID-19 positive students.
That’s the rationale.
Because it’s illegal to leave kids at home to do remote school if their parent(s) are at in-person jobs. That said, I think front-facing workers (grocery, construction, bus drivers) should be in an earlier group.
The short answer - we need to get kids back to school. Kids being homeschooled is breaking parents (particularly Moms), its breaking teachers, and its breaking kids. But a lot of teachers don’t want to go back to in person teaching if their lives are at risk. And if teachers are out ill for two or three weeks - not uncommon even with a “mild” case of Covid, you’d need enough substitutes - they don’t exist.
So before we can get kids back in school, we need to prioritize vaccinating teachers - or we might as well just say “homeschool for the rest of this school year, see you all in September!” (I suspect that a lot of districts will announce back in person classes as soon as they can - but they can’t give timelines because we aren’t really sure how fast vaccination will progress. I also suspect there will be a lot of schools that just run from sometime this Spring through next June.
Earlier than 65+ and healthcare staff? Because I have to say, I’m rather shocked how some people ignore the age disparity in outcomes for covid when opining on the vaccine rollout. I know anyone can have trouble but a large majority of deaths and hospitalizations (70+%) are over 65. The chance of death is orders of magnitude worse for a 70 yr old vs a 30 yr old bus driver. I have seen no fact based argument that immunizing front facing workers will save more lives than getting the elderly done first.
Eta: front facing workers over 50 seems reasonable.
I said “an” earlier group. I lack the technical knowledge to rank risk.
I would agree that it should be some kind of bump.
On topic, I have argued elsewhere that prioritizing educators can be justified but for more cynical reasons. School is important for both the children’s development and socialized child care aspect. Getting people to trust schools is important and vaccinating teachers would probably help with that.
But I still think that it’s plain wrong not to protect the overwhelmingly obvious risk group first and foremost.
OTOH, teachers can’t isolate the way that (some) of the higher risk of death groups can.
For example - the teacher/bus driver is less likely to die. But they come in contact with dozens of people every day and they’re not unlikely to get an asymptomatic infection and possibly spread the virus on to several more people/families (possibly including several people in categories with bad outcomes), while a retired 70-year-old can self isolate to some extent so they’re less likely to contract the virus and then less likely to spread it if they do.
There aren’t any perfect answers. There is an argument to be made that vaccinating people who come into contact with lots of other people earlier might help lessen the spread and help keep it away from the most vulnerable until they can be vaccinated as well. There’s also an argument that vaccinating people with the highest chance of death is the best strategy.
I understand the argument that they are vectors. If death and hospitalization was evenly spread out amongst the population, it might make sense to target those vectors. But when it’s so overwhelmingl that 70+ are most likely to suffer from this disease, you’re basically saying maybe we should immunize bus drivers so they don’t infect someone who might infect someone who might die. Instead of immunizing the person who is likely to die.
Not quite. I’m saying that there’s an argument that you immunize bus drivers so they don’t infect 20 people who have may have a lower possibility of dying (but still have a not small chance of serious-but-not-lethal complications) who could also infect another large group of people, some of whom fall into the “likely to die” category rather than immunizing just 1 person.
I’m also saying that neither answer is perfect.
No, neither is perfect. I can’t disagree. But 3 months ago people wanting “let 'er rip” were accused of offering old people as victims to open the economy. I think this current idea of prioritizing “essential workers” is an insidious new version. It sounds more virtuous because essential workers “deserve” the vaccine.
Hold up. Where are you getting this “almost as likely to contract…” business? Your cite says 12.5%. Children are 24% of the population. You meant to say they’re about half as likely as other age groups. Even your second citation says “In the United States and globally, fewer cases of COVID-19 have been reported in children (age 0-17 years) compared with adults.”
Hold up again. The CDC cites Pediatrics. That study says " RESULTS: Among 58 households, 188 contacts were enrolled (120 adults; 68 children). Secondary infection rates for adults (30%) and children (28%) were similar. Among households with potential for transmission from children, child-to-adult transmission may have occurred in 2 of 10 (20%), and child-to-child transmission may have occurred in 1 of 6 (17%)."
The secondary infection rate they’re talking about is the adult-to-child rate. The Child-to-adult rate is 20%, or 2/3 what it is among adults.
So let’s be clear here. Kids have COVID about half as often as you’d expect based on their cohort size. They transmit it to adults 2 times for every 3 that adults do, which itself leaves 7 or 8 close contacts uninfected.
We aren’t immunizing people to save lives. We’re immunizing people so we can function as a society. 65+ aren’t really leading the pack in that department. If they’re worried about their health, they can lock themselves up in their own houses, like they’ve done all year.
Likewise, I’ve seen no fact-based argument that immunizing 70 year olds is going to stem the tide of infections and stop people from getting sick. Which is the whole point of the vaccine.
Here’s some cold, hard truth for you: You know why we’re vaccinating 30 year old bus drivers and not 70 year olds? We need the bus driver.
I don’t think you’ll get full throated agreement on that.
If you’re 65 and useful to society, you’ll be in a tier 1 or 2 group, on account of being the bus driver or the nurse or the…police detective or whatever. If you’re holding society together, you’ll be a priority, regardless of age. If you’re not priority, your age isn’t going to make you one.
I have to agree. It may be brutal, but I think basically everybody must agree that some people are/or have the potential of being more beneficial to society overall. And that when there’s something critically needed but in scarce supply, you lean towards saving those people ahead of others.
Look at organ transplants. There simply aren’t enough donor hearts/kidneys/lungs/whatever available to give one to every person who could benefit. So they have agreed on rules to use in deciding who gets it. They give it to the person whose condition is more critical before the one who can wait longer if needed. They give it to the person who will most likely be benefited the most over the guy who will likely get only a lesser improvement because he has other complications that will lessen the chances of a good outcome. They give it to the person who will ‘follow the rules’ so as to get the benefit for a long time over the person who is careless about following medical instructions. Which means if you have one kidney to use, the guy who also has some second degenerative disease or has been a drug addict who has relapsed multiple times or is 85 years old or whatever other factor makes it less likely that there will be a good, lasting result is moved down the list in favor of another person who doesn’t have those other drawbacks lowering his odds.
That’s how it’s done, and I think it makes sense. And I think it applies to the vaccines, too, at least while there is a shortfall in supply and ability to get them administered to everyone RIGHT NOW.
And, to make it clear, I am arguing against my own benefit here. I am 70 years old. I have second stage kidney disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and a few lesser medical problems. If I catch covid, well, my odds of surviving are definitely not that good. By one set of rules, that should put me in the first class to be given the shot.
OTOH, my husband and I are retired, and not caring for any dependents. We have been holed up in our house for the past year, only going out for weekly grocery shopping trips and a handful of medically necessary appointments. We can (knock on wood) perfectly well continue this way for three or six or twelve months further if necessary. Give us our internet, television, an unlimited supply of books…we’ll get by until there’s ample supplies of vaccines.
And if we get unlucky, and catch it before that day comes? I can accept that. Better us than our nephew who is an orderly at a Veteran’s hospital, or my grandnieces that haven’t even gotten to go on their first dates, and that applies to total strangers who are in similar situations, too.