Opinion: The CDC’s plan to reopen schools seems to prioritize expediency over teachers’ health

After much anticipation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday released a 35-page road map for returning to in-person schooling. While there are some admirable parts of the new operational guidance, I worry that it could result in more confusion and increased distrust.

Here’s what the guidance does well. Unlike the Trump administration’s watered-down recommendations that were couched in language such as wearing masks “if possible,” these new guidelines are clear on many points. They lay out five mitigation measures that every school should implement: masking, distancing, hand-washing, cleaning and contact tracing. The part I like the most is how the CDC has divided schools into four categories based on degree of covid-19 transmission in their surrounding communities. At low and moderate levels, full in-person learning can occur; at higher levels, hybrid or reduced attendance is recommended.

But look a little deeper and the problems begin. I was shocked that six-feet of physical distancing is not required across the board. While it is mandated at the two highest levels of transmission, at low and moderate levels, the guidance says only that physical distancing of six feet or more should be done “to the greatest extent possible.”..

...Another important omission is ventilation. It is widely accepted that ventilation is key to reducing covid-19 spread. Yet the roadmap contains scant information about ventilation, saying only that ventilation should be improved “to the extent possible . . . by opening windows and doors.”..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/13/expediency-not-science-seems-drive-cdcs-plan-reopen-schools/