Over 60,000 new cases of COVID-19 were reported nationally on Wednesday for the previous 24 hours, illustrating the pandemic is accelerating in the U.S. as much as or more than WHO indicates it is increasing Worldwide. California reported more than 9,000 new cases on Wednesday for the previous 24 hours, an all-time record. In Florida, new cases numbered just barely under 10,000. In Arizona, new cases continue to rise; thousands arrive at hospitals with suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 as ***91%*** of ICU beds in Arizona are now filled. In Washington state, the number of new cases reported on Tuesday fell dramatically to 435. But deaths increased slightly with 14 reported for Tuesday. This is perhaps the calm before the storm.
With the above known to the Trump Administration, President Trump pushes HARD for the FULL reopening of schools in the Fall. It's understandable why he does so.
There should be little doubt that Presidnt Trump's highest priority by far is to be re-elected. All else can and probably will fall by the wayside or victim to that priority.
There's no argument from me against the premise economic recovery depends on a robust implementation of life the way we lived it before COVID-19 came on the scene. Such includes sending children back to school so parents can return to their jobs without concerns or obligations for childcare as well as virtual or home education. However, the reality is that schools would normally begin classes between some time next month and some date in September, according to state and districts across the U.S. In that time frame, it's likely the COVID-19 pandemic will still be raging, perhaps worse than it is now. In that reality, a demand for full reopening of schools would be irresponsible in places where the pandemic has not at least shown signs of subsiding.
Rand Paul, a Trump ally, dispenses the BS that children are not, in general, vulnerable to significant cases of COVID-19 infection causing serious illness, and they are not a COVID-19 threat to their much older family members. He can cite studies or anecdotal information all day showing that children are rarely impacted by COVID-19 in ways most would notice. He can also argue there are few instances where children have been infected outside their home then carried COVID-19 home to infect parents or grandparents. But what Paul neglects to tell those to whom he makes such arguments, as will Trump at some point in time, is that the numbers are low simply because children studied as well as cases cited are mostly for or about children sent home from school early in the pandemic who have been staying home, kept by their parents physically but not virtually isolated from others who could be a source of infection since the advent of COVID-19. Obviously, thsi skews the numbers.
At present, reports of children who are infected with COVID-19 then seemingly recover but subsequently suffer from MIS (Multi-system Inflammatory Syndrome) are extremely anomalous. Yet, because children have been physically isolated from others, the numbers are low. Send them back to school, no matter what local circumstances may be, and we'll see what happens, especially if they are not wearing masks or wearing them properly as well as not maintaining sufficient social distance.
In some instances in some places, it may be appropriate for children to return to school with not much change in how they attend school then interact with others at school. But another approach may be necessary in another location. CDC guidelines that recommend school districts design a process for educating children which takes into consideration local circumstances are prudent. Demanding, without exceptions made for differing local circumstances, that children be sent back to fully, physically open schools is NOT. Neither is it prudent or even ethical to threaten school districts with restricted or withdrawn funding if they don't comply with a blanket demand.
Don't assume that President Trump gives a damn about ANYTHING or ANYONE ouside of his closed circle which may not include his political base to whom he panders. In my estimation, Trump cares only for a self-serving end result and will use any means he can to make it happen. Whomever is hurt along the way is not important to him.
I'll warn you now that, if circumstances become much worse over most of the U.S. yet Trump pushes ahead with his plan to create or recreate a booming economy, he is likely to make the following argument:
The China virus is a problem and it's hurting some people. That's not good. But there comes a time when you have to weigh what's best for ALL of the people, not just a few. The requirement of the people for a thriving econmy and a good career should be more important than a virus that will not do a lot of damage in the greater scheme of things.
To many people, this argument will carry significant weight. For those people, the future is or will be more important than the present or NEAR-future, and their advice would be to persevere through present-day adversity for the promise of future prosperity. In the absence of President Trump -- if he had not been elected President -- it's likely the same argument or advice would surface then stand as what most people see as the best course of action. The debate between those who agree with those who don't would be inevitable, regardless of who had been elected President in 2016. Thus, it's something to think about because it's probably coming. But remember from whom it will come in THIS case, someone who demonsrably cares about no one but himself. This is evident from Trump's behavior as it pertains to his rallies in Tulsa and Phoenix. In Tulsa, at least, we may have an indication there were negative consequences. And Trump may not give a SHIT!