Read on Twitter
Every piece of media seems focused on this news from the CDC, but I wonder how many people have gone beyond the headline/Facebook post and read the early release? Let’s look at it together. A 
:
:
The article (an early release) can be found here. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7004e3-H.pdf
A few quick housekeeping bits: teachers want to go back to normal school, teachers recognize that remote learning is not ideal, and teachers are the ones doing this day in and day out. We deserve a spot at the table in these discussions.
And a personal housekeeping bit: I’m an English teacher in NJ who has been teaching in a hybrid schedule since October (synchronous in-person and remote for full days). I also have an MA in biological sciences.
Ok, so let’s look at this paper. I don’t think teachers disagree with this. Many teachers (a mostly female profession) are facing the same hardships referenced here. Vulnerable teachers and/or those with vulnerable family members have been told they “should quit” by parents.
Remote learning is disproportionately affecting families of lower socio-economic status. What this paper doesn’t acknowledge is that families of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be Black, Hispanic or Latino, Indigenous, etc.
https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2018/race-economics-and-social-status/pdf/race-economics-and-social-status.pdf
https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2018/race-economics-and-social-status/pdf/race-economics-and-social-status.pdf
Those same families most impacted by remote learning are also more likely to be impacted by Covid-19. According to the Covid Tracking Project, “COVID-19 is affecting Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other people of color the most.”
https://covidtracking.com/race
https://covidtracking.com/race
The CDC report starts by describing the location where the study was done. It’s a rural part of Wisconsin. The schools they tracked included some in public school districts, a private school district, and an independent private school. 4876 students total. Let’s do some math.
A quick bit of math tells us that the K-6 schools averaged 191 students and the high schools averaged 372 students during the surveillance. Wood County has a population of 73000 (US census). It’s rural. Wikipedia says there are 95 people per square mile.
Let’s compare Wood County to my county in NJ- Monmouth County. Monmouth County has a population of 619000 with 1337 people per set sq mile. We are a densely populated state, but we are a solid suburban county.
The CDC acknowledges that they focused on a rural county and the results may not be repeatable in more densely packed areas. However, I don’t see the media acknowledging that.
In addition, Wood County is 96.43% white, 0.27% Black/African American, 0.70% Native American, 1.61% Asian, 0.01% Pacific Islander. 0.94% identify as Hispanic or Latino (Wikipedia). In addition, 10.3% of the population lives below the poverty line, lower than the national average
This seems like an odd place to study if you want to draw conclusions for the country as a whole. But let’s dig deeper into the paper.
This is important, but it’s left out of most stories. The schools received private funding for student PPE. I can’t find information on how much the grant was for (or if it was used for other Covid upgrades), but last month they gave $5.6 million to the district for a quadplex.
We know that it takes money to make schools safe. The problem is that money isn’t there on most districts.
The schools in the study also created cohorts who didn’t interact. Because of the small population density I wonder how much interaction between cohorts occurred outside of school. In my town the cohorts are ignored after the school day so kids can do extracurriculars.
During the study there was no regular testing of staff/students. We know young people are likely to be asymptomatic, so without regular testing are we getting an accurate picture of infections? When we rely on contact tracing we have to know if people are complying. Are they?
This is great news! But can it be repeated in more populated areas?
And we need to know if the study’s definition of in school transmission included sports/ extracurriculars. In NJ, most school cases are traced to sports, but the state does not include those as in school transmission. I know, make it make sense. 
This language is great in a journal article, but the media is using this language, too. Those highlighted words are doing some heavy lifting in the news cycle when you don’t look at all the details of the study. This is one study.
Teachers agree! But in order to make cohorts work families need to minimize exposure outside of school. I don’t see that happening where I live.
This is huge. The media is doing the public a disservice by ignoring this sentence. The 7 limitations listed are vital for districts and parents to consider.
In summary, the CDC acknowledges that this study has limitations that mean it may not be repeatable in other schools. I wish the media would talk about that instead of sharing the headline.
