> It's not clear to me that this was a poor decision. I can tell you, around here, infection rates clearly tracked with school closures, and did so independent

> It's not clear to me that this was a poor decision. I can tell you, around here, infection rates clearly tracked with school closures, and did so independently of other lockdown measures. So I frankly do not buy any narrative that claims that school closures weren't justified as a means to control spread. School closures are clearly a tool in the arsenal for controlling spread, and the decision then becomes one of context: how bad are local infection rates, what is the trend line, etc, and is the reduction in infection rates from school closures justified when considering the downsides.