> The 8 hours of each kid's day where they're surrounded by dozens of other potential disease vectors. Would ventilation really stop this though? Kids will sti

> The 8 hours of each kid's day where they're surrounded by dozens of other potential disease vectors. Would ventilation really stop this though? Kids will still ride on school busses, play during recess, share classroom supplies, eat in the same cafeteria, etc. Ventilation isn't magic, I don't think there are any ventilation systems that could swap out the air so quickly that kids wouldn't be exposing each other. I also haven't seen any studies in which they retrofitted an average school building and tested transmissability, though I'd be very interested if anyone has a source to such a study. > The period before they go home and infdct their parents, and potentially kill their grandparents. This isn't how infection works. If a kid is exposed at school they won't go home and immediately infect others. I also feel for any child made to think that if they step out of line at all they would kill their grandparents. > It's expensive but let's be frank, we're okay with thousands of people dying annually because we don't want to spend the money to do anything about it. This gets to the question of what gives the most impact for our buck. If saving lives if the question we would first need to decide if all lives are equal and whether there are other causes of death that can be more easily or cheaply mitigated. If the goal is to save on the scale of thousands of lives, investing in helping our people eat better would almost certainly make a bigger impact, I'm sure there are many other examples that would be more efficient than retrofitting all school buildings with ventilation systems effective enough to show a change in Covid deaths.