I am surprised the districts lawyers and insurers are okay with this. Surly there will be lawsuits over this for years once students and teachers start getting sick.
The CDC has recommended schools reopen. I'm not suggesting that's a good recommendation or a bad one. But when the CDC and/or state health board says you can open, you can open. This is the government version of regulatory capture.
Is there no nuance to that CDC recommendation? Straight across the board regardless of local context, they recommend schools reopen?
Of course there's some nuance to the CDC's recommendation.
Part of their recommendation requires students and teachers to wear face masks whenever social distancing is not possible, but it's pretty clear that their recommendations are being cherry-picked here.
This is not good-faith compliance with CDC recommendations.
I have trouble understanding why this prevents anyone from taking legal action. Maybe the action cannot be directed against the schools, but surely in this case you can challenge the CDC guidelines, because there seems to be direct proof of personal injury (i.e. getting ill) as a result of this? How does this work?
The Department of Transportation recommends allowing people to drive on the roads, but you don't get to sue them just because there's a car accident. We know, statistically, that some people will die going to school even without COVID. The CDC and other regulators are taking a broad view that includes 2nd and 3rd order effects from their recommendations. They're trying to make decisions for the long term while recognizing that any decision they make in either direction is going to result in deaths.
Given the range of incubation times and symptomatic vs non-symptomatic carriers, how would you prove that someone caught the infection at location X?