Texaggie7nine said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

What facilities will you use for your "bunch of small daycares taking the place of schools"?

You understand the massive capacity problem with current daycares trying to house every child under 12, right?

---

Why would daycares need to do that? Parents can watch their kids if they are home. The daycares are for essential workers who have to go to work and have no other options for leaving their kids with someone.

---

You really don't understand the the "essential workers" with kids under the age of 12 massively exceeds the capacity of current daycares?



Here is the problem, stated as plainly as possible:

If you want the millions of workers currently at home and unable to work to get back to work, you need a place to put their kids. You cannot use existing daycares for that purpose, as capacity is woefully inadequate.

---

Show me data on these millions of parents who still have jobs but are not going to them because they can't find anywhere to stash their kids.

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

Why are we talking about overloading daycares - we're talking about what we do every single summer in the country.

Every kid under 12 won't be in daycare, just like every kid under 12 isn't in daycare from June-August.

Some will, but plenty won't - especially with many jobs that can be remote, but haven't been - until now - allowing more kids to stay home.

It's still a logistical issue and I'm not pretending there aren't challenges, but it seems that some are ignoring that we do this exact thing (shut down schools) literally 3 months of every single year.

---

Baba Booey said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

What facilities will you use for your "bunch of small daycares taking the place of schools"?

You understand the massive capacity problem with current daycares trying to house every child under 12, right?

---

Why would daycares need to do that? Parents can watch their kids if they are home. The daycares are for essential workers who have to go to work and have no other options for leaving their kids with someone.

---

You really don't understand the the "essential workers" with kids under the age of 12 massively exceeds the capacity of current daycares?



Here is the problem, stated as plainly as possible:

If you want the millions of workers currently at home and unable to work to get back to work, you need a place to put their kids. You cannot use existing daycares for that purpose, as capacity is woefully inadequate.

---

Show me data on these millions of parents who still have jobs but are not going to them because they can't find anywhere to stash their kids.

---

LOL wow....

---

Quote:

---

If kids can be at daycares, then why can't they be at schools?

You really want to stick every kid under the age of, say, 12 in a daycare?

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Baba Booey said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

What facilities will you use for your "bunch of small daycares taking the place of schools"?

You understand the massive capacity problem with current daycares trying to house every child under 12, right?

---

Why would daycares need to do that? Parents can watch their kids if they are home. The daycares are for essential workers who have to go to work and have no other options for leaving their kids with someone.

---

You really don't understand the the "essential workers" with kids under the age of 12 massively exceeds the capacity of current daycares?



Here is the problem, stated as plainly as possible:

If you want the millions of workers currently at home and unable to work to get back to work, you need a place to put their kids. You cannot use existing daycares for that purpose, as capacity is woefully inadequate.

---

Show me data on these millions of parents who still have jobs but are not going to them because they can't find anywhere to stash their kids.

---

LOL wow....

---

Wow what? Show me. As we have seen in the CV danger vs Economy shut down danger threads, nothing can be assumed. Show me the numbers.

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

And that's why I mentioned above that I could see some sort of middle ground providing a place for those kids to come, but without doing a full reopen.

---

Baba Booey said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Baba Booey said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

What facilities will you use for your "bunch of small daycares taking the place of schools"?

You understand the massive capacity problem with current daycares trying to house every child under 12, right?

---

Why would daycares need to do that? Parents can watch their kids if they are home. The daycares are for essential workers who have to go to work and have no other options for leaving their kids with someone.

---

You really don't understand the the "essential workers" with kids under the age of 12 massively exceeds the capacity of current daycares?



Here is the problem, stated as plainly as possible:

If you want the millions of workers currently at home and unable to work to get back to work, you need a place to put their kids. You cannot use existing daycares for that purpose, as capacity is woefully inadequate.

---

Show me data on these millions of parents who still have jobs but are not going to them because they can't find anywhere to stash their kids.

---

LOL wow....

---

Wow what? Show me. As we have seen in the CV danger vs Economy shut down danger threads, nothing can be assumed. Show me the numbers.

---

I'm pretty sure you are above any evidence anyone can provide you. It's pretty obvious you live in a bubble and don't know how people function who aren't living EXACTLY like you.

---

Keegan99 said:

---

So you don't want the tens of millions of unemployed and furloughed to get back to work? Retail alone accounts for 1+ million that were ditched just in the last week of March. And you cannot work retail from home.

Retail? Construction? Warehouse? Manufacturing? Transportation? Hospitality? You have to be physically be there.

I think you have a very distorted perception of the percentage of workers that can work from home.

The overwhelming majority of jobs require physical presence in the workplace.

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

Baba Booey said:

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

And that's why I mentioned above that I could see some sort of middle ground providing a place for those kids to come, but without doing a full reopen.

---

That's what those programs are... So what you a proposing is to go back to normal.

---

You're being obtuse.

There is a vast difference between "normal" and running the type of skeleton crew program that provides a place for kids in need without being full opened up again.

I know you think everyone else on this thread is stupid, but don't mistake our lack of being an ass with a lack of ability to consider the ideas being proposed. All of us don't just try to brow beat every person that disagrees with us.

---

Keegan99 said:

---

So you don't want the tens of millions of unemployed and furloughed to get back to work? Retail alone accounts for 1+ million that were ditched just in the last week of March. And you cannot work retail from home.

Retail? Construction? Warehouse? Manufacturing? Transportation? Hospitality? You have to be physically be there.

I think you have a very distorted perception of the percentage of workers that can work from home.

The overwhelming majority of jobs require physical presence in the workplace. And for those people to work, their children need to either be in school or under supervised care.

---

Baba Booey said:

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

Baba Booey said:

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

And that's why I mentioned above that I could see some sort of middle ground providing a place for those kids to come, but without doing a full reopen.

---

That's what those programs are... So what you a proposing is to go back to normal.

---

You're being obtuse.

There is a vast difference between "normal" and running the type of skeleton crew program that provides a place for kids in need without being full opened up again.

I know you think everyone else on this thread is stupid, but don't mistake our lack of being an ass with a lack of ability to consider the ideas being proposed. All of us don't just try to brow beat every person that disagrees with us.

---

are you kidding? this is the most hypocritical statement on this thread.

You don't know very much about summer programs, there's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean people who know more than you about them are obtuse because they correct you.

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

So you don't want the tens of millions of unemployed and furloughed to get back to work? Retail alone accounts for 1+ million that were ditched just in the last week of March. And you cannot work retail from home.

Retail? Construction? Warehouse? Manufacturing? Transportation? Hospitality? You have to be physically be there.

I think you have a very distorted perception of the percentage of workers that can work from home.

The overwhelming majority of jobs require physical presence in the workplace. And for those people to work, their children need to either be in school or under supervised care.

---

I completely understand that. If schools are still closed, I would doubt many of those jobs will be back in that time.

I don't think that is how it will go down. I think we will get back moving in the next 2 months with distancing and mask guidelines but it is quite possible I'm wrong. If things get worse, if more outbreaks occur it may be several more months before retail, hospitality are back at it.

BTW, I still see construction going on, the business I'm in, all customer warehouses are still going and the manufacturers are still filling orders.

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

Baba Booey said:

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

Baba Booey said:

---

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

And that's why I mentioned above that I could see some sort of middle ground providing a place for those kids to come, but without doing a full reopen.

---

That's what those programs are... So what you a proposing is to go back to normal.

---

You're being obtuse.

There is a vast difference between "normal" and running the type of skeleton crew program that provides a place for kids in need without being full opened up again.

I know you think everyone else on this thread is stupid, but don't mistake our lack of being an ass with a lack of ability to consider the ideas being proposed. All of us don't just try to brow beat every person that disagrees with us.

---

are you kidding? this is the most hypocritical statement on this thread.

You don't know very much about summer programs, there's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean people who know more than you about them are obtuse because they correct you.

---

Except this entire thread is talking about next FALL.

So running schools at a summer level in the FALL semester would be normal, per your most recent response?

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Then you're not really talking about opening up the economy.

You're talking about prolonged period of 20%+ unemployment. Or higher.

That will lead to a LOT of cascading problems in society. You really don't want to see an America with tens of millions broke and unemployed people that need to work to care for themselves and their families.


And without that huge portion of the population able to consume, all of those white collar "work from home" jobs will feel the pinch, too. It will snowball.

---

Baba Booey said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

So you don't want the tens of millions of unemployed and furloughed to get back to work? Retail alone accounts for 1+ million that were ditched just in the last week of March. And you cannot work retail from home.

Retail? Construction? Warehouse? Manufacturing? Transportation? Hospitality? You have to be physically be there.

I think you have a very distorted perception of the percentage of workers that can work from home.

The overwhelming majority of jobs require physical presence in the workplace. And for those people to work, their children need to either be in school or under supervised care.

---

I completely understand that. If schools are still closed, I would doubt many of those jobs will be back in that time.

I don't think that is how it will go down. I think we will get back moving in the next 2 months with distancing and mask guidelines but it is quite possible I'm wrong. If things get worse, if more outbreaks occur it may be several more months before retail, hospitality are back at it.

BTW, I still see construction going on, the business I'm in, all customer warehouses are still going and the manufacturers are still filling orders.

---

To use Colin's words, you are "obtuse". I can tell you most manufacturers are in shambles trying to either keep people working, or not shut down completely due to sick workers.

By the way, if you're in construction, what happens to those workers physically "doing" the work when their kids can't go back to school? Are they supposed to just "work from home"?

How do you build buildings/roads at home?

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Then you're not really talking about opening up the economy.

You're talking about prolonged period of 20%+ unemployment. Or higher.

That will lead to a LOT of cascading problems in society. You really don't want to see an America with tens of millions broke and unemployed people that need to work to care for themselves and their families.


And without that huge portion of the population able to consume, all of those white collar "work from home" jobs will feel the pinch, too. It will snowball.

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Baba Booey said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

So you don't want the tens of millions of unemployed and furloughed to get back to work? Retail alone accounts for 1+ million that were ditched just in the last week of March. And you cannot work retail from home.

Retail? Construction? Warehouse? Manufacturing? Transportation? Hospitality? You have to be physically be there.

I think you have a very distorted perception of the percentage of workers that can work from home.

The overwhelming majority of jobs require physical presence in the workplace. And for those people to work, their children need to either be in school or under supervised care.

---

I completely understand that. If schools are still closed, I would doubt many of those jobs will be back in that time.

I don't think that is how it will go down. I think we will get back moving in the next 2 months with distancing and mask guidelines but it is quite possible I'm wrong. If things get worse, if more outbreaks occur it may be several more months before retail, hospitality are back at it.

BTW, I still see construction going on, the business I'm in, all customer warehouses are still going and the manufacturers are still filling orders.

---

To use Colin's words, you are "obtuse". I can tell you most manufacturers are in shambles trying to either keep people working, or not shut down completely due to sick workers.

By the way, if you're in construction, what happens to those workers physically "doing" the work when their kids can't go back to school? Are they supposed to just "work from home"?

How do you build buildings/roads at home?

---

As I said, for those that can find absolutely no other option, there are day cares. The city of Houston is even providing it free of charge. It's not a simple solution but it's a band-aid until things can get back to normal.

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Then you're not really talking about opening up the economy.

You're talking about prolonged period of 20%+ unemployment. Or higher.

That will lead to a LOT of cascading problems in society. You really don't want to see an America with tens of millions broke and unemployed people that need to work to care for themselves and their families.


And without that huge portion of the population able to consume, all of those white collar "work from home" jobs will feel the pinch, too. It will snowball.

---

I agree. It will suck and cause long lasting effects if it goes on for 18 months like some "experts" are saying it will need to. But I also am not so naive to think that simply opening up everything and sending all kids back to school asap will make things better in the long run. If this virus gets out of hand like it is in NYC elsewhere in the US I don't think any amount of government telling people to go back to work would help, because people are going to be sheltering at home regardless of it being mandatory or not.

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

I fully accept that it's not easy. I'm just pointing out that it's not as easy as "oh it's not possible that schools won't be back in session as usual next year".

---

Knucklesammich said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Baba Booey said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Baba Booey said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

Keegan99 said:

---

What facilities will you use for your "bunch of small daycares taking the place of schools"?

You understand the massive capacity problem with current daycares trying to house every child under 12, right?

---

Why would daycares need to do that? Parents can watch their kids if they are home. The daycares are for essential workers who have to go to work and have no other options for leaving their kids with someone.

---

You really don't understand the the "essential workers" with kids under the age of 12 massively exceeds the capacity of current daycares?



Here is the problem, stated as plainly as possible:

If you want the millions of workers currently at home and unable to work to get back to work, you need a place to put their kids. You cannot use existing daycares for that purpose, as capacity is woefully inadequate.

---

Show me data on these millions of parents who still have jobs but are not going to them because they can't find anywhere to stash their kids.

---

LOL wow....

---

Wow what? Show me. As we have seen in the CV danger vs Economy shut down danger threads, nothing can be assumed. Show me the numbers.

---

I'm pretty sure you are above any evidence anyone can provide you. It's pretty obvious you live in a bubble and don't know how people function who aren't living EXACTLY like you.

---

Try me. Show me the statistics. If there are millions and millions of workers who are abandoning their jobs and doing nothing but watching their kids, I will change my position.

---

In normal circumstances kids are at school while parent(s) work. Its a dual education and childcare situation. If you have kids under the age of say 12 and left them for 8 hours a day unsupervised you'd be arrested and the kids put in foster care or your house would burn down.

If you stayed home with them and weren't of middle class means then you'd be fired and lose said house/apt and live in your car (if you still had one).

I have 3 kids, work in high tech remotely (have for years) and my wife works in education admin. She is an educator working from home...it takes both of us to keep the kids remotely on track and she knows how to teach kids. It is literally a 12+ hour day every day to keep status quo.

Anyone whom you work with that says they're getting through it is giving the answer of "its going well" or "I'm good" when you pass them in the hall at work and ask, "what's up?" Meanwhile they are taking a double dose of Prozac to keep from diving into a bottle of Cutty...or maybe they're doing that too.

As I type this, my wife has all three in the kitchen doing lessons. at noon I'll step in until we both have calls at 1p until 4p and pray to God that they maintain focus on their own. Substitute my job for a job in a refinery and/or my wife as a nurse's asst. i.e. shift work with varied schedules or multiple part time gigs for the working poor and you have a recipe for long term disaster.

One of the biggest boat anchors to single mom's not being able to get off of welfare is that they can't afford childcare (pre K12) so can't get an entry level job so can't get off welfare.

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

While many parents can be at risk of losing their jobs for no remote work I am sure there are plenty more parents in the "at risk" category. Why on earth would any of those parents send their kids to school?

As usual the economic doomsayers can't understand this is a health issue and "opening it back up" doesn't mean the virus is going away.

---

Baba Booey said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

While many parents can be at risk of losing their jobs for no remote work I am sure there are plenty more parents in the "at risk" category. Why on earth would any of those parents send their kids to school?

As usual the economic doomsayers can't understand this is a health issue and "opening it back up" doesn't mean the virus is going away.

---

You need to read posts above.

People who have to work to survive are not "Economic doomsdayers".

---

Quote:

---

How is this the case when there are still people not even taking it seriously? There are still THOUSANDS of people pretending like this is a hoax or that it's not going to affect them, and you think people aren't going to go back to work because of fear?

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

Baba Booey said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

While many parents can be at risk of losing their jobs for no remote work I am sure there are plenty more parents in the "at risk" category. Why on earth would any of those parents send their kids to school?

As usual the economic doomsayers can't understand this is a health issue and "opening it back up" doesn't mean the virus is going away.

---

You need to read posts above.

People who have to work to survive are not "Economic doomsdayers".

---

Yea, I get that you are desperate but there is a reason the government is handing out free money every which way. People who can't get to work because of remote schooling are going to get money.

---

Baba Booey said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

Baba Booey said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

While many parents can be at risk of losing their jobs for no remote work I am sure there are plenty more parents in the "at risk" category. Why on earth would any of those parents send their kids to school?

As usual the economic doomsayers can't understand this is a health issue and "opening it back up" doesn't mean the virus is going away.

---

You need to read posts above.

People who have to work to survive are not "Economic doomsdayers".

---

Yea, I get that you are desperate but there is a reason the government is handing out free money every which way. People who can't get to work because of remote schooling are going to get money.

---

LMFAO. $1200-$1700 for single mom's not working?

You really don't get it dude.

Just FYI, I won't be getting any money from the government. I wouldn't want it anyways. They should take that money put it to good use.

But you enjoy your $1200, bonanza!

---

Baba Booey said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

Baba Booey said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

While many parents can be at risk of losing their jobs for no remote work I am sure there are plenty more parents in the "at risk" category. Why on earth would any of those parents send their kids to school?

As usual the economic doomsayers can't understand this is a health issue and "opening it back up" doesn't mean the virus is going away.

---

You need to read posts above.

People who have to work to survive are not "Economic doomsdayers".

---

Yea, I get that you are desperate but there is a reason the government is handing out free money every which way. People who can't get to work because of remote schooling are going to get money.

---

LMFAO. $1200-$1700 for single mom's not working?

You really don't get it dude.

---