KIDS & COVID: Media mistranslation in action. So, you may have seen the below article going around - it’s an AP story that has gotten picked up by a ton of outlets.
Scary headline!
Will it surprise you to learn there’s more to the story? Let’s dig in.
The subhead is really alarming: “At least 41 schools in Berlin have reported that students or teacher have become infected with the coronavirus not even two weeks after schools reopened in the German capital.” Whoa! But I was curious...
Does that mean OUTBREAKS (within-school spread) or someone infected showing up in school, which would just reflect the fact that some % of the general population is infected (& German cases are rising)?
The AP story doesn’t say.
Luckily for us, the original source does.
The AP draws from the German paper Daily Berliner Zeitung. Happily, Berliner Zeitung has an English edition, so let’s head to the original article:
First thing to note is the Zeitung headline: “Corona in schools: Individual cases but no outbreaks”
Well, OK, so that’s good to know!
Then there’s this quote, this quote that drives me *crazy* was not included in the AP story:
“The figures show that Berlin schools are not a hotbed of corona, the city’s top education official, Sandra Scheeres (SPD) said: ‘Infections are usually carried into schools from outside.’”
Oh! Well **that would have been good to know!**
(Btw, side note for those who read my thread yesterday about low cases in child care: “Only seven of Berlin’s 2,700 Kitas [daycares] are currently affected by a corona infection with one closed and others with individuals quarantined.”)
So what we really have is a situation where all we can say is that in 41 of Berlin’s 825 schools, someone who got COVID from outside walked into the building. That is a *very different narrative* than “omg Covid is blowing up in German schools!”
Look, this stuff is hard. And there’s nothing to say in another few weeks we couldn’t have evidence of school-driven spread in Berlin; the lack of in-classroom masks is worrisome to me. But we can’t say that now, yet it’s *clearly* implied in the AP story that got wide pickup.
The AP is overall a fantastic news organization. I am not trying to pick on them, this is just such an archetypal example of the problem: we have got to write with caution, nuance, and context about kids and Covid. The story is too important & too complex to do otherwise. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the greatest differences between the U.S. and nations that lead the pack on family outcomes is an understanding that, as the Nordic Council of Ministers says, "the well-being of children is strongly linked to that of their parents."
In the U.S., we often segment out the child from the parents. Think about the way that we focus on 'school readiness' by what the kid can do w/o considering factors like housing stability. We want a playground for the kid w/little consideration for how parents can socialize.
Similarly, until pretty recently, America has had very little to say about how working conditions, schedule predictability, and job quality impact parental well-being. That conversation is much more sophisticated (and has policy teeth) in many peer nations.
🧵Ok, we need to talk about this. We've reached the point where in a well-intentioned attempt to do ANYTHING about child care, the administration is taking an action that may be actively counterproductive. Let me explain.
First off, I have SO MANY QUESTIONS about how this is going to work. Options include "company child-care centers near construction sites or new plants, paying local child-care providers to add capacity at an affordable cost for workers, directly subsidizing workers’ care costs"
Ok, but you realize we have a MASSIVE child care educator shortage right now, yes? Do any of these companies need to ensure educators get a competitive wage? What happens if their workers just end up on waiting lists? Doesn't feel fully thought out.
None of this has to be complicated. There are enough public buildings around -- elementary school gyms could easily be used on the weekends -- and local gvm't could partner with volunteer orgs, faith communities etc. to staff them. Toys, coffee machine, you're set.
🧵I had a fascinating experience today at this Helsinki playground that reinforced for me just how backwards the U.S. gets its family policy.
(And no, this isn't gonna be another 'if only America was Finland' thread)
I went with my daughters to attend a free arts & crafts activity at the children's center adjoining the playground (many Finnish playgrounds have these, and there are different staffed activities every day).
A Finnish father was there with his delightful 15-month-old son.
We struck up a conversation and it emerged that he was on his third day of paternity leave. His wife had been taking care of their son before going back to work, and now he had three months of full-time care before the toddler started attending a child care program in January.
That's 3% of your annual income and close to a $150 increase in your monthly food budget!
Of course, this assumes that your district is actually able to operate its school meal program as usual; if it's not, now you're buying more at the grocery store.
"Under a policy of broadly expanded subsidies that limits family payments for ECE to no more than 7% of income among those up to 250% of national median income, we estimate that mothers’ employment would increase by six percentage points while full-time... nber.org/papers/w30140?…
"...employment would increase by nearly 10 percentage points, with substantially larger increases among lower-income families...
...Despite the increased use of formal care, family expenditures on ECE services would decrease throughout most of the income distribution..."
(10%!)
...For example, families in the bottom three income quintiles would experience expenditure reductions of 76%, 68%, and 55%, respectively. Finally, teacher wages and market prices would increase to attract workers with higher levels of education."