This isn’t for Michigan, but here’s how Washington is trying to address child care and meals given the impossible situation: https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/communicati...

> Are childcare options being provided during closures?

> Closing schools has a major impact on our ability to staff hospitals, health care facilities, and other fire and medical departments. Superintendents have been asked to provide childcare, at no cost, to families who are in the medical field or who are first responders.

> What if I don’t work in those fields?

> If families don’t work in the healthcare or first responder fields but are expected to continue to attend work during the closure, they should reach out to their school district. Districts can make additional decisions that are needed for their communities.

That's sounds a lot like "we're not giving them money to help, but if they can pull a solution out of their asses we'd appreciate it"

Washington State will receive somewhere between ~$10 million and ~$20 million from the emergency appropriation signed last week, so I'd imagine that school districts could make supplementary budget requests to cover this.

As far as I know, teachers are being paid during this time, and are effectively "on call."

As this is an executive order from the Governor, teachers won't be required to make up the time when students return.

>who is going to watch and feed those kids?

Let's be honest, that duty will likely fall on an extended family member. The worst part? That extended family member will likely be a member of a covid-19 vulnerable population. More precisely, grandma.

I'm not sure how that's such a problem. Does watching and feeding kids make the grandparents more vulnerable to covid-19? Are you saying they'll catch it from the grandkids?

(edit: I see I'm being downvoted.... ok. I'm genuinely curious, and also hoping that people aren't keeping their own out-of-school kids away from their own grandparents out of fear)

China has said, (if they can be believed), that children 15 and under show a surprising immunological resilience to the virus, while also being one of the primary vectors for spreading the virus. (Or maybe because of their resilience, they are very good at spreading it? I don't know?)

In any case, that information seems to have been confirmed by the experience of Western authorities. So I'm inclined to believe it.

The idea here is probably to slow down the spread among kids now, which would slow down the spread to less vulnerable adult populations down the road. The drawback is that if some children are carrying the virus now, there is a short term danger to vulnerable adult populations.

I'm betting they've already wargamed all that out and the numbers right now favor accepting the short term danger?

They have not said they are primary vectors. That is not really known at this time.

It does if the virus has already been circulating widely. Which is why it's important to take steps like this early on. Provided other states or districts react differently, the estimation of efficacy will be very interesting to see after the fact.

Can you explain that? Just having the grandparents near the kids? I'd think that happens anyway... no one is suggesting people avoid their own family members, are they?

Yes. For not yet understood reasons, children do not seem to develop symptoms from covid19, but they can still be carriers. Combined with the fact that schools are essentially giant petri-dishes for disease, and old people are particuarly vulnerable to covid19, means that sending a child to grandma is essentially playing Russian roulette with her life.

I would go so far as to suggest that if she can take care of herself, grandma should self quarantine as much as possible for the duration of the crisis. People do not become less dangerous just because they are relatives.

After the family spent 2 weeks in self quarantine, visiting grandma is probably fine.

I have yet to see any solid evidence for this idea that children are significant sources of infection. Children tend to be less symptomatic, and while asymptomatic transmission almost certainly happens, every source I trust says it is rare and the main cause of infection is close proximity with someone who is showing symptoms.

At least in the US it is relatively uncommon to live with extended family like grandparents. If the children are already infected, then yes, a change in proximity to grandparents would increase the risk of transmission. If schools are closed before many children become carriers, then no, simply having grandparents near kids probably doesn't change much for the grandparents' risk.

The hope is that the kids aren't already infected, that seems like a very rare case. Sure it can happen, but they aren't yet recommending you don't even see family.

Many grandparents in the US live nearby and see their grandkids often and often look after them with some regularity. That seems to be the sort of scenario where they'd be employed to watch them while they are in learning from home situations, no? I don't think we are talking about frail people in nursing homes.

Yes, in fact they are.

Specifically, younger people are sometimes being told to avoid older people, sometimes when the older person is in need.

IIRC, some place had bans/restrictions on visiting nursing homes because the potential for spreading the virus might end up exposing a large percentage of the occupants to a significant chance of death.

No citation because I cannot remember where I read it.

Well I don't think the ones in nursing homes or "in need" are really likely to be recruited to watch the kids during the school days, will they?

You can be a grandparent of young kids very easily in your late 50s.

OP here, in Michigan: thanks for your comment on this. You hit the nail on the head.

> Forget how they're going to learn remotely, who is going to watch and feed those kids?

Their parents, who are about to be either working from home if they are white collar, or laid off if they are blue collar, because local economies and services take a nosedive during a pandemic. We're in the middle of this in Seattle - service workers aren't being called in, or are getting laid off.

And if you aren't in either of those categories, you should have a friend or relative who is, who you can ask to childsit.

I don't disagree that it will have an economic impact and cause a lot of pain in the short term, but this is also very likely to stimulate some positives economically as well as environmentally.

Some parents are now going to be working at home, side by side with their kids attending school at home. While this may not be ideal all the time, it's not a terrible thing to make all of this work. We're all going to be set up for telecommuting and online education going forward. If nothing else, it's less fossil fuels being burned.

Just like WW2 got us out of a depression and started us on a huge economic upswing -- and yes, at an immense cost -- this might have a similar effect, albeit on a smaller scale. I would not be surprised if 6 months from now, with the virus gone and a whole lot of disruption behind us, we'll find it stimulated the economy more than it hurt it.

The families where the parents can work from home are not the concern. The families that are of concern are the ones where parents can not work from home: in service jobs and hospitality, for instance. These are the people with the most to lose (bad job security and low pay) and have the least flexibility in their work schedules already. And this is going to inordinately affect them compared to other groups. As far as I’m aware this is still one of the largest (if not the largest) employment sectors in the economy, so it applies to a lot of families.

Even if you are working from home, a toddler is going to require continuous supervision from at least one adult. But thankfully Washington state hasn’t closed the daycares down (yet).

I think you're trying to put a positive spin on what is clearly an appalling situation, but I think it's important to remember that at the heart of this people are going to die. People are going to lose parents and grandparents. The UK prime minister literally said that in a statement yesterday ("many more are going to lose loved ones before their time", https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-51862282/coronavirus-pm-say...). Talking about how you believe it'll be good for the economy within 6 months is both a bit heartless and possibly very wrong.

Ok, well lots of people talk about its impact specifically on the economy, so I'm not sure how it is heartless, but ok. Can I only talk about the negatives? That feels dishonest, I'd think the HN audience can handle both sides of that particular part of the picture.

And late comedians are making jokes about the whole situation right now. Not about the deaths, but about other aspects of it.

$11.5 trillion dollars has been wiped off the stock market in the past few weeks[1]. That's not just the virus because there's an oil price war going on too, but it does seem like suggesting it'll be back to normal in 6 months implies you don't understand the scale of the problem.

[1] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-market...

> suggesting it'll be back to normal in 6 months implies you don't understand the scale of the problem

No one knows the scale of the problem. It's the uncertainty that's driving the volatility.

Get off your high horse. When people are having a discussion about potential negative effects on the economy, it's perfectly fine to talk about potential positive effects on the economy.

Thanks! :)