Chapter 1: A Critical Evaluation of CDC's Guidance

Having reviewed numerous studies from the CDC, I can attest that they are typically rooted in solid scientific methodology and articulate in their conclusions. As someone who has authored multiple scientific papers, I recognize the distinction between robust research and the recent guidance on school reopenings, which feels more like a casual blog post than a credible scientific document.

As a healthcare professional treating COVID-19 patients and a parent of school-aged children, I understand the emotional turmoil surrounding the decision to resume in-person schooling. E-learning presents significant obstacles that aren't suitable for every child, a reality I've witnessed with my own kids.

While some recommendations for safer in-person schooling from the CDC may have merit, it's alarming how the potential health risks to children have been minimized.

According to current evidence, COVID-19 seems to pose relatively low risks to children. For context, the CDC reported that, as of July 17, 2020, individuals under 18 years accounted for less than 7% of COVID-19 cases and a mere 0.1% of related fatalities. However, it's crucial to note that children with pre-existing conditions may face heightened risks of severe illness.*

The asterisk links to a sobering mention of multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), which, while affecting a small number of children, can lead to serious health complications. As a father, the idea of my children contracting such a rare but severe illness is terrifying.

What message is the CDC conveying? Are they suggesting that because children are less likely to become severely ill, we should proceed with reopening schools without regard for risks? Does a lower transmission rate among younger children imply no concern about them potentially spreading the virus to their families?

Recent studies, including one from South Korea, indicate that while younger children may not transmit COVID-19 as effectively as adults, those aged 10 to 19 (fifth grade through high school) can spread the virus just as easily. This raises concerns not only for students but also for teachers, school staff, and their families.

I'm not arguing against the reopening of schools; I fully appreciate their importance for children’s development. However, ensuring the safety of my children is paramount. Even with a lower risk of illness, I prefer them to remain unexposed to the virus. Young individuals have been known to become seriously ill or even die from COVID-19, and I have witnessed such tragedies firsthand.

Upon reading the CDC's recent guidance, I felt disheartened and concerned about the organization's integrity. It has made me question the reliability of any future guidance from the CDC.

However, I may be evaluating the CDC too harshly. According to reports from the New York Times, this guidance stemmed from a working group formed by the Department of Health and Human Services following criticisms from Mr. Trump. A federal source revealed that the group included limited input from the CDC, which had already drafted much of the related material.

This group focused heavily on the mental health benefits of returning to school, sidelining direct communication with CDC experts who may have advocated for a more cautious approach.

This revelation further exacerbates my concerns about the CDC’s credibility.

In contrast, the American Academy of Pediatrics has voiced the need for children to return to school, yet they did not downplay the risks associated with COVID-19, stating that:

> "Returning to school is important for the healthy development and well-being of children, but we must pursue reopening in a way that is safe for all students, teachers, and staff."

They emphasized that local leaders, public health experts, and parents should guide decisions about reopening schools, considering the local transmission rates and the readiness of districts to implement safety measures. A uniform approach to reopening is not advisable.

Initially, I considered titling this piece "RIP CDC" due to my frustration upon first reading the guidance. However, as I learned more about the context behind the statement, I tempered my outrage. Nevertheless, the day this guidance was released marked a significant downturn for the CDC, further eroding its credibility during an ongoing public health crisis.