A Call to Reevaluate the Reopening Framework

Currently, the reopening framework consists of the following community-based data as the metrics for reopening. All are equal contributors and scored independently.

• Aggregate new cases over the last 14 days per 100,000
• Trend of the caseload (definition of statistically significant change not defined)
• Positive Rate of the 14-day average
• Hospital Capacity

When these 4 metrics are treated as independent variables, the framework is not accurately determining threat of Covid-19 to the safety of our community. The first three of these metrics deriving from positive cases provide an incomplete and potentially inaccurate description of community health risks because they are conflated with changing reasons for testing, as well as the number of times individuals are tested. Failure to account for changes in testing availability, requirements and frequency, and data which are not generally available to the public, likely render these metrics ineffective for detecting changes in infection rates.

We are calling for the Board to include the following four metrics, which are independent of testing rates to the suite of decision-making criteria:

• Covid-19 Hospitalization rate per 100k of Total Population
• Covid-19 Hospitalization Trend
• Covid-19 Mortality rate per 100k of Total Population
• Covid-19 Mortality rate Trend

The omission of these metrics from the reopening framework could lead to scenarios where the board is unable switch to 5 day if Covid-19 becomes less of a threat to our safety. Additionally, neglecting to take these data into account is discounting two main variables that are ever changing.

First, Coronaviruses have the ability to mutate and form new strains. If the virus mutates and triggers a high number of positive cases (therefore failing a framework requirement), yet the health impact of the new strain requires less hospitalizations and yields fewer mortalities, the current framework cannot account for this. Secondly, potential advancements within our medical community to better treat positive cases would be neglected by the framework in scenarios with high infection rates but declining seriousness of infections. Metrics failing to account for these variables could preclude the board accurately assessing the threat of Covid-19, due to administratively being tied to the current incomplete framework. The framework for this school year is currently setup to address the risk of spread only, not the risk of Covid-19 to our community health.

Having caseload as a major driving variable does not take into account the manner in which the tests are administered. As college campuses and places of work begin to require more mandatory screenings as part of their reopening, we could see an uptick in asymptomatic detected cases that may not have previously been found. Additionally, access to testing has not been a constant through the pandemic, and we cannot assume it will be for the entire school year. This risk of this scenario works in both directions. If caseload goes down due to lack of testing, yet we see a rise in mortality and hospitalizations, the board should be able to have this metric to make a decision for our safety.

The overall number of cases does not represent the absolute threat to the community. It is an important variable, but must be weighed accordingly from a statistical-based approach with its relation to the other variables. Does the current framework currently factor this? Are variables interconnected? If the caseload jumps to 500 per 100k, yet the current hospitalization rate stays constant or even trends downward, would that lessen the importance of the caseload metric? Without defining the correlations between the key metrics, we are not taking into account the actual threat of the pandemic.

It is the board and medical advisory panel’s responsibility to keep our children, staff, and families safe. They have done a great job of this, and we commend them on their efforts. This letter is not questioning the legitimacy of the threat that Covid-19 brings to our community, nor does it question the safety measures currently in place. This letter is a call to the board to reevaluate the metrics being used for re-opening now, so we are not locked into a decision matrix for all of 2020-2021 that does not account for the ever-changing nature of this pandemic. We need to continue to make our decisions based on science and data. The current framework’s failure to define metric relationships and the omission of key community health metrics will not allow for a data and science-based approach to reopening.

Respectfully,
The signatories of this petition