upworthy
Add Upworthy to your Google News feed.
Google News Button
Wellness

A pandemic prep expert's poop-in-the-pool analogy explains people's concerns with reopening

A pandemic prep expert's poop-in-the-pool analogy explains people's concerns with reopening

As the U.S. begins to reopen after two months of shutdowns due to the coronavirus pandemic, people are understandably concerned.

Well, some people are. Some people seem to think that the shift to reopening the economy means the virus has miraculously disappeared, that 100,000 Americans dead while we were in lockdown is nothing to worry about, and that those of us who are wary about people going back out into the public are a bunch of fear-mongering worry warts.

Jeremy Konyndyk, global outbreak preparedness and humanitarian response expert and former director of USAID's Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance, offered an explanation on Twitter for the folks who don't seem to understand the concern—"a short analogy about pooping and accountability."



Konyndyk wrote:

"Alright. There is a LOT of chatter on this website bashing those who are saying most of the country still isn't ready for a safe reopening. So, as we approach what would normally be summer pool season, here's a short analogy about pooping and accountability.

Imagine you're at the pool, and a kid poops in the water. It happens a few times every summer. What happens next? Everybody clears the pool. That's the initial step to protect people from the poop.

But it's not the end of the story.

There's a next step - some poor soul on pool staff has to go fish out the poop. It's a pretty thankless job.

Then they have to shock the pool with chlorine to kill off bacteria.

And then everyone waits half an hour or so til it's safe to swim again.

You can see where I'm going with this.

If the lifeguards tell everyone to clear the pool, but the pool staff declines to actually get rid of the poop, what happens?

No one can go back in. The poop is still there. Limbo.

Whose fault is it that it's not safe to go back in the water? Who is accountable?

Do you focus on the people saying "clean up the poop before we can go back in safely!"?

Or do you focus on the staff whose job it is to clean up the poop?

And what would you think if the staff started saying - look, just get back in. Be a warrior.

The answer is pretty obvious.

So right now, our country is a big swimming pool with a poop problem.

And the President, rather than fix the mess, is urging everyone back into the pool regardless and saying the 'real' problem is those people who think the pool's not safe yet. They must hate the pool, etc.

And a lot of the public is buying it!!

The President's whole play here is to distract from his failure to fix the mess by focusing the country's attention on people who don't want to swim in a pooped-in pool.

He wants you to believe they're saying you should never go back in.

And if you buy that, he's off the hook. He doesn't have to clean up the poop, and he doesn't get blamed for failing to do so. Win-win for him.

But NO ONE is saying 'never go back in the pool.' They're saying - please clean out the poop first.

Everyone wants to get back in the pool. Everyone wants to reopen the country.

And if you're frustrated that we can't, please hold the right folks accountable. The problem isn't the people saying we need to reopen 'safely.'

It's the people saying needn't bother with that part."

Exactly. Without getting cases down to a level where robust testing, tracing, and quarantining procedures will enable us to contain outbreaks when and where they occur, we're just heading into a poop-contaminated pool.

And Konyndyk is right—all of us want the economy to reopen. We all recognize the fact that people are suffering and unemployment is terrible and that lockdowns with no end in sight are not sustainable. However, opening up too quickly and before we have the necessary measures in place to get a handle on outbreaks as they occur will simply put us back to where we were two months ago—facing a pandemic with the potential to injure and kill huge numbers of people. If we just toss up our hands now and say, "Welp, whatever happens happens—if people die, oh well," we will have tanked the economy for no reason.

Let's at least get the poop out of the pool before we start inviting people back in. Reopening is going to have to happen at some point, in some measure, but if we don't do it slowly and safely, we're just asking for a crappier outcome in the long run.


Pop Culture

In 1969, the Monkees appeared on The Johnny Cash Show and played a stunning, original country song

"Nine Times Blue" is a jaw dropping intersection of craftsmanship and pure talent.

the monkees, nume times blue, monkees live, monkees country, johnny cash show

The Monkees perform on "The Johnny Cash Show."

The great debate about The Monkees is whether they were a real band or just a group of actors thrown together for a TV show. The answer is yes. They were actors cast to play an American version of The Beatles, and many of their early songs were written by big-time professional songwriters such as Tommy Boyce, Bobby Hart, Neil Diamond, Carole King, and Gerry Goffin.

However, The Monkees would pick up their own instruments, play on the 1967 Headquarters album, and perform as a live band on sold-out tours. After a resurgence in the '80s, the band enjoyed a lucrative career as a legacy act, with various members continuing to perform as The Monkees until Michael Nesmith died in 2021. Nesmith, originally a country singer from Dallas, Texas, wrote several of The Monkees' hits, including "Mary, Mary," "Papa Gene's Blues," "The Girl I Knew Somewhere," and "Listen to the Band," and was a driving force in the group being taken seriously as musicians.




By the summer of 1969, The Monkees' TV series was off the air, and the affable Peter Tork had exited the group, citing exhaustion. The remaining three soldiered on, performing on The Johnny Cash Show to promote their latest album, Instant Replay. The band chose to perform "Nine Times Blue," a country song written by Nesmith that he had demoed at the time but wouldn't be released until he recorded it as a solo artist in 1970.

The performance is a wonderful reminder that The Monkees were great comedic actors and accomplished musicians. Davy Jones and Micky Dolenz do a fantastic job singing harmonies on the chorus, while Nesmith plays some nice fills on his Gibson acoustic.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Later in the show, The Monkees joined Cash for a performance of his 1966 novelty song, "Everybody Loves a Nut," which perfectly suited the band's comedic sensibilities. Two weeks after the release, Cash scored one of his biggest hits with "A Boy Named Sue," recorded live at San Quentin prison.

A few months later, Nesmith left The Monkees to pursue a country-rock career, first with the seminal group The First National Band, which scored a Top 40 hit with "Joanne" from the album Magnetic South.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Although Nesmith's country-rock albums of the '70s were moderately successful, he was still overshadowed, as a musician, by The Monkees' towering success and subsequent downfall. In the '70s, it wasn't easy for Nesmith to get the respect he was due as a country artist. But in the years leading up to his death in 2021, Nesmith's work was reappraised, and he was seen as a brilliant songwriter who anticipated the rise of alt-country.

The Monkees hold a complicated place in rock 'n' roll history. While some see them as a prefabricated band assembled to cash in on The Beatles' success, others recognize them as talented musicians brought together under bizarre circumstances who forged their own path and created something fresh and innovative, only earning proper respect years later.

1950s year book, old photos, college annual, students, 1950s america

The Wittenberger College 1956 yearbook.

Ever look through your parents’ high school yearbook and all the teenagers look like they are 35 years old? When you think about how teenagers look today, the difference is striking. But why? Did people grow up much faster back in the day, or is there something else at play?

If you look back to the 1980s, there’s a clear difference between actors Paul Rudd and Wilford Brimley at 50.


Sure, that's a cherry-picked, extreme version of the difference in how people age, but it does support the idea that just a few decades ago, people aged much faster.

In a recent video, the folks at Recollection Road did a deep dive into why your average high school junior in 1958 looked like a 55-year-old bank manager, and they found seven reasons. They were a mix of environmental and cultural factors that boiled down to one central point: people are much healthier these days.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

1. Smoking

“Cigarettes were everywhere: in diners, in offices, even on airplanes. In the 1950s, it wasn't unusual to see a mother with a baby in one arm and a cigarette in the other. High school kids would light up behind the gym, and by adulthood, many were chain smokers.”

A Gallup poll found that in 1954, 45% of U.S. adults smoked cigarettes at least once a week. Compare this with 2024, when only 11% of Americans smoked a cigarette in the previous week.

2. Sun exposure

“Back in the 1960s and 1970s, a summer tan wasn't just fashionable, it was almost required. People slathered on baby oil, laid out under the blazing sun, and cooked. There was no SPF 50. In fact, lotion was designed to help you burn faster for a deeper tan. Families on vacation didn't think twice about spending hours on the beach with no shade. By the time they were in their 30s or 40s, the sun had also carved wrinkles and dark spots into their skin.”


3. Fashion

“Think about old photos of your parents or grandparents. A 25-year-old man in 1948 was often dressed in a suit and tie, maybe even a fedora. A young woman might be wearing a conservative dress and practical shoes. By modern standards, those styles look more grown-up, more like something we'd expect from someone middle-aged.”

4. Life was harder

“Someone who grew up during the Great Depression often started working as a teenager to help put food on the table. A lot of young men were drafted into World War II or Vietnam before they were even old enough to legally drink. That kind of responsibility leaves its mark. … Even women carried heavy burdens. In the 1950s, a young mother might have had three or four kids by the time she was 25, while also running a household without modern conveniences like microwaves or dishwashers.”


5. Drinking

“Having a three martini lunch was common in the business world of the 1960s. Beer was practically considered a food group in some households. Combine that with less knowledge about exercise and health, and you can see why bodies wore down faster, giving people an older appearance earlier in life.”

There has been a sharp decline in the number of Americans who consume alcohol. In 1971, 71% of Americans had the occasional drink, but that number dropped to 54% in 2025. The decline in drinking is attributed to concerns over alcohol’s effect on health and a decrease in consumption amongst younger people.


6. Cultural expectations

"By their mid-20s, most people in the 1950s and ‘60s were married, raising children, and working full-time jobs. Life was about responsibility, not self-expression. They dressed older, behaved older, and carried themselves as adults.”

7. Testosterone

“Studies show that the average testosterone has been steadily declining for decades. Men in the 1950s and ‘60s often had higher natural testosterone than men today, which gave them more muscle mass, broader builds, and in some cases, more facial hair. While that might sound like it would make them look younger, it often had the opposite effect. The heavy brows, thick body hair, and rugged features made young men look tougher, older, and more weathered than their actual age.”

kids, school, school days, school week, schedule, 4 day week
Unsplash

Many school districts are moving to a 4-day week, but there are pros and cons to the approach.

American kids have fewer school days than most other major countries as it is, which poses a big challenge for families with two working parents. In a system designed for the "classic" stay-at-home mom model, it's difficult for many modern families to cover childcare and fulfill their work obligations during the many, many holidays and extra days off American children receive in school.

Some school districts, in fact, are ready to take things one step further with even fewer instructional days: for better or for worse.


Whitney Independent School District in Texas recently made news when it decided to enact a four-day week heading into the 2025 school year. That makes it one of dozens of school districts in Texas to make the change and over 900 nationally.

The thought of having the kids home from school EVERY Friday or Monday makes many parents break out in stress hives, but this four-day school week movement isn't designed to give parents a headache. It's meant to lure teachers back to work.

Yes, teachers are leaving the profession in droves and young graduates don't seem eager to replace them. Why? For starters, the pay is bad—but that's just the beginning. Teachers are burnt out, undermined and criticized relentlessly, held hostage by standardized testing, and more. It can be a grueling, demoralizing, and thankless job. The love and passion they have for shaping the youth of tomorrow can only take you so far when you feel like you're constantly getting the short end of the stick.

School districts want to pay their teachers more, in theory, but their hands are often tied. So, they're getting creative to recruit the next generation of teachers into their schools—starting with an extra day off for planning, catch-up, or family time every week.

Teachers in four-day districts often love the new schedule. Kids love it (obviously). It's the parents who, as a whole, aren't super thrilled.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

So far, the data shows that the truncated schedule perk is working. In these districts, job applications for teachers are up, retirements are down, and teachers are reporting better mental well-being. That's great news!

But these positive developments may be coming at the price of the working parents in the communities. Most early adopters of the four-day week have been rural communities with a high prevalence of stay-at-home parents. As the idea starts to take hold in other parts of the country, it's getting more pushback. Discussions on Reddit, Facebook, and other social media platforms are overrun with debate on how this is all going to shake up. Some parents, to be fair, like the idea! If they stay-at-home or have a lot of flexibility, they see it as an opportunity for more family time. But many are feeling anxious. Here's what's got those parents worried:

The effect on students' achievement is still unclear.

The execution of the four-day week varies from district to district. Some schools extend the length of each of the four days, making the total instructional time the same. That makes for a really long day, and some teachers say the students are tired and more unruly by the late afternoon. Some districts are just going with less instruction time overall, which has parents concerned that their kids might fall behind.

A study of schools in Iowa that had reduced instructional days found that five-days-a-week students performed better, on average.

Four-day school weeks put parents in a childcare bind.

Having two working parents is becoming more common and necessary with the high cost of living. Of course—"school isn't daycare!" But it is the safe, reliable, and educational place we send our kids while we we work.

Families with money and resources may be able to enroll their kids in more academics, extracurriculars, sports, or childcare, but a lot of normal families won't be able to afford that cost. Some schools running a four-day week offer a paid childcare option for the day off, but that's an added expense and for families with multiple kids in the school system, it's just not possible.

kids, school, school days, school week, schedule, 4 day week In a 4-day model, kids often (but not always) receive less instructional time. Photo by Ivan Aleksic on Unsplash

This will inevitably end with some kids getting way more screentime.

With most parents still working five-day weeks, and the cost of extra activities or childcare too high, a lot of kids are going to end up sitting around on the couch with their iPad on those days off. Adding another several hours of it to a child's week seems less than ideal according to expert recommendations.

Of course there are other options other than paid childcare and iPads. There are play dates, there's getting help from family and friends. All of these options are an enormous amount of work to arrange for parents who are already at capacity.

Working four days is definitely a win for teachers that makes the job more appealing. But it doesn't address the systemic issues that are driving them to quit, retire early, or give up their dreams of teaching all together.

@5th_with_ms.y

Replying to @emory here are my thoughts on my 4day work week as a teacher✨ #foryou #fyp #fypシ #foryoupage #foryoupageofficiall #teachersoftiktokfyp #teachersoftiktok #teachertok #teachersbelike #teachertiktok #tik #tiktok #viralllllll #teachertoks #teaching #teacher #tok #viralvideo #teacherlife #viral #trendy #teacher #teaching #worklifebalance #worklife #publicschool #publiceducation #school #student

A Commissioner of Education from Missouri calls truncated schedules a "band-aid solution with diminishing returns." Having an extra planning day won't stop teachers from getting scapegoated by politicians or held to impossible curriculum standards, it won't keep them from having to buy their own supplies or deal with ever-worsening student behavior.

Some teachers and other experts have suggested having a modified five-day school week, where one of the days gets set aside as a teacher planning day while students are still on-site participating in clubs, music, art—you know, all the stuff that's been getting cut in recent years. Something like that could work in some places.

In any case, the debate over a shortened school week is not going away any time soon. More districts across the country are doing their research in preparation for potentially making the switch.

Many parents don't theoretically mind the idea of their busy kids having an extra day off to unwind, pursue hobbies, see friends, catch up on projects, or spend time as a family. They're also usually in favor of anything that takes pressure off of overworked teachers. But until we adopt a four-day work week as the standard, the four-day school week is always going to feel a little out of place.

This article originally appeared in February. It has been updated.

employee; employment law; work friends; work bestie; coworker boundaries; work boundaries; work life balance

Employment lawyer reveals 4 texts to never send a coworker

It's not uncommon for people to have a "work bestie" or "work spouse." Often, people spend a lot of their waking hours at work, so they're bound to feel like they've made true friendships with their coworkers. Before too long, numbers get exchanged, and they find themselves venting after hours about work, but this may not be a good thing.

Ed Hones is an employment attorney in Seattle, Washington, and he is not only discouraging coworkers from thinking of each other as friends, but also sharing what texts people should never send their colleagues. As an employment lawyer, Hones sees the legal fallout of the lines between friends and coworkers being blurred. Though he isn't saying people can't text their coworkers, he lists four specific types of texts to never send in case of a lawsuit.


"I see great cases destroyed every single day from one thing: old text messages," Hones reveals. "You might think that your text thread with your coworker is a safe space to vent, joke, or even scheme, but let me be clear about this one thing: it is not. In the eyes of the law, those text messages are evidence, and if you ever have to sue your employer for something, defense attorneys will find a way to get those text messages and destroy your credibility and tank your case."

employee; employment law; work friends; work bestie; coworker boundaries; work boundaries; work life balance Smiling at work, checking messages during a break.Photo credit: Canva

Of course, no one plans to sue their employer or to have their employer sue them, but sometimes things happen that result in lawsuits. Once a lawsuit is filed, discovery often follows, which means phone records and other device communications can be requested. If you've been trash-talking your boss or making egregious claims, you may be stuck having to explain it in court. But avoid sending these four texts, and you won't have to worry about your employer finding something to use against you in a lawsuit.

1. Asking a coworker to bend the rules

Hones explains that this often happens in the form of asking someone to clock you in or initial a form they forgot to complete. It may be something you think everyone does every once in a while at their place of employment, but sending a text message is documenting the request. Explicitly asking a coworker to break this employment policy can result in termination being justified. The employment attorney implores people to avoid doing it completely.

employee; employment law; work friends; work bestie; coworker boundaries; work boundaries; work life balance Man focused on his phone screen, deep in thought.Photo credit: Canva

2. Awkwardly acknowledging something inappropriate

"Here is the scenario," Hones says. "A coworker or supervisor texts you something inappropriate. Maybe it's a dirty joke or a comment about your private life, or medical condition. It makes you uncomfortable, but you have to see this person at the office tomorrow, and you don't want to make it awkward, so you reply with an LOL, laughing emoji, or a thumbs up. But if you send that text, you're walking into a legal trap called "The Unwelcome Standard.'" This means that if this behavior turns into harassment or creates a hostile environment, legally, it can be seen as being acceptable due to responses to inappropriate texts in the past.

3. Texting about job hunting

It's not uncommon for frustration to boil over and result in someone declaring they're going to start looking for a new job. Not every text or annoyed utterance about needing to find different employment is serious. Sometimes it is about blowing off steam, but other times it's truthful. Hones says not to let your employer be the one to decipher the difference in a court of law, because it may not work out in your favor. It could reduce an employee's lost wages claims, eliminate the ability to claim work conditions that resulted in an abrupt resignation, and even result in the company pushing an employee out if the text is revealed before they resign.

4. Talking trash about your boss or company

"We all need to vent, but doing it via text message hands the employer the perfect cover story," says Hones. This comes into play when an employee sues for discrimination or wrongful termination. According to the employment lawyer, if an employee sues for one of those reasons, the burden shifts to the employer to prove they didn't fire the employee for an illegal reason. If the employer discovers the negative texts about them, then it could give legitimacy to their claims if they have lied about the reasons someone was terminated. Hones says it's common for employers to lie in these cases by saying the employee was disrespectful or a bad employee, and texts trash-talking the boss would strengthen their argument.

employee; employment law; work friends; work bestie; coworker boundaries; work boundaries; work life balance Focused multitasking at the office.Photo credit: Canva

Hones explains in another video that it's not wise to assume your coworker-turned-friend will have your back in an employment investigation. Often, people need their jobs and are unwilling to risk them to help someone else keep theirs. Becoming overly familiar with a coworker may feel genuine and comfortable, but maintaining certain boundaries will help protect you legally should you ever have to sue your employer.

"Work relationships do not necessarily have to be friendly to be healthy," Dr. Maya Reynolds, MD, MPH, Psychiatrist and Behavioral Health Spokesperson at Choice Point Health, explains to Upworthy. "Keeping personal relationships and work relationships separated keeps a person free from additional emotional entanglement, rivalry, and disappointment. Because when work relationships step into personal life, promotions or disagreements can feel personal rather than professional, which brings a great emotional toll on oneself. Also, maintaining boundaries at work promotes your psychological safety."