From VTGuitarman's previous thread:
The current situation facing all of us is unprecedented. While TKP is generally not a place to discuss "breaking news" or emotionally charged topics, obviously the coronavirus pandemic affects us all. We recognize that TKP is a place many of us turn to for social interaction in these trying times, and discussing the coronavirus can be cathartic for many of us. We hope that we can continue to come together as Hokies to weather this storm.
That said, the explosion of comments in recent discussions has veered from useful to pointless and argumentative. Going forward, only Joe and the moderator team will post new "general discussion" threads on this topic. Others will be deleted. Moderators will lock threads as needed if discussion becomes destructive.
We invite you to use this space to discuss important information related to the coronavirus pandemic, like important advisories, closings, cancelations, and impacts on daily life. We are lucky that our community has many subject matter experts in health, science, public safety, public affairs, and local government, among others. Please continue to share your knowledge!
As always, the Community Guidelines will be enforced by the moderators as best we can. At this point, repeat offenders who continue pointless bickering and whose posts continually incite arguments will be banned, at least temporarily. Doing so is in the interest of keeping TKP a strong and positive community.
Comments
Steelers beat the Rams 31-19 in Super Bowl XIV. Other thread was at 469 comments.
Keep it civil, think beyond your first thought, engage in good faith.
Whoo Hoo.
Nice timing.
I'll use this spot to respond to your comment about your dad. Legally, he CAN'T drive with his handicap tag dangling, so Karen can fuck right on off. Busybodies suck.
Just a little update for those in Virginia:
Virginia added 1,000+ cases today for the second time in three days. Hampton Roads continues to surge, but the state as a whole is up to 7.6% positivity, the highest it's been since June 9, when it was trending significantly downwards. Now, the state is trending upwards again in positivity percent, hospitalizations, and total cases.
If you exclude the Northern Region (which Northam said this week makes up about 2/3 of the state's population) the state has a 7.9% positivity rate and has set the all-time high for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 for the second time this week.
The Eastern Region needs to slow down the spread soon or they might have to move back a phase. Additionally, students that live in that area will be returning to campuses next month and some schools (Virginia Tech) aren't requiring a negative test before allowing them to return to town.
I prefer ice cream.
Don't we all?
I know there are people that can't eat it due to health reasons.
Thank the lord (of your choice inserted here) that I am not one of them.
Ice cream is better than both cake and pie. #TeamIceCream!
I'll be honest. Northam really blew an opportunity to hold the reopening to Phase 2 instead of proceeding ahead with Phase 3. The cases were surging and for whatever reason, he elected to ignore the new cases.
His feet need to be held to the fire for his decision.
I certainly understand the concern and the desire to keep everyone safe.
Each region had the opportunity to not move. He just set the guidelines.
I don't want to live under the guidelines of the most impacted, the diverse situations across the state is too broad to fit into one size fits all.
Blame the localities for not setting their own standards of action.
So?
The (sadly) positive spin is that 7.6% is currently below the national avg, which has been fluctuating in the 8-9% range after rising slowly and consistently since the reopenings. (8.6% nationally, yesterday)
For further comparison. Our (SC) big (in a bad way) Saturday numbers that saw 2200+ new cases had a 22% positive rate.
Why exclude 2/3 of the population?
Hey, if we get up to 666 threads on this, can we call it the Damned Coronavirus Thread ?
Sorry, I was on the Dad jokes thread just now.
On a more positive note... COVID19 has brought the To Go cocktail to the mainstream... made manifest in the form of a (literal) booze bag.
Behold the Fauci Pouchy:
https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/04/14/this-dc-deli-is-selling-fauci-pouchy-cocktails/
this is awesome
I have some friends who are getting a business off the ground in similar fashion. Called Certified Pour. Theirs are mixers, you supply the booze. But, they've been doing some interesting stuff.
we have a programmer that was all set to go work at our German plant for two months. Well that's over as Germany has banned travelers from the US. So now he's just working from home and shifting his waking hours to be on German time. As if the language barrier weren't enough in person, now he has to try to debug a piece of automated equipment over zoom.
Ouch. Don't even know the guy and really feel for him.
Task Force doc shows 18 states in "hot zone" should go back to Phase 1 Re-opening and mandate masks
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/coronavirus/white-house-t...
Arkansas being listed before Arizona bothers me more than it should.
I had the same reaction seeing North Carolina before Nevada.
Just imagine that they're arranged by postal abbreviation and it will make more sense.
Virginia should roll back to Phase 2 but no, the governor wants to "focus" on the Tidewater region.
Alabama
Arkansas
I read this and immediately in my head sang, " I do love my ma and pa..."
And down the rabbit hole we go. What the hell happened to all the neo-folk that was damn near mainstream during the early 2010s?? The Lumineers are pretty much the only ones that stayed relevant after about 2014. Sure, Mumford is around, but they went electric. I loved that folk and Americana sounding music was finally getting the limelight, and it went away as quick as it came, and we're stuck with more synth pop bullshit, bro country, and mumble rap.
I enjoyed it too. Not sure what happened with it. I'll admit to enjoying bro country as much as I enjoy White Claws, which is a lot.
That electric Mumford and Sons album was shit.
Give a listen to Billy Strings if you havent already
If you have never heard of Lucero out of Memphis TN I would suggest you check them out.
Well, completely out of the blue, the wife got furloughed. Really surprising as nothing had happened for a while except a really minimal pay cut. Her boss is really upset as a lot of work is lining up for next year. I'd be very surprised if she is not called back by the start of 2021.
We are in a good position. If we really wanted to, we could have probably both taken early retirement a couple years ago. Made me suggest to her that she really look at this as an opportunity to do what she wants. Do you want to:
(1) hang out on unemployment until you are (likely) called back
(2) aggressively look for another full-time job in your field to continue your current career
(3) pivot into a totally new career path
(4) take some temporary job to pass the time like at Domino's or ACME supermarket
(5) be a full time housewife and mother
(6) other
Stress the importance to the younger folks on here to live below your means when you are working. It can give you tremendous flexibility and peace of mind. Something like this could be devastating, a bump in the road, or an opportunity based on where you are. Understand that not everyone can given their financial situation, but try to live below your means.
Well said. I hope you and your wife can spin this into a positive opportunity for your family. Best of luck, and stay safe.
Thanks. Over the years, I have actually had multiple people who were laid off tell me it was one of the best things that ever happened to them. Forced them out of their comfort zone and they ended up in a better spot. It sure can suck short-term though - especially if you do not have a financial cushion or support system to fall back on like a spouse who earns enough for you to get by.
I lost my restaurant management job one month before my daughter was born back in 1992. I had been miserable in the job due to not getting time with my family but couldn't justify leaving due tof inances. It was definitely a tough time- I went from a 30,000 /yr job to temp work and unemployment for 6 months before getting hired on at corporate offices of a bank at about 17k/yr o support what quickly became a family of
55FIVE after our 3rd child born a year after my daughter. There were some VERY tough years for about 4 years where we used public assistance and charity from church to survive. But things turned around after that and I am still with that same company now 27 years later starting and at a salary 5-6 times what I started at. The ex left back in 2004 and the kids are now in their late 20s and I truly believe that losing that job in restaurants was the best thing that could have happened. I got 6 months with my newborn daughter which was priceless and a career with so much more potential than I would ever have had. Instead of restaurant hours (think most every night/weekend), I work banking hours (9-5) and five weeks of paid vacation and the ten federal holidays.You can indeed make lemons into lemonade- just don't forget the sugar!(and maybe some vodka as well)
I see you put your free time to good use
LOL -- edited above to correct the family size- while our youngest WERE born ten days shy of a year apart and the ex DID have a pregnancy test done at her 6 week checkup after my daughter was born- and WAS pregnant just a month after that.. Funny story- one of the older ladies at church asked my wife when she began showing with the 3rd child "don't you know what causes that?"; my ex(bless her heart) was quick to reply "Yes! And we like it!". The elderly lady never asked THAT question again!
Immunity!
CDC Study based on contract tracing in South Korea
My family has been debating renting a house in Hilton Head for a get together in either September or October rather than a typical traveling vacation? Any chance of this going back down before then? At least one family member is in the beware category.
Far from an expert but I feel confident it's only going to get worse through the fall.
I was hoping sept/oct was after most of the beach crowds will have left and it might have been safe for a venture. I will just need to monitor how it goes I guess.
SC is currently a hot spot, not sure about HHI itself though. If I had to guess you should probably be fine if you stick to just hanging out at the rental and avoid potential crowds on the beach. That timeframe is already at the start of the low season so crowds should be smaller. A lot of the big national chains are or will be mandating masks nationwide so stocking the house with food shouldn't be a huge risk. If your are doing a typical Saturday - Saturday rental, you could bring some food with you to avoid the potential crowds of other renters getting groceries on the first day.
If you're planning on going anywhere near Coligny I'd stay away. The island (and rest of the SC coast) has been an absolute disaster of people coming from all over the country when the ban on short term rentals was lifted. It's annoying as hell as someone that lives in Charleston and family in Hilton Head, we're going to have this longer than the rest of the country because people keep traveling here from all over with 0 signs of it slowing down. When NY was a hotspot, every 3rd license plate was NY now SC is a hotspot.
As a resident of a tourist hotspot, I feel your pain
Dang, the place I was thinking off is on Bittern, within a five minute watch of the circle there.
I went to my parents on fathers day they live on the north side. We drove down to Coligny and turned around, it's generally a mad house down there but it was a mad house without a single person even trying to distance. The businesses are doing an okay job, I believe Serg group (they own like all the popular restaurants on the island) said they wouldn't require masks on their employees initially, I think they have since changed that stance. I know for a fact some of their employees tested positive.
So, in one of the previous threads, I saw someone claim that although cases were spiking, deaths weren't, so that was a good thing (ignoring the fact that deaths are lagging by a couple weeks from infection, i.e. you don't just test positive and keel over, if you end up with a severe case, you suffer for weeks before you die)....
well...ask Texas, Florida and Arizona how that is working out for them now.
It's only logical that deaths increase as the case load increases, but it does appear that there is a serious shift in how the death rate to positive case rate was tracking months ago versus now. The data I've looked at are showing an increase in death rates, but nowhere near what we are seeing in the case load.
The previous peak in case load was around April 10th. The highest daily 7 day average death rate we've seen to date was on April 21st, 11 days later. The week from June 13th to June 20th, cases jumped from a 7 day average of 22k per day to 27k. They are now trending around 68k. The death rates have been dropping steadily since mid April, where they were at 2.2k per day to a low of 516 per day on July 5th. This has increased to the mid to upper 700's in the last week, but the curve no where near matches what the case curve looks like. From a pure number and data standpoint, it appears that something has obviously changed from what we were seeing in April. This may change, but I think it's perfectly logical to see this as a positive given where we were. If the death rate spike we saw in April matches our case load now, you would be seeing deaths surpassing 4,700 per day when the lag caught up.
Wear masks and be safe. We all want to get through this.
Link for the data.
I would like off the United States' wild ride
Too bad we're not allowed off. No one wants our shit
not even the Bahamas, where the GDP is 51% tourism....
I was really hoping to be able to fish the Nags Head Surf Fishing Tournament again this year, but am starting to get the impression that that might not be able to happen. It's in early October.
Even with the mask defiance here, we're still barely affected so far, and with the latest mandates, I have noticed a lot more folks masking up, so hopefully I won't be spreading anything, but I don't want to go NC to get something to bring home, either.
It is definitely rising. I won't defend those hotspots but it does irritate me to some degree that New York is now being pat on the back for how this thing has been handled. Cumulatively, the state of New York has had 9000 deaths w/ population of 19M and Florida has had 5000 deaths with population of 21M. The spikes in each state are coming in different ways and different times but I will not congratulate NY for the overall handling even though they are doing very well currently.
On a separate but related note, has anybody read any credible theories regarding the diminishing cases in the earliest hardest hit areas? My theory is based on limited sample of NY and Nova, so it could easily be discredited when looking elsewhere. But I wonder if there is any validity to a high rate first wave wiping out a significant percent of the population more naturally susceptible. Another theory would be that areas living through the worst of the impacts first hand have taken the safety protocols more seriously on the back end.
Anyway, just rambling thought on paper for me. I do hope that these hotspot areas turn things around soon.
New York didn't have the benefit of experience outside of Wuhan and Italy. Florida has had months more examples and time to prepare and they have still royally screwed things up.
Yeah... I can't say NY didn't make mistakes but if you're a hotspot state now, after having watched what places like NY et. al. went through, you might have some soul searching to do.
This is what is so frustrating living in NY. When the virus hit hard in April, hospital capacity was used up, and treatment was mostly experimental. Fast forward three months, and there should have been enough data to understand how to react to the virus for each state. Treatment has gotten better, serious lockdown worked, and masks are mandatory - and making a difference.
Yes, deaths in July are down as a percentage of cases, but it didn't have to be this way. New York, while making some mistakes as the state was on the leading edge, implemented a plan that has worked. Watching other states do things that don't line up with what has been successful seems crazy.
The roadmap to successfully dealing with Covid-19 in the US was established, and very few states are following it. I worry about what will happen when hospital capacity is exceeded as it was in NYC -that's when the death rate increased significantly.
The earliest and hardest hit areas realized what a problem it could be and took precautions. They're benefiting from what they did in the beginning(ish) and are quarantining anyone from an area that could pose a risk. They were also fairly dense population centers with big international hubs in them or nearby, so they got hit harder earlier than some other areas.
Imagine that, if you actually do something you might slow down the rate of spread...... Who'da thunk it!
100% this. I'm in NJ (commuting range to Manhattan), and there's not too many people in this area with the "you can't make me because of my rights" attitude towards government guidance that is phrased as "strongly recommended" or "urged". A lot of people died here because it happened very quickly and so many decisions were made without the benefit of learning from other locations' responses -- both successes and failures.
Everywhere else that opened up too soon "because it's not that bad" just hadn't gotten it badly yet, and being proactive rather than reactive is a big deal when it comes to preventing transmission.
That person might've been me. While daily deaths fluctuates greatly, we have not seen an increase in weekly total deaths since the week ending in 4/18, per the CDC.
The country as a whole, no, since a good chunk of the states are handling this in a somewhat responsible manner. Arizona's deaths having been trending upwards since late June, same for Florida, same for Texas....what do they have in common? Reopening too wide too soon
Has anyone heard anything about a bunch of VT players testing positive?
New study claims that cholesterol lowering drug, Fenofibrate (Tricor) could downgrade the threat to that of a common cold.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-cholesterol-lowering-meds-potenti...
That's awesome.
Really hope that is true, closest I have heard to a cure so far.
Would this be a drug that could be tested on patients quickly with little side effect?
This is interesting research. The pre-peer-review manuscript is currently reviewable for those with a subscription here, but I'm not one of those people. But from the abstract, it appears that the authors are suggesting that SARS-CoV2 replicates better with high cholesterol/fat in lung cells and much of the damage in the lungs is due to changes in lipid metabolism induced by the virus. Essentially, the virus is tricking the lung cells to produce more fats and cholesterol so that it can make more virus, which in turn results in lung damage. They further show that the drug fenofibrate, which inhibits cholesterol synthesis, can reduce this toxic production and reduce viral replication. If it holds up to review, this research could save lives of those that enter the ICU, and potentially provide a common treatment for any infected individual.
Herd immunity may be much lower than previously thought, perhaps as low as 20%. Check out this new publication. It is also interesting when you compare it to data from the Diamond Princess which only had an infection rate of about 19%.
Maybe places like New York and Italy have reached herd immunity, while the rest of the country is slowly catching up.
This is actual science that can actually be followed, and it should be front page news. This is very positive.
Medrxiv is an Internet site distributing unpublished eprints about health sciences. It distributes complete, but unpublished manuscripts in the areas of medicine, clinical research, and related health sciences without charge to the reader.
The recent Singapore study on T cells that a lot of this is based on, is as legit as any COVID-19 research currently being done can be.
Usually, I'd be 100% on your side about unpublished (more importantly non-peer reviewed) research, but it looks like the first author is pretty well respected in the field of epidemiological modeling with several articles published in "Science" with over 800 people referencing one of them about Zika. Google Scholar
To add to that with historical perspective. We always should view non-peer-reviewed data with caution (and anything in the mainstream press with a LOT of caution) but a key breakthrough in identifying the AIDS epidemic was a publication in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review. It is not a rigorous peer-reviewed publication. But the person who identified substantial numbers of cases of Karposi Sarcoma in young gay men published it as an update in MMWR because they wanted to get the information out into the medical and scientific community and not wait months for write up, review and publication. Gives further strength to your view.
I take no position on whether or not the therapy works. Keep coming back to only 10 or 20% of novel drugs that enter clinical trials get approved, so this probably won't work. But it might. I'm optimistic of things working because we are studying so many right now. Some of them (maybe this one) will work.
and which was not certified by peer review
Interesting.
So say, hypothetically, that this study survives peer review with glowing favor. How do its conclusions inform policy? What types of policies does it suggest policy makers should implement?
It would change everything in my opinion and it goes back to a comment I had earlier. Maybe the zones hit hardest early just wiped it out by transmission versus all the protocols that came later. The areas spiking now had a very light first wave. If it turns out to be true, open schools and resume a close to normal life with common sense policy put into place. Big IF I understand, but if there is a chance we need to be jumping on more studies to either validate it or disprove it.
I don't usually pay downvotes any attention... But why in the cornbread Cracklin hell would somebody downvote this post? There was nothing inciteful, just a well constructed opinion.
But wouldn't the response effectiveness from the rest of the world disprove this? Cases surge, government responds with lockdowns, contract tracing, testing ramp ups, etc. and numbers decline.
We're still on the first wave, though, aren't we? I don't think it's a matter of a light first wave, so much as more sparsely populated areas having a slower rate of transmission.
Couldn't both be true though? More than one way to skin a cat so to speak. I mean really smart people have developed the methods to isolate and stamp out the virus. But if the populations could have reached a herd immunity at say 20%, they knocked it out before getting there. I have no idea, but if it is possible that it is true, I still think it warrants more studying and review to find out. Or maybe we will find out by trial and error if some of the hot zones do not change their approach.
You are right, it is still the first wave but the intensity of the wave has hit different geographic regions at different times.
I honestly don't think this paper would change policy much if it passed peer review. It is basically just throwing out a giant hypothetical that maybe there's a rather large proportion of people who are are immune to the virus without catching it. They don't really have evidence for this, but just roll with it and incorporate it into their model and say that if it were true, herd immunity could be reached with a lower proportion of infections.
Personally, I don't buy it. But I'm also not a professional in this field, so I most certainly could be wrong.
They don't really have evidence for this, but just roll with it and incorporate it into their model and say that if it were true, herd immunity could be reached with a lower proportion of infections.
exactly
and even if they are correct, absent the ability to sufficiently sample any given population/subpopulation, there is no way to effectively inform public policy for that group.
This is an interesting post.
These T-cell studies are solid clinical research... but you don't buy it, and some other posters are clamoring to discredit it because it's not "peer reviewed", or whatever. There is not a whole lot of "peer reviewed" COVID-19 stuff out there.
Do you know there is not ONE SINGLE clinical trial that has been performed to indicate that masks for the general public do any good? It's literally "a giant hypothetical that maybe" masks help slow the spread. Yet, God forbid someone question the benefits of mask wearing.
I'm not saying that masks don't work/help, but a lot more scientific heavy lifting has been put into this T-cell research than general public mask efficacy for sure.
Masks are not therapeutic so there will not be clinical trials, by definition. There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies, however. Example:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
Google turns up more but I'm on my phone with a sleeping infant so it's not practical to link many more.
Don't wake the baby, but that study doesn't cover cloth face coverings which is what my governor is currently touting.
Interesting that you changed from "peer reviewed" to "clinical trial", since there are peer reviewed studies a-plenty showing the effectiveness of wearing masks to slow the transmission of covid-19
The only one I can find on cloth masks is this conclusion from National Academies of Sciences Rapid Expert Consultation...
Dig all you want to try and poke fun at the Leonard. There is not a conclusive study that has been performed to indicate that cloth masks are effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19.
Again, I'm not saying to not wear a mask. I was just trying to make the point earlier that we get caught up in the bias of our emotions on this. I wear a disposable surgical mask when I'm required to. I'm not dying on this hill.
Study of covid 19 spread after states mandate face mask use in public (does not discern between surgical or N95 masks vs. cloth masks):
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
That's not a clinical study. Mask mandates weren't in effect until May in most states. How do they know that the rates didn't go down because of the weather, or just because of the virus time line?
Again, I'm not trying to do a mask debate. That wasn't my point.
Dr. Fauci stated that there has not been a true clinical study on the effectiveness of masks for the general public during an event at Georgetown U. He stated there was enough "metadata" out there to go with the recommendation, and that it wouldn't be prudent to test masks at this time because of the risk of exposing study participants to COVID-19. I'm ok with that. My original point AGAIN, is that some of us bend over backwards to discount strong scientific data if it doesn't conform to our original opinions. I'll be the first to admit I've been guilty of that.
This is the Fauci exchange.
Just FYI to everyone, that's a Breitbart link. You're free to click it, not allowed to discuss the merits of it due to community rules. I just wanted to make everyone aware.
Just linking what Leonard alluded to...that's all. Not trying to cause issues.
I tossed you a leg. I know what you were doing.
A real life double blind test of cloth coverings to test exposure to this coronavirus would be unethical as it would potentially expose people to a potentially lethal disease.
That's an interesting thought experiment. Would that not render other double blind studies unethical, such as cancer treatments or vaccines?
I think the difference is that masks are intended to protect other people from yourself, whereas cancer treatments, vaccines, etc., are intended to protect yourself.
So someone signing up for a vaccine trial can absolve the liabilities through paperwork, etc., because they acknowledge the risk they're taking on. But if you participate in a mask trial and therefore are forced not to wear one, you're not the one at risk, but the people you interact with (who may have no participation) are at risk.
Good thought but it is considered not to be unethical.
Many cancer treatments can be started outside the body and if found effective there, can be tested for safety then tested inside the human body for effectiveness and safety at effective dosage levels.
You are not explicitly exposing healthy persons to a harmful environment.
Conversely, it would be unethical to give someone a treatment and then give them cancer to see what percentage of the people then contract the cancer.
Generally speaking, the vaccine development community (physicians, scientists, FDA, NIH, etc.) considers challenge studies with an infectious disease in humans unethical. A challenge study is where you give the individual a trial vaccine and then specifically expose them to the infectious agent and then determine the protection the vaccine provided. The only exception is when there is a curative for the disease, such as malaria and cholera. With that said, there are some considering challenge studies for COVID-19 vaccine development, which would be the first modern day vaccine trial without a curative treatment.
If you want to know more, here's a news article from Science considering the dilemma: Link
Side note anecdote on how they do malaria vaccine challenge study: I helped develop a malaria vaccine when I worked for a biotech company. My boss registered for a challenge study to truly know what it entails. He explained that you get the vaccine dosage (I think it was two doses, 1 month apart) and then at 1 month post dosing they challenge you. Essentially, to do the challenge portion, they have you set up in a hotel where they set up a clinic within it. To expose an individual to malaria, they take a bag of mosquitos carrying malaria and expose your arm to the mosquitos. After several bites, they take the bag away and then they monitor you for 1 week within the hotel, checking temperature and signs for malaria every 12 hours or so. If start to develop malaria (i.e., 102 fever, chills, headache, nausea, vomiting, etc.) they give you hydroxychloroquine and in few days you're healthy again. But, it's a rough 24-48 hours when the malaria hits and before the hydroxychloroquine ameliorates the disease. Notably, our vaccines never made it through clinical trials and my boss did get sick when he was challenged.
Dang, that's nuts! I didn't know there were provisions to intentionally infect people.
As for vaccines such as those under development for COVID-19, to my understanding they give a large group the vaccine then let them live their lives in hot-spot areas such as Brazil. They test the subjects frequently (daily?) to see if they contract the disease. They are not intentionally exposing the subjects of the trial to the disease, but they selectively choosing the locations to significantly increase the likelihood that the subjects encounter it.
Yea, that is one such strategy for a vaccine trial. It depends on the trial design, which are not mutually exclusive. In one design, trial candidates are selected for their high risk to get the infectious disease (hot spot areas, age, occupation, lifestyle), given the vaccine or placebo, and then the individuals are monitored for disease acquisition. In another design, trial candidates are given the vaccine and then examined for immunological responses to the vaccine (antibody development, T-cell recognition, etc.).
Thus far, the COVID19 vaccine trial designs have been the latter, but the phase 3 trials will start to be more like the former combined with latter. The problem with this design, however, is that a lot of volunteers are needed to sign up to get good statistical results, since the acquisition of disease is random and uncontrolled. For HIV vaccine studies, for instance, several thousands of individuals for both treatment and control arms were needed to perform the studies. Random infection trials are very difficult and expensive to manage and can take months to years for results.
Because of the urgency of COVID19 and the difficulty of randomized infection rates, challenge studies are being considered. It is a difficult moral conundrum. On the one hand, a challenge trail would likely severely injure or even kill individuals that were intentionally challenged with a disease in which there is no curative treatment.. On the other hand, a randomized infection studies would take much longer, and it is certain that significantly more people will die of COVID19 as the results are acquired.
It will be interesting to see how phase 3 trials are conducted. Over 32,000 people have volunteered to be part of a challenge trial: https://1daysooner.org/
Yea. It's interesting.
It's worth noting that it is super easy to sign that volunteer form. It will be much harder to sign the contract that says "You are aware that you will receive corononavirus that may permanently injure or kill you. Further, you and your heirs will not have any legal claim or right to any injury or death that you may incur." So, you wonder how many of the 32K would actually go through with it.
It probably also voids life insurance policies.
I thought I would also mention the difference between cancer treatment studies and challenge studies too.
A challenge study is considered more unethical because it takes a healthy individuals and specifically risks their health by challenging them with an infectious agent. In a cancer treatment study, the individuals already have cancer and thus trying a new treatment isn't as unethical. The people receiving "placebo" still receive the standard of care (i.e., the same treatment as if they weren't in the trial), so it's still "OK." It is true that most people enter into a clinical trial because there is hope that the trial treatment would potentially provide a better outcome than the current one and thus if receiving placebo, you're not getting that chance for better outcome.
Just wanted to chime in and add that this (and cross-overs) are why it is almost impossible to show improved overall survival in oncology. You almost never have true placebo controls. Only time is if you have no effective therapy or with really late-line patients who have failed everything or are too frail for existing therapies.
If you have old regimens A, B, and C, when you test new therapy D, it is against A, B, or C. Let's say it is D vs. A. Then you get cross-overs. If they fail D, you don't just stop treatment, you switch to A and still follow the patient. Same with A. So when you test new D vs. old A you are really testing:
Failed old C (which is first-line standard of care) then get A then cross-over to D then get B vs.
Failed old C (which is first-line standard of care) then get D then cross-over to A then get B
You don't test A vs D you just test different orders.
Why surrogate markets are accepted in oncology. If you increase progression-free survival (the time from response to therapy to when it starts growing again) that is good enough unless you are looking for cure in early stage disease where you can cure it.
This clarification doesn't matter much, but here it is:
Keep in mind that up until this situation, there likely was not much money in preventing transmission of disease. That is, if you were a researcher it would probably be easier to get funding to research medicine or treatment options once people contract a disease.
Also, I'm pretty sure people receiving cancer treatment or who otherwise have a compromised immune system are told to wear a mask when in large gatherings. This has been a thing forever. Should they stop wearing masks too?
In my limited experience, which essentially included friends and family, they were not instructed to wear cloth masks, they were instructed to wear medical grade masks and, in 1 case, an N95 for a young lady that had chemo specifically to destroy her immune system.
My point was that you changed from people down playing "non peer reviewed studies" to the lack of "clinical trials" about masks....and that this was no doubt intentional, because while there might not be any "clinical trials" regarding masks, there are lots of peer reviewed studies about the effectiveness of slowing the transmission via wearing a face covering.
Does this count as a clinical trial?
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30399-4/fulltext
This is for medical masks. P2 is a medical mask that we use in our dental practice for the hygenists, dentist and assistants.
Original Statement.
Ah, I see, you think I am arguing in support of someone else's assertion.
I am just asking for information and offering that I see changes in behavior because people are trusting them too much.
We were talking past each other.
A fine study.
This is not a study on cloth/crochet mask.
Here is a handy list of 70 studies on the effectiveness of face coverings
Link
Not all related to covid specifically but informative anyway
I also wear a surgical mask as it is the only one which has been designed and proven to reduce coronavirus type virus in expelled breath. It is good for large droplets but not 100% for aerosols. That is what it is designed to do. I carry them in a sealed ziplock type bag which I have sanitized the interior with a food grade sanitizer.
N95s will reduce incoming but absolutely will not prevent any but the largest droplets as it is not designed to do so.
I have a cloth mask but I consider them to be about as theatre as NSA safety regulations at the airport. I'll do it but staying 2M away is better than that cloth. I wear it in situations where I do not think the surgical mask is necessary such as outside activities. It gets washed after each time I wear it and stored in the car, in a bag in sunlight.
I don't think anyone is saying cloth > surgical or N95.
Or that cloth > staying 6ft away
What they're saying is cloth > nothing.
A bushy moustache is better than nothing.
People treat the cloth mask as if it is gospel and get a false sense of security, as if all you have to do it wear the Dang mask. You kill grandma if you don't wear the mask, but then crawl up your back in the vegetable aisle.
I don't understand the point of this post. Are there more things people can do to prevent the spread? Of course. Are you arguing that wearing a cloth mask is a net negative in handling the pandemic?
I wasn't inferring that it is a net negative,
That having been said, for some people that think it is taken too much as a suit of armor.
I have seen lots of memes regarding people seeming to violate even normal personal space lately, I think this MIGHT be the case here.
This has some precedent in things such as car seatbelts. People feel more secure and drive differently so that even as miles driven are not significantly impacted, the number of deaths stay about the same but accident rise.
This is not isolated nor a novel idea.
I agree that some people may treat it incorrectly. People can be very dumb.
Still. Wear. A. Mask.
See, after several posts stating I wear masks and stay on top of the direction for disinfection and transmission, the medical research and trusted medical community members that advise me as well as my own physician and needing to stay on top of the requirements for food service as well as medical office requirements, people still find the need to tell me to wear a mask.
And then they wonder why some people get irritated by the nag.
I understand it's natural to apply what you hear to you personally, but maybe people aren't personally attacking your actions? Maybe just your words? For every 1 post you make stating that you follow the rules, you post 15 complaining about them or providing excuses for why they shouldn't exist. Maybe that is what people are speaking out against, not your personal use of the PPE?
And maybe those words are the same things people hear coming out of the mouths of anti-mask idiots, so there tends to be an association.
Just browse r/publicfreakout. You'll see what I mean.
probably a good time to jump in and remind everyone to take a deep breath and do our best to engage in good faith.
And I know there is a lot of emotion involved in this especially as many people feel besieged. I understand.
Let me reiterate, I am guiding 2 businesses through this thing, a food service type and a medical office type.
I don't do hype, I do state and federal regulations, industry and medical guidelines and studies. I do cost efficacy. It is really hard right now to stay in business and the story is not done yet.
So far I have guided both of these organizations in such a manner that, thank the powers that be, I have not had a single employee test positive, nor a customer. Part of this is because I started directing changes to the way that we do things as early as the last week of January as well as an in depth medical crash course and getting "consulting contacts" for information at that same time.
At which time I was being called overly alarmist.
Yes, I chafe at blunt instrument regulations from places that appear to be more theatre than effective, wasting time I do not have and money that can make the difference between survival and folding.
That being said, I have respect for all you guys and your different perspectives and sourcing.
This page is a good resource that I use to gauge public reaction and sources of information that I don't get from other places.
Well said. There's a lot of different hats this community wears.
I think he is saying it is a net positive while it can be more harmful for an individual that does not wear it right or uses it as a covid force field and drops all common sense.
Covid Force Field. I like that.
FTFY.
I think this was uncalled for.
If you can find a study on non-medical masks, as in the masks worn by most of the public, present that. That's what he's calling for.
Some are wearing medical masks, in spite of the appeal of some leadership, while calling for some science to show that cloth masks work.
Many links have been provided
Sorry, I'm an idiot, I cannot find the ones for non-medical masks.
I really am interested in this. Everything I find is for respirators and medical masks.
Upvote you and everything. My googlefu must be on absolute vacation.
I mean really, what am I missing?
Again, bare in mind that we're not talking "clinical trials" as Leonard pivoted to, since there are many peer-reviewed studies on masks:
https://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/reply/20016/969838
https://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/reply/20016/969885
Here's one that specifically tested N95 and surgical vs. different fabrics that would be used in homemade masks.
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202006.0132/v1
Ok, I have downloaded that and will review tonight. I have the brew this afternoon.
So, I get you are trying to get us to take the time to provide research to confirm the widely held positions of scientists around the world. That's cool, that's generally how this kind of conversation goes. The following link is not a scientific paper, so feel free to disregard it as you see fit.
vtnews.vt.edu - Spurred by COVID-19, researcher Linsey Marr evaluates efficacy of sterilized N95 respirators, alternative mask materials
Thanks for that.
I've seen that before.
Personal QA with persons not involved in this testing but familiar with it discussed the caveat that some of these materials were semi-effective but drew comment that to remain aware that the homemade cloth face coverings would not be fitted and so the number presented there would be best case, first use.
I have tried to be as open minded as possible during this whole thing. Masks always seemed to be pretty common sense to me. I mean they at least reduce the droplets so there has to be a benefit. I also know they do not give the wearer some anti Covid suit of armor so other common sense distancing is essential for them to work. This new study providing a glimmer of hope that a population could achieve herd immunity through a much lower percentage of infection is huge. Not being peer reviewed just means it is early and for goodness sakes the peers need to get to work. It may be wishful thinking, but it is definitely worth exploring. It doesn't mean we should abandon all safety protocols but it could mean that the doomsday worst case scenario is much less drastic than first believed. This would allow just a little more risk for policy makers when trying to balance the effects of shutdowns.
I still don't understand the people who act like masks don't do anything. Try to blow out a candle while wearing a mask. The masks I have make it impossible to do so. They obviously keep me from spewing spit and whatever else when I'm out and about running errands. Do the same people not cover their mouths when they cough or sneeze?? It's madness.
But even if its unproven whether they work or not, what is the harm in wearing them just in case? We have people going around talking praise for all kinds of unproven drugs and treatment regimens, and people are willing to believe and try those things. Why won't people do the same for wearing masks?
100% pro-medicine and pro-vaccine here. I'd still prefer to wear a mask first. For pretty much anything in life, you start with the easiest option that yields the largest results the fastest. For disease spread, that is masks and social distancing. Period.
Best case scenario, you save some lives. Worst case scenario, you mildly inconvenience yourself...unless you are one of the few (and I mean FEW) people for whom masks have a detrimental affect. For the interest of everyone's safety, those people should be even more strict in their adherence to isolation/quarantine. This would be the most direct approach to resolving their conflicts with the mask mandate. It sucks, but sometimes you need to do things differently if you have medical restrictions.
I've been trying to give people the benefit of the doubt, because it is healthy to question our approach to containing the disease. No one has been 100% correct and policies change with time and information. With that said, there is a difference between questioning the direction and flat-out fighting it at every step. I'm starting to feel that anyone who argues against masks and social distancing is being disingenuous and intentionally obtuse.
Dangerous confluence of ignorance, stubbornness and politics. Can't say more, but shouldn't need to. Competent leadership could help.
Because opposition to wearing at mask has typically has nothing to do with whether they're effective or not. At least based on my observations over the past month or two.
That hasn't stopped that same group of people from hoarding hydroxychloroquine which at one point might or might have been effective. Amazing to me that masks are the hill people are willing to die on. Literally.
I don't think anyone is trying to discredit it due to lack of peer review. But it's clearly still in the early stages and absolutely should not be taken as fact. I am not a scientist and there are some on this board who could clarify/provide more information, but the way science generally works is this:
1) have hypothesis
2) perform test/study
3) reach conclusion
4) publish
5) have others try to recreate the results using the same criteria
6) once confirmed, adjust your world view to the new truth
There has been a literal fuck-ton of studies that absolutely fall apart at number 5. This still hasn't reached number 4. I'm not saying it isn't positive, just to hold your horses a little bit. It is promising, but absolutely is not something to get excited over yet.
I wish the systems engineers, developers and product architects I deal with had a peer review hard on. I really do.
Here's my reading of the paper. Disclaimers, I'm not an expert in immunity, I didn't fully look at their model - because I wouldn't understand it all, and I didn't understand everything from their brief write up. The authors propose that the current herd immunity estimates don't factor in that some people might be resistant to SARS-CoV-2 from prior coronavirus (i.e. common cold) infections and that some people perhaps have innate immunity to the virus (i.e. the virus can't infect them for unspecified reasons). Since these people don't need to catch the virus to be immune to it, they should be lumped in with the people who are now immune from prior infection. With this in mind, they come up with a model which they feed different numbers to: they play with the reproduction rate of the virus (R0, i.e. how many people will one person infect on average) and the proportion of mixing of resistant individuals with susceptible individuals. With these models they can calculate the herd immunity threshold (HIT) under each scenario that would prevent the virus from spreading. As you would imagine, the more resistant folks you mix into the population, the lower the HIT.
I don't necessarily think this paper was put out into the world to say that herd immunity thresholds are actually lower than estimated. It seems more like a thought experiment. Why? First off, no one has any estimate of the proportion of the community that might have innate immunity to the virus. Similarly, there's still debate raging on about whether people are even resistant against CV19 re-infection once they beat it. So what's the likelihood that you can become resistant to CV19 from catching the common cold? The authors throw out some citations to show that innate immunity might exist, but the papers they link to make no real mention of this. Getting a realistic estimate of this fraction is super difficult I would imagine. Is it possible that 10-50% of people could have innate or acquired cross immunity? I guess it's possible, but I would say very very unlikely.
The next thing that caught my eye is the R0's they use. I guess it's really hard to estimate R0 for this virus because it depends on behavior of people and biological characteristics of the virus. But in NY, they estimated the R0 was 6.4, which is 2X the maximum R0 they use in this paper. For small cities and towns (i.e. most of the US), I suppose these R0 are okay. But for dense cities, I don't know.
The author's of the manuscript say the following:
That's a big "if." To support their inferences, they rely on published manuscripts.
In regard to "cross-protection," they rely on a Cell manuscript. The mansucript shows that there is some overlap between the immune response to cold-causing coronaviruses and to SARS-COV2, but the dominant immune responses are distinct. In fact, the authors conclude the following:
Regarding "innate resistance," they rely on a European Journal of Internal Medicine manuscript. The manuscript they cite isn't even about innate resistance but about how coronavirus infection may be very dangerous with individuals with ACE2-deficiency. So, I don't know what do say about that, but it's very misleading, if not downright deceitful.
Cell Manuscript
European Journal of Internal Medicine
So, my take is this. It's a model built on inferences that aren't supported by the manuscripts they rely on for those inferences. So, if the model is built on faulty inferences, I would suggest the model doesn't provide much insight into anything. It's mere unsupported conjecture.
I want to say "drink" but your reply has a lot better and more information than mine...
I may drink anyways. Cheers.
Replying to my own post to address everyone's replies. Many logical responses from people who read the papers.
The vast majority of my posts on these threads have been attempts to highlight any positive data, news, trends, etc. There is so much panic, so much fear, and while I understand the seriousness of Covid, there needs to be a balanced perspective.
I cannot argue with the fact that some of the skeptical reaction to the links I posted is valid. At the same time, not one person outside of Leonard was willing to admit that innate immunity and acquired immunity may be present in a significant amount of the population. Yes, the authors said "if", okay, but is it not possible? Of course it is. Hard to test, hard to know, so it will take some time. But is it plausible when looking at places like NY and Italy and the Diamond Princess to say have some real hope that herd immunity may be achieved at a much lower threshold than previously thought? Is anyone other than Leonard willing to look at this positively and have hope? Or do we have to be such strict skeptics that all hope must be eliminated?
Please choose one of following:
A) I DO think it is POSSIBLE that the HIT is significantly lower than previously thought and I DO have HOPE it is.
B) I think it is VERY UNLIKELY that the HIT is significantly lower than previously thought but I DO HOPE I am wrong.
C) I think it is VERY UNLIKELY that the HIT is significantly lower than previously thought and I HOPE I am right, because I want to be vindicated at all costs.
Sure, maybe, possibly. But when I think of NY and Italy, I think of areas that got decimated by the disease. It scared the shit out of everyone, so much that their adherence to and compliance with regulations is unparalleled. Maybe they reached heard immunity at previously unheard of levels or maybe they are simply following the guidelines provided to them?
So A, B, or C?
And their adherence and compliance is unparalleled, and yet, at least so far (things may change), we are not seeing the disease decimate other regions at near the same level where adherence and compliance is more lax.
Isn't there some old saying about the obvious answer is usually the best? Herd immunity has always been thought to be around 60%. Is it possible that it actually happens around 20%? Sure, maybe, possibly. But what's more likely, that or the one where if you don't go near sick people you don't get sick?
I think people were saying the same thing about Florida and Texas a few months ago.
So A, B, or C?
Florida and Texas are no where near the level of what happened in NYC. It is not even close. Will it be, maybe, but so far, not even close.
The Diamond Princess is actually a very interesting case.
There is a lot of specualtion regarding the lack of more deaths and what it might mean as a model.
Have to search for it as I don't keep the references but do so, the discussion on some is very interesting.;
There is nothing wrong with being hopeful and excited about things not being as bad as we thought they were. That's not the issue. The issue is people wanting to jump the gun and roll back precautions because one study somewhere showed that hopefulness.
So A, B, or C?
Yet we were very quick to jump the gun and assume that as many as 60-80% of population would get it and that the mortality rate was 3.4%+. And we were willing to base major policy decisions off of those early reactions. Are those initial reactions still the basis being used for policy decisions? Are we unwilling to course correct if some of our intiial reactions in certain regions jumped the gun?
And let's remember that those early reactions all over the world have put millions and millions out of work, have destroyed businesses, and kept our children out of schools. We have not begun to pay the real price yet; once the stimulus dries up, we will see businesses close by the thousands, landlords have not been paying mortgages without rent, and banks will become insolvent. There is a big economic threat looming that may prove more dangerous to the general population than Covid.
Yes, people jumped the gun to take preventative action against a scenario that kills millions of people. Yes, people are hesitant to jump the gun and remove restrictions which, if wrong, could result in the death of millions of people.
edit: Your edit brings up great points. Weighing life with quality of life. It's hard choices. I don't want to be the one responsible for making them outside of my family. Those are the things worth discussing. Forgoing masks and social distancing because maybe heard immunity starts at 1/3 of what has historically been the belief without definitive science to support? Nah, not my cup of tea.
What I am hearing from you is that it is okay to jump the gun one direction, but not to jump the gun the other direction.
What about a balanced approach that attempted to prevent Covid deaths while still protecting the livelihoods of tens of millions of Americans and the education of our children?
I think the difference is that "quality of life" and "quantity of life" aren't things that need to be in perfect balance. "Preserving life" and "preserving livelihood" aren't two sides of the same coin to me, even though that's how it's practically playing out in policy and arguments about policy.
Good luck getting everyone (or even anyone, for that matter) to agree on how many (otherwise preventable) deaths are acceptable in the interest of preserving general comfort.
It isn't easy. And that is why everyone has taken the easier stance "quantity" because it sounds more compassionate. "preserving general comfort" is not a fair description. I'm talking about people dying because they delayed necessary health care and surgeries out of fear of going to hospital; I'm talking about people losing the business that they spent their life and savings building; I'm talking about children who absolutely need school because it is the one place where they receive the love they deserve. And you cannot prove how many deaths are being prevented by these policies, but I can tell you how many kids are not going to school and how many jobs are being lost every day, and how much rent is not being paid, and how much money hospitals and universities are losing.
As far as not being able to tell you how many deaths are being prevented... i'd rather not screw around and find out, y'know'm sayin? In this country, we're probably already at a point where the vast majority of new deaths are preventable ones, let alone any future deaths.
"preserving general comfort" is the most reductionist way of saying it. but i don't think "life" and "livelihood" are the same and don't think they should ever be conflated as such. Your first "i'm talking about" is one of life. The others are of livelihoods.
I see your edit. thanks.
I am not suggesting foregoing masks and social distancing based on a potential lower herd immunity threshold. I do advocate for public schools to be open 5 days a week though.
And I do wish the media would highlight news, data, and trends in a balanced way. It is all doomsday reporting outside of potential vaccine developments.
You're choices are self-fulfilling of your own agenda. Two are "wins" for you, and one makes the person an asshole. I'm none of those three. I guess I'm D.
D) I think there needs to be more research into HIT before we think of doing sweeping rollbacks due to it and would like for them to not be wrong.
Fair, I almost put D) other, but I still do not see why you are so resistant to just answering "A" with the same disclaimer you just posted. I guess you don't want to give me the "win", although I was simpyl trying to make the point, that people are for some reason very resistant to any positive news, data, trends.
The inherent problem for me with this argument is that it assumes that if we had done nothing to prevent the pandemic, businesses and the general economy would have gone on undisturbed. I happen to believe that millions of people getting sick, going to hospitals, etc., may have caused some business and economic disruptions in their own way.
It's not just a binary situation, as evidenced by the large number of economists and business leaders saying quite strongly that the economy will come back only if we get the pandemic under control.
That is an absolutely fair argument. There would have been considerable economic disruption that would have been unavoidable. But we jumped the gun in many regions and it went too far. And what is "under control"? Has that been defined by anybody?
I've let myself get into a conversation that is largely pointless. My original point was why the response to my original post was so skeptical, and why people are so resistant to hopeful news, data, and trends. I'll leave that as my final point as well.
I'd say eliminating the wide spread community transmission of the virus, like several first world countries have achieved, is containing. Setting up to prevent a second wave with proper policies (widespread mask wearing, social distancing as practical, and robust contact tracing across the country) are key to safely returning to work. Other countries have managed this, are reopening their economies, and doing much better than they were at the beginning of the pandemic.
I havent seen anybody say that.
I'm not informed enough to have a really opinion on how good this paper is, but obviously I hope the paper is correct. And for what it's worth, I've stated multiple times in the last 2-3 threads that I support reopening society, but with a pretty strict indoor social distance policy as well as a mask mandate.
We can sort of test this hypothesis - to date there's been 3.9M confirmed infections in the US. If we assume the CDC's factor of 10 to be correct, that puts us at roughly 31M cases. If we double the amount of cases, we should (in theory) start to see a decrease in the spread of cases (IF this projection is correct). That's still a pretty scary thought.
I am A) and am unqualified to carry any weight with my opinion. So, I wish we would study more instead of turning our noses up at unpopular opinions. I also wish people didnt assume I am part of the problem for wanting to view both sides of the coin. I can promise I have complied with the Governor's wishes. I also think we need to open up schools for at least elementary age groups. I have zero faith that distance learning will be effective when many of schools have a majority of the students that do not have the technology or resources required to do so.
And how do you protect the adults that those children interact with? I've still not seen that answered in any of the arguments I've seen for opening up schools.
So, I haven't been in grade school for over a decade, but I don't remember getting that physically close to my teachers throughout the school day. Most of the time they were standing in the front of the room lecturing.
My sister is a special education elementary school teacher and it is a hands on job. Believe me, she recognizes the difficulties in virtual teaching more than most. But she also realizes that elementary school students interact with each other, the objects in the rooms, and the teachers frequently. Which means it could potentially be very easy to transmit a contagious disease, just like how colds, etc., tend to run rampant through the schools at various times.
As for asking elementary school kids to wear masks (or even angsty teens for that matter), that's never going to happen. I can't even begin to imagine the logistics for acquiring disinfecting materials for all these schools to be cleaning their classrooms so regularly. When is the last time you've seen cleaning supplies (bleach, chlorox wipes, etc.) in your local grocery store? I haven't seen any since March.
Cleaning and sanitization supplies are available commercially packaged. Completely different supply chain.
I have followed up with the school my daughters attend to offer my contacts if necessary. No need.
I hope for everyone's sake that every school system is as successful in acquiring the necessary supplies and PPE.
Based on what the data shows so far regarding Covid, RSV is more deadly to infants and toddlers than Covid. Both my kids have had RSV a couple times each. We have numerous friends whose children have had lengthy hospital stays due to RSV. And yet, no one calls for day cares and preschools to be closed in the winter. Only 1 person under the age of 17 has died in NC from Covid. I do not knwo the actual age or circumstances of the death.
Schools and day cares will open back up around mid november
Everything you said is probably true, but that doesn't mean it is safe to open schools. It is understandable if you want to talk about pros/cons (economics, emotional development, etc), but there's no question that opening schools carries a significant health risk.
-There are long-term ailments that come with the disease. Those are much harder to track.
-The kids will transmit it to each other.
-The kids will transmit it to adult family members who are susceptible.
-The kids will transmit it to the teachers, aids, substitutes, janitors, nurses, admin, bus drivers, etc. who are susceptible. It's not only about passing someone with it, it's about viral load too. It's one thing to pass someone in the grocery store, it's another to be stuck in a room, in close proximity, with minimal air flow, locked windows, and minimal PPE breathing the virus in all day.
-Not to mention, there is 0% chance the schools and students can stick to the guidelines that admin is putting out.
even if juvenile transmission is significantly lower like was discussed in Threads XII and XIII, it seems like it would be more a matter of "when" and not "if" there's an outbreak in any given school, and then those families are immediately at risk.
There was also a recent study from the CDC of the spread in South Korea (that I can't find right now) that said kids 10-19 spread it just as much as adults. This thing is going to rip through middle and high schools.
You do realize my complaint is about kids transmitting it to adults, right? I understand the fatality rate for kids is lower, thank goodness. My concern for keeping schools virtual isn't about the kids.
Yes, I understand. Anyone that doesn't want the schools to open is not taking that stance to protect the kids, but rather to protect themselves and the teachers. My point is, let's open the schools for the kids. Let's do this for the kids. If you don't want to send your kid, then don't, and if a teacher doesn't want to teach, then they can lead the virtual learning efforts.
Teachers only have that option if their employers allow/support it.
In order to open the school for the kids, you need adults there still... Another problem is going to be angry parents when their neighbor's little Timmy has a teacher in the room and their little Jimmy is at home or being taught in school by a screen. I'm not in favor of putting more kids and adults at risk until we know more or get this under control just because some parents are tired of having their kids around all the time.
Assuming that is the reason people would advocate opening schools is misguided and insulting to those of us concerned with the children themselves.
My understanding is that children are significantly less likely to spread covid (about 1/3 as likely) as adults, and that the greater risk for teachers is other teachers (who should be able to comply with rules).
There's also the factor of how at risk are teachers - to be honest, I don't recall how many of my teachers were. I see the risk for the elderly or sick, but the younger ones should be fine.
I live in the middle of Atlanta. The ace hardware down the street from me has had them in stock since May. Trader Joes has it. Costco has been hit or miss. A lot of breweries and a distillery or two are making hand sanitizer to supplement lost sales. That said, I think opening schools should be one of the country's priorities; I think the education and developmental risks outweigh the risk to students or (healthy) teachers, and thus protective gear should be funneled to public schools. That said, I understand it's a very complex issue.
Redacted...falsely attributed stats.
I have not read this anywhere - care to share your source?
So, I must apologize. It seems that the quote was attributed to her falsely.
It was a quote where a percentage of the kids in school would die.
Updated above.....to remove.
Rural areas are not as well stocked as your urban Ace Hardware. My local grocery store (Food Lion, King George) hasn't had any cleaning supplies beyond 30min of stocking since the beginning of this. I'm just lucky my garage is a dump and that I found a refill/spray bottle combo of Fantastik a month ago that I'd forgotten buying. Cleaning wipes, though? GTFOOH.
Teaching/learning from home you're likely to be around family you can account for. At a school, who knows. Even if kids are 1/3rd as likely to spread it: 1/3rd of hundreds is still hundreds that you didn't need to expose yourself to. So you're still putting teachers at risk, even the younger ones, to possible life altering consequences.
The only real argument I can get behind with opening schools is that some families don't have adequate resources to make it feasible. However, it would probably be cheaper to give them tablets and pay for internet for 6 months than the costs of increased hospitalizations that we pay for anyway.
My argument is that the potential upside for having kids in school outweighs the downside. It has the following assumptions:
I would change my opinion if I learned that:
Honestly, I think a hybrid approach would be best, where older kids spend more time at home, and younger kids spend more time at school. Similarly, at risk teachers can teach from home, and healthy teachers can teach in person. You can also spread in person teaching across different school buildings in the neighborhood to reduce density. You may need to shift teachers to different grades/levels, but for (hopefully) a single year, I think that's a small sacrifice.
And about a decade further from then was the last time you were in elementary school. Teachers have to closely interact with the students. They have to stand next to them and point to the paper directly in front of the student when teaching them how to read, write, and math.
Illness rips through schools. It rips through daycare. It goes through kids and teachers alike. It always has. Pediatricians notify new parents of this: "and is your kid in daycare? Yes? okay, well just know that his first full winter in daycare after 6 months old will be his sickest. It should improve each year as he checks off the common colds.....or.....No? Well, you'll mostly be fine. Just note that the first winter he starts kindergarten will be his sickest. It should improve each year as he checks off the common colds."
It's not a matter of if your kid will be sick. "Do you want them sick all the time at 2 years old or at 5 years old?
How have we protected any other essential workers since this started (edit: see comment above mine)? The teachers I have spoken with would prefer face to face. I am sure that isn't universal.
Many public schools remaining closed, remote learning, or A/B days.
Many private schools will attempt in-person instruction. The states need to be ready to collect data from private schools in their state, and there will be much to learn from that data.
Thanks. I agree and am in the same boat as you.
Article on T-Cells Providing Immunity
So that would line up with roughly 50% of population having innate immunity to Covid and based on original paper I linked, a much lower HIT than originally thought.
This is fantastic news and should absolutely be covered in a big way by the national news outlets.
The Cell manuscript showed there is overlap, but not overlap of the dominant immune responses. Essentially, it is like putting together a puzzle and you have some of the pieces, but not the most important pieces. It may or may not be helpful. But yes, overall it is encouraging, yet we should remain reserved on how encouraging it is.
Also, fyi, T-cell immunity would be adaptive immunity, not innate. Not that I would expect people to know the difference, but they are different.
I questioned the use of "innate" as I typed it. The whole, T-cells present in blood samples from years ago that can fight Covid infection made me lean to "innate", but I wasn't sure if it would qualify. I can see the difference. Thanks.
I have no problem "remaining reserved"; I just want to see positive news get the coverage it deserves, because the negative news sure does. There is little reservation from the press on that side.
yea no worries. There are good reasons scientists are reserved and like to stay out of the news cycle. But, I can't speak for what the news likes to promote.
My dad's friend's wife's friend in (inland) SC and my coworker's kid's classmate's mom in State College are the two closest connections to me that I've heard of that have gotten 'rona'ed, and both happened in the last week. FWIW
Florida is about to not allow Fall Football for High Schoolers. Meeting and vote happening soon online.
The football players should just play men's volleyball.
Volleyball is dope, just wanted to add that in.
In a not expected development the board actually didn't vote on anything: not cancelling, not postponing, not even guidelines. The board voted to meet again in 2 weeks. Member coaches and AD's not happy.
I wouldn't be happy either. This is the story all over the country. Local governments are dragging their feet on making these decisions. It's July 21st. This is go-time. Coaches and teachers NEED to know what is going to happen.
Granted it's a pre-print study, but this could be a game changer
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.17.20155846v1
Also, waffles, crumpets, and crepes are a direct cause of COVID related death. Look at Belguim, UK and France!
Obligatory...
So, that's why I have not gotten it.
I am a serious sauerkraut fan. Boss got it at the lunchroom at work. I've been digging it daily.
I had to explain this reference to someone else today and thought the nostalgia might be appreciated here.
(forgive me if this has already shown up in the annals of covid threads)
If we could all just get motorcycles that turn into helicopters we can beat this thing!
Curious to hear people's thoughts on (cell phone) contract tracing? I'm scared shitless about it for privacy reasons (I work in the privacy-tech space, so it hits really close home), and personal don't believe the upside outweighs the benefits.
If anyone thinks we weren't being tracked before, they're foolish. But, this is just giving permission to do so. At this point, the entities don't even have to ask for forgiveness when caught. The precedent is set.
We use them to track traffic patterns all the time
there is a difference between extracted meta data and personal data. For instance, traffic data can be obtained using extracted meta data and all personal details removed and thus maintaining privacy.
Contract tracing via cell phones would obviously be personal data and thus of concern for privacy reasons. But it does work in China....
Yep- a company can be fined a million dollars for sending an email out with an employees name, birth date and a medical record... but sure, let's trace people via cell phone location
It's a fucking joke. I am more likely to actually die of a lightning strike than Covid. Government tracing my movements via my cell phone? Fuck off- all of it.
You remember the "How" discussion last week?
Well, 138,000 is bigger than 43.
Now do it for relatively healthy people under 65. That's my point. And in any event it does not warrant illegal surveillance of Americans protected by the constitution.
It works, see places like Taiwan that have implemented it. But it gives me the heebie jeebies, and I think is a bit of a bridge too far privacy-wise.
If it was implemented, how would it work, though? I keep my location service off unless requested for specific apps. Does that mean contact tracing would not work for me unless I'm actively using Maps or something like that?
It would work in America to trace rapists and drug dealers pending trial too. But, no judge will sign that blanket warrant in a million years. Government tracing of people does tend to work in countries that don't have freedom, yes.
Ok.
1. Yes, judges generally do not file warrants that violate the 4th Am.
2. Every country has different balances of freedoms and protections. Just because your viewpoint doesn't jive with various Asian countries doesnt mean that they "don't have freedom."
North Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China are not free. Despite any propaganda. Japan and South Korea? sure- but still not as free as our constitution provides.
we're #1!
You would opt into a contact tracing app.
Optional is a whole different discussion. And yes there are some American's that will inexplicably give up their basic freedoms very easily.
we'd do well not to conflate "privacy and rights" with "freedom of choice", and probably it's a good idea to avoid going further down that rabbit hole.
You're free to turn the damned thing off and put it on the shelf. Believe me, life goes on.
He's also perfectly free to not install an app that he does not want to.
I personally turn off as much tracking as possible and would never bring that pocket supercomputer to anything having to do with politics.
I agree with this take. While I do keep my phone GPS turned on, I disable options in settings wherever possible and Android has this feature where you can limit app access to GPS to only when the app is open (i.e. shouldn't be able to access in the background).
FWIW, the only way to truly 'turn off' location services is to turn off your cell phone data/service. Even if you turn off your location services, your location can still be determined.
Does it work - Yes
Is it too late to do in the states - Probably, it would be so widespread and the contact tracing would less like a wheel with spokes and more like just utter chaos
Would it work here - Seeing how people have responded to mask mandates, I'm gonna go with no
I don't have much time to go into detail but, this is an excellent discussion of the proper use of inexpensive but less accurate testing for COVID that can be done from home.
As far as testing is concerned, this is what I have been waiting for. The other more accurate tests are too expensive and take too long to get results back in order to prevent spread effectively. Results in days when hour count.
MEDCRAM Update 98: At Home COVID-19 Testing
Hopefully the states' governors are aware of this. If it picks up the majority of positive cases, and people can be trusted to test themselves and react accordingly (which, I have to say, seems like a pretty tall order), it could be a game changer
I do not have to wait for an elected official to tell me the next action to take. I will find out about these tests and formulate my own plan, then, if they pull their feet out of the mud, I will incorporate their plan into mine.
Right, but this is only helpful (nationally) if it is used on a wide scale. You doing you is good and all, but it's going to take action from the governors to implement anything statewide.
I am usually ahead of the state.
If I can get my family tested on a regular basis and if we get a positive then test again and get positive, I can immediately let my physician know to get a more accurate test and let the school know before the state even becomes aware of the problem.
My physician can do the necessary legal reporting.
This individual initiative goes very far into helping things get safer statewide.
That's much better than relying on a homemade mask.
I do have the advantage of having access to trained lab people and medical equipment at the medical office type business.
Essentially they're promoting a style of test similar to a pregnancy test, which does makes sense. Spit on a stick, see if it has a two bands or just one. It would make sense for many situations in which you aren't sure if you were exposed or if you start coming down with the sniffles but don't know of any contact with someone with COVID.
One caveat though. They say it's only $1-2 dollars, but most pregnancy tests cost around $10-15. Including manufacturing ramp up, it would probably be slightly more expensive. But definitely cheaper than the current standard RT-PCR test.
Yeah, cheap enough to give my kids 2-3 times each a week.
Still thinking this through but, Sunday evening before the school week starts and then mid week/Thursday. Add in for anything strange and if symptomatic.
Should be able to catch things early.
I haven't read the link. What is the thought on false positives with this? If likelihood of false positives, does this lead to schools quarantining class rooms based on these test results, or would they wait for more accurate test results?
I certainly understand the logic, and more frequent at-home tests could give a lot of people peace of mind.
I would treat a positive test the same as a positive test on a pregnancy test. Get it confirmed via a clinical test. Perhaps, in the meantime, you do quarantine the individual for remote learning and at the same time cheaply test contacts. But yea, I would hope there would be common sense strategy on how to implement.
Apparently they sometimes give false positives but nearly never give false negatives so, test again at home. If still positive then report to your physician the situation and get an accurate test performed.
I'm pretty sure this is a feature which is verified when approving tests that look for any medical condition. The goal of general or preliminary medical tests is to catch all of the positive cases in the quickest manner possible, even if it means there are a few false positives thrown in. Additional, more expensive testing is used to confirm the condition and weed out the false positives. What you absolutely don't want is someone with lung cancer testing negative and living their life with an ailment that should have been caught and treated as soon as possible.
MY county just announced remote learning for county public school system for at least first 9 weeks of the year.
My county has population of 170,000. Only 4 deaths under the age of 65, 0 under the age of 25, and 31 of 39 deaths occurred at a single nursing home, which has not reported a new death in over a month.
People are socializing, they're going to the pools, having BBQ's, kids are hanging out, etc. Sure there are precautions that everyone is taking, but we are not seeing a deadly outbreak or anything close to it. We are not seeing any major spike or exponential growth.
Why aren't kids going to school?
This is madness. And it is very sad.
i think it's as simple as being proactive as opposed to reactive. the line of thinking is that it's probably better to ease back into things than it is to try and normalize prematurely and than have to scramble to scrap that plan.
We've been easing back into things all summer long and we are not seeing exponential growth in my county. There have been some summer day camps, there are open day cares, restaurants are open at 50% capacity, people are socializing in small gatherings and I've definitely witnessed numerous situations of people not following the social distancing guidelines. All of that easing back in has not led to a major spike or exponential growth. The next obvious step is to open up our schools. The data and the situation in this county will not look any different in 9 weeks, so then what? Remote all year?
It is time for this county to open the schools and take that next step.
It is madness. It is not a matter of being proactive, it is a matter of being scared and political.
If a teacher doesn't want to teach and a student doesn't want to go to school, then let them be part of virtual learning. For those that are willing to go back, find a way to let them go back.
I feel like some counties are being guided more by other counties' decisions than the information in front of them.
This is a common logical fallacy. Often times, the risk of doing nothing is greater than the risk of trying something.
I don't think I'm following. Isn't that what being proactive means and isn't that the idea behind not starting school like we've always started school? I don't see how using information to make a decision to mitigate a problem before it's a problem is a logical fallacy.
Yea that was a pretty dumb comment by me. Sorry for adding noise. I usually take the time to articulate my thoughts here, not sure where that comment came from.
Anyways, what I was think (but failed to say) was that 'being proactive' is not synonymous with 'not going back to school.' Given the large upside of returning to school, and the low risk of children spreading it, I think it would be a better idea to do everything possible to get students back to some form of in person schooling (more reasonably a hybrid online/in person model), have a way to measure success/failure, and have a rollback plan in place.
I don't know if I would call it madness, its not super cut and dry and super complicated, some homes are multi-generational, kids living with their grandparents or grandparents living in their house putting them at risk, additionally, a lot of staff in school are in more at risk age groups, and the costs of deep cleaning the school may be more prohibitive to having kids in school
One thing that I'm not sure on but am curious if others have insight, could schools be exposed to lawsuits if they open and there are cases traced back to that? One way out of that would be to offer opt outs and online schooling but now that puts a ton of strain on teachers to both instruct in person and online.
Conversely, closing schools disproportionately affects kids, some are fine and have stability at home to continue to learn, others don't and some get their only real meal of the day at school. Keeping them closed could have a devastating impact.
All in all, I don't know if opening schools or online schooling is the right answer, there probably is no right answer, I just don't agree with the idea that it is some super easy decision.
Missing a year of good schooling would be a heck of a cost to the kids lives.
It is a tough balancing act.
it would. fortunately opening now or missing a full year is a false choice, which makes it a much easier act.
if people do the simple things (wear masks; practice social distancing) starting today, we can probably safely open schools (and safely do a lot of other things) in October.
if governors like ours had included mask orders in their reopening plans (May in our case), which is incredibly cheap and easy to implement, we'd be well down the road to recovery.
but when significant chunks of the population fail to exercise even the least bit of common sense in protecting others, we shouldn't be surprised if there are significant consequences.
Studies are showing elementary age kids are not getting it or transmitting it.
Middle more of a risk, HS higher.
I do not think that most elementary school kids will get anything out of distance learning, they don't have the discipline.
Ii heard this AM but have not researched it to verify, that 40% of kids HS and under that were supposed to distance learn the end of last school year, never logged in or attended class. I did not hear if there were 40% of students that failed to advance to the next class.
My daughter's school is opening in August and I'm fine with that.
I dropped them off at Cross Country practice this morning. They've been at it now for a couple weeks.
I have reviewed their guidelines and precautions, I'm good with that.
Im curious where those studies have gotten their data from. I feel like here in the US, elementary school aged kids have the least likelihood of catching it because they are the least likely to be exposed.
Agreed...finding out that young kids aren't catching it/transmitting it because they have not been exposed to it would be a hell of a lesson to find out the hard way
It's many studies both here in the U.S. and other countries. Huge one written in plain language and available online is NSW Austrailia.
Basically they say elementary schools are good to go, other,s not so much.
Data originates from NSW Austrailia, France, Israel, S, Korea, Canada, New Zealand, perhaps more that was off the top of my head.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems as though earlier in the thread you're asking for links to studies that go against your thinking .. but you reference several studies here with no links. Can we get some consistency?
Links to all of your referenced studies, please
Well yeah, I sometimes am at work or otherwise engaged instead of at lunch or at home with time to go back and find links to things I've looked up in the past.
I get ya but, its usually resource allocation challenges.
Just a couple as I don't have much time. There are a stack.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.25.20140178v2
http://ncirs.org.au/sites/default/files/2020-04/NCIRS%20NSW%20Schools%20COVID_Summary_FINAL%20public_26%20April%202020.pdf
https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/covid-19-primary-schools-no-significant-transmission-among-children-students-teachers
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30135-8/fulltext
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.17.20053157v1
https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/children-and-covid-19
There. that's a start. This are all studies. Some preprint, some peer reviewed. Always use your grains of salt.
I guarantee 40% of the kids were not held back. My wife opted to hold daily online meetings and her students were free to attend as they saw fit. Administration did not require teachers to hold daily meetings with their students and absolutely did not make teachers log attendance. My wife only had around 5 or 6 kids the first week, but as time went on that number grew. After 3 or so weeks she had 90%+ attendance pretty consistently every day.
We've long reached the point where these words by C.S. Lewis have never been more important than they are now.
CS Lewis
There are lots of people that think this is somehow unique circumstance.
So very true. What are we saving if we aren't living? My wife's grandparents have stated they don't know how many more days they have on this earth so they aren't wasting them hiding in fear. It made me think of things a little differently after hearing it.
The way it reads, he would recommend going about your daily life. However, that doesn't exactly apply to this situation. Going about one's daily life without taking precautions would never stop an atomic bomb, but precautions could have stopped this.
yup
this is a counterpoint, published about a week later
https://factsandtrends.net/2020/03/19/no-c-s-lewis-would-not-tell-you-to...
Personally my view that you should do everything in your power to avoid catching this virus so you can avoid spreading it. That doesn't mean living in fear, but it means adjusting your normal way of life.
On a different note, it seems like neither of these articles should have been posted to TKP. Not the one from thegospelcoalition.org nor the one that calls CS Lewis a "Christian apologist". Just my opinion.
The source/substance (TGC quoting CS Lewis and subsequent rebuttal) in a vacuum isn't out of bounds to me. But it's a good place to remind everyone not to take the discussion out of bounds
I agree madness might be an extreme word, but it's definitely prioritizing emotional thinking over logical thinking.
There really is no right answer, and no silver bullet solution. In my area of NY things are under control. Less then 400 confirmed cases in a county of just under a million. People wear masks for the most part and testing is pretty prevalent.
People are advocating for a full opening of schools because they dont know what parents will do that have jobs to do, and kids that aren't in school. The school districts are pushing part time in person instruction but getting lambasted by a very vocal minority that perceives school as day care for their kids. I get the challenge, but NY has handled things well considering we were on the leading edge, and nobody wants to go back to where we were.
A plan for part time in person school, that defines when kids will be in and when home is better than a full time plan that will fall apart. If it's full time, temps will have to be taken, and kids refused entry to the school. How will working parents deal with that? Or what if a bunch of teachers or staff get sick and have to quarantine? If there aren't enough people to teach, then school will close unexpectedly. Or if a teacher is diagnosed with covid, will the whole class suddenly have to quarantine? What will those parents do?
It's a matter of a planned slow reintroduction (as with everything else in NY) or a forced introduction that can easily fall back into chaos.
The planned slow introduction is less likely to cause unplanned disruption than a full opening that could go bad.
Yes, normally kids should be in school. But right now, anybody that thinks full time school can go off without issues and problems isnt being honest with themselves.
When we can't figure out how to keep restaurants and bars full of adults open, how can we keep schools full of children open?
Agreed not easy. You pointed out many variables or problems with opening schools. I personally believe distance learning is the best answer and I hope most school systems choose to implement full distance learning while focusing on providing additional resources to those families in need. When school shut down in March, our community still continued to provide kids meals for pickup to families that needed meals - so that part can be done. Also, re your question about hybrid plans where some students attend while others are online, the school systems would plan to dedicate certain teachers for only distance learning and other teachers for in school teaching (rather than requiring teachers to do both at same time). Anyway, I recognize there are some negatives with staying at home, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives - by far. Our country has handled this crisis so poorly and I think opening up schools/sports will only make it worse. I'd rather everyone miss 1 year of in-school learning (and sports too) to get virus under control, which will keep more people safe and reduce # of deaths.
People should realize that we "may" still be in the early stages of this pandemic - as nobody knows how long it will last. The 1918 pandemic lasted over 2 years and was horrific (~1/3 world's population got infected, it had multiple waves that hit the world over that time period, and millions of people died. We may not have seen the worst yet of this pandemic; nobody knows for sure - since we're living in it. So everyone should do everything they can to help reduce its spread.
The United States had over 1,000 deaths today
Just a reminder that deaths are not reported immediately. There is really no way to easily determine from the reporting when those 1000 deaths occurred.
THIS. I've been using the CDC's provisional death count to track week over week. But you have to understand that this information comes from death certifications which can take a day or two, or weeks to process. The numbers are usually 'finalized' (aka, stop changing by a non-negligible amount) around 4-6 weeks out
Packing kids into a concrete block for seven hours a day is a recipe for disaster as far as spread goes. Sometimes kids live with their grandparents or someone else at risk. Maybe they bring it home to a parent who goes to the store and infects someone at risk. There are just so many unknowns with sending hundreds of kids to the same building without social distancing. You mention that your county hasn't seen an exponential spike yet; you want it to stay that way.
In my opinion, this is one reason why there are regions In the country, or age groups, that are struggling with compliance. On one hand, I hear that if we do XYZ we can get back to normal. Then, in situations like this, I hear we should just be happy that we don't have a spike in the areas fortunate enough. See, there really is no reward for the sacrifice. We are all going to get to the same place at the same time, apparently when a vaccine comes out.
I am not excusing it or saying it is the right mindset to have, just an observation.
I think the reward for sacrifice is less deaths. It's not plain to see because you don't know whose life you've saved and there is no tangible reward for it, but that's how I view it.
We recently completed the school survey about what we were hoping for next school year.
#1 for us is full in-person if cases remain as now (we are in NJ and not a hot spot now) but should be adjusted based on if anything is different come September. (EDIT: 100% full in-person should still have the classes broadcast over the web so that those who do not wish to come into school can have the remote option. Sorry, forgot to add that.)
#2 for us is a mix of in-person and remote with something like 2 or 3 days in school and 2 or 3 days remote. Allows for intensive cleaning on off days.
#3 for us is 100% remote learning. Would be #1 if cases in September are rising or there is an outbreak at school.
I'll skip a bunch of options and get to something like ...
#467/last - mix of in-person and remote learning where it is a half day at school each day. Can't remember my wife's exact words but it was something like: For the love of God, do not have half days every day! They are a pain under the best of circumstances and with 2 working parents and no immediate family in the area it will be all but impossible to coordinate pick ups. Not to mention the disruption of leaving in the middle of the work day and getting everything set up at home for the part of the day that is remote ... she just went on and on. Of course, if she stays furloughed for the rest of 2020, maybe it would not be so much of an issue.
Feel your pain. Montgomery county VA is doing half days and to make it worse, HS and MS are doing alternating AM and PM sessions. So my HS freshman will be AM one day or week and PM the next day or week. It's a giant fustercluck and most parents I talk to are stressed about work, etc.
Split days sound awful. My school district (Greenville, SC) basically has 5 options:
1. Normal 5 day a week schedule.
2. Split the student body in half and go 2 days a week (M&W, or Tu&Th) with virtual learning on the days they are home.
3. Split the student body 4 ways and go 1 day a week with virtual learning on the days they are home.
4. 100% Virtual.
These 4 are based on whatever is happening with the virus and could change week to week.
The 5th option is a 100% virtual program that parents can opt into before school starts, but you are committed to it through the fall semester. This also helps bring the enrollment down at the brick and mortar schools.
The school system issuing Chromebooks to all students this year. Previously it was just 2nd grade and up. The state also has a program in place to give wireless hotspots to parents who have kids that qualify for free or reduced lunch. This sounds better than relying on boosting school wifi signals and using school bus hotspots like they were doing in the spring.
This may be a little off topic to this but has anyone else noticed the amount of commercials for online learning academies lately? I have seen a ton for this connections academy, seems like several times a day. I need to look into if there are any stocks you can buy for the alternate online schools. That industry is about to take off big time.
Just saw an interview done with Dr. Myron Rolle who is a neurosurgery resident in Massachusetts, advocating for player safety in the NFL with COVID. So cool. Does anyone else remember watching him with FSU when was a Rhodes Scholar? Seems like yesterday. Glad to see he's doing good work!
We should all do that thing where you don't get sick by not going around sick people. That usually seems to work.
It's a little more complicated than that. Asymptomatic cases, incubation period, etc.
Good point. We should also do that thing where you try to not breathe the same contaminated air as potential sick people.
Hence the masks...
This image puts known information together nicely, it doesn't provide anything new.
Nice chart, but I'm spotting some holes:
I don't think charts like these take into account differences in mask use. They have to assume the same level of usage across all activities in order to remain consistent. They can't make assumptions on which establishments have a mask requirement and which don't.
I think the reason barbershops and airplanes are that high on the list is because you're in close proximity to others for extended periods of time. The longer you're next to someone that's infected, the more virus particles you'll be exposed to and the higher the likelihood of being infected.
I think it's pretty well established that just because you feel safe doesn't mean it actually is. I'm not here to argue the merits of a barber shop though. There was two hair dressers that tested positive for COVID, they both wore masks, and all 100+ of their customers wore masks. None of the customers tested positive. With the correct precautions, there is a ton of stuff that people can do without getting infected. That doesn't mean that there isn't elevated risks, especially considering the number of people outright defying those precautions.
They left out a huge one.
Driving in your car with people that live in the same household.
I remember tracking studies of people driving and rating regions based on movement. As if me, driving to work is unsafe. To a place where I am in proximity to 2 other people every day.
As if the churches that meet and people remain in their cars, is a problem.
I am heartened to see some of these types of things such as drive in movies, make a comeback, for this situation.
I am going to beat it into the ground, give the people the info, they will innovate.
When schools shut down it was quickly apparent that distance learning would not be sustainable. We - those in the school system - saw how important a full and safe fall return would be just as most parents did.
Which is why it was/is particularly disappointing to see people flouting common sense mitigation measures like mask wearing and social distancing over the past few months. It seems many (not all) of the most aggressive "back to school five days no matter what" voices are the same ones who complained about "muh freedoms" and refused to adopt a collective mindset to help beat this thing in the (more than adequate) timeframe we had.
We do need to be back, but right now we can't. It isn't safe. Had many of our fellow citizens thought "we" and not "me," we could probably reopen with few issues. It didn't have to be this way. Most maddening is that it is the kids who will be most adversely impacted, due to the selfishness of (in my observation) a small group of people. So frankly, if you have kids, didn't take this seriously, didn't wear a mask or socially distance, and are now upset that you don't have the free childcare you expect, the reality is that this is on you. So you have to deal with it.
If wearing a mask and distancing could have brought down the Germans in WW2, is there any doubt that every American would have seen the big picture and done it for the common good? No, I'm sure they would have stormed the state capitol in protest and held huge parties at the lake... /s
Vent over. Carry on.
Since I have no kids, I can't speak to the issue with the same concerns of parents, but you brought up a good point. The back to school no matter what folks do seem to be of the same stripe as the anti-maskers, leading me to believe that once again, an aspect of this virus and our response has been politicized. Since I've been willingly paying taxes for 50 years or so to support the school systems I've been living around, though, I do have opinions about education. I guess in this debate, I come down more for the teachers and support staff of the schools and their concerns than I do for the parents who need their expected child care system I also willingly help support. Let's listen more to them than to angry parents is my position right now, and until it is safe for them, I say keep the schools shut and get creative about how to keep your kids engaged. As for the kids, I think they'll survive some time without school better than teachers and support staff and their families will survive being infected by those same kids. Just my opinion, though.
Also not a parent, but anecdotally, I'd disagree with this. Most people I know who want to 'reopen' see masks as a key enabler and a must have.
my small unscientific sampling (two outdoor gigs in July) shows quite a bit of overlap...I was the only mask wearer at both. there were however ample opportunities for distancing at both...some took the opportunity...some did not. and only one person went out of their way to give me shit about "giving up my freedom" (apparently freedom to wear a mask doesn't count)
Yes, this is the trope, anti-masker, anti-science, anti-vaxxer, dopey uneducated hillbilly, mean a$$hole, die for a haircut, school is daycare for my kids dam the teachers.
Front page of our local paper today has a picture of folks gathering to discuss changing the name of the local school. Four confederate flags, one sign saying forget the name change, reopen in Sept. Some assumptions may be overly broad, but not necessarily untrue. I'll admit to bias, hope to be proved wrong. I won't, however, hold my breath. And no, not a mask in the crowd.
whhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
I 100% agree and think the people who have been vocal about their disagreements with shutdown/distancing/masks will also disagree with the correlations you made.
Just like if you had a Venn diagram of anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers, there would be a pretty mean overlap. A lot of these stances are cut from the same cloth.
I think anti maskers are pro open school because many still think the whole thing is overblown. I do not think all pro open schoolers are anti maskers though.
I heard an interesting idea yesterday. Since technology is a concern for distance learning and teachers are a concern for risk of exposure, the thought was to put the kids in a classroom with the teacher on a zoom screen. I still don't think it is as effective as true in person learning for the younger age groups but it does solve some of the problems. There would still need to be adult supervision but could be volunteer or based on teachers not as much at risk. Just a thought that I found interesting.
Just to add that I don't think one necessarily implies the other, just noting the politicalizations I hear and read about every day and drawing loose inferences thereupon. I also know there are many arguments for getting the kids back in school asap for their sakes, so I know this issue isn't easy to get a good handle on.
You are definitely correct in that there is politicization of most aspects with COVID. Sad but true, and water is wet. Everything is politicized now. It's why we're on thread XIV.
The problem with the schools closed no matter what crowd, is that they are letting emotion get in the way of rational thought. Sure, it would be a tragedy if just one child dies from COVID during the school year. But if you take emotion out of it, you can grasp the fact that there is an inherent risk to living. Kids are safer from COVID than from drowning. Much, much safer, statistically speaking. Why aren't we screaming, "6000 children die in swimming accidents every year. We must ban swimming until there is no more death!!!" We don't do that because we can put reasonable safeguards in place ,and many people feel that swimming is a beneficial activity for children. It's the same with schools. Sure, there is a chance that some kids may get infected with COVID if schools open, but the benefits of in-person instruction are self-evident, so let's put reasonable safeguards in place and go to school.
We all have gone over this repeatedly. A risk to a single user is one thing. (Your swimming example). Risk to everyone within a distance or group is an entirely different thing. Period. Not comparable.
Alright dude I've sat on the sidelines long enough but being married to a teacher I have to step in here:
This goes beyond just "oh let everyone catch it" we still dont know what the lasting ramifications of this disease are. There could be issues with it making people sterile, there are theories that it increases chances of stroke, and on top of that: this just in it kills people; old people in particular.
Studies have shown that while children are less likely to catch it CAN STILL CATCH IT. And if you think for half a second kids will be able to distance themselves (even in high school) or wont be stupid then you're incredibly naive. It's a matter of time until children catch it, and then from there spread it to teachers and families and lo-behold we have another outbreak.
As for your swimming arguement, that is the most ham fisted arguement I think I've ever seen. I'm not ok with kids drowning, hell nobody is. That's why we put precautions in the way of letting it happen in the way of drowning and swim lessons. Furthermore a child drowning, while depressing as hell, doesnt effect everybody in the surrounding area and force some of them to drown too. And if your arguement is "well just put control factors in schools!", you couldnt be more blissfully unaware of the school system.
Teachers and schools are understaffed, underpaid, and mistreated regularly. Where do you think they're gonna find the money to test children and teachers regularly when we cant even setup classrooms properly? For instance my wife and I had to drop a couple hundred out of pocket last year to setup her classroom. That is the norm not some young couple spending a bunch on a class. Furthermore when do we test? When they get on the school bus? What about bus drivers?
Finally you're going to see a mass exodus of teachers if they force school back in as theres a large portion of teachers that are in the at risk age group. What do you say to them? Fuck em? Cant make an omelette without cracking some eggs?
In conclusion (TLDR): as a spouse of a teacher, I dont want it and she doesnt want it and I dont think families of most children want it. I would like children someday and if we cant because some asshole forced my wife to go get sick I will not be thrilled. It is not even close to comparable to drowning. Our schools cannot afford it and they're not daycare centers to take care of your children.
And to be honest we never really finished the "first" outbreak. Some states did okay but still opened back up before really flattening the curve. We in the USA are very much still in the initial wave.
But many teachers do not feel the way that you and your wife do. Some teachers are willing to go back into the schools right now for in-person instruction. And it is the same for parents and their children. So why not let teachers that are uncomfortable doing that lead the virtual learning efforts, while teachers that are willing go in and lead the in-person learning efforts.
Essentially run them as two different programs with two different staffs and two different sets of students. Parents can choose one or the other.
There would definitely be some logistical challenges, but doable.
As for teachers/schools being underpaid; yes that has always been a problem, and unfortunately probably always will be. The same can be said for police officers, nurses, and several other occupations that are worthy of more.
And I agree, we still are not certain of the long term ramifications. I still wonder if the virus may reactivate in people years down the road. But we won't have a lot of these answers for a really long time. Some people want to play it absolutely safe and take zero risk until we have the answers. But others have decided that they aren't going to wait years for those answers, they are going to take risks. I understand both perspectives and cannot fault either. I think what we have to realize collectively is that those two perspectives exist and we need to be tolerant of both.
I think the biggest issue with this is it is still assuming that the decisions only impact the teachers and students.
Let's say I am comfortable sending my kid in for in person learning. Low and behold a couple of weeks in an asymptomatic teacher ends up spreading it to all the kids in her class, without realizing it, some of the kids spread it to their parents (I realize they are not as likely to contract or spread it, but it still happens), so then I've got it from my kid, without knowing it, and I'm going about my business going to work, and the grocery store, and Lowe's, and now a couple of my co-workers have it, and they go home, and their family members catch it, and so on.
It's kinda the story of how we got to where we are now.
And that doesn't even touch on non-teacher school staff
There always has been, and always will be, spread. The task is to keep it to a controllable level.
The scenario you describe is real. But substitute "anyone -> any family member -> you" for "teacher -> kid -> you", and it's another real scenario. If you keep your children home from school, you're still a transmission risk to the other people at work, the grocery, or the hardware store. How is your scenario different than "lo and behold, in a couple weeks an asymptomatic employee ends up spreading it to all of her colleagues, so then I've got it without knowing it, etc etc"?
The only absolute protection is to cut off your family and yourself from all contact until the virus is extinct globally. That course of action is going to have it's own negative consequences. Maybe severe social and emotional trauma to the children, maybe financial ruin, maybe you run out of food and water and starve, maybe you turn into Jack Nicholson in the Shining. Depends on your circumstances, but in the end it's an untenable approach.
So if one can't achieve total protection, then it's a matter of balancing and managing risk. Teach good habits. Wash your hands. Maintain physical distance when possible. Wear a mask when possible. And accept that no matter what you do, and no matter what anyone/everyone else does, the casualty rate will never be zero. There is no version of this story where everyone is healthy, happy, and solvent when the closing credits roll.
That doesn't mean "go back to life as it was a year ago." It means don't say "shut down all schools until there's a perfect answer."
When rational people say "at some point you have to accept some risk," they don't mean "YOLO BITCHES!" They're acknowledging that we have been dealt a bad hand, and the least bad outcome may involve factors other than absolute minimum infection count.
I was unable to get this from my brain to keyboard. Thank you. I cannot agree with you more.
To be fair, there ARE people who are essentially saying "YOLO BITCHES!"
Those people are poisoning the conversation. (They're not the only ones.)
I know plenty of "YOLO BITCHES" people where I live. Luckily in controlled environments we are able to say play by the rules or GTFO.
Except when people don't play by the rules, and don't GTFO
https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/israeli-kindergarten-teacher-who-begged-...
If you don't think that's gonna happen here, you're kidding yourself. Parents gotta get that kid to school so they can go to work
Where did the teacher get it from?
If she got it from kid they teach, then its a valid point.
If they got it from somewhere else, it is not.
Right now, we have correlation, is it also causation?
Is this the only one?
Does it matter where she got it from? A teacher, that is positive in the classroom...around kids. Does it matter if it came from the restaurant down the street or a kid in her class. If/when kids/teachers get it in the US, the first one won't be caught in the school. But the second, third, fifth, etc most likely will be. It didn't start in Miami, but it's a hot spot now...but the first person didn't catch it there........doesn't make it less of a hot spot.
This is exactly how I am thinking. Going 100% forward an opening schools five days a week, will only crash down as soon as there are confirmed cases in a school. If anyone thinks that the people advocating for full time school because they have no other way to care for their kid aren't going to send their kid to school sick, they have blinders on. Its one of the reasons that schools are such a germ factory - people send their kids to school when they are sick because they have no other option.
A measured opening that proceeds in steps toward a full return to school is much more likely to be successful in the long run. The worst situation would be a return to school, and then having to step back once the return goes sideways.
Our schools closed in March because a local district had a confirmed case on staff - back when confirmed cases were very rare. I find it hard to believe that a school that gets a confirmed case won't be facing a tough decision around staying open or closing.
To me, taking a measured approach, as the Northeast did the last few moths, vs. a wide open approach, as the Southeast did in the last few months, would seem to be the better solution.
And thats fine and dandy that other teachers feel that way, school boards should not be dangling job security over teachers heads for their decisions. Teachers do not feel like they have a choice in this matter. Considering there are several vaccines showing promising signs of success I think we can afford to do some kind of remote learning for a semester. I have yet to hear an answer to any of the questions I've posed and it sounds like teachers are once again going to get thrown under the bus when things inevitably go horribly wrong and we have to shut down after having the schools open for 2 weeks because some kid who didnt know he even had COVID gives it to his whole team (gives it to teacher who then gives it to every student)
Look I get it, my wife would prefer to go to work this isnt fun for her, and I'd like to return to normalcy too, but unfortunately we cannot because of our current state and the unfortunate fact that theres a large part of our population that doesnt take this seriously at all
My wife would much prefer to be in the classroom. Supporting her students online is not a good way to do her job. But its not going to work in an environment where the impact of getting sick is so different than it has been in the past. Our district has tagged this as a "transition year" and is fully socializing the idea that things will start off very different than they end this year. I think that's a very reasonable way to look at the school year.
I get everything you are saying. But to give a flip side argument, my kids have had very little in terms of social engagement and I am seeing concerning personality changes. I get there may be long term risks with this but it honestly feels more to me like the list of potential side effects on the back of your daily prescription.
If we are not willing to take on some risk, then we might as well be prepared for another year of shut ins. That thought scares the hell out of me.
Here's the thing. You should be all over your school system demanding a comprehensive plan to allow in-person instruction. Some of the plans I've seen discussed fell woefully short of what I assumed would be done to ensure a safe environment for teachers and students (i.e. no additional cleaning personnel or even a guarantee to supply cleaning products, individual teachers expected to be responsible for cleaning their classrooms, and extremely limited supply of surgical masks provided to the teachers for the entire school year, no barriers/installations to reduce contact).
My oldest would be entering Kindergarten in the fall and I am nearly certain that virtual learning will not be effective at his age. From March-June, his preschool provided a daily, hour long class via Zoom and he required constant parental supervision and guidance to pay attention and accomplish tasks- and this was with teachers and classmates he was already familiar with. I cannot see any scenario where he will remain engaged with a teacher and classmates he has never met, so I absolutely hate the idea that he will not be able to go to school and have in-person instruction. That said, I do not get the sense that school systems are proposing or preparing to implement processes and safety measures to sufficiently mitigate risks and allow for in-person instruction.
There is nothing stopping you from having play dates with your kids and their friends if both parties are willing and capable and healthy.
And I cant say I've ever considered doing anything by choice thatd make me sterile. I think that's a bit more extreme than a "prescription side effect"
Give the people a chance to innovate and they will do so.
Seems you're painting a pretty broad stroke. Here are 5 doctors on NBC supporting reopening schools, albeit with some restrictions. I doubt they are anti-maskers.
In general, what makes teachers different than essential workers like nurses, police, grocery store workers, and others who are out there taking risks? (Thank you to all essential workers!) With appropriate precautions, why shouldn't teachers who aren't at risk be at least given the option to teach in person?
While they may not be anti-maskers, they can only answer the question that is posed to them. If the question was "should schools open if they can do it safely?" then the answer was yes. If the question was "should children be in school versus missing out with regard to the children's best interests for growth and development?" then the answer would be yes. But if the question was simply "should children be in school no matter what, you know, because?" Well, that I would imagine would illicit a different response. We are simply seeing/hearing the answer that 5 doctors had...not the question. Things can be crafted, and thus directed, to get the result you would like to portray.
And teachers are different. Nurses, police, grocery store workers do not interact with the same customers/patients for 7 hours straight daily. There is a revolving door of sorts with the people they interact with. Completely different scenario.
Nobody's asking that question. Obviously risk/benefit assessment is and should be involved.
On another note... Are you trying to say that a nurse is safer from COVID than a teacher?
How do you know what question was asked? I realize this wasn't ABC (see last thread for breakdown) but it was the mainstream media reporting it...just asking. You can craft a question to get a certain answer. Yes, risk assessment should be involved, but do you trust that is being done within the question? That's not always the case.
Again with the binary. Different is different. Never said it was safer. Said it was different. There are way too many time people just jump to the alternate binary choice when reading something. Come on.
Wow. We need to start seeing other people. It's not you it's me.
I have a teacher in my house, and 2 grocery store workers. The difference between their work environments is night and day. My wife teaches special ed students in an alternative high school setting. She is in physical contact with these students often - and feels that many students will outright refuse to wear masks.
Two of my children work in a grocery store. They have a plexiglas barrier between them and their customers, and in NY almost all of their customers wear masks. They also wear masks at work. They have hand sanitizer available for use any time at their registers, and social distancing is maintained between them and their customers. Their potential level of exposure is significantly lower than any teacher that is in close proximity to children.
Food is a necessity to continue life, as is health care. Without both, people will die. Education is important, but kids wont die if they have to spend time learning at home.
Much respect, my mom was a special ed teacher for 20 plus years, so I understand the challenges associated with it. I suspect most classes don't require as much close contact as a special ed room, but the paradox is that these are the children who need to be in school the most.
If schools were to open, I would expect to see hand sanitizer in every class, temperature checks, minimal shuffling between classrooms, and a mask requirement when possible for middle and high school.
Even with plexiglass, I don't necessarily agree that 100 short duration exposures per day, potentially exchanging money, groceries, cards, to different people is safer than longer duration exposure to the same 20 people assuming the aforementioned precautions are taken
All of those precautions make sense for a normal population. Talking about this the other day, my wife told me that she is often directed by administration to contact parents to come pick their kids up at school when they are not cooperating with teachers. Many of these kids come from homes without good support, and parents will just refuse to come to school to pick the kid up. So what happens when a kid refuses to wear a mask, or fails a temp check and parents don't show up?
While you may not think plexiglas or short, masked exposures are safer than what a teacher might face, not a single employee of the store (over 400 employees) has been diagnosed with Covid-19. I'm pretty sure that if schools went back into session 100%, not a single school in our area could accomplish that.
You make an excellent point about the Special Ed classes and the close contact. I doubt there is a way to exclude those classes. I dont have a great solution in that situation. Does your wife have any recommendations?
No - because there are none. Can't have in class instruction and exclude special ed - that's not legal. Can't have special ed only in class, the parents of kids not included that view school as their daycare would riot.
There are no solutions that work for everyone. Districts cannot please all parents/members of the community, so they are going to need to make decisions that give the most benefit/safety to the most people. That's going to make a sizable group of people unhappy.
No winners - and lots of loser in what school systems are facing.
That's a great success story showing that with appropriate precautions, this thing can be managed.
I think we may have a disagreement about what the ultimate goal is though. If the goal is to ensure no one gets sick at school, the only way to do that is to keep schools closed. However, I think the goal should be to get kids back in school while taking appropriate precautions to protect the vulnerable population, minimize exposure, and contain outbreaks to mitigate risk as much as possible.
As for mask enforcement, I'm all for harsh punishment such as suspension if they repeatedly ignore the mask requirement. However, if there's 1 or 2 kids per class without a mask, numbers wise, I can't imagine it would be a problem. If you have half the class refusing to wear a mask, then it's an issue and I don't have an answer for you on that one
Would you teach a class and be in close contact with 1 or 2 kids that could be carrying the virus and refuse to wear a mask? Why should any teacher be forced to put their health on the line if they don't have to? I would think that the best solution is one that limits the spread of the virus - not one that might facilitate it.
Your wife's class is a special circumstance, but for a typical class I think you could avoid close contact with 1 or 2 kids.
Also, I never would force them to teach if they didn't feel comfortable. I specifically mentioned giving the teachers who aren't in a high risk group the option of teaching in person. I think there's a large portion of teachers who understand the risks, but also the importance of in person school. I beleive in the latest survey I saw that 50% of Fairfax County teachers chose the in person option (although now it doesn't matter since the superintendent proclaimed an all virtual fall). This could even be incentivized with hazard pay if needed
That begs the question...if 51% want A, how do you treat the 49% that want B. Tell them to how-ever-you-want-to-phrase-it-to-say-deal-with-it? This is more than a decision on paint color. Or some other thing where things will proceed. There is a legit and real fear for health. At near a 50/50 split, there is no easy decision.
As for the 1 to 2 kids...that's day one. Then on day 3 it's 4-6. on day 10 it's 90% of the class. Johnny is not going to wear a mask in class if Timmy isn't. That's just kids being kids.
I can't speak to other systems, but Fairfax County was originally offering two options, 1 where kids would be in school 2 days a week and 1 that was fully online. Only the teachers who were willing to teach in person would be in school.
That's a very unique system and option. Most other places have been all-teachers on the same schedule so to speak. (I follow it because my gf is an principal, and working for an online education company now. So she's in tune with what's going on all over the country. Fairfax flexes sometimes, and others simply cannot do what they propose. Good for the students, for sure.)
I think several people assumed certain reasonable expectations and safety precautions will be in place when it simply does not appear to be true. Some school opening proposals that I saw stated that there would not be additional cleaning staff and cleaning supplies could not be guaranteed. This includes hand sanitizer dispensers not being available, much less in every classroom.
The British told the US that turning off lights in seaboard towns would reduce loss of civilian ships to U-boat attacks, but cities refused because it would dampen tourism and the economy. U-boats ran roughshod along the eastern seaboard, in part, due to ships being back lit by boardwalk lighting. The German navy called it"The Second Happy Time" also known among German submarine commanders as the "American Shooting Season"
TIL.
Not a great look for Americans. I guess things haven't changed.
Maybe not every American...
#NeverForget
Yes, the child care aspect of public schools is a big part of this. But coming form someone with two kids and both my wife and I work, we would find a way to figure out the child care and still work. Our concern is the socialization and educational opportunities for our children. So it is unfair to claim that the pro-open school crowd are selfish people wanting the schools to babysit.
Being part of a family with two children and two working parents I understand and sympathize. I think he's just drawing attention to the possible overlap between anti-maskers and people pushing to re-open schools and the obvious cognitive dissonance involved in holding those two opinions.
Didn't mean to say that all pro-reopeners are the selfish ones. Only that there are people out there who figured they'd do what they wanted over the last few months and are now facing a tricky situation with a possible school closure. And to those people in particular, it's a shame but they may end up paying a price of discomfort and inconvenience for their choices.
Perhaps I was too snarky in referencing childcare, but we deal with a lot of perpetually angry parents who feel that all the world's problems are the school's fault, so it does frequently feel as though we are taken for granted by certain members of the community. They are the ones who don't return phone calls home, don't know their kid's teachers by name, curse out administrators who write their kid up, etc. They seem to view the school only as a place to stash their kid during the day. But that's a separate gripe and I could have left it out because it certainly doesn't pertain to all.
There are certainly tons of people in favor of reopening who did everything we were asked to do. They did their part, and because of the other group, they may pay a price they don't in any way deserve. I truly feel for the people in that group. It isn't fair to them.
I went to the Lombardy Kroger in Richmond the other day (my usual spot) and the person they had at the door giving customers a mask if they arrived not wearing one (hell yeah) was doing so while his mask was tucked under his chin. Not sure what my point is other than dammit I just don't get it.
Do they still post armed police at the door at that Kroger?
They have armed security still yeah. It's not cops but some private company I believe.
One thing that really irks me is all the people I see with masks that have their nose uncovered.
One year in Little League, we had a girl catcher. The umpire realized half way through the game that she wasn't wearing a cup. He kicked her off the field due to regulations. She borrowed someone else's cup and tied it to her shin guard.
Maybe the store clerk felt better because he had the mask "on", even if it wasn't doing anything? I don't get it either. They aren't chin guards.
More likely that the worker lowered the mask for a legitimate reason and forgot to pull it up. But who knows.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-07-22-20-intl/index.html
UK Paper- No known case of teacher catching COVID from student
How long were schools open when community transmission was occurring? Unfortunately i didn't subscribe so I can't read the article.
10-19 year olds spread the disease just like adults, so maybe open up for K-4?
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article
I think this would be the best option. Kids that young really struggle with virtual learning (attention span, lack of computer skills, limited reading/writing skills). Combined with the fact that they seem to be poor spreaders, it makes sense to get them at least some in-person schooling.
I'm sure they could break down the data into individual year classes if need be, see where the statistical breaks occur, and then inform a policy decision. probably easier to have kids wear masks the older they get as well.
Interesting stuff
But a necessary reminder:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/parenting/coronavirus-children-spread...
K-5 (Elementary) should be back for full go. They aren't going to distance and masks aren't going to be effective. (Unless you're in Maryland where 2 yr olds are supposed wear masks.)
Middle/High is where some distancing protocols can be put into place in my opinion. Reasonable protocols.
So...no mitigation so we should just pretend the virus doesn't exist?
I'd say your mitigation would be to isolate the classes from each other. No lunchroom, gym, etc. Then, it's contained to each class if cases start.
And does each class have their own busses? Are they let out of school at different times? Do they go to the bathroom at different times?
This is what my kid's school is doing. Car riding highly encouraged. Bus has masks and social distancing. Every grade uses a different entrance. The the classrooms for the little kids have their own bathrooms.
Sadly I'm just not confident that every school across the country can do this sort of thing.
Fair point.
Ah yes, have one teacher teaches every subject. How do kids get their food? Lockers? Are they expected to bring everything with them all the time? How do they get to school? How do they leave? What happens when they need to use the bathroom?
Students dont just magically teleport into the classroom and you cannot expect them to sit there all day and not do anything.
See comments above about some of your questions. And I'm only saying for the younger K-2 or so. No lockers there. And packing lunch is encouraged or food is delivered from the cafeteria. And I don't expect them to sit there all day. They could still go outside and stuff. Just not overlap with other classes.
Babysitting, in other words.
Did we refer to school as "babysitting" before COVID-19?
Yes... Yes we did. There are quite a few parents who treat it as free daycare.
And there are quite a few that don't. Please don't confuse my concerns for my children's social and educational development with laziness or a desire for free daycare. That's a pretty broad brush and to be honest is insulting.
I don't feel like he did...and it wasn't a catch-all brush stroke. There ARE many that treat it as day care. And there ARE many that do not.
I never said it was catch all, I simply said it was broad. I'm sure there are many that treat it as daycare. I'm sure there are an overwhelming majority that don't. And for those that do, I think they are simply misguided. I'd also like to think that the educators and administrators of early childhood education do not consider their profession daycare.
I will say that I actually care a lot about your kid's development, but not as much as I care about my actual chances of continuing to live. While not a response to me, I will also say I know my comments can seem insulting and I certainly do paint with a broad brush in many cases as well in order to make a point without having to say, "I know not everyone -fill in the blanks."
Understood. And please understand that I don't want my children to lesson your chances of continuing to live. I don't think this has to be an either/or issue. There's a lot at stake on all sides and lots of ways this can be approached with regard to all the risks.
There are also quite a few people who don't want to catch a virus that is spreading like wildfire that has potentially life altering implications, even if you don't get very sick. I want this thing to be over with as soon as possible, but sending tens of millions of kids to confined spaces for 8 hours a day is not the right answer.
We willfully gave up our privilege to have normalcy a couple months ago.
You can have those concerns and are entitled to them, and can make valid arguments to support them which is how it should work. We shouldn't have to marginalize other views in order to support our own. If there was an easy answer, there wouldn't be much need for discussion. And to think that there is an easy answer is to discredit the concern and risks to a large number of individuals, regardless of how they arrive at their way of thinking or the circumstances they may find themselves in.
The problem is, there was/is an easy answer. Stay home, limit contact with others, go out for necessities only wearing a mask in public, test often, and contact trace. It worked elsewhere.
There is a difference between was and is. What was, no matter how egregious, is in the past and cannot be changed. And I agree with everything you state above. This conversation started in regards to sending kids to school in a couple of weeks and the risks involved on all sides. Then somehow it divulged into parents viewing public schools as being free daycare. That's when I raised my hand.
Please everyone note that we all want this to end. We all want life to return to whatever normal it used to be, if it can ever get that way again. And we all have concerns for our individual selves, families, and others we hold dear. We have to be able to communicate and work together which is why I feel we're in the position we are now. Somehow a worldwide virus has turned this country into a two sided debate. We need to work to come together and not find reasons to continue to move apart. And before we blame anyone else, it has to start with the individual or there's no way in hell we can apply it to the population as a whole. We all have more in common than we have differences. I hope everyone stays safe. Take care of your loved ones. I'm signing out of this debate.
The education of children has been universally recognized as "an essential business" in our country since the 17th century when it was just British colonies. To generalize parents who deem it important as just wanting free daycare or babysitting NOW smacks of politics so resoundingly that I'm throwing up in mouth just a little.
Well, I think you have a point, but it sure seems like in this current situation, that is what some folks are asking for. I will, however, concede your point and will leg you for it.
Look, I understand folks need to get back to work and in order to do that, they need those kids somewhere other than home. But again, to say that the kids are more important than the teachers, support staff, their families, and so on and so on is what I am irritated by. And without someone explicitly saying that, that is what I hear being said. Sorry to say, there isn't one child born any more important to the world than any other child born, whenever they were born, hyperbolically speaking as to exclude the obvious Hitlers of the world.
We're cool, dude.
Question though... if we close schools, aren't working parents just going to send their kids to actual daycare? Are teachers more important than daycare center workers and their support staff:?
If the kids are like 7-11, what would you consider daycare? I can envision a group of parents getting together and doing something similar to carpooling...where maybe one week the kids are at Timmy's house, the next week they are at Johnny's house, in a group, so you have interaction, and learning in groups. I realize that works in a perfect scenario, and hopefully employers would be able to handle that sort of thing. It's not ideal, but you know that zero of this is. Maybe that could work. Maybe another idea.
If I had children 7-11 right now, I would want them in school. I would gladly send them the first day. I would want them playing sports. I would want them taking their guitar lessons. As a parent, I firmly believe that the data indicates that the benefits of my children doing those things far, far, far outweighs the risks of my children doing those things. And in that respect, the risk of my children being perpetually kept from doing those things far, far, far outweighs the benefits of them not doing those things.
Hypothetically, if your kid goes out and does those things, and gets Covid and passes it to someone who dies, does this math change? This is a weird one because we are used to doing personal risk assessments all the time. "That jump is too far", "This food is too spicy", but they are all risk to ourselves or our family. We naturally don't consider risk to unknown others in our internal math.
But I think that is the disconnect between a lot of people. They project their willingness to accept risk as an assumption onto other people because they don't know what the other person thinks (a natural assumption). However, we are getting into situations where Person A's willingness to accept risk is potentially causing more risk for Person B, who is totally unknown to Person A. Normal decision making can break down in this case.
All of this to say that its a tough place to be and the lack of shared understanding about risk management is causing lots of arguments and stress.
Agreed. And this is where the "need" to be safe is outweighing the "want" for things for many people.
I didn't intend to color this one way or another. People need lots of things and accept a level of risk to access them. There is a scenario where someone NEEDS to do something Covid-risky and are willing to accept the risk. I think that attempting to overrule what someone feels like they need with your own needs (open schools vs. reduction of viral spread) isn't a great way to engage in a conversation, it just leads to shouting past each other.
I was more remarking on the challenges this scenario creates for risk assessment based on an inherent risk to others that usually isn't baked in.
It goes without saying that you and I disagree on like... everything to do with the pandemic.
But your GIF choices are pretty spot on.
I think what you are defining is society. Everytime you start your car you are putting others at risk. If we wanted to regulate the risk further, we could make a maximum speed limit of 25 mph in the US to eliminate fatal crashes. We scoff at it, but carrying a flu virus to the wrong person can be deadly. Policy decisions, regulations, and codes are made daily in the interest of safety, but never made without some acceptance of risk for the public.
That is true, but this time the decisions are being made in real-time as the risky situation evolves. The driving example is decent, but only if cars were just invented 4 months ago. After this amount of time, there would probably be a segmented population of risk-averse drivers and risk-accepting drivers and they would probably yell at each other a lot on the road.
The cars are dangerous even if we have been driving for a century. It is just an old fear we have gotten used to versus a knew one that freaks us out. Imagine if George Washington could time travel to the passenger seat of a car doing 80 on I-95.
I think it might be more that we as a society have converged to the optimal risk acceptability level for us as a whole. Right now, our Covid risk acceptability system likely has a similar damping coefficient, but the system hasn't had as much time to ring down from the initial impulse as we have with cars.
Some people drive volvos and Saab.
Some people drive SUVs.
Some people drive motorcycles.
Some people won't drive at all. Too much risk.
I was military, ride a motorcycle.
I believe there are safer ways to do dangerous things and dangerous ways to do safer things.
I will take the risks but prepare and practice. Knowledge allows me to draw the line in a place that I am comfortable with.
Some people won't go sit on their own back porch on a breezy sunny day when they are home alone without a mask.
The difficulty is that we both live in that same world and when one attempts to talk to the other, right now, there are too many assumptions, moral judgement and "other fright".
No... We just don't pretend that the data doesn't strongly indicate that young children are poor vectors for COVID-19.
I just wanted to say that while I don't agree 100% with everything you say on here, I do lean a bit more towards your perspective than many of the others, and I try to offset the down votes that I don't think are appropriate, of which there have been many.
Also, I'm amazed by your tenacity. I'd have given up on this discussion and these threads a long time ago (and I did). Even reading them gets my blood pressure up so I try to limit it to once a week to see if any actual news has been provided rather than the continual brow beating from a few members unless you agree with the most conservative approach possible. News is rare, the latter, not so much.
Keep on keeping on, Leonard!
Thanks, brother. It's not hard for me to stand by my firm belief that you can't keep a country of 330 million people that is responsible for most of the technological advancement, and the feeding of the world in perpetual lock down.
It's cool with me to disagree with me. I've learned a lot from people who disagree with me.
Study
Testing across 10 metro areas across the US show 2-13 times more antibodies in those tested vs amount of reported cases at that time.
Much more spread happening than testing has been showing.
Little time lapse map thingy...broken down by county. I didn't make it, but do apologize to those that are R/G colorblind.
https://www.corona-per-capita.com/time-lapse-slow
Good find. That creates an excellent visualization.
That is actually terrifying information watching as the Country turns purple from the southern border up.
I guess this doesn't help my reputation as the Carnie, but the State Fair of VA was just canceled.
well...
And 757 should be happy to find that the Nags Head Surf Fishing Tournament scheduled for October has also been canceled. I'm relieved, as much as I hoped it would be ok for it to happen.
Well, I mean I'm not happy about it anything getting cancelled or closed, and I honestly don't know why they did cancel it. There has been absolutely zero slow down in tourists this summer, all the rentals are slammed. So, our leaders obviously are no longer worried keeping anyone or anything out (We're up to 292 total cases now, with 78 of them still being active)
Was this the surf fishing tournament? Seems like the prime example for social distancing.
All of them will be. Except maybe Montana...
.
https://delawarestatefair.com/
You like that little disclaimer that pops up immediately.....
I sit corrected. Little bit scared by that as well.
For real.
That's one heck of a lead in to a state-wide event.....
WARNING: what follows is just shouting into the void. please feel free to ignore.
It really pisses me off how people don't seem to realize how their decisions affect other people. Everyone trying to isolate and keep things in check has to deal with a lot of extra stress in their lives. Activities that make summer bearable (pool, sleepovers, etc) are off the table already. Then you have friends who've decided it's just too much work to do all that and "it's not really a big deal, but if we get it, we get it,. I can't live my life this way." Then you are in the position of "do I let my kids play with their's? Because I know they'll be all up in each others' business." Instead of having a nice isolation pod of 4 families that are all on the same page and helping keep each other sane, you end up losing the few social interactions that are left to you and your kids start getting cabin fever. Then you go from being in agreement with your wife on everything to her being stressed out because the kids are bouncing off the damned walls. Then that turns into a fight about what the right thing to do is. So fuck those friends who decide to pile on consequences to choosing to isolate that have no right to be in the conversation at all. Your shitty decision results in strife in my household, you selfish ass.
It's like fucking prisoners dilemma. If people would make what looks like the harder choice up front, everyone has an easier time. We'd get to send kids back to school. We could get restaurants back open full time and eliminate a lot of the unemployment. We could get the fuck back on track. But no. They make the easy, self serving choice in the short term, it screws over other people who are trying to do the right thing and will likely screw over everyone in the long term (when everyone decides to makes the same decisions)
end rant
This thing sucks. We definitely agree on that. It sucks for everybody in different ways, so we all react in different ways. That's something I try to remind myself of every single day when somebody pisses me off. I sincerely hope you and your wife are able navigate your way through this with what sounds like young children.
I would be 500x more nuts during this if my three boys who are now well into their 20s were in their pre-teen years today. I can't imagine what younger parents are having to go through with the new school year in chaos, and in explaining this situation to their young children every day. I can only imagine the pediatric PTSD that is sure to follow on the other side of this.
All I can say to you is be humble, be empathetic, and remember that we're all scared of something, we all hate something, and we all deeply love something. It's just not all the same something.
The point is that if we would have treated it with the seriousness it deserved from the beginning, we would be returning to relative normalcy like the rest of the developed world. Instead we have people that downplayed it from the beginning because "reasons". Then we have people that are just selfish assholes and aren't willing to slightly inconvenience themselves for the greater good. Now all those same people are demanding that we open up everything because their tired of being inconvenienced. And their doing it under the guise of "think of the children". If they thought of the children (and cared about anyone other than themselves) from the beginning, we'd be in much better shape now. We'd be able to open up and we'd be able to send our kids to school.
I have two young kids going through this and guess what? You deal with it. Sure it sucks, but you make it work because when you're part of a society, you need to make sacrifices for the greater good.
You are correct in my eyes. Look, people who decide to have children take on monumental tasks. My choice not to have them wasn't taken lightly, and I hope folks that do have them don't take that lightly. While I know you have to get them through this year in order for them to be worthy of personhood in the long run, you are ultimately the reason they exist and it is your responsibility to see to their upbringing. Kids are incredibly resilient and take a lot of cues from parents and other grown ups. Yes, childhood trauma is real and painfully serious for kids and they deserve all the help and attention we can give them, but a year without in person school isn't a serious childhood trauma, and nobody can convince me that it is. I understand the inconvenience and real consequences of schoolus interruptus on young families starting out, but the meany me wants to say "You had 'em, you raise 'em" instead of trying to force teachers and support staff and indeed, ultimately, the whole community to take the risks associated in making your life more like you want it to be right now.
I feel ya. We have 3 in the house with us. The 8 month old keeps us based at home 99% of the time. But having a driving high schooler has been interesting. Would love for him to work, but there's risks in that. Would love for him to hang at home more but he's a teenager... Guess we are lucky enough to be able to have him not have to work, and he's taken up surfing, so he spends a lot of time in the ocean with one or two other friends, far away from the world. Kind of jelly actually. But we want so badly to have some interaction with other toddler parents, but none of us can really pull the trigger........
I understand where you are coming from, but I don't understand how you arrive at the conclusion "we'd get to send kids back to school". We are obviously speaking generally and it definitely depends on the region and severity of virus outbreak, but had everyone 100% complied, there would still have been virus spread through health workers and other essential businesses. So I don't think we can definitively say that the virus would be gone, everyone would be safe now, and kids would be going back to schools. I would argue that we would still be having the very same conversations that we are right now about school.
This wasn't meant to take away from any of your frustration or the point that you were making, other than I do not think we'd magically have schools and restaurants open.
One of my best friends lives in Tokyo. Kids the same age as mine. They are returning to relative normalcy. Kids going to school. They are having a "spike" in cases; 370 per day in a densely populated city of 9 million people. They are contact tracing and isolating as necessary. They have a chance at controlling this thing and can introduce things like school and restaurants back into the mix without exponential growth.
Seems to me that Tokyo should be a hotspot. Population density is through the roof. Mass transit is a basic necessity so every day you're packed on a train with 500 of your closest strangers. International airport. Financial and business center (more reason for travel). And yet, they can get their shit together in ways we Americans can't because...? Oh yeah, we have a twisted, shortsighted view of freedom. We are more inclined to believe the latest conspiracy theory that makes us feel more "in the know" than someone else than we are to accept scientific recommendations and truly secure our freedom moving forward.
And no, this isn't directed at anyone in particular on here. But, for everyone person with a different stance who is asking thoughtful questions, you have a hundred sheep who are following some internet post they read or some video a retired pharmacist posted saying this isn't a big deal and it's all a scam.
Same thing for my sister that lives in Germany (her husband is Military). They stayed locked down much longer and are now pretty much getting back to closer to normal. People of there look at the U.S. like WTF are you idiots doing over there, and they are right.
This is where culture plays a huge role. When it comes to recognizing individuality, Japan and the US are complete opposites. In the US, individualism is celebrated. We tend to idolize people who are trailblazers. There's this attitude that everyone is capable of doing great things. Entrepreneurship is glorified. In Japan, it's very much the opposite - Everything you do, you do for your family. The goal is conform to societal norms and avoid rocking the boat at all costs. No one wants to stand out; they want to be one together.
Two completely different outlooks on life, both with pros and cons. In an event like this, the Japanese culture will be far more successful.
My main problem is the opposition to masks and shutdowns started with a bunch of conspiracy theories, then shifted to freedom and individuality later on.
Yea I can't defend that. If you want to 'reopen' and you're anti-mask, then you're just an idiot.
It wouldn't be gone, but it wouldn't be an out of control raging wildfire.
Know how many new cases Italy reported yesterday? 280 with a percent positive rate of 0.5%
Germany? 569 with a percent positive rate of 0.5%
UK? 560 with a percent positive rate of 0.6%
United States? 68,848 with a percent positive rate at 8.6% (a rate that has been steadily increasing since June 16)
EDITED TO ADD:
Those numbers came from this website, lots of handy info there. Another fun tidbit:
In a rolling 7-day average, Italy finds 1 new case for every 214.3 tests done.
Germany finds 1 new case for every 191.9 tests
The UK finds 1 new case for every 168.2 tests.
In the US one new case is found for every 11.7 tests done.
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing
And in my county it is not an out of control raging wildfire. We've been mixing back in all summer long, shopping, restaurants at 50% capacity, social gatherings of 10-25 people indoors and outdoors. We have not seen an exponential spike in any metric in my county. Yet they refuse to take the next step and have a reasonable reopening of schools.
Good rant.
In my rant I'd work in Stockholm syndrome somewhere and people wanting to twist words and find fault when I ask the probing questions.
This isn't directed at any one person, but I feel it needs to be said. Harping over what was or wasn't done a few months ago does nothing to advance conversation. The past has passed. I haven't seen too many people bragging about how well the US has been beating back the virus.
SIAP
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/07/21/ucla-study-antibodies-mild-co...
If a successful vaccine can be developed, I would expect it to become an annual shot, like the flu, until the virus disappears. We will have to stay ahead of the game on coronavirus vaccines in general to potentially stave off the next pandemic.
WE are all gonna die like this thread should..