Will fall 2021 mean full IP classes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

Gotta love these teachers who are suddenly anti-science when the medical profession tells them it's time to go to work.

Ah FFS, for the second time today on DCUM, I am not a teacher. And the above is not anti-science. It is admittedly a bored half-assed rebuttal of your non-science. Because trodding out the same wishful dumb editorial is ridiculous. And that editorial, even though it went to JAMA, is not science either. It's a silly opinion piece dangerously camouflaged as science by being in JAMA. At least the podcast, which also discusses the exact same scientific studies as the JAMA viewpoint piece does, is honest about what it is.

JAMA is the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is not just a peer-reviewed journal. It is the most prestigious medical journal in the world. They do not publish frivolous things or "non-science." And it isn't an editorial. You should actually read it (it's not long) instead of making strange assumptions about what it might possibly say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

Gotta love these teachers who are suddenly anti-science when the medical profession tells them it's time to go to work.

Ah FFS, for the second time today on DCUM, I am not a teacher. And the above is not anti-science. It is admittedly a bored half-assed rebuttal of your non-science. Because trodding out the same wishful dumb editorial is ridiculous. And that editorial, even though it went to JAMA, is not science either. It's a silly opinion piece dangerously camouflaged as science by being in JAMA. At least the podcast, which also discusses the exact same scientific studies as the JAMA viewpoint piece does, is honest about what it is.

NP. I don't care if you're a teacher or a parent or whatever. But bashing an "editorial" as not being science (duh) doesn't negate the fact that it is based on data, and that the data overwhelmingly shows that schools, especially elementary schools, do not drive community spread. If you have scientific evidence to the contrary, please present it, otherwise I'm going with the large international chorus of expert voices that have come to this conclusion by looking at the months of experience with open schools from different countries around the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

DP. It might just be a "viewpoint" article, but it's hardly a lone voice in the wilderness. There is an international consensus that schools do not *significantly* contribute to community spread and therefore the benefits of opening them outweigh the risks.

Almost 40 percent of schools in the US are open -- kids go to school every day, in person. Another 20 percent of schools are open part time, i.e. hybrid. All the CDC did was look at what happened in schools that have been open. It's not an editorial saying people should do one thing or another. It's an analysis of what actually happened in schools that have been open.

Telling me that Florida, Texas, and California schools are fully open does not impress me much. I don't want DC hospitals to look like theirs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

Gotta love these teachers who are suddenly anti-science when the medical profession tells them it's time to go to work.

Ah FFS, for the second time today on DCUM, I am not a teacher. And the above is not anti-science. It is admittedly a bored half-assed rebuttal of your non-science. Because trodding out the same wishful dumb editorial is ridiculous. And that editorial, even though it went to JAMA, is not science either. It's a silly opinion piece dangerously camouflaged as science by being in JAMA. At least the podcast, which also discusses the exact same scientific studies as the JAMA viewpoint piece does, is honest about what it is.

NP. I don't care if you're a teacher or a parent or whatever. But bashing an "editorial" as not being science (duh) doesn't negate the fact that it is based on data, and that the data overwhelmingly shows that schools, especially elementary schools, do not drive community spread. If you have scientific evidence to the contrary, please present it, otherwise I'm going with the large international chorus of expert voices that have come to this conclusion by looking at the months of experience with open schools from different countries around the world.

Your large international chorus was a mirage! Schools are closing back down as countries around the world are realizing they were wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

Gotta love these teachers who are suddenly anti-science when the medical profession tells them it's time to go to work.

Ah FFS, for the second time today on DCUM, I am not a teacher. And the above is not anti-science. It is admittedly a bored half-assed rebuttal of your non-science. Because trodding out the same wishful dumb editorial is ridiculous. And that editorial, even though it went to JAMA, is not science either. It's a silly opinion piece dangerously camouflaged as science by being in JAMA. At least the podcast, which also discusses the exact same scientific studies as the JAMA viewpoint piece does, is honest about what it is.

NP. I don't care if you're a teacher or a parent or whatever. But bashing an "editorial" as not being science (duh) doesn't negate the fact that it is based on data, and that the data overwhelmingly shows that schools, especially elementary schools, do not drive community spread. If you have scientific evidence to the contrary, please present it, otherwise I'm going with the large international chorus of expert voices that have come to this conclusion by looking at the months of experience with open schools from different countries around the world.

Your large international chorus was a mirage! Schools are closing back down as countries around the world are realizing they were wrong.

No. The temporary closures during strict lockdowns during a surge of a new variant do not expose this consensus as a "mirage". They were not imposed because they suddenly realized that schools do drive the spread, but because they wanted to take temporary, radical measures. They are also not universal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

DP. It might just be a "viewpoint" article, but it's hardly a lone voice in the wilderness. There is an international consensus that schools do not *significantly* contribute to community spread and therefore the benefits of opening them outweigh the risks.

Almost 40 percent of schools in the US are open -- kids go to school every day, in person. Another 20 percent of schools are open part time, i.e. hybrid. All the CDC did was look at what happened in schools that have been open. It's not an editorial saying people should do one thing or another. It's an analysis of what actually happened in schools that have been open.

Telling me that Florida, Texas, and California schools are fully open does not impress me much. I don't want DC hospitals to look like theirs.

I live in DC. My kids have been in school since August. Guess how many coronavirus cases they've had at their school? ZERO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

Gotta love these teachers who are suddenly anti-science when the medical profession tells them it's time to go to work.

Ah FFS, for the second time today on DCUM, I am not a teacher. And the above is not anti-science. It is admittedly a bored half-assed rebuttal of your non-science. Because trodding out the same wishful dumb editorial is ridiculous. And that editorial, even though it went to JAMA, is not science either. It's a silly opinion piece dangerously camouflaged as science by being in JAMA. At least the podcast, which also discusses the exact same scientific studies as the JAMA viewpoint piece does, is honest about what it is.

JAMA is the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is not just a peer-reviewed journal. It is the most prestigious medical journal in the world. They do not publish frivolous things or "non-science." And it isn't an editorial. You should actually read it (it's not long) instead of making strange assumptions about what it might possibly say.

Dr. Fauci has said the same thing, that coronavirus rates within schools are lower than in the surrounding communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

Gotta love these teachers who are suddenly anti-science when the medical profession tells them it's time to go to work.

Right? And when they come up against this research, generally they begin relying on intuition and a notion of "common sense," as though these two things are more important than expertise and data. I understand why it feels like common sense that schools are dangerous disease vectors. Indeed, I thought that was the case at the beginning of all of this. But the data show us otherwise.

We like to rely on intuition and common sense. This is how we make the majority of our decisions. It is often correct, but not always. Intuition and "common sense" lead us to the wrong conclusion about the safety of school reopening.

It is a mark of critical thinking to be able to observe that your intuition is wrong and revise your own conclusions when presented with evidence. My disappointment here is the number of educators who apparently lack the critical thinking skills to revise their own thoughts. Their willingness to throw out evidence and data when it conflicts with common sense. My concern is that teachers who lack critical thinking skills are unable to teach children to think.

[Anonymous]

Also lol "throw out JAMA because it's just opinion and instead listen to this podcast, where the expert is a freelance writer for the Intercept."

Might as well have linked us to an hour-long YouTube video where a sweaty guy talks about the NWO and doing internet "research.:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

Gotta love these teachers who are suddenly anti-science when the medical profession tells them it's time to go to work.

Ah FFS, for the second time today on DCUM, I am not a teacher. And the above is not anti-science. It is admittedly a bored half-assed rebuttal of your non-science. Because trodding out the same wishful dumb editorial is ridiculous. And that editorial, even though it went to JAMA, is not science either. It's a silly opinion piece dangerously camouflaged as science by being in JAMA. At least the podcast, which also discusses the exact same scientific studies as the JAMA viewpoint piece does, is honest about what it is.

JAMA is the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is not just a peer-reviewed journal. It is the most prestigious medical journal in the world. They do not publish frivolous things or "non-science." And it isn't an editorial. You should actually read it (it's not long) instead of making strange assumptions about what it might possibly say.

Don't make assumptions about others' ability to read editorials in science journals. By the way, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, BMJ are possibly higher ranked than JAMA. But, obviously, there's our big A in JAMA, so it's the most, sure. And again, this is a viewpoint, not a meta-analysis, so it's about as frivolous as a medical journal will publish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

DP. It might just be a "viewpoint" article, but it's hardly a lone voice in the wilderness. There is an international consensus that schools do not *significantly* contribute to community spread and therefore the benefits of opening them outweigh the risks.

Almost 40 percent of schools in the US are open -- kids go to school every day, in person. Another 20 percent of schools are open part time, i.e. hybrid. All the CDC did was look at what happened in schools that have been open. It's not an editorial saying people should do one thing or another. It's an analysis of what actually happened in schools that have been open.

Telling me that Florida, Texas, and California schools are fully open does not impress me much. I don't want DC hospitals to look like theirs.

I live in DC. My kids have been in school since August. Guess how many coronavirus cases they've had at their school? ZERO.

I’m thrilled for your private school. Meanwhile after one week, we have 5 classrooms closed throughout the district. Schools should be open but stop saying that your private school is going to have the same results as DCPS. It’s not the same clientele. And you are making people think that these classes won’t shut down. They are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

Gotta love these teachers who are suddenly anti-science when the medical profession tells them it's time to go to work.

Ah FFS, for the second time today on DCUM, I am not a teacher. And the above is not anti-science. It is admittedly a bored half-assed rebuttal of your non-science. Because trodding out the same wishful dumb editorial is ridiculous. And that editorial, even though it went to JAMA, is not science either. It's a silly opinion piece dangerously camouflaged as science by being in JAMA. At least the podcast, which also discusses the exact same scientific studies as the JAMA viewpoint piece does, is honest about what it is.

JAMA is the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is not just a peer-reviewed journal. It is the most prestigious medical journal in the world. They do not publish frivolous things or "non-science." And it isn't an editorial. You should actually read it (it's not long) instead of making strange assumptions about what it might possibly say.

Don't make assumptions about others' ability to read editorials in science journals. By the way, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, BMJ are possibly higher ranked than JAMA. But, obviously, there's our big A in JAMA, so it's the most, sure. And again, this is a viewpoint, not a meta-analysis, so it's about as frivolous as a medical journal will publish.

DP. You still haven't rebutted anything with anything of substance though. You keep harping on the genre, as if that meant the contents were by definition suspect. Why don't you show us an "editorial" from a medical journal, or some other credible source, broadly looking at the data and coming to the opposite conclusion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

DP. It might just be a "viewpoint" article, but it's hardly a lone voice in the wilderness. There is an international consensus that schools do not *significantly* contribute to community spread and therefore the benefits of opening them outweigh the risks.

Almost 40 percent of schools in the US are open -- kids go to school every day, in person. Another 20 percent of schools are open part time, i.e. hybrid. All the CDC did was look at what happened in schools that have been open. It's not an editorial saying people should do one thing or another. It's an analysis of what actually happened in schools that have been open.

Telling me that Florida, Texas, and California schools are fully open does not impress me much. I don't want DC hospitals to look like theirs.

I live in DC. My kids have been in school since August. Guess how many coronavirus cases they've had at their school? ZERO.

I’m thrilled for your private school. Meanwhile after one week, we have 5 classrooms closed throughout the district. Schools should be open but stop saying that your private school is going to have the same results as DCPS. It’s not the same clientele. And you are making people think that these classes won’t shut down. They are.

(is it only 5 classrooms? I see 14 notifications since last week.https://dcpsreopenstrong.com/health/response/notifications/)
So, PP, that's lovely to hear you haz ZERO cases. But I have questions. Are students tested weekly or biweekly? Are there rules of conduct for families to adhere to outside of school with respect to travel and extracurriculars? How many students in your kids' classrooms at a time? What kind of PPE is available to their teachers? How many kids do their teachers engage with each week? Do their have lunch outside, or do they spend their lunch break in the classroom with their masks off?

[Anonymous]

Daycares have been open for at least six months. Some never closed during the pandemic. They seem to be doing fine.

Sorry, teachers. Vacation has to end sometime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The coronavirus numbers in DC are already very low right now, and hardly anyone has been vaccinated. By the summer, a large percentage of people will be vaccinated, and the number of coronavirus cases in the city will be extremely low.

Fantasy

You can just look at the numbers. The infection rate is now below 1.0, which means the outbreak is shrinking.

The positivity rate is 3.4 percent, which is very low (it's supposed to be under 5 percent if you want to reopen schools).

And barely three percent of DC residents have been vaccinated.

If we'd stayed virtual through June, maybe. With si many kids sharing air aince last week, community transmission is bound to rise again and jeopardize what OP is hoping for.

Stop the disinformation. You have no evidence to show that schools are significant drivers of community spread.

CDC says the opposite. They say rates are lower in schools than in the surrounding areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/04/school-reopening-risk-virus/

PP, the disinformation is the false claim bordering on fantasy that schools wouldn't contribute to community spread. Of course they do.

You can read the CDC report yourself. It's here: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775875

It says, in part: "There has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission."

Roughly two-thirds of all schools in the United States are currently open in some fashion. Almost 40 percent of all schools are currently in-person, every day. If there was a health problem with opening schools, we'd know it. The CDC says it ain't happening. I'm sure that's very disappointing to you.

First of all, see the disclaimer of that 'viewpoint' article, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."A viewpoint is numerous rungs below a meta-analysis, and it's basically an editorial. Last time we gave too much weight to a viewpoint in a medical journal, we created the opioid crisis.

Second, take a listen of this podcast for a reasonable view of this problem.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/why-press-gets-school-transmission-so-wrong-on-the-media

Gotta love these teachers who are suddenly anti-science when the medical profession tells them it's time to go to work.

Ah FFS, for the second time today on DCUM, I am not a teacher. And the above is not anti-science. It is admittedly a bored half-assed rebuttal of your non-science. Because trodding out the same wishful dumb editorial is ridiculous. And that editorial, even though it went to JAMA, is not science either. It's a silly opinion piece dangerously camouflaged as science by being in JAMA. At least the podcast, which also discusses the exact same scientific studies as the JAMA viewpoint piece does, is honest about what it is.

JAMA is the Journal of the American Medical Association. It is not just a peer-reviewed journal. It is the most prestigious medical journal in the world. They do not publish frivolous things or "non-science." And it isn't an editorial. You should actually read it (it's not long) instead of making strange assumptions about what it might possibly say.

Don't make assumptions about others' ability to read editorials in science journals. By the way, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, BMJ are possibly higher ranked than JAMA. But, obviously, there's our big A in JAMA, so it's the most, sure. And again, this is a viewpoint, not a meta-analysis, so it's about as frivolous as a medical journal will publish.

I take no position on the relative rankings of the medical journals, but you do realize the New England Journal of Medicine is a US publication referring to the other sort of England... right? Because the above is a seriously weird comment unless you don't.