Why are you demanding 5 day in-person school now that the pandemic is getting more dangerous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is silly. Schools have been open in DC private ones throughout. Things have been fine. Meanwhile kids on my street haven’t done online school in months. The only thing this has helped is to widen the gap.

This has nothing to do with the school and EVERYTHING to do with the kid's parents. If your child's gap is widening then it is because you're not doing your job as a parent.

Parents aren’t teachers, dummy. And WTH do you mean by “your child’s gap”? Do you mean if your kid is falling behind because they’re not learning, because there’s no (actual) school? I truly hope that you aren’t attempting to teach your own spawn, because you are, quite frankly, an idiot.

[Anonymous]

How about surveillance testing then. They are doing it in Massachusetts! Open schoolers LOVE to tout the Massachusetts studies on spread. But they never discuss the surveillance testing being done in MA public schools. And DC and NY. But heaven forbid we do that in VA. People serious about expanding opening would be serious about testing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is silly. Schools have been open in DC private ones throughout. Things have been fine. Meanwhile kids on my street haven’t done online school in months. The only thing this has helped is to widen the gap.

This has nothing to do with the school and EVERYTHING to do with the kid's parents. If your child's gap is widening then it is because you're not doing your job as a parent.

You’re a clueless, out of touch jerk. One of the kids parents are recent immigrants and work 3 jobs each. They have 2 other kids. Another have a child with SN who was getting no help from the school and they just gave up. And this is in Bethesda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you disagree and think that the pandemic is getting less dangerous? If so, are you actively monitoring epidemiology and drawing conclusions that are different from me?
Do you agree that the pandemic is getting more dangerous but think it only affects other people, not you / your loved ones?
Or do you agree that the pandemic is getting more dangerous even for you / your loved ones, but it's still worth the risk for the benefits of in-person 5 days school?

Here's why I think things are taking a turn towards the worse:

* the compilation of prediction models (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/forecasting-us.html) predicts 2700 - 9600 deaths a week. Yes, the highest prediction is still way lower than during the last surge (24000 deaths a week at its peak) but it's still higher than last August. More importantly, if you look at the underlying assumptions of these models, they aren't changing the level of transmission, beyond tying it to mobility of a population or weather. (https://github.com/cdcepi/COVID-19-Forecasts/blob/master/COVID-19_Forecast_Model_Descriptions.md). However, there's a reasonable chance that transmission rates in 2021 are not going to be the way they were in 2020.

* we are finding out that several covid variants are more transmissible -- specifically, "UK" B.1.1.7 (59% - 74% more contagious) (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/03/03/science.abg3055) "South Africa" B.1.351 (50% more) (https://www.newscientist.com/definition/south-african-covid-19-variant/) and "Brazil" P.1 (200% more contagious) (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-brazilvariant/contagious-brazil-covid-19-variant-evades-immunity-scientists-warn-idUSKBN2AU22B).

* P.1 re-infects 25%-60% of people. Vaccines are much less effective against P.1 and B.1.351

* P.1 has been reported in 22 states, B.1.351 has been reported in 30 states, and B.1.1.7 is everywhere in the U.S. (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/transmission/variant-cases.html)

* Younger people are dying at much higher rates where P.1 is endemic - 3x case fatality rates for ages 20-29, 2x for 30-39, 40-49, 50-59. (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.24.21254046v1)

I'm not saying that I'm certain that all hell is going to break loose....but I am saying that I don't understand how the "open schools now" crowd is so absolutely certain that this isn't a likely outcome.

I am certain that children whose parents die are 10 bazillion times more likely to suffer a learning gap than children whose parents don't die.

Note: I have no formal medical education so I'm in the same boat as the rest of us, trying to figure this out the best I can

You're right, you have no formal medical education. I trust the pediatricians and doctors who say children need in-person school for their social and emotional health, and the public health experts who say children aren't super spreaders and that in-person schooling can be done safely with masks and open windows and ventilation (!).

[Anonymous]

OK OP, how about this one:

In the 1918 flu pandemic, which was decidedly worse for kids, NYC’s mayor kept schools open. His argument was basically the same as APE’s: kids were safer at school (there were a lot of kids in cramped tenement housing in NYC at the time). The city had the best pandemic outcomes on the east coast.

[Anonymous]

The only thing in danger is the lack of accountability on lazy teachers

[Anonymous]

Can we stop with the fear mongering? Try looking up “cost benefit analysis”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even daycares have kicked out families who didn’t obey the rules. Private anything can do that. Unfortunately public schools cannot, which is why it isn’t unreasonable to ask for surveillance testing even every couple of weeks if that what it takes to get kids back into buildings.

My guess is that if you did surveillance testing you would find a lot of kids who are asymptomatic and testing positive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even daycares have kicked out families who didn’t obey the rules. Private anything can do that. Unfortunately public schools cannot, which is why it isn’t unreasonable to ask for surveillance testing even every couple of weeks if that what it takes to get kids back into buildings.

My guess is that if you did surveillance testing you would find a lot of kids who are asymptomatic and testing positive.

That’s not what NYC found with their surveillance testing. Goodness. It’s not June anymore.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/study-finds-strong-evidence-of-low-covid-transmission-in-nyc-schools/2935383/%3famp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you disagree and think that the pandemic is getting less dangerous? If so, are you actively monitoring epidemiology and drawing conclusions that are different from me?
Do you agree that the pandemic is getting more dangerous but think it only affects other people, not you / your loved ones?
Or do you agree that the pandemic is getting more dangerous even for you / your loved ones, but it's still worth the risk for the benefits of in-person 5 days school?

Here's why I think things are taking a turn towards the worse:

* the compilation of prediction models (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/forecasting-us.html) predicts 2700 - 9600 deaths a week. Yes, the highest prediction is still way lower than during the last surge (24000 deaths a week at its peak) but it's still higher than last August. More importantly, if you look at the underlying assumptions of these models, they aren't changing the level of transmission, beyond tying it to mobility of a population or weather. (https://github.com/cdcepi/COVID-19-Forecasts/blob/master/COVID-19_Forecast_Model_Descriptions.md). However, there's a reasonable chance that transmission rates in 2021 are not going to be the way they were in 2020.

* we are finding out that several covid variants are more transmissible -- specifically, "UK" B.1.1.7 (59% - 74% more contagious) (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/03/03/science.abg3055) "South Africa" B.1.351 (50% more) (https://www.newscientist.com/definition/south-african-covid-19-variant/) and "Brazil" P.1 (200% more contagious) (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-brazilvariant/contagious-brazil-covid-19-variant-evades-immunity-scientists-warn-idUSKBN2AU22B).

* P.1 re-infects 25%-60% of people. Vaccines are much less effective against P.1 and B.1.351

* P.1 has been reported in 22 states, B.1.351 has been reported in 30 states, and B.1.1.7 is everywhere in the U.S. (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/transmission/variant-cases.html)

* Younger people are dying at much higher rates where P.1 is endemic - 3x case fatality rates for ages 20-29, 2x for 30-39, 40-49, 50-59. (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.24.21254046v1)

I'm not saying that I'm certain that all hell is going to break loose....but I am saying that I don't understand how the "open schools now" crowd is so absolutely certain that this isn't a likely outcome.

I am certain that children whose parents die are 10 bazillion times more likely to suffer a learning gap than children whose parents don't die.

Note: I have no formal medical education so I'm in the same boat as the rest of us, trying to figure this out the best I can

Yes, this is rather obvious.

Oooooh. Clever. You almost sound smart yourself. Talking big and superior. Go, girl!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: I finally came across something concrete that addresses my concern. Monica Gandhi posted a flurry of tweets just now about the t-cell response paper (the same one that I referenced in my PP). This is her distinction: you will get infected, but you will be protected against severe disease. So, I guess the working theory of the hope brigade is that although antibodies from current vaccines won't protect you against infection from two of the new variants, the t-cells that you produce in response to the vaccine or a wild strain infection will attack the covid variants after they begin to infect your cells. Also, the external spike that an antibody reacts to is more mutable (which is why mutations can evade antibodies with some frequency), whereas the internal proteins that a t-cell reacts to are less likely to mutate, making these t-cells more likely to protect against even future mutations.

I'm not sure why a single PP didn't just state this distinction in a response. There's just been a bunch of "I disagree" and "you're apocalyptic" instead. Slow clap for your communication and debate skills....

BUT....t-cell memory has been found to persist for "up to" 8 months after infection. Up. To. Eight. Months. So everyone who is getting vaccines in March of 2021 (teachers! staff!) may become susceptible to the variants in....drumroll....November of 2021. So....yeah....

Which brings me back to my PP about all those epidemiologists from around the world who said that they expect our current vaccines to need replacement in the near term due to variants. And I don't see a plan for that as a necessary contingency to the open schools now mandate this fall.

Also, I'm not moving the goalposts. Darwinism is moving the goalposts, and I'm not responsible for that - it preceded me by, like, eons.

Monica Ghandi is a fervent advocate of kids being in school, so I don’t think she would agree with your assessment of her tweets. Also, can’t everyone just get vaccinated again if it really wears off that quickly?

Hey OP, did you ask Gandhi about this? Because she just tweeted you an answer:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even daycares have kicked out families who didn’t obey the rules. Private anything can do that. Unfortunately public schools cannot, which is why it isn’t unreasonable to ask for surveillance testing even every couple of weeks if that what it takes to get kids back into buildings.

My guess is that if you did surveillance testing you would find a lot of kids who are asymptomatic and testing positive.

That’s not what NYC found with their surveillance testing. Goodness. It’s not June anymore.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/study-finds-strong-evidence-of-low-covid-transmission-in-nyc-schools/2935383/%3famp

Perhaps I misunderstood 'surveillance testing'. I thought it meant random testing of students.
This paper appears to be testing of students who were in contact with exposed students.
I am not arguing that schools cause COVID spread. I am suggesting that many kids would test positive if tested.
This was a large scale testing so that would apply, though it's not all students. However, NYC had its surge early.
The kids may have already cleared it.

Another thing to clarify, by 'a lot of kids' I don't mean 10%, 20%. I think that many have been infected and asymptomatic, and will continue
to do so, but at any point in time it will be much smaller, but much higher than the schools' reported numbers.

Maybe tens of students in a school on average.

[Anonymous]

The sense I get is that the teachers union is just trying to run out the clock on this school year. They're not really interested in what is best for the children or their families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is silly. Schools have been open in DC private ones throughout. Things have been fine. Meanwhile kids on my street haven’t done online school in months. The only thing this has helped is to widen the gap.

This has nothing to do with the school and EVERYTHING to do with the kid's parents. If your child's gap is widening then it is because you're not doing your job as a parent.

Um, no, it has to do with schools being closed. Kids would be in school (maybe they would skip here and there but they would be in school many days instead of 0 days).

Use logic, not knee-jerk attack (even attacking the wrong target).

No. The person you quoted was correct. It is the parents' legal responsibility to ensure their children participate in public education, unless they want to formally pull.out and homeschool. This legal responsibility does not change because public education uses a different delivery method during a pandemic.

Use logic,next time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The sense I get is that the teachers union is just trying to run out the clock on this school year. They're not really interested in what is best for the children or their families.

They want tp get to their summer vacations. Now that they are all vaccinated and well rested from being in their homes, they are all set to travel.