Smart Restart APS- ventilation studies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't people here saying elementary school shouldn't be going back either until CPC guidelines are met? I didn't think the complaining parents on here are limited to middle and high school because safety doesn't matter for their elementary kids, but maybe I misunderstood. It's a long thread and I haven't read all of it.

I certainly don't mean to gaslight. And I did not mean to suggest that, for example, elementary kids shouldn't go back until high schools met the required standards -- that was bad phrasing on my part and I apologize.

A lot of different thoughts in this thread. Here's my understanding of what it seems a lot of people are saying: elementary should go back in March because the CDC guidelines allow for it, even though Arlington is the "red" or highest level. But before going back in early March, it would be great if the correct number of air filters/purifiers could be properly placed in each APS classroom (some classrooms may need more than one to achieve the ideal 4-6 air exchanges per hour because of the size of those classrooms, although most classrooms are fine with just one). It also would be great if APS could implement a better lunch plan before early March , with no kids eating in the cafeteria. Personally, I think all lunch should be outside. For MS and HS, the CDC guidelines raise a bigger question because they recommend only virtual learning for MS and HS in the "red" or highest level, unless APS has in place a comprehensive screening test system in place. It doesn't seem APS does, so it *could* necessitate a delay in re-opening MS and HS. But the same thing re ventilation and lunch would apply to MS and HS when they open, but perhaps even more acutely for lunch because many of the current lunch plans involve a lot of kids eating in a cafeteria.

Of course, some are saying to go back at all levels now, regardless of ventilation, lunch plans, or CDC guidelines.

I agree with a lot of your summary, but you’ve ignored the significant contingent arguing that schools should not reopen at all until we’ve met metrics that go well beyond the CDC guidelines. There are extremists on both sides.

You keep saying that, but I have yet to see anyone on this thread expressing that opinion.

I also don't see anyone saying we should completely disregard ventilation, lunch plans or CDC guidelines. But there are differences of opinions on what's safe enough when it comes to ventilation and lunch plans.

Well whenever several of us have brought up the need to change the hundred plus kids in the lunchroom, the response from certain posters is for us to stay home. I would say that is disregarding safety concerns.

I guess I was assuming that you 'knew' the hundred plus kids in the lunchroom was not true. APS has said repeatedly that lunch would be eaten in classrooms. Classrooms, which are spaced 6 feet apart and have 1/2 the students who are in person in them- so like between 6-12 students.
https://www.apsva.us/post/how-will-lunch-be-handled-during-in-person-instruction/

Why would I assume it’s not true when the information came straight out of our principal and facility managers mouth? Again would you like the link to the PTA meeting recording?

okay- since Williamsburg is the bee in your bonnet lets assume that eating at Williamsburg is restricted to the cafeteria. The williamsburg cafeteria has a capacity for 541 students at a time.

Williamsburg current enrollment is 894. 1/2 pick virtual, we are at 450. 1/2 of those attend on any given day, we are at 225. Those 225 are divided into three lunch periods- 75 students eating lunch at a time, in a room designed to fit 541. That doesn't sound so bad to me?

You don't need to do the math. The principal said 100+ kids in the cafeteria at at time. Multiple shifts, so the last shift (since the virus is airborne) is at most risk. Also, 70% of WMS students chose hybrid. principa

Have you been eating regularly in a room with 100 people? Has your kid?

Hell to the no!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Practically speaking, it rains a lot here. Even if they purchased and set up new picnic tables where the trailers were at WMS, the seats would be wet 2 days out of 4. And, as summer approaches, there would be a lot of hot days with no shade. So fine, purchase or fundraise for tables and chairs, for those opportune outdoor lunch days, but realize the kids will have to eat inside at some point.

Bishop O'Connell, just blocks away, has had indoor lunches in the cafeteria, with kids spread apart six feet, for six months. There has been no school based transmission. Call that anecdotal, disregard it, whatever. But I am comfortable with this lunch risk at WMS. I get that people are not comfortable with this. The virtual option is available for you.

O’Connell did have a nine-case outbreak recently. It’s rumored to be because of an outside party and not actually school-based, but no one knows that for sure. So while I generally agree with the broader principles, I don’t think we can be so absolute in the details.

Is O’Connell doing surveillance testing like other privates?

If not (and without corresponding contact tracing/testing), we don’t know how many cases have spread there.

[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:Aren't people here saying elementary school shouldn't be going back either until CPC guidelines are met? I didn't think the complaining parents on here are limited to middle and high school because safety doesn't matter for their elementary kids, but maybe I misunderstood. It's a long thread and I haven't read all of it.

I certainly don't mean to gaslight. And I did not mean to suggest that, for example, elementary kids shouldn't go back until high schools met the required standards -- that was bad phrasing on my part and I apologize.

A lot of different thoughts in this thread. Here's my understanding of what it seems a lot of people are saying: elementary should go back in March because the CDC guidelines allow for it, even though Arlington is the "red" or highest level. But before going back in early March, it would be great if the correct number of air filters/purifiers could be properly placed in each APS classroom (some classrooms may need more than one to achieve the ideal 4-6 air exchanges per hour because of the size of those classrooms, although most classrooms are fine with just one). It also would be great if APS could implement a better lunch plan before early March , with no kids eating in the cafeteria. Personally, I think all lunch should be outside. For MS and HS, the CDC guidelines raise a bigger question because they recommend only virtual learning for MS and HS in the "red" or highest level, unless APS has in place a comprehensive screening test system in place. It doesn't seem APS does, so it *could* necessitate a delay in re-opening MS and HS. But the same thing re ventilation and lunch would apply to MS and HS when they open, but perhaps even more acutely for lunch because many of the current lunch plans involve a lot of kids eating in a cafeteria.

Of course, some are saying to go back at all levels now, regardless of ventilation, lunch plans, or CDC guidelines.

I agree with a lot of your summary, but you’ve ignored the significant contingent arguing that schools should not reopen at all until we’ve met metrics that go well beyond the CDC guidelines. There are extremists on both sides.

You keep saying that, but I have yet to see anyone on this thread expressing that opinion.

I also don't see anyone saying we should completely disregard ventilation, lunch plans or CDC guidelines. But there are differences of opinions on what's safe enough when it comes to ventilation and lunch plans.

Well whenever several of us have brought up the need to change the hundred plus kids in the lunchroom, the response from certain posters is for us to stay home. I would say that is disregarding safety concerns.

I guess I was assuming that you 'knew' the hundred plus kids in the lunchroom was not true. APS has said repeatedly that lunch would be eaten in classrooms. Classrooms, which are spaced 6 feet apart and have 1/2 the students who are in person in them- so like between 6-12 students.
https://www.apsva.us/post/how-will-lunch-be-handled-during-in-person-instruction/

Why would I assume it’s not true when the information came straight out of our principal and facility managers mouth? Again would you like the link to the PTA meeting recording?

okay- since Williamsburg is the bee in your bonnet lets assume that eating at Williamsburg is restricted to the cafeteria. The williamsburg cafeteria has a capacity for 541 students at a time.

Williamsburg current enrollment is 894. 1/2 pick virtual, we are at 450. 1/2 of those attend on any given day, we are at 225. Those 225 are divided into three lunch periods- 75 students eating lunch at a time, in a room designed to fit 541. That doesn't sound so bad to me?

You don't need to do the math. The principal said 100+ kids in the cafeteria at at time. Multiple shifts, so the last shift (since the virus is airborne) is at most risk. Also, 70% of WMS students chose hybrid. principa

Have you been eating regularly in a room with 100 people? Has your kid?

Hell to the no!

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't people here saying elementary school shouldn't be going back either until CPC guidelines are met? I didn't think the complaining parents on here are limited to middle and high school because safety doesn't matter for their elementary kids, but maybe I misunderstood. It's a long thread and I haven't read all of it.

I certainly don't mean to gaslight. And I did not mean to suggest that, for example, elementary kids shouldn't go back until high schools met the required standards -- that was bad phrasing on my part and I apologize.

A lot of different thoughts in this thread. Here's my understanding of what it seems a lot of people are saying: elementary should go back in March because the CDC guidelines allow for it, even though Arlington is the "red" or highest level. But before going back in early March, it would be great if the correct number of air filters/purifiers could be properly placed in each APS classroom (some classrooms may need more than one to achieve the ideal 4-6 air exchanges per hour because of the size of those classrooms, although most classrooms are fine with just one). It also would be great if APS could implement a better lunch plan before early March , with no kids eating in the cafeteria. Personally, I think all lunch should be outside. For MS and HS, the CDC guidelines raise a bigger question because they recommend only virtual learning for MS and HS in the "red" or highest level, unless APS has in place a comprehensive screening test system in place. It doesn't seem APS does, so it *could* necessitate a delay in re-opening MS and HS. But the same thing re ventilation and lunch would apply to MS and HS when they open, but perhaps even more acutely for lunch because many of the current lunch plans involve a lot of kids eating in a cafeteria.

Of course, some are saying to go back at all levels now, regardless of ventilation, lunch plans, or CDC guidelines.

I agree with a lot of your summary, but you’ve ignored the significant contingent arguing that schools should not reopen at all until we’ve met metrics that go well beyond the CDC guidelines. There are extremists on both sides.

You keep saying that, but I have yet to see anyone on this thread expressing that opinion.

I also don't see anyone saying we should completely disregard ventilation, lunch plans or CDC guidelines. But there are differences of opinions on what's safe enough when it comes to ventilation and lunch plans.

Well whenever several of us have brought up the need to change the hundred plus kids in the lunchroom, the response from certain posters is for us to stay home. I would say that is disregarding safety concerns.

I guess I was assuming that you 'knew' the hundred plus kids in the lunchroom was not true. APS has said repeatedly that lunch would be eaten in classrooms. Classrooms, which are spaced 6 feet apart and have 1/2 the students who are in person in them- so like between 6-12 students.
https://www.apsva.us/post/how-will-lunch-be-handled-during-in-person-instruction/

Why would I assume it’s not true when the information came straight out of our principal and facility managers mouth? Again would you like the link to the PTA meeting recording?

okay- since Williamsburg is the bee in your bonnet lets assume that eating at Williamsburg is restricted to the cafeteria. The williamsburg cafeteria has a capacity for 541 students at a time.

Williamsburg current enrollment is 894. 1/2 pick virtual, we are at 450. 1/2 of those attend on any given day, we are at 225. Those 225 are divided into three lunch periods- 75 students eating lunch at a time, in a room designed to fit 541. That doesn't sound so bad to me?

You don't need to do the math. The principal said 100+ kids in the cafeteria at at time. Multiple shifts, so the last shift (since the virus is airborne) is at most risk. Also, 70% of WMS students chose hybrid. principa

Have you been eating regularly in a room with 100 people? Has your kid?

No, because there’s been no cause to. All of this is a risk/benefit analysis, and for some people, the mitigated risk of cafeteria eating as planned by APS is worth it for the benefit of in-person schooling. Your calculus is different and that’s okay, but it doesn’t inherently mean schools should stay closed.

[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:Aren't people here saying elementary school shouldn't be going back either until CPC guidelines are met? I didn't think the complaining parents on here are limited to middle and high school because safety doesn't matter for their elementary kids, but maybe I misunderstood. It's a long thread and I haven't read all of it.

I certainly don't mean to gaslight. And I did not mean to suggest that, for example, elementary kids shouldn't go back until high schools met the required standards -- that was bad phrasing on my part and I apologize.

A lot of different thoughts in this thread. Here's my understanding of what it seems a lot of people are saying: elementary should go back in March because the CDC guidelines allow for it, even though Arlington is the "red" or highest level. But before going back in early March, it would be great if the correct number of air filters/purifiers could be properly placed in each APS classroom (some classrooms may need more than one to achieve the ideal 4-6 air exchanges per hour because of the size of those classrooms, although most classrooms are fine with just one). It also would be great if APS could implement a better lunch plan before early March , with no kids eating in the cafeteria. Personally, I think all lunch should be outside. For MS and HS, the CDC guidelines raise a bigger question because they recommend only virtual learning for MS and HS in the "red" or highest level, unless APS has in place a comprehensive screening test system in place. It doesn't seem APS does, so it *could* necessitate a delay in re-opening MS and HS. But the same thing re ventilation and lunch would apply to MS and HS when they open, but perhaps even more acutely for lunch because many of the current lunch plans involve a lot of kids eating in a cafeteria.

Of course, some are saying to go back at all levels now, regardless of ventilation, lunch plans, or CDC guidelines.

I agree with a lot of your summary, but you’ve ignored the significant contingent arguing that schools should not reopen at all until we’ve met metrics that go well beyond the CDC guidelines. There are extremists on both sides.

You keep saying that, but I have yet to see anyone on this thread expressing that opinion.

I also don't see anyone saying we should completely disregard ventilation, lunch plans or CDC guidelines. But there are differences of opinions on what's safe enough when it comes to ventilation and lunch plans.

Well whenever several of us have brought up the need to change the hundred plus kids in the lunchroom, the response from certain posters is for us to stay home. I would say that is disregarding safety concerns.

I guess I was assuming that you 'knew' the hundred plus kids in the lunchroom was not true. APS has said repeatedly that lunch would be eaten in classrooms. Classrooms, which are spaced 6 feet apart and have 1/2 the students who are in person in them- so like between 6-12 students.
https://www.apsva.us/post/how-will-lunch-be-handled-during-in-person-instruction/

Why would I assume it’s not true when the information came straight out of our principal and facility managers mouth? Again would you like the link to the PTA meeting recording?

okay- since Williamsburg is the bee in your bonnet lets assume that eating at Williamsburg is restricted to the cafeteria. The williamsburg cafeteria has a capacity for 541 students at a time.

Williamsburg current enrollment is 894. 1/2 pick virtual, we are at 450. 1/2 of those attend on any given day, we are at 225. Those 225 are divided into three lunch periods- 75 students eating lunch at a time, in a room designed to fit 541. That doesn't sound so bad to me?

You don't need to do the math. The principal said 100+ kids in the cafeteria at at time. Multiple shifts, so the last shift (since the virus is airborne) is at most risk. Also, 70% of WMS students chose hybrid. principa

Have you been eating regularly in a room with 100 people? Has your kid?

No, because there’s been no cause to. All of this is a risk/benefit analysis, and for some people, the mitigated risk of cafeteria eating as planned by APS is worth it for the benefit of in-person schooling. Your calculus is different and that’s okay, but it doesn’t inherently mean schools should stay closed.

+1. Again, no one will force your child to go hybrid in March if you previously selected it and now feel uncomfortable. Advocate away for the logistically possible lunch of your dreams at WMS/other secondary spots in March. If you are not successful, there is a fully competent virtual option for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Practically speaking, it rains a lot here. Even if they purchased and set up new picnic tables where the trailers were at WMS, the seats would be wet 2 days out of 4. And, as summer approaches, there would be a lot of hot days with no shade. So fine, purchase or fundraise for tables and chairs, for those opportune outdoor lunch days, but realize the kids will have to eat inside at some point.

Bishop O'Connell, just blocks away, has had indoor lunches in the cafeteria, with kids spread apart six feet, for six months. There has been no school based transmission. Call that anecdotal, disregard it, whatever. But I am comfortable with this lunch risk at WMS. I get that people are not comfortable with this. The virtual option is available for you.

O’Connell did have a nine-case outbreak recently. It’s rumored to be because of an outside party and not actually school-based, but no one knows that for sure. So while I generally agree with the broader principles, I don’t think we can be so absolute in the details.

Is O’Connell doing surveillance testing like other privates?

If not (and without corresponding contact tracing/testing), we don’t know how many cases have spread there.

Hahaha. No. No surveillance testing.

[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:Aren't people here saying elementary school shouldn't be going back either until CPC guidelines are met? I didn't think the complaining parents on here are limited to middle and high school because safety doesn't matter for their elementary kids, but maybe I misunderstood. It's a long thread and I haven't read all of it.

I certainly don't mean to gaslight. And I did not mean to suggest that, for example, elementary kids shouldn't go back until high schools met the required standards -- that was bad phrasing on my part and I apologize.

A lot of different thoughts in this thread. Here's my understanding of what it seems a lot of people are saying: elementary should go back in March because the CDC guidelines allow for it, even though Arlington is the "red" or highest level. But before going back in early March, it would be great if the correct number of air filters/purifiers could be properly placed in each APS classroom (some classrooms may need more than one to achieve the ideal 4-6 air exchanges per hour because of the size of those classrooms, although most classrooms are fine with just one). It also would be great if APS could implement a better lunch plan before early March , with no kids eating in the cafeteria. Personally, I think all lunch should be outside. For MS and HS, the CDC guidelines raise a bigger question because they recommend only virtual learning for MS and HS in the "red" or highest level, unless APS has in place a comprehensive screening test system in place. It doesn't seem APS does, so it *could* necessitate a delay in re-opening MS and HS. But the same thing re ventilation and lunch would apply to MS and HS when they open, but perhaps even more acutely for lunch because many of the current lunch plans involve a lot of kids eating in a cafeteria.

Of course, some are saying to go back at all levels now, regardless of ventilation, lunch plans, or CDC guidelines.

I agree with a lot of your summary, but you’ve ignored the significant contingent arguing that schools should not reopen at all until we’ve met metrics that go well beyond the CDC guidelines. There are extremists on both sides.

You keep saying that, but I have yet to see anyone on this thread expressing that opinion.

I also don't see anyone saying we should completely disregard ventilation, lunch plans or CDC guidelines. But there are differences of opinions on what's safe enough when it comes to ventilation and lunch plans.

Well whenever several of us have brought up the need to change the hundred plus kids in the lunchroom, the response from certain posters is for us to stay home. I would say that is disregarding safety concerns.

I guess I was assuming that you 'knew' the hundred plus kids in the lunchroom was not true. APS has said repeatedly that lunch would be eaten in classrooms. Classrooms, which are spaced 6 feet apart and have 1/2 the students who are in person in them- so like between 6-12 students.
https://www.apsva.us/post/how-will-lunch-be-handled-during-in-person-instruction/

Why would I assume it’s not true when the information came straight out of our principal and facility managers mouth? Again would you like the link to the PTA meeting recording?

okay- since Williamsburg is the bee in your bonnet lets assume that eating at Williamsburg is restricted to the cafeteria. The williamsburg cafeteria has a capacity for 541 students at a time.

Williamsburg current enrollment is 894. 1/2 pick virtual, we are at 450. 1/2 of those attend on any given day, we are at 225. Those 225 are divided into three lunch periods- 75 students eating lunch at a time, in a room designed to fit 541. That doesn't sound so bad to me?

You don't need to do the math. The principal said 100+ kids in the cafeteria at at time. Multiple shifts, so the last shift (since the virus is airborne) is at most risk. Also, 70% of WMS students chose hybrid. principa

Have you been eating regularly in a room with 100 people? Has your kid?

No, because there’s been no cause to. All of this is a risk/benefit analysis, and for some people, the mitigated risk of cafeteria eating as planned by APS is worth it for the benefit of in-person schooling. Your calculus is different and that’s okay, but it doesn’t inherently mean schools should stay closed.

yes- was going to post exactly the same thing. I have not eaten in a room with someone I wasn't related to in nearly a year. My kids are back as part of level 1, so they are eating in a room with a very small group of students. To me, the risk of eating in a cafeteria functioning at 20% capacity spaced 6 feet apart, is well worth the reward of in-person school. It's okay if your risk calculation is different.

[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:Aren't people here saying elementary school shouldn't be going back either until CPC guidelines are met? I didn't think the complaining parents on here are limited to middle and high school because safety doesn't matter for their elementary kids, but maybe I misunderstood. It's a long thread and I haven't read all of it.

I certainly don't mean to gaslight. And I did not mean to suggest that, for example, elementary kids shouldn't go back until high schools met the required standards -- that was bad phrasing on my part and I apologize.

A lot of different thoughts in this thread. Here's my understanding of what it seems a lot of people are saying: elementary should go back in March because the CDC guidelines allow for it, even though Arlington is the "red" or highest level. But before going back in early March, it would be great if the correct number of air filters/purifiers could be properly placed in each APS classroom (some classrooms may need more than one to achieve the ideal 4-6 air exchanges per hour because of the size of those classrooms, although most classrooms are fine with just one). It also would be great if APS could implement a better lunch plan before early March , with no kids eating in the cafeteria. Personally, I think all lunch should be outside. For MS and HS, the CDC guidelines raise a bigger question because they recommend only virtual learning for MS and HS in the "red" or highest level, unless APS has in place a comprehensive screening test system in place. It doesn't seem APS does, so it *could* necessitate a delay in re-opening MS and HS. But the same thing re ventilation and lunch would apply to MS and HS when they open, but perhaps even more acutely for lunch because many of the current lunch plans involve a lot of kids eating in a cafeteria.

Of course, some are saying to go back at all levels now, regardless of ventilation, lunch plans, or CDC guidelines.

I agree with a lot of your summary, but you’ve ignored the significant contingent arguing that schools should not reopen at all until we’ve met metrics that go well beyond the CDC guidelines. There are extremists on both sides.

You keep saying that, but I have yet to see anyone on this thread expressing that opinion.

I also don't see anyone saying we should completely disregard ventilation, lunch plans or CDC guidelines. But there are differences of opinions on what's safe enough when it comes to ventilation and lunch plans.

Well whenever several of us have brought up the need to change the hundred plus kids in the lunchroom, the response from certain posters is for us to stay home. I would say that is disregarding safety concerns.

I guess I was assuming that you 'knew' the hundred plus kids in the lunchroom was not true. APS has said repeatedly that lunch would be eaten in classrooms. Classrooms, which are spaced 6 feet apart and have 1/2 the students who are in person in them- so like between 6-12 students.
https://www.apsva.us/post/how-will-lunch-be-handled-during-in-person-instruction/

Why would I assume it’s not true when the information came straight out of our principal and facility managers mouth? Again would you like the link to the PTA meeting recording?

okay- since Williamsburg is the bee in your bonnet lets assume that eating at Williamsburg is restricted to the cafeteria. The williamsburg cafeteria has a capacity for 541 students at a time.

Williamsburg current enrollment is 894. 1/2 pick virtual, we are at 450. 1/2 of those attend on any given day, we are at 225. Those 225 are divided into three lunch periods- 75 students eating lunch at a time, in a room designed to fit 541. That doesn't sound so bad to me?

You don't need to do the math. The principal said 100+ kids in the cafeteria at at time. Multiple shifts, so the last shift (since the virus is airborne) is at most risk. Also, 70% of WMS students chose hybrid. principa

Have you been eating regularly in a room with 100 people? Has your kid?

No, because there’s been no cause to. All of this is a risk/benefit analysis, and for some people, the mitigated risk of cafeteria eating as planned by APS is worth it for the benefit of in-person schooling. Your calculus is different and that’s okay, but it doesn’t inherently mean schools should stay closed.

Who said stay closed? Open with an option to eat outdoors. Give kids in person school without requiring them to eat in an 100 person restaurant. Seems reasonable. If we care about the health of our students.

[Anonymous]

Practically speaking, it rains a lot here. Even if they purchased and set up new picnic tables where the trailers were at WMS, the seats would be wet 2 days out of 4. And, as summer approaches, there would be a lot of hot days with no shade. So fine, purchase or fundraise for tables and chairs, for those opportune outdoor lunch days, but realize the kids will have to eat inside at some point.

No need for tables. Have the kids use situpons on the ground outside. If they spread out, the risk of maskless transmission at lunch essentially drops to zero. Kids can eat outside anytime it isn't precipitating, so maybe 3 out of 4 days? If the risk of transmission at lunch is "x" then eating outside 3/4 of the time drops the risk of lunchtime transmission by 75% for the negligible cost of situpons. We all don't agree upon "x", but the 75% decrease is indisputable.

[Anonymous]

I thought the CDC was now using the 7 day numbers. We are close if not out of the red zone for Arlington using the 7 day numbers if I understood the chart i was looking at today. Many charts out there, so I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

CDC is using 7 day cumulative not 7 day average. That’s my understanding anyway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CDC is using 7 day cumulative not 7 day average. That’s my understanding anyway

When i looked at that (the cumulative, not the average), we had moved "down" a risk category in Arlington. Of course, now I can't even find the chart i saw that on, so I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Just ballparking. VA DOH has 7 day average for Arlington at 21 today. It’s probably low. But still that’s about 150 cumulative for 7 days. Needs to be under 100 to get out of CDC red zone I believe. We’ve got a way to hone

[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:Aren't people here saying elementary school shouldn't be going back either until CPC guidelines are met? I didn't think the complaining parents on here are limited to middle and high school because safety doesn't matter for their elementary kids, but maybe I misunderstood. It's a long thread and I haven't read all of it.

I certainly don't mean to gaslight. And I did not mean to suggest that, for example, elementary kids shouldn't go back until high schools met the required standards -- that was bad phrasing on my part and I apologize.

A lot of different thoughts in this thread. Here's my understanding of what it seems a lot of people are saying: elementary should go back in March because the CDC guidelines allow for it, even though Arlington is the "red" or highest level. But before going back in early March, it would be great if the correct number of air filters/purifiers could be properly placed in each APS classroom (some classrooms may need more than one to achieve the ideal 4-6 air exchanges per hour because of the size of those classrooms, although most classrooms are fine with just one). It also would be great if APS could implement a better lunch plan before early March , with no kids eating in the cafeteria. Personally, I think all lunch should be outside. For MS and HS, the CDC guidelines raise a bigger question because they recommend only virtual learning for MS and HS in the "red" or highest level, unless APS has in place a comprehensive screening test system in place. It doesn't seem APS does, so it *could* necessitate a delay in re-opening MS and HS. But the same thing re ventilation and lunch would apply to MS and HS when they open, but perhaps even more acutely for lunch because many of the current lunch plans involve a lot of kids eating in a cafeteria.

Of course, some are saying to go back at all levels now, regardless of ventilation, lunch plans, or CDC guidelines.

I agree with a lot of your summary, but you’ve ignored the significant contingent arguing that schools should not reopen at all until we’ve met metrics that go well beyond the CDC guidelines. There are extremists on both sides.

You keep saying that, but I have yet to see anyone on this thread expressing that opinion.

I also don't see anyone saying we should completely disregard ventilation, lunch plans or CDC guidelines. But there are differences of opinions on what's safe enough when it comes to ventilation and lunch plans.

Well whenever several of us have brought up the need to change the hundred plus kids in the lunchroom, the response from certain posters is for us to stay home. I would say that is disregarding safety concerns.

I guess I was assuming that you 'knew' the hundred plus kids in the lunchroom was not true. APS has said repeatedly that lunch would be eaten in classrooms. Classrooms, which are spaced 6 feet apart and have 1/2 the students who are in person in them- so like between 6-12 students.
https://www.apsva.us/post/how-will-lunch-be-handled-during-in-person-instruction/

Why would I assume it’s not true when the information came straight out of our principal and facility managers mouth? Again would you like the link to the PTA meeting recording?

okay- since Williamsburg is the bee in your bonnet lets assume that eating at Williamsburg is restricted to the cafeteria. The williamsburg cafeteria has a capacity for 541 students at a time.

Williamsburg current enrollment is 894. 1/2 pick virtual, we are at 450. 1/2 of those attend on any given day, we are at 225. Those 225 are divided into three lunch periods- 75 students eating lunch at a time, in a room designed to fit 541. That doesn't sound so bad to me?

You don't need to do the math. The principal said 100+ kids in the cafeteria at at time. Multiple shifts, so the last shift (since the virus is airborne) is at most risk. Also, 70% of WMS students chose hybrid. principa

Have you been eating regularly in a room with 100 people? Has your kid?

No, because there’s been no cause to. All of this is a risk/benefit analysis, and for some people, the mitigated risk of cafeteria eating as planned by APS is worth it for the benefit of in-person schooling. Your calculus is different and that’s okay, but it doesn’t inherently mean schools should stay closed.

Who said stay closed? Open with an option to eat outdoors. Give kids in person school without requiring them to eat in an 100 person restaurant. Seems reasonable. If we care about the health of our students.

The APS secondary guidance says meals will also be eaten outdoors, with the caveat that it’s weather permitting. No matter how sincere their intention of allowing outdoor lunches, they have to plan for the days they won’t be able to do that.

[Anonymous]

reducing restaurant capacity to 20% lowers transmission of covid by 80%. The school cafeteria is operating at 20% capacity. I feel pretty good about that.
https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-superspreading-venues-restaurants.html