Reason why it's nerve-racking to go back to school in person

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you want a guarantee that nobody will get covid at school, that's not possible.

Just like it's not possible to guarantee that you won't get heart disease, and it's not possible to guarantee that you won't get in a car crash the next time you drive somewhere, and it's not possible to guarantee that you won't trip and fall when you get out of bed tomorrow morning.

Those are not accurate comparisons.

OP, I'm not going to be wondering every single day if my kids were exposed, or if they brought it into our house. I'm just not.

They're absolutely accurate. The only way to guarantee that nobody will get covid at school is to not have school. The only way to guarantee that you won't get heart disease is to not be alive. The only way to guarantee that you won't get in a car crash the next time you drive is to not drive anywhere. The only way to guarantee that you won't trip and fall when you get out of bed is to not get out of bed.

Nope. You are not getting that right at all.

Which parts are wrong?

DP

There is nothing wrong with the analogy.

There is a poster on here who simply says ‘You’re wrong’ when he/she disagrees with a post. Without providing any good reasons. Because he/she has none.

Obviously unable to form a coherent argument. Likely a product of MCPS?

Or they just don't want to bother arguing with someone who thinks an analogy is the as the real thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that children are less likely to spread the virus and less likely to die from the virus but you still have the outbreak situations where lots of people are getting sick.

What assurances do we have from Montgomery County public schools that this won't happen if we go back to school? What can we learn from this? especially given that Montgomery County is saying that mass wearing for children would be optional and encouraged And there was no assurances that there would be more money set aside for cleaning supplies or improving the HVAC systems?

https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/covid-19-cases-end-johns-creek-summer-camp/XAX7DVNW5VAZ3P5YRQY7V7E564/


https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/christian-summer-camp-kanakuk-82-cases-covid-19.amp

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/health/texas-coronavirus-cases-child-care-facilities/index.html

Children may be less likely to die from the virus, but read this - they still contract and transmit the virus. Children under ten are less likely to spread it than children ten and up but they still get and spread it. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/health/coronavirus-children-schools.html

A large new study from South Korea offers an answer: Children younger than 10 transmit to others much less often than adults do, but the risk is not zero. And those between the ages of 10 and 19 can spread the virus at least as well as adults do.

The findings suggest that as schools reopen, communities will see clusters of infection take root that include children of all ages, several experts cautioned.

“I fear that there has been this sense that kids just won’t get infected or don’t get infected in the same way as adults and that, therefore, they’re almost like a bubbled population,” said Michael Osterholm, an infectious diseases expert at the University of Minnesota.

“There will be transmission,” Dr. Osterholm said. “What we have to do is accept that now and include that in our plans.”

Several studies from Europe and Asia have suggested that young children are less likely to get infected and to spread the virus. But most of those studies were small and flawed, said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.

The new study “is very carefully done, it’s systematic and looks at a very large population,” Dr. Jha said. “It’s one of the best studies we’ve had to date on this issue.”

....Children under 10 were roughly half as likely as adults to spread the virus to others, consistent with other studies. That may be because children generally exhale less air — and therefore less virus-laden air — or because they exhale that air closer to the ground, making it less likely that adults would breathe it in.

Even so, the number of new infections seeded by children may rise when schools reopen, the study authors cautioned. “Young children may show higher attack rates when the school closure ends, contributing to community transmission of Covid-19,” they wrote. Other studies have also suggested that the large number of contacts for schoolchildren, who interact with dozens of others for a good part of the day, may cancel out their smaller risk of infecting others.

....The study is more worrisome for children in middle and high school. This group was even more likely to infect others than adults were, the study found...."

It's not "safe" to send your kids to school, if your definition of safe equals "won't catch covid." What you have to decide is whether having your kid or you have a much higher risk of covid is worth going to school in person. For me, the answer is no, it is not worth the risk.

Thanks that is a big concern of mine, that we are going to see much higher rates of transmission if/when we reopen school and there are so many parents who naively believw that it won't be their kid who gets sick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks that is a big concern of mine, that we are going to see much higher rates of transmission if/when we reopen school and there are so many parents who naively believw that it won't be their kid who gets sick

Bars are open, schools are closed, good thing we're focusing on society's really essential functions.

[Anonymous]

Yet hop on over to the Travel boards and there are no shortage of people sharing their vacation plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that children are less likely to spread the virus and less likely to die from the virus but you still have the outbreak situations where lots of people are getting sick.

What assurances do we have from Montgomery County public schools that this won't happen if we go back to school? What can we learn from this? especially given that Montgomery County is saying that mass wearing for children would be optional and encouraged And there was no assurances that there would be more money set aside for cleaning supplies or improving the HVAC systems?

https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/covid-19-cases-end-johns-creek-summer-camp/XAX7DVNW5VAZ3P5YRQY7V7E564/


https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/christian-summer-camp-kanakuk-82-cases-covid-19.amp

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/health/texas-coronavirus-cases-child-care-facilities/index.html

Maybe you would find it less nerve-wracking if they also told you how many of those positive cases resulted in serious negative consequences?

The last two links talk about positive cases, but that doesn’t tell you much. People can test positive and have zero symptoms. People can test positive and end up in the hospital. It’s not helpful to learn how many positive cases there are without knowing how many of those ended up seriously ill.

Define negative consequences. We don't know what the long-term issues will be for people even who had a mild case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that children are less likely to spread the virus and less likely to die from the virus but you still have the outbreak situations where lots of people are getting sick.

What assurances do we have from Montgomery County public schools that this won't happen if we go back to school? What can we learn from this? especially given that Montgomery County is saying that mass wearing for children would be optional and encouraged And there was no assurances that there would be more money set aside for cleaning supplies or improving the HVAC systems?

https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/covid-19-cases-end-johns-creek-summer-camp/XAX7DVNW5VAZ3P5YRQY7V7E564/


https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/christian-summer-camp-kanakuk-82-cases-covid-19.amp

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/health/texas-coronavirus-cases-child-care-facilities/index.html

Maybe you would find it less nerve-wracking if they also told you how many of those positive cases resulted in serious negative consequences?

The last two links talk about positive cases, but that doesn’t tell you much. People can test positive and have zero symptoms. People can test positive and end up in the hospital. It’s not helpful to learn how many positive cases there are without knowing how many of those ended up seriously ill.

Define negative consequences. We don't know what the long-term issues will be for people even who had a mild case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you want a guarantee that nobody will get covid at school, that's not possible.

Just like it's not possible to guarantee that you won't get heart disease, and it's not possible to guarantee that you won't get in a car crash the next time you drive somewhere, and it's not possible to guarantee that you won't trip and fall when you get out of bed tomorrow morning.

Those are not accurate comparisons.

OP, I'm not going to be wondering every single day if my kids were exposed, or if they brought it into our house. I'm just not.

I think your post pretty much summarizes the situation. There are some people who refuse to accept any risk, and there are some people who think the risk level is acceptable and the benefit of being in school outweighs the risk. It seems like letting people choose remote vs physical learning is the most sensible approach.

Sort of. The problem is that if the goal is to remove the virus from the population, then half the people going to school and acting like there is no risk, mean is stays and spreads and spreads, and we continue to be banned form other countries, etc.

Yes! This "well you do you, but don't ask me to change my behavior" is precisely why we've failed as a country on Covid19 in a way no other developed nation has.

PP, unfortunately, your spreader kid is my problem too. Your kid's car crash is not my problem, but when he crashes into my house it is.

[Anonymous]

They are not saying masks are optional. They are mandatory. That was reiterated in the communication we got from Smith over the weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes! This "well you do you, but don't ask me to change my behavior" is precisely why we've failed as a country on Covid19 in a way no other developed nation has.

PP, unfortunately, your spreader kid is my problem too. Your kid's car crash is not my problem, but when he crashes into my house it is.

PP's kid's car crash is your problem even when he doesn't crash into your house. The police response, the EMS response, the health care, the car insurance - all that doesn't come free. You pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are not saying masks are optional. They are mandatory. That was reiterated in the communication we got from Smith over the weekend.

So they also said that masks were encouraged not mandatory so which one is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you want a guarantee that nobody will get covid at school, that's not possible.

Just like it's not possible to guarantee that you won't get heart disease, and it's not possible to guarantee that you won't get in a car crash the next time you drive somewhere, and it's not possible to guarantee that you won't trip and fall when you get out of bed tomorrow morning.

Those are not accurate comparisons.

OP, I'm not going to be wondering every single day if my kids were exposed, or if they brought it into our house. I'm just not.

I think your post pretty much summarizes the situation. There are some people who refuse to accept any risk, and there are some people who think the risk level is acceptable and the benefit of being in school outweighs the risk. It seems like letting people choose remote vs physical learning is the most sensible approach.

Sort of. The problem is that if the goal is to remove the virus from the population, then half the people going to school and acting like there is no risk, mean is stays and spreads and spreads, and we continue to be banned form other countries, etc.

Except that is not true at all.

The US has not failed as a country. Actually, the US has done quite well. Thanks to our excellent doctors and nurses and other essential employees. There have not been food supply issues. There has not been a shortage of hospital beds. People have come together and taken care of each other.

Yes! This "well you do you, but don't ask me to change my behavior" is precisely why we've failed as a country on Covid19 in a way no other developed nation has.

PP, unfortunately, your spreader kid is my problem too. Your kid's car crash is not my problem, but when he crashes into my house it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Except that is not true at all.

The US has not failed as a country. Actually, the US has done quite well. Thanks to our excellent doctors and nurses and other essential employees. There have not been food supply issues. There has not been a shortage of hospital beds. People have come together and taken care of each other.

All of the other developed countries have covid mostly under control, while in the US, there's no end in sight. Yay, us! We're #1 at covid!

[Anonymous]

The NYT piece is almost criminally negligent in how it's reporting the study.

From the actual paper (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article):

We also found the highest COVID-19 rate (18.6% [95% CI 14.0%–24.0%]) for household contacts of school-aged children and the lowest (5.3% [95% CI 1.3%–13.7%]) for household contacts of children 0–9 years in the middle of school closure. Despite closure of their schools, these children might have interacted with each other, although we do not have data to support that hypothesis. A contact survey in Wuhan and Shanghai, China, showed that school closure and social distancing significantly reduced the rate of COVID-19 among contacts of school-aged children (8). In the case of seasonal influenza epidemics, the highest secondary attack rate occurs among young children (9). Children who attend day care or school also are at high risk for transmitting respiratory viruses to household members (10). The low detection rate for household contacts of preschool-aged children in South Korea might be attributable to social distancing during these periods. Yet, a recent report from Shenzhen, China, showed that the proportion of infected children increased during the outbreak from 2% to 13%, suggesting the importance of school closure (11). Further evidence, including serologic studies, is needed to evaluate the public health benefit of school closure as part of mitigation strategies.

You simply cannot conclude from these studies that it's safe to reopen schools during an active outbreak with rising caseloads. And the quotes from experts in the NYT study are quite selectively chosen. The experts are praising the study itself, but none of the experts have offered interpretation of the results beyond confirming that the study says that children transmit the virus. As a quantitative scientist, what strikes me is that the sample sizes for the kids are orders of magnitude smaller than those of the adults. I would hesitate to draw conclusions about an inconsequential scientific theory based on those numbers, let alone a massive public health decision.

Anecdotal evidence from Israel suggests the opposite of what this study has concluded. The reality is, we need to get community spread down to reopen safely. Common sense and experience with other respiratory diseases tells us this, as does the experience of every other country in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand that children are less likely to spread the virus and less likely to die from the virus but you still have the outbreak situations where lots of people are getting sick.

What assurances do we have from Montgomery County public schools that this won't happen if we go back to school? What can we learn from this? especially given that Montgomery County is saying that mass wearing for children would be optional and encouraged And there was no assurances that there would be more money set aside for cleaning supplies or improving the HVAC systems?

https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/covid-19-cases-end-johns-creek-summer-camp/XAX7DVNW5VAZ3P5YRQY7V7E564/


https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/christian-summer-camp-kanakuk-82-cases-covid-19.amp

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/health/texas-coronavirus-cases-child-care-facilities/index.html

Maybe you would find it less nerve-wracking if they also told you how many of those positive cases resulted in serious negative consequences?

The last two links talk about positive cases, but that doesn’t tell you much. People can test positive and have zero symptoms. People can test positive and end up in the hospital. It’s not helpful to learn how many positive cases there are without knowing how many of those ended up seriously ill.

Nobody knows if there are long term consequences. This is a novel virus.

Should we keep schools closed for the next 5 years, or 20 years, until we've determined whether or not there are long-term consequences?

Absolutely not, just until there's a vaccine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NYT piece is almost criminally negligent in how it's reporting the study.

From the actual paper (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article):

We also found the highest COVID-19 rate (18.6% [95% CI 14.0%–24.0%]) for household contacts of school-aged children and the lowest (5.3% [95% CI 1.3%–13.7%]) for household contacts of children 0–9 years in the middle of school closure. Despite closure of their schools, these children might have interacted with each other, although we do not have data to support that hypothesis. A contact survey in Wuhan and Shanghai, China, showed that school closure and social distancing significantly reduced the rate of COVID-19 among contacts of school-aged children (8). In the case of seasonal influenza epidemics, the highest secondary attack rate occurs among young children (9). Children who attend day care or school also are at high risk for transmitting respiratory viruses to household members (10). The low detection rate for household contacts of preschool-aged children in South Korea might be attributable to social distancing during these periods. Yet, a recent report from Shenzhen, China, showed that the proportion of infected children increased during the outbreak from 2% to 13%, suggesting the importance of school closure (11). Further evidence, including serologic studies, is needed to evaluate the public health benefit of school closure as part of mitigation strategies.

You simply cannot conclude from these studies that it's safe to reopen schools during an active outbreak with rising caseloads. And the quotes from experts in the NYT study are quite selectively chosen. The experts are praising the study itself, but none of the experts have offered interpretation of the results beyond confirming that the study says that children transmit the virus. As a quantitative scientist, what strikes me is that the sample sizes for the kids are orders of magnitude smaller than those of the adults. I would hesitate to draw conclusions about an inconsequential scientific theory based on those numbers, let alone a massive public health decision.

Anecdotal evidence from Israel suggests the opposite of what this study has concluded. The reality is, we need to get community spread down to reopen safely. Common sense and experience with other respiratory diseases tells us this, as does the experience of every other country in the world.

best post of the day