For every 1,000 kids returning to a D.C. school, four will likely be infected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume a masked kid who is infected will infect other kids or teachers who are also masked and presumably, socially-distanced? This is far from a given.

Good probability they will infect other kids or teacher esp if 10 years or older. In addition, the greatest risk of infection is to other family members, kids bringing it home. That is what I read somewhere was the highest percentage of transmission of infection in China

Not really. Researchers say with face masks, the chance of infection or transmission is only 3%. Without masks it rises to 17%--still far from a sure thing.

https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-19-prevention.html

Let's assume at a school like Wilson each kid comes in contact with 100 people each day. So a 3% transmission rate means one infected kid infects three other people. If they start with a 0.8% infection rate that's 16 kids on the first day. Then they infect 48 more and that's 64. Then those 64 infect 192 more and it's 256. If they don't shut the school it doesn't take long before everyone in the school has it.

Get a grip. No way does a kid have potential disease-spreading contact with 100 different kids at school at a time when schools are implementing all sorts of special practices and procedures to limit the spread of COVID.

Ok, pick your number. The outcome doesn't change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Yep...but likely they'd infect others before being diagnosed.

Eh, not likely if everyone is masked.

Mask help but they are not a cure. Kids are touching everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume a masked kid who is infected will infect other kids or teachers who are also masked and presumably, socially-distanced? This is far from a given.

Good probability they will infect other kids or teacher esp if 10 years or older. In addition, the greatest risk of infection is to other family members, kids bringing it home. That is what I read somewhere was the highest percentage of transmission of infection in China

Not really. Researchers say with face masks, the chance of infection or transmission is only 3%. Without masks it rises to 17%--still far from a sure thing.

https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-19-prevention.html

Let's assume at a school like Wilson each kid comes in contact with 100 people each day. So a 3% transmission rate means one infected kid infects three other people. If they start with a 0.8% infection rate that's 16 kids on the first day. Then they infect 48 more and that's 64. Then those 64 infect 192 more and it's 256. If they don't shut the school it doesn't take long before everyone in the school has it.

Get a grip. No way does a kid have potential disease-spreading contact with 100 different kids at school at a time when schools are implementing all sorts of special practices and procedures to limit the spread of COVID.

Ok, pick your number. The outcome doesn't change.

If you truly think there’s no difference between an infected kid having contact with 100 other kids and a kid having contact with 5 other kids then perhaps you’re the one who needs to go back to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume a masked kid who is infected will infect other kids or teachers who are also masked and presumably, socially-distanced? This is far from a given.

Good probability they will infect other kids or teacher esp if 10 years or older. In addition, the greatest risk of infection is to other family members, kids bringing it home. That is what I read somewhere was the highest percentage of transmission of infection in China

Not really. Researchers say with face masks, the chance of infection or transmission is only 3%. Without masks it rises to 17%--still far from a sure thing.

https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-19-prevention.html

Let's assume at a school like Wilson each kid comes in contact with 100 people each day. So a 3% transmission rate means one infected kid infects three other people. If they start with a 0.8% infection rate that's 16 kids on the first day. Then they infect 48 more and that's 64. Then those 64 infect 192 more and it's 256. If they don't shut the school it doesn't take long before everyone in the school has it.

Get a grip. No way does a kid have potential disease-spreading contact with 100 different kids at school at a time when schools are implementing all sorts of special practices and procedures to limit the spread of COVID.

Ok, pick your number. The outcome doesn't change.

If you truly think there’s no difference between an infected kid having contact with 100 other kids and a kid having contact with 5 other kids then perhaps you’re the one who needs to go back to school.

NP: If you truly think high school kids at Wilson are only coming in contact with 5 other kids, you've never been to a big public high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume a masked kid who is infected will infect other kids or teachers who are also masked and presumably, socially-distanced? This is far from a given.

Good probability they will infect other kids or teacher esp if 10 years or older. In addition, the greatest risk of infection is to other family members, kids bringing it home. That is what I read somewhere was the highest percentage of transmission of infection in China

Not really. Researchers say with face masks, the chance of infection or transmission is only 3%. Without masks it rises to 17%--still far from a sure thing.

https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-19-prevention.html

Most important point from that article: "They were not able to examine how a person's duration of potential exposure affected their risk of infection."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume a masked kid who is infected will infect other kids or teachers who are also masked and presumably, socially-distanced? This is far from a given.

Good probability they will infect other kids or teacher esp if 10 years or older. In addition, the greatest risk of infection is to other family members, kids bringing it home. That is what I read somewhere was the highest percentage of transmission of infection in China

Not really. Researchers say with face masks, the chance of infection or transmission is only 3%. Without masks it rises to 17%--still far from a sure thing.

https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-19-prevention.html

Let's assume at a school like Wilson each kid comes in contact with 100 people each day. So a 3% transmission rate means one infected kid infects three other people. If they start with a 0.8% infection rate that's 16 kids on the first day. Then they infect 48 more and that's 64. Then those 64 infect 192 more and it's 256. If they don't shut the school it doesn't take long before everyone in the school has it.

Thanks for doing the math. I guess people need to really understand how exponential growth works and quickly COVID-19 can spread. Just look at the camp in Georgia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume a masked kid who is infected will infect other kids or teachers who are also masked and presumably, socially-distanced? This is far from a given.

Good probability they will infect other kids or teacher esp if 10 years or older. In addition, the greatest risk of infection is to other family members, kids bringing it home. That is what I read somewhere was the highest percentage of transmission of infection in China

Not really. Researchers say with face masks, the chance of infection or transmission is only 3%. Without masks it rises to 17%--still far from a sure thing.

https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-19-prevention.html

Let's assume at a school like Wilson each kid comes in contact with 100 people each day. So a 3% transmission rate means one infected kid infects three other people. If they start with a 0.8% infection rate that's 16 kids on the first day. Then they infect 48 more and that's 64. Then those 64 infect 192 more and it's 256. If they don't shut the school it doesn't take long before everyone in the school has it.

Get a grip. No way does a kid have potential disease-spreading contact with 100 different kids at school at a time when schools are implementing all sorts of special practices and procedures to limit the spread of COVID.

Ok, pick your number. The outcome doesn't change.

If you truly think there’s no difference between an infected kid having contact with 100 other kids and a kid having contact with 5 other kids then perhaps you’re the one who needs to go back to school.

I'm not any of the PP. But they are right: unless the networks are completely disconnected, and no one knows how to disconnect them, there is literally no difference between 5 kids and 100 kids when it comes to exponential growth. It's the difference between closing in 3 days or 12 days.

Some here have asked what it would have taken to reopen the schools: we were getting there a few weeks ago. A dozen cases a day all imported from outside with virtually no community transmission. At those numbers systematic contact tracing is not a pipe dream. Because of the ripple effect of the FL/GA wave we are no longer close to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Are you kidding me? That’s a shit-ton.

On what planet is 0.08% a shit ton of anything?

Right here, troll, right here.
When each of those 0.08% goes on to infect their entire household, and some of those household members go on to coughing with their weener mask on "while exercising" or talking loudly nonstop on their bluetooth without a mask while delivering mail, it adds up, troll, it adds up.

[Anonymous]

Let's see, 0.08% of a ton of shit. A ton has 2,000 pounds so 0.08% is 1.6 pounds. Normallly it weighs up to a pound, so if I were you, I'd visit a doctor and check out why you aren't concerned with your megaweighing shit. I think you have a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Are you kidding me? That’s a shit-ton.

On what planet is 0.08% a shit ton of anything?

On a planet where the R-number exceeds 1. Put that many positive kids in a school building and it will. Quickly.

The R(0) in D.C. right now is below 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Yep...but likely they'd infect others before being diagnosed.

not at 6 feet with masks and handwashing breaks and/or rapid spit tests once they are ready

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Are you kidding me? That’s a shit-ton.

On what planet is 0.08% a shit ton of anything?

On a planet where the R-number exceeds 1. Put that many positive kids in a school building and it will. Quickly.

The R(0) in D.C. right now is below 1.

You got a cite for that? Latest Coronavirus briefing I heard they said it was below 1.1. But that was last week. If it was below 1.0 -- which is a world of difference -- I'd think they would have said it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Are you kidding me? That’s a shit-ton.

On what planet is 0.08% a shit ton of anything?

On a planet where the R-number exceeds 1. Put that many positive kids in a school building and it will. Quickly.

The R(0) in D.C. right now is below 1.

And schools have been closed for four months. Reopening will raise it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Are you kidding me? That’s a shit-ton.

On what planet is 0.08% a shit ton of anything?

Planet "COVID-crazy" (aka the DMV).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Anyone under 30 is at higher risk of dying from a car accident.