NYTs: “Why opening windows is key to reopening schools”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My classroom windows open two inches, and I’m in a a better position than a lot of other teachers. This isn’t the simple solution people think it is.

I haven't run across a single report that discussed how far a window should open, and aside from that, we have portable filtration technology. This is just teachers imagining impossibility.

Common sense and the laws of physics would dictate that airflow from a fully open window would provide a better exchange of air than a window open just a crack. Not much imagination required.
Teachers are “imaging impossibility”. That’s a new one. We must all be imagining these run down buildings we’ve been working in all these years!

A crack is different than a couple of inches. And, there's a whole science about air flow in rooms. Try reading a little about it before you make uninformed statements.

Yes there is. And you haven’t provided us with a formula for calculating air exchange rates, so I don’t see any evidence that your response is informed.

Fortunately we have experts who have already done the work for us, and we have amazing futuristic technology known as "fans."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/ventilation.html

None of the information available there includes a formula to calculate the amount of airflow required to be considered safe. A small room might be fine with a window that opens three inches. It is blatantly false to claim that the same amount of ventilation would be sufficient in a larger classroom. I’ve also noticed parents on here claiming that three feet of distance is more than sufficient, meaning that they would like to see more people packed into each classroom. No way would I consider working in a room with a single functioning window, less distancing, and more occupants. It’s ridiculous and self serving to pretend schools should operate with suboptimal safety precautions for the convenience of some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My classroom windows open two inches, and I’m in a a better position than a lot of other teachers. This isn’t the simple solution people think it is.

I haven't run across a single report that discussed how far a window should open, and aside from that, we have portable filtration technology. This is just teachers imagining impossibility.

Common sense and the laws of physics would dictate that airflow from a fully open window would provide a better exchange of air than a window open just a crack. Not much imagination required.
Teachers are “imaging impossibility”. That’s a new one. We must all be imagining these run down buildings we’ve been working in all these years!

A crack is different than a couple of inches. And, there's a whole science about air flow in rooms. Try reading a little about it before you make uninformed statements.

Yes there is. And you haven’t provided us with a formula for calculating air exchange rates, so I don’t see any evidence that your response is informed.

Fortunately we have experts who have already done the work for us, and we have amazing futuristic technology known as "fans."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/ventilation.html

None of the information available there includes a formula to calculate the amount of airflow required to be considered safe. A small room might be fine with a window that opens three inches. It is blatantly false to claim that the same amount of ventilation would be sufficient in a larger classroom. I’ve also noticed parents on here claiming that three feet of distance is more than sufficient, meaning that they would like to see more people packed into each classroom. No way would I consider working in a room with a single functioning window, less distancing, and more occupants. It’s ridiculous and self serving to pretend schools should operate with suboptimal safety precautions for the convenience of some.

You think people would spend as much time and energy as the reopening groups are spending on this issue for convenience?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fascinating engineering analysis. It also show why 6 feet of distance is important - more kids would get infected in a given space & concentrations of the virus would be higher.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/26/science/reopen-schools-safety-ventilation.html

Notice how, when the fan is blowing into the room, the infected student and the teacher are breathing highly contaminated air, but the rest of the students are fine? Teachers are so screwed!

If only they had been prioritized for vaccination

Texas has not been vaccinating any teachers yet. They have not even announced who is in the next tier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fascinating engineering analysis. It also show why 6 feet of distance is important - more kids would get infected in a given space & concentrations of the virus would be higher.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/26/science/reopen-schools-safety-ventilation.html

Notice how, when the fan is blowing into the room, the infected student and the teacher are breathing highly contaminated air, but the rest of the students are fine? Teachers are so screwed!

If only they had been prioritized for vaccination

Texas has not been vaccinating any teachers yet. They have not even announced who is in the next tier.

In the DMV and on the west coast teachers have been prioritized and then not coming back to the classroom, or refusing to be prioritized because they don't want to come back to the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My classroom windows open two inches, and I’m in a a better position than a lot of other teachers. This isn’t the simple solution people think it is.

I haven't run across a single report that discussed how far a window should open, and aside from that, we have portable filtration technology. This is just teachers imagining impossibility.

Common sense and the laws of physics would dictate that airflow from a fully open window would provide a better exchange of air than a window open just a crack. Not much imagination required.
Teachers are “imaging impossibility”. That’s a new one. We must all be imagining these run down buildings we’ve been working in all these years!

A crack is different than a couple of inches. And, there's a whole science about air flow in rooms. Try reading a little about it before you make uninformed statements.

Yes there is. And you haven’t provided us with a formula for calculating air exchange rates, so I don’t see any evidence that your response is informed.

Fortunately we have experts who have already done the work for us, and we have amazing futuristic technology known as "fans."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/ventilation.html

None of the information available there includes a formula to calculate the amount of airflow required to be considered safe. A small room might be fine with a window that opens three inches. It is blatantly false to claim that the same amount of ventilation would be sufficient in a larger classroom. I’ve also noticed parents on here claiming that three feet of distance is more than sufficient, meaning that they would like to see more people packed into each classroom. No way would I consider working in a room with a single functioning window, less distancing, and more occupants. It’s ridiculous and self serving to pretend schools should operate with suboptimal safety precautions for the convenience of some.

Please, unless you're an air flow dynamics expert, you should accept expertise. If you think you know enough about air flow physics to evaluate the math, be my guest to submit your publication to Building and Environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fascinating engineering analysis. It also show why 6 feet of distance is important - more kids would get infected in a given space & concentrations of the virus would be higher.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/26/science/reopen-schools-safety-ventilation.html

Notice how, when the fan is blowing into the room, the infected student and the teacher are breathing highly contaminated air, but the rest of the students are fine? Teachers are so screwed!

If only they had been prioritized for vaccination

Texas has not been vaccinating any teachers yet. They have not even announced who is in the next tier.

In the DMV and on the west coast teachers have been prioritized and then not coming back to the classroom, or refusing to be prioritized because they don't want to come back to the classroom.

And nobody here cares about what Texas is or is not doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My classroom windows open two inches, and I’m in a a better position than a lot of other teachers. This isn’t the simple solution people think it is.

I haven't run across a single report that discussed how far a window should open, and aside from that, we have portable filtration technology. This is just teachers imagining impossibility.

Common sense and the laws of physics would dictate that airflow from a fully open window would provide a better exchange of air than a window open just a crack. Not much imagination required.
Teachers are “imaging impossibility”. That’s a new one. We must all be imagining these run down buildings we’ve been working in all these years!

A crack is different than a couple of inches. And, there's a whole science about air flow in rooms. Try reading a little about it before you make uninformed statements.

Yes there is. And you haven’t provided us with a formula for calculating air exchange rates, so I don’t see any evidence that your response is informed.

Fortunately we have experts who have already done the work for us, and we have amazing futuristic technology known as "fans."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/ventilation.html

None of the information available there includes a formula to calculate the amount of airflow required to be considered safe. A small room might be fine with a window that opens three inches. It is blatantly false to claim that the same amount of ventilation would be sufficient in a larger classroom. I’ve also noticed parents on here claiming that three feet of distance is more than sufficient, meaning that they would like to see more people packed into each classroom. No way would I consider working in a room with a single functioning window, less distancing, and more occupants. It’s ridiculous and self serving to pretend schools should operate with suboptimal safety precautions for the convenience of some.

Please, unless you're an air flow dynamics expert, you should accept expertise. If you think you know enough about air flow physics to evaluate the math, be my guest to submit your publication to Building and Environment.

Or were you expecting some sort of simple algebraic function which could easily be understood by a 6th grade math teacher?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My classroom windows open two inches, and I’m in a a better position than a lot of other teachers. This isn’t the simple solution people think it is.

I haven't run across a single report that discussed how far a window should open, and aside from that, we have portable filtration technology. This is just teachers imagining impossibility.

Common sense and the laws of physics would dictate that airflow from a fully open window would provide a better exchange of air than a window open just a crack. Not much imagination required.
Teachers are “imaging impossibility”. That’s a new one. We must all be imagining these run down buildings we’ve been working in all these years!

A crack is different than a couple of inches. And, there's a whole science about air flow in rooms. Try reading a little about it before you make uninformed statements.

Yes there is. And you haven’t provided us with a formula for calculating air exchange rates, so I don’t see any evidence that your response is informed.

Fortunately we have experts who have already done the work for us, and we have amazing futuristic technology known as "fans."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/ventilation.html

None of the information available there includes a formula to calculate the amount of airflow required to be considered safe. A small room might be fine with a window that opens three inches. It is blatantly false to claim that the same amount of ventilation would be sufficient in a larger classroom. I’ve also noticed parents on here claiming that three feet of distance is more than sufficient, meaning that they would like to see more people packed into each classroom. No way would I consider working in a room with a single functioning window, less distancing, and more occupants. It’s ridiculous and self serving to pretend schools should operate with suboptimal safety precautions for the convenience of some.

Please, unless you're an air flow dynamics expert, you should accept expertise. If you think you know enough about air flow physics to evaluate the math, be my guest to submit your publication to Building and Environment.

Or were you expecting some sort of simple algebraic function which could easily be understood by a 6th grade math teacher?

Sorry, what? Not a single piece of information about room size (or any other variable) and adequate ventilation. "Accept expertise" only makes sense if they actually supply any. It is outrageous how people wave away every concern about school reopening ("the science says it's safe so shut up") while insisting that every other activity and venue in our society is a death trap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Air filters, people. We have the technology.

Show me a filter that will remove CO2 and produce fresh Oxygen!

All filter does is to remove farts as it also decrease Oxygen level.

The window is all the technology you need.

NO energy wasted!

Zero cost!

No added pollution from filter chemicals.

No massive land impact from used filters.


THERE is NO SUBSTITUTE FOR NATURE!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My classroom windows open two inches, and I’m in a a better position than a lot of other teachers. This isn’t the simple solution people think it is.

I haven't run across a single report that discussed how far a window should open, and aside from that, we have portable filtration technology. This is just teachers imagining impossibility.

Common sense and the laws of physics would dictate that airflow from a fully open window would provide a better exchange of air than a window open just a crack. Not much imagination required.
Teachers are “imaging impossibility”. That’s a new one. We must all be imagining these run down buildings we’ve been working in all these years!

A crack is different than a couple of inches. And, there's a whole science about air flow in rooms. Try reading a little about it before you make uninformed statements.

Yes there is. And you haven’t provided us with a formula for calculating air exchange rates, so I don’t see any evidence that your response is informed.

Fortunately we have experts who have already done the work for us, and we have amazing futuristic technology known as "fans."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/ventilation.html

None of the information available there includes a formula to calculate the amount of airflow required to be considered safe. A small room might be fine with a window that opens three inches. It is blatantly false to claim that the same amount of ventilation would be sufficient in a larger classroom. I’ve also noticed parents on here claiming that three feet of distance is more than sufficient, meaning that they would like to see more people packed into each classroom. No way would I consider working in a room with a single functioning window, less distancing, and more occupants. It’s ridiculous and self serving to pretend schools should operate with suboptimal safety precautions for the convenience of some.

Please, unless you're an air flow dynamics expert, you should accept expertise. If you think you know enough about air flow physics to evaluate the math, be my guest to submit your publication to Building and Environment.

Or were you expecting some sort of simple algebraic function which could easily be understood by a 6th grade math teacher?

Sorry, what? Not a single piece of information about room size (or any other variable) and adequate ventilation. "Accept expertise" only makes sense if they actually supply any. It is outrageous how people wave away every concern about school reopening ("the science says it's safe so shut up") while insisting that every other activity and venue in our society is a death trap.

No wonder FCPS parents sending kids to scool with CO2 monitors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The key to reopening schools is reopening them.

The key to re-opening is to open them SAFELY. Otherwise, we will need to shut down schools again.

+1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fascinating engineering analysis. It also show why 6 feet of distance is important - more kids would get infected in a given space & concentrations of the virus would be higher.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/26/science/reopen-schools-safety-ventilation.html

Notice how, when the fan is blowing into the room, the infected student and the teacher are breathing highly contaminated air, but the rest of the students are fine? Teachers are so screwed!

If only they had been prioritized for vaccination

Texas has not been vaccinating any teachers yet. They have not even announced who is in the next tier.

You do know that’s not a good thing and not something to be emulated, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Air filters, people. We have the technology.

Show me a filter that will remove CO2 and produce fresh Oxygen!

All filter does is to remove farts as it also decrease Oxygen level.

The window is all the technology you need.

NO energy wasted!

Zero cost!

No added pollution from filter chemicals.

No massive land impact from used filters.


THERE is NO SUBSTITUTE FOR NATURE!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got a brand new school building 5 years ago and none of the windows open. D’oh!

That’s utterly ridiculous. Why have windows that don’t open?

For the sunlight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Air filters, people. We have the technology.

Show me a filter that will remove CO2 and produce fresh Oxygen!

All filter does is to remove farts as it also decrease Oxygen level.

The window is all the technology you need.

NO energy wasted!

Zero cost!

No added pollution from filter chemicals.

No massive land impact from used filters.


THERE is NO SUBSTITUTE FOR NATURE!!!

...do you think classrooms are built with an airtight seal?