A plea for kindness, or at least keep your mean thoughts to yourself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we all try to be kind to fellow parents who are trying to advocate for their childrens' wellbeing, whatever it is?

I have seen attacks in recent days on parents who chose virtual and on parents who are pushing for better safety in schools saying they are fearmongering or irrationally scared. You bullies don't know these families' circumstances. Their children or family members could be high risk or immune deficient or they could have had Covid and be traumatized from it. Or they may have had family members or friends who died. Or some children are becoming very anxious and stressed from being in crowded schools without good mitigation.

Different families have different medical and mental health needs and risk tolerances. If you're fine with where things are then you're set. You don't have to publicly lash out at other families whose needs may be different than your own.

Parents fighting for their childrens' wellbeing are not elected officials and did not sign up for any of this. They are simply parents trying to get what their kids need. The level of obsession by people - anonymous online bullying, trolling and doxxing people - is simply bewildering. Please find another outlet for your frustration.

This is fine, as long as it goes both ways....neither side should be able to force their views/perspectives on others. As you noted, some people have good reason/need for them to be more careful, and they should be able to (without ridicule, etc.). Others, may not have that same perspective, and should be able to as well (again, without name-calling, etc.)

Except, perhaps, when it comes to public health - things like masking, vaccinating, and testing.

I'm all for vaccinating, but testing asymptomatic kids and masking are not scientifically proven. This sounds like someone wanting to shut down any discussion.

If a random-controlled trial of masking kids come out showing its effective, then that's fine. However, there's no study that shows masking kids in school is effective.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/the-science-of-masking-kids-at-school-remains-uncertain.html

In the UK and many Scandinavian countries, kids don't mask in school:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/us/students-masks-classrooms-britain.html

As discussed in the NYMag article, the CDC's own study showed no statistical difference between masking kids and not masking them in school.

So no, you don't get to take those topics off the table.

New mask study that was released today https://www.foxnews.com/health/surgical-masks-reduce-covid-19-spread-study
"A new study that examined the effects of mask-wearing on the spread of COVID-19 found that even partial adoption helps to limit the spread. "

Really. You want to debate.....masks?

GMAFB. Just homeschool your kid if you can't handle very basic public health things like.....vaccines, masks, and testing.

That Bangladeshi mask study you cite (1) did not apply to children, (2) was pre-vaccine, (3) showed cloth masks made statistically no difference and (4) showed surgical masks only statistically made a difference for those 50 and older (notably, in the US, those people have been vaccinated for 6+ months now). Did you even read the summary or charts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we all try to be kind to fellow parents who are trying to advocate for their childrens' wellbeing, whatever it is?

I have seen attacks in recent days on parents who chose virtual and on parents who are pushing for better safety in schools saying they are fearmongering or irrationally scared. You bullies don't know these families' circumstances. Their children or family members could be high risk or immune deficient or they could have had Covid and be traumatized from it. Or they may have had family members or friends who died. Or some children are becoming very anxious and stressed from being in crowded schools without good mitigation.

Different families have different medical and mental health needs and risk tolerances. If you're fine with where things are then you're set. You don't have to publicly lash out at other families whose needs may be different than your own.

Parents fighting for their childrens' wellbeing are not elected officials and did not sign up for any of this. They are simply parents trying to get what their kids need. The level of obsession by people - anonymous online bullying, trolling and doxxing people - is simply bewildering. Please find another outlet for your frustration.

This is fine, as long as it goes both ways....neither side should be able to force their views/perspectives on others. As you noted, some people have good reason/need for them to be more careful, and they should be able to (without ridicule, etc.). Others, may not have that same perspective, and should be able to as well (again, without name-calling, etc.)

Except, perhaps, when it comes to public health - things like masking, vaccinating, and testing.

I'm all for vaccinating, but testing asymptomatic kids and masking are not scientifically proven. This sounds like someone wanting to shut down any discussion.

If a random-controlled trial of masking kids come out showing its effective, then that's fine. However, there's no study that shows masking kids in school is effective.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/the-science-of-masking-kids-at-school-remains-uncertain.html

In the UK and many Scandinavian countries, kids don't mask in school:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/us/students-masks-classrooms-britain.html

As discussed in the NYMag article, the CDC's own study showed no statistical difference between masking kids and not masking them in school.

So no, you don't get to take those topics off the table.

New mask study that was released today https://www.foxnews.com/health/surgical-masks-reduce-covid-19-spread-study
"A new study that examined the effects of mask-wearing on the spread of COVID-19 found that even partial adoption helps to limit the spread. "

Really. You want to debate.....masks?

GMAFB. Just homeschool your kid if you can't handle very basic public health things like.....vaccines, masks, and testing.

Asymptomatic testing?!? No thanks - way too much of a chance of false positives, which will mean unnecessarily closing the school to my kids again.

The current prevalence rate for the coronavirus in the United States is roughly 15 cases per 10,000 people per week. (Prevalence in schools tends to be similar to, or lower than, that in the surrounding community.) If you give 10,000 people a test that produces false positives 2 percent of the time, that means you might get 215 positives: 15 true positives and 200 false positives. In other words, more than 90 percent of the positive test results will be incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we all try to be kind to fellow parents who are trying to advocate for their childrens' wellbeing, whatever it is?

I have seen attacks in recent days on parents who chose virtual and on parents who are pushing for better safety in schools saying they are fearmongering or irrationally scared. You bullies don't know these families' circumstances. Their children or family members could be high risk or immune deficient or they could have had Covid and be traumatized from it. Or they may have had family members or friends who died. Or some children are becoming very anxious and stressed from being in crowded schools without good mitigation.

Different families have different medical and mental health needs and risk tolerances. If you're fine with where things are then you're set. You don't have to publicly lash out at other families whose needs may be different than your own.

Parents fighting for their childrens' wellbeing are not elected officials and did not sign up for any of this. They are simply parents trying to get what their kids need. The level of obsession by people - anonymous online bullying, trolling and doxxing people - is simply bewildering. Please find another outlet for your frustration.

This is fine, as long as it goes both ways....neither side should be able to force their views/perspectives on others. As you noted, some people have good reason/need for them to be more careful, and they should be able to (without ridicule, etc.). Others, may not have that same perspective, and should be able to as well (again, without name-calling, etc.)

Except, perhaps, when it comes to public health - things like masking, vaccinating, and testing.

I'm all for vaccinating, but testing asymptomatic kids and masking are not scientifically proven. This sounds like someone wanting to shut down any discussion.

If a random-controlled trial of masking kids come out showing its effective, then that's fine. However, there's no study that shows masking kids in school is effective.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/the-science-of-masking-kids-at-school-remains-uncertain.html

In the UK and many Scandinavian countries, kids don't mask in school:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/us/students-masks-classrooms-britain.html

As discussed in the NYMag article, the CDC's own study showed no statistical difference between masking kids and not masking them in school.

So no, you don't get to take those topics off the table.

New mask study that was released today https://www.foxnews.com/health/surgical-masks-reduce-covid-19-spread-study
"A new study that examined the effects of mask-wearing on the spread of COVID-19 found that even partial adoption helps to limit the spread. "

Really. You want to debate.....masks?

GMAFB. Just homeschool your kid if you can't handle very basic public health things like.....vaccines, masks, and testing.

Asymptomatic testing?!? No thanks - way too much of a chance of false positives, which will mean unnecessarily closing the school to my kids again.

The current prevalence rate for the coronavirus in the United States is roughly 15 cases per 10,000 people per week. (Prevalence in schools tends to be similar to, or lower than, that in the surrounding community.) If you give 10,000 people a test that produces false positives 2 percent of the time, that means you might get 215 positives: 15 true positives and 200 false positives. In other words, more than 90 percent of the positive test results will be incorrect.

No, the rate of false positives is low. Much lower than 2%.

Overall, it's fine to have some false positives if that means we are also able to identify true positives and quickly shut down spread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we all try to be kind to fellow parents who are trying to advocate for their childrens' wellbeing, whatever it is?

I have seen attacks in recent days on parents who chose virtual and on parents who are pushing for better safety in schools saying they are fearmongering or irrationally scared. You bullies don't know these families' circumstances. Their children or family members could be high risk or immune deficient or they could have had Covid and be traumatized from it. Or they may have had family members or friends who died. Or some children are becoming very anxious and stressed from being in crowded schools without good mitigation.

Different families have different medical and mental health needs and risk tolerances. If you're fine with where things are then you're set. You don't have to publicly lash out at other families whose needs may be different than your own.

Parents fighting for their childrens' wellbeing are not elected officials and did not sign up for any of this. They are simply parents trying to get what their kids need. The level of obsession by people - anonymous online bullying, trolling and doxxing people - is simply bewildering. Please find another outlet for your frustration.

This is fine, as long as it goes both ways....neither side should be able to force their views/perspectives on others. As you noted, some people have good reason/need for them to be more careful, and they should be able to (without ridicule, etc.). Others, may not have that same perspective, and should be able to as well (again, without name-calling, etc.)

Except, perhaps, when it comes to public health - things like masking, vaccinating, and testing.

I'm all for vaccinating, but testing asymptomatic kids and masking are not scientifically proven. This sounds like someone wanting to shut down any discussion.

If a random-controlled trial of masking kids come out showing its effective, then that's fine. However, there's no study that shows masking kids in school is effective.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/the-science-of-masking-kids-at-school-remains-uncertain.html

In the UK and many Scandinavian countries, kids don't mask in school:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/us/students-masks-classrooms-britain.html

As discussed in the NYMag article, the CDC's own study showed no statistical difference between masking kids and not masking them in school.

So no, you don't get to take those topics off the table.

New mask study that was released today https://www.foxnews.com/health/surgical-masks-reduce-covid-19-spread-study
"A new study that examined the effects of mask-wearing on the spread of COVID-19 found that even partial adoption helps to limit the spread. "

Really. You want to debate.....masks?

GMAFB. Just homeschool your kid if you can't handle very basic public health things like.....vaccines, masks, and testing.

That Bangladeshi mask study you cite (1) did not apply to children, (2) was pre-vaccine, (3) showed cloth masks made statistically no difference and (4) showed surgical masks only statistically made a difference for those 50 and older (notably, in the US, those people have been vaccinated for 6+ months now). Did you even read the summary or charts?

Links from fcking FoxNews? Are you kidding?

No, I don't want to debate masks. Wear your mask, selfish prick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:happy to do that, but don't push school closures on the rest of us

Thanks for being Exhibit A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oh geez not this nonsense again from the hysterical anxiety rider. snowflake parents.

Just be honest and say “no one should challenge me or anyone else if they say schools should be closed and kids should be virtual because I have health anxiety and I refuse to get help and now that kids are back in school and kids are doing activities it’s not fair that I have to deal with my kid’s upset because I am paranoid”

OP here, I asked for kindness and this poster called me or someone "hysterical anxiety rider snowflake parents"

Not sure where people's humanity went. This is very sad.

That person is ignorant and lashes out in a failed attempt to tear others down to assuage their own low self-esteem. Feel sorry for them and ignore. Don’t give them the attention they so desperately beg for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we all try to be kind to fellow parents who are trying to advocate for their childrens' wellbeing, whatever it is?

I have seen attacks in recent days on parents who chose virtual and on parents who are pushing for better safety in schools saying they are fearmongering or irrationally scared. You bullies don't know these families' circumstances. Their children or family members could be high risk or immune deficient or they could have had Covid and be traumatized from it. Or they may have had family members or friends who died. Or some children are becoming very anxious and stressed from being in crowded schools without good mitigation.

Different families have different medical and mental health needs and risk tolerances. If you're fine with where things are then you're set. You don't have to publicly lash out at other families whose needs may be different than your own.

Parents fighting for their childrens' wellbeing are not elected officials and did not sign up for any of this. They are simply parents trying to get what their kids need. The level of obsession by people - anonymous online bullying, trolling and doxxing people - is simply bewildering. Please find another outlet for your frustration.

This is fine, as long as it goes both ways....neither side should be able to force their views/perspectives on others. As you noted, some people have good reason/need for them to be more careful, and they should be able to (without ridicule, etc.). Others, may not have that same perspective, and should be able to as well (again, without name-calling, etc.)

Except, perhaps, when it comes to public health - things like masking, vaccinating, and testing.

I'm all for vaccinating, but testing asymptomatic kids and masking are not scientifically proven. This sounds like someone wanting to shut down any discussion.

If a random-controlled trial of masking kids come out showing its effective, then that's fine. However, there's no study that shows masking kids in school is effective.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/the-science-of-masking-kids-at-school-remains-uncertain.html

In the UK and many Scandinavian countries, kids don't mask in school:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/us/students-masks-classrooms-britain.html

As discussed in the NYMag article, the CDC's own study showed no statistical difference between masking kids and not masking them in school.

So no, you don't get to take those topics off the table.

New mask study that was released today https://www.foxnews.com/health/surgical-masks-reduce-covid-19-spread-study
"A new study that examined the effects of mask-wearing on the spread of COVID-19 found that even partial adoption helps to limit the spread. "

Really. You want to debate.....masks?

GMAFB. Just homeschool your kid if you can't handle very basic public health things like.....vaccines, masks, and testing.

That Bangladeshi mask study you cite (1) did not apply to children, (2) was pre-vaccine, (3) showed cloth masks made statistically no difference and (4) showed surgical masks only statistically made a difference for those 50 and older (notably, in the US, those people have been vaccinated for 6+ months now). Did you even read the summary or charts?

Links from fcking FoxNews? Are you kidding?

No, I don't want to debate masks. Wear your mask, selfish prick.

The person citing the Bangladeshi RCT mask study as evidence any masks work posted a Fox News link, genius.

Funny - in response to a discussion on science, you resort to "wear your mash, selfish prick". It really has become a religion to some people.

I'm vaccinated and I'm definitely not wearing a mask now. There's not going to be ZeroCOVID ever as it is endemic and masking post-vaccine tells unvaccinated people that vaccines don't work. But this is about kids in school and masks (and the lack of any RCT studies on it).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we all try to be kind to fellow parents who are trying to advocate for their childrens' wellbeing, whatever it is?

I have seen attacks in recent days on parents who chose virtual and on parents who are pushing for better safety in schools saying they are fearmongering or irrationally scared. You bullies don't know these families' circumstances. Their children or family members could be high risk or immune deficient or they could have had Covid and be traumatized from it. Or they may have had family members or friends who died. Or some children are becoming very anxious and stressed from being in crowded schools without good mitigation.

Different families have different medical and mental health needs and risk tolerances. If you're fine with where things are then you're set. You don't have to publicly lash out at other families whose needs may be different than your own.

Parents fighting for their childrens' wellbeing are not elected officials and did not sign up for any of this. They are simply parents trying to get what their kids need. The level of obsession by people - anonymous online bullying, trolling and doxxing people - is simply bewildering. Please find another outlet for your frustration.

This is fine, as long as it goes both ways....neither side should be able to force their views/perspectives on others. As you noted, some people have good reason/need for them to be more careful, and they should be able to (without ridicule, etc.). Others, may not have that same perspective, and should be able to as well (again, without name-calling, etc.)

Except, perhaps, when it comes to public health - things like masking, vaccinating, and testing.

I'm all for vaccinating, but testing asymptomatic kids and masking are not scientifically proven. This sounds like someone wanting to shut down any discussion.

If a random-controlled trial of masking kids come out showing its effective, then that's fine. However, there's no study that shows masking kids in school is effective.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/the-science-of-masking-kids-at-school-remains-uncertain.html

In the UK and many Scandinavian countries, kids don't mask in school:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/us/students-masks-classrooms-britain.html

As discussed in the NYMag article, the CDC's own study showed no statistical difference between masking kids and not masking them in school.

So no, you don't get to take those topics off the table.

New mask study that was released today https://www.foxnews.com/health/surgical-masks-reduce-covid-19-spread-study
"A new study that examined the effects of mask-wearing on the spread of COVID-19 found that even partial adoption helps to limit the spread. "

Really. You want to debate.....masks?

GMAFB. Just homeschool your kid if you can't handle very basic public health things like.....vaccines, masks, and testing.

That Bangladeshi mask study you cite (1) did not apply to children, (2) was pre-vaccine, (3) showed cloth masks made statistically no difference and (4) showed surgical masks only statistically made a difference for those 50 and older (notably, in the US, those people have been vaccinated for 6+ months now). Did you even read the summary or charts?

Links from fcking FoxNews? Are you kidding?

No, I don't want to debate masks. Wear your mask, selfish prick.

The person citing the Bangladeshi RCT mask study as evidence any masks work posted a Fox News link, genius.

Funny - in response to a discussion on science, you resort to "wear your mash, selfish prick". It really has become a religion to some people.

I'm vaccinated and I'm definitely not wearing a mask now. There's not going to be ZeroCOVID ever as it is endemic and masking post-vaccine tells unvaccinated people that vaccines don't work. But this is about kids in school and masks (and the lack of any RCT studies on it).

Stop being a mega prick. Wear a mask and put one on your kids.

OR, even better, just keep your brats at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Asymptomatic testing?!? No thanks - way too much of a chance of false positives, which will mean unnecessarily closing the school to my kids again.

The current prevalence rate for the coronavirus in the United States is roughly 15 cases per 10,000 people per week. (Prevalence in schools tends to be similar to, or lower than, that in the surrounding community.) If you give 10,000 people a test that produces false positives 2 percent of the time, that means you might get 215 positives: 15 true positives and 200 false positives. In other words, more than 90 percent of the positive test results will be incorrect.

No, the rate of false positives is low. Much lower than 2%.

Overall, it's fine to have some false positives if that means we are also able to identify true positives and quickly shut down spread.

Nope. My kid is not unnecessarily missing school for a week when COVID barely transmits in a school setting. They missed way too much last year and during the spring 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Asymptomatic testing?!? No thanks - way too much of a chance of false positives, which will mean unnecessarily closing the school to my kids again.

The current prevalence rate for the coronavirus in the United States is roughly 15 cases per 10,000 people per week. (Prevalence in schools tends to be similar to, or lower than, that in the surrounding community.) If you give 10,000 people a test that produces false positives 2 percent of the time, that means you might get 215 positives: 15 true positives and 200 false positives. In other words, more than 90 percent of the positive test results will be incorrect.

No, the rate of false positives is low. Much lower than 2%.

Overall, it's fine to have some false positives if that means we are also able to identify true positives and quickly shut down spread.

Nope. My kid is not unnecessarily missing school for a week when COVID barely transmits in a school setting. They missed way too much last year and during the spring 2020.

You'd rather have a large outbreak that may send whole classrooms home? Or grade level?

Anyway, the chance of false positives is very low.

If you can't uphold the social contract, then keep your kids home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Asymptomatic testing?!? No thanks - way too much of a chance of false positives, which will mean unnecessarily closing the school to my kids again.

The current prevalence rate for the coronavirus in the United States is roughly 15 cases per 10,000 people per week. (Prevalence in schools tends to be similar to, or lower than, that in the surrounding community.) If you give 10,000 people a test that produces false positives 2 percent of the time, that means you might get 215 positives: 15 true positives and 200 false positives. In other words, more than 90 percent of the positive test results will be incorrect.

No, the rate of false positives is low. Much lower than 2%.

Overall, it's fine to have some false positives if that means we are also able to identify true positives and quickly shut down spread.

Nope. My kid is not unnecessarily missing school for a week when COVID barely transmits in a school setting. They missed way too much last year and during the spring 2020.

You'd rather have a large outbreak that may send whole classrooms home? Or grade level?

Anyway, the chance of false positives is very low.

If you can't uphold the social contract, then keep your kids home.

The chances of a large outbreak are so, so tiny, especially at the ES level. We have a year's worth of evidence that demonstrates that tiny risk. Then add in the tiny risk to children from COVID (less than the daily risk of them riding in our car to go to school), the risk becomes so minute that it's a no brainer to opt out of asymptomatic testing.

Those that have a different risk profile, feel free to get your kids asymptomatically tested as much as you want. We're passing for DS.

Asymptomatic testing is not part of the social contract. If it was, the school system would require it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Asymptomatic testing?!? No thanks - way too much of a chance of false positives, which will mean unnecessarily closing the school to my kids again.

The current prevalence rate for the coronavirus in the United States is roughly 15 cases per 10,000 people per week. (Prevalence in schools tends to be similar to, or lower than, that in the surrounding community.) If you give 10,000 people a test that produces false positives 2 percent of the time, that means you might get 215 positives: 15 true positives and 200 false positives. In other words, more than 90 percent of the positive test results will be incorrect.

No, the rate of false positives is low. Much lower than 2%.

Overall, it's fine to have some false positives if that means we are also able to identify true positives and quickly shut down spread.

Nope. My kid is not unnecessarily missing school for a week when COVID barely transmits in a school setting. They missed way too much last year and during the spring 2020.

You'd rather have a large outbreak that may send whole classrooms home? Or grade level?

Anyway, the chance of false positives is very low.

If you can't uphold the social contract, then keep your kids home.

The chances of a large outbreak are so, so tiny, especially at the ES level. We have a year's worth of evidence that demonstrates that tiny risk. Then add in the tiny risk to children from COVID (less than the daily risk of them riding in our car to go to school), the risk becomes so minute that it's a no brainer to opt out of asymptomatic testing.

Those that have a different risk profile, feel free to get your kids asymptomatically tested as much as you want. We're passing for DS.

Asymptomatic testing is not part of the social contract. If it was, the school system would require it.

Michael Osterholm would like to have a word...

"First of all, we have to understand that the situation we have with school children this year is very different than we had last year,' said Osterholm. "This Delta variant has fundamentally changed the whole situation in terms of transmission a year ago." The former form of COVID, he says, "was not well transmitted between kids. You didn't see them transmitting to others. They were not often infected themselves. That's changed. They are now—the kids are now just as likely to get infected as adults and they're just as likely to transmit it. So from that perspective, much of the work that was done to make recommendations about how to handle schoolchildren were from a pre Delta era. And those recommendations really are no longer effective in terms of what we need to do. So we have to understand we're going to have real problems in our schools."

[Anonymous]

I think some of what is going on is in response to the many vile and hateful things said and posted by the pro-DL crowd last year. Not excusing it, but there is history here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Asymptomatic testing?!? No thanks - way too much of a chance of false positives, which will mean unnecessarily closing the school to my kids again.

The current prevalence rate for the coronavirus in the United States is roughly 15 cases per 10,000 people per week. (Prevalence in schools tends to be similar to, or lower than, that in the surrounding community.) If you give 10,000 people a test that produces false positives 2 percent of the time, that means you might get 215 positives: 15 true positives and 200 false positives. In other words, more than 90 percent of the positive test results will be incorrect.

No, the rate of false positives is low. Much lower than 2%.

Overall, it's fine to have some false positives if that means we are also able to identify true positives and quickly shut down spread.

Nope. My kid is not unnecessarily missing school for a week when COVID barely transmits in a school setting. They missed way too much last year and during the spring 2020.

You'd rather have a large outbreak that may send whole classrooms home? Or grade level?

Anyway, the chance of false positives is very low.

If you can't uphold the social contract, then keep your kids home.

The chances of a large outbreak are so, so tiny, especially at the ES level. We have a year's worth of evidence that demonstrates that tiny risk. Then add in the tiny risk to children from COVID (less than the daily risk of them riding in our car to go to school), the risk becomes so minute that it's a no brainer to opt out of asymptomatic testing.

Those that have a different risk profile, feel free to get your kids asymptomatically tested as much as you want. We're passing for DS.

Asymptomatic testing is not part of the social contract. If it was, the school system would require it.

....IFF we are masking, testing, distancing, ventilating, vaccinating, etc.

Doing basic things that help our society is part of our social contract. Mask, test, and vaccinate. And, yes, the school should absolutely mandate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Asymptomatic testing?!? No thanks - way too much of a chance of false positives, which will mean unnecessarily closing the school to my kids again.

The current prevalence rate for the coronavirus in the United States is roughly 15 cases per 10,000 people per week. (Prevalence in schools tends to be similar to, or lower than, that in the surrounding community.) If you give 10,000 people a test that produces false positives 2 percent of the time, that means you might get 215 positives: 15 true positives and 200 false positives. In other words, more than 90 percent of the positive test results will be incorrect.

No, the rate of false positives is low. Much lower than 2%.

Overall, it's fine to have some false positives if that means we are also able to identify true positives and quickly shut down spread.

Nope. My kid is not unnecessarily missing school for a week when COVID barely transmits in a school setting. They missed way too much last year and during the spring 2020.

You'd rather have a large outbreak that may send whole classrooms home? Or grade level?

Anyway, the chance of false positives is very low.

If you can't uphold the social contract, then keep your kids home.

The chances of a large outbreak are so, so tiny, especially at the ES level. We have a year's worth of evidence that demonstrates that tiny risk. Then add in the tiny risk to children from COVID (less than the daily risk of them riding in our car to go to school), the risk becomes so minute that it's a no brainer to opt out of asymptomatic testing.

Those that have a different risk profile, feel free to get your kids asymptomatically tested as much as you want. We're passing for DS.

Asymptomatic testing is not part of the social contract. If it was, the school system would require it.

Michael Osterholm would like to have a word...

"First of all, we have to understand that the situation we have with school children this year is very different than we had last year,' said Osterholm. "This Delta variant has fundamentally changed the whole situation in terms of transmission a year ago." The former form of COVID, he says, "was not well transmitted between kids. You didn't see them transmitting to others. They were not often infected themselves. That's changed. They are now—the kids are now just as likely to get infected as adults and they're just as likely to transmit it. So from that perspective, much of the work that was done to make recommendations about how to handle schoolchildren were from a pre Delta era. And those recommendations really are no longer effective in terms of what we need to do. So we have to understand we're going to have real problems in our schools."

Dr. Doom himself, Michael Osterholm (although I will give him credit for recently saying cloth masks "are not very effective in reducing any of the virus movement in or out"). He just said the other day on a podcast that it's not "safe" for kids to go back to school. There are so few scientists who say that. Plus, England would love to have a word with him.

There are people in this town that would love for schools to close again. It is a fact. Look at the media they follow and people they cite.