Data today 7pm

[Anonymous]

Our high school got the tests out yesterday with a demand to test last night. So positive results multiplied by 6x or 7x from the day earlier. I am curious how many students got tests, used them and reported. Hard to make conclusions on the percentage of kids that now have Covid.. Does anyone have an idea when or if we are going to hear about the new metrics/guidelines that MCPS said it would discuss with health officials regaring going virtual?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twinbrook's numbers continue to be a sick joke. Have they not sent home tests*?

As of the last time they were color-coded, Twinbrook was one of 8 "green" schools.

Today, 1 case.
Yesterday, 1 case.
Jan 9, 2 cases.
Jan 8, 1 cases...

This is a school of ~550 students, of which 70% qualify for FARMS and 53% ESOL. I'm sure their low numbers are real and not the result of poor testing access or poor communication by MCPS/school admin.


*Separately, ARE there any schools that haven't handed out tests yet?

Greencastle is much the same. Actually...

The 7 last "Green" schools standing as of Jan 6 (?) were (excluding Bradley Hills):

~0-2 cases reported daily, Jan 7-11:
Cresthaven Elementary School
Greencastle Elementary School
Kemp Mill Elementary School
New Hampshire Estates ES
Twinbrook Elementary School

Mixed/moderate numbers Jan 7-11 (very low 3 days, but 2 days around 10 cases each):
Rolling Terrace Elem School

Very high numbers last 2 days (59 total, school of <500 including staff):
East Silver Spring Elem School

Either the ESS community itself is being uniquely responsive post-break or the school has done a better job of outreach... or maybe all these other schools have such scary numbers that the DHHS has some reason to withhold them temporarily? Or most haven't gotten tests? Or most parents are keeping so many kids home they haven't gotten the tests, or...?

It's not that they don't have much COVID, I am pretty sure of that.

They may have lower numbers as families may be more cautious and some are lower income schools so they aren't doing lavish winter travel, eating out a few times a week and other high risk behaviors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lakelands Park MS has 10 teachers out in just 48 hours.

They weren’t allowing kids to go to the library because they had so many teachers out and those kids were in the library.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lakelands Park MS has 10 teachers out in just 48 hours.

Damn. Something like 2.5 to 2.8 % of the students reported cases just today. They were at 6% 6 days ago.

[Anonymous]

DC didn't have any teachers sign on to zoom for his quarantine learning. I'm hoping they aren't sick or covering other classes. I can’t imagine how stretched and stressed they must be at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twinbrook's numbers continue to be a sick joke. Have they not sent home tests*?

As of the last time they were color-coded, Twinbrook was one of 8 "green" schools.

Today, 1 case.
Yesterday, 1 case.
Jan 9, 2 cases.
Jan 8, 1 cases...

This is a school of ~550 students, of which 70% qualify for FARMS and 53% ESOL. I'm sure their low numbers are real and not the result of poor testing access or poor communication by MCPS/school admin.


*Separately, ARE there any schools that haven't handed out tests yet?

Greencastle is much the same. Actually...

The 7 last "Green" schools standing as of Jan 6 (?) were (excluding Bradley Hills):

~0-2 cases reported daily, Jan 7-11:
Cresthaven Elementary School
Greencastle Elementary School
Kemp Mill Elementary School
New Hampshire Estates ES
Twinbrook Elementary School

Mixed/moderate numbers Jan 7-11 (very low 3 days, but 2 days around 10 cases each):
Rolling Terrace Elem School

Very high numbers last 2 days (59 total, school of <500 including staff):
East Silver Spring Elem School

Either the ESS community itself is being uniquely responsive post-break or the school has done a better job of outreach... or maybe all these other schools have such scary numbers that the DHHS has some reason to withhold them temporarily? Or most haven't gotten tests? Or most parents are keeping so many kids home they haven't gotten the tests, or...?

It's not that they don't have much COVID, I am pretty sure of that.

They may have lower numbers as families may be more cautious and some are lower income schools so they aren't doing lavish winter travel, eating out a few times a week and other high risk behaviors.

They are all "lower-income" schools.

5 of 7 have ESOL above 50%
6 of 7 have FARMS above 67%
5 of 7 are in zip codes in the "lowest-vaccinated" category according to the county
6 of 7 are in SS/TP, most <1-2 miles from the next "Green" school

We know people get COVID more from their public-facing jobs than from travel. We know that less-vaccinated people get more COVID.

What you're saying implies that ESS (51% FARMS) does far more "lavish winter travel" than the others, or is some kind of weird statistical outlier, to the extreme.

Does it seem plausible that these schools have about 1/10 of the actual COVID of other schools? Or is lower testing, whatever the cause, a much likelier answer?

[Anonymous]

Man, my quarantined child at Little Bennett ES went to the virtual Kinder room today for zoom learning and there were 132 kids in there!! FWIW, she learned more in the half day than she normally learns in class, sat attentive, and participated. I was against virtual but this I think I can handle for 2 weeks.

[Anonymous]

But here’s the million dollar question.
Of all these sick kids, of the thousands of cases reported, how many kids are SICK? Any hospitalizations? Anyone with severe symptoms? Or are there thousands of kids with a cough and runny nose in which case let’s all just please move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Man, my quarantined child at Little Bennett ES went to the virtual Kinder room today for zoom learning and there were 132 kids in there!! FWIW, she learned more in the half day than she normally learns in class, sat attentive, and participated. I was against virtual but this I think I can handle for 2 weeks.

Interesting ! 132 kids is a LOT! But it’s great to hear that it actually worked out well for her (and you). My kids are older so I have been mindful that virtual learning for younger kids can be more challenging…but I’m glad it has been manageable and positive on your end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But here’s the million dollar question.
Of all these sick kids, of the thousands of cases reported, how many kids are SICK? Any hospitalizations? Anyone with severe symptoms? Or are there thousands of kids with a cough and runny nose in which case let’s all just please move on.

We can’t move on. Kids don’t live in isolation. They live with parents, grandparents, siblings— all of which could be at high risk of developing a serious illness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But here’s the million dollar question.
Of all these sick kids, of the thousands of cases reported, how many kids are SICK? Any hospitalizations? Anyone with severe symptoms? Or are there thousands of kids with a cough and runny nose in which case let’s all just please move on.

You don't understand how small percentages of astronomically large numbers work.

And I'm not even talking about short-term effects on kids.

Any one individual is likely to be fine, in the near term. Collectively there will be tremendous damage. The worst outcomes will be borne by a small percentage of a HUGE group-- as much as 40% of the entire population.

But that's not even the biggest issue-- the biggest issue is-- what were you avoiding short-term virtual FOR?

Better education?
Better socialization?
Childcare?
Safety?

In-person won't be providing these more than virtual would for the vast majority of schools. And while, in theory, okay, fine, just shut down 60% of schools, then! That's more trouble than it's worth.

Enjoy, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our high school got the tests out yesterday with a demand to test last night. So positive results multiplied by 6x or 7x from the day earlier. I am curious how many students got tests, used them and reported. Hard to make conclusions on the percentage of kids that now have Covid.. Does anyone have an idea when or if we are going to hear about the new metrics/guidelines that MCPS said it would discuss with health officials regaring going virtual?

Oh you haven't heard? Tons of kids will have Covid - maybe 20% or higher. Last week 5% was sufficient to go virtual but now they are looking for something closer to 100%.
Some people may die though at that point but staff and kids are expected to be in school anyway. A Covid funeral isn't an excused absence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But here’s the million dollar question.
Of all these sick kids, of the thousands of cases reported, how many kids are SICK? Any hospitalizations? Anyone with severe symptoms? Or are there thousands of kids with a cough and runny nose in which case let’s all just please move on.

You don't understand how small percentages of astronomically large numbers work.

And I'm not even talking about short-term effects on kids.

Any one individual is likely to be fine, in the near term. Collectively there will be tremendous damage. The worst outcomes will be borne by a small percentage of a HUGE group-- as much as 40% of the entire population.

But that's not even the biggest issue-- the biggest issue is-- what were you avoiding short-term virtual FOR?

Better education?
Better socialization?
Childcare?
Safety?

In-person won't be providing these more than virtual would for the vast majority of schools. And while, in theory, okay, fine, just shut down 60% of schools, then! That's more trouble than it's worth.

Enjoy, though.

This!!!!!!!

Last year when we debated going back at the end of the year, my son said he only wanted to go back for social reasons. When I said he'd have to mask, distance, have lunch in classrooms or facing in one direction in the cafeteria, he said forget it. That didn't sound like fun.

The social interaction that the "never closers" want is simply non existent right now. So is the learning.

Like it or not, lots of kids and teachers aren't coming to school (for Covid or fear of Covid). That really slows down learning so staying in person is not a win for anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But here’s the million dollar question.
Of all these sick kids, of the thousands of cases reported, how many kids are SICK? Any hospitalizations? Anyone with severe symptoms? Or are there thousands of kids with a cough and runny nose in which case let’s all just please move on.

You don't understand how small percentages of astronomically large numbers work.

And I'm not even talking about short-term effects on kids.

Any one individual is likely to be fine, in the near term. Collectively there will be tremendous damage. The worst outcomes will be borne by a small percentage of a HUGE group-- as much as 40% of the entire population.

But that's not even the biggest issue-- the biggest issue is-- what were you avoiding short-term virtual FOR?

Better education?
Better socialization?
Childcare?
Safety?

In-person won't be providing these more than virtual would for the vast majority of schools. And while, in theory, okay, fine, just shut down 60% of schools, then! That's more trouble than it's worth.

Enjoy, though.

This!!!!!!!

Last year when we debated going back at the end of the year, my son said he only wanted to go back for social reasons. When I said he'd have to mask, distance, have lunch in classrooms or facing in one direction in the cafeteria, he said forget it. That didn't sound like fun.

The social interaction that the "never closers" want is simply non existent right now. So is the learning.

Like it or not, lots of kids and teachers aren't coming to school (for Covid or fear of Covid). That really slows down learning so staying in person is not a win for anyone.

That’s simply not true. You’ve taken the exaggeration too far in order to push your policy of choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But here’s the million dollar question.
Of all these sick kids, of the thousands of cases reported, how many kids are SICK? Any hospitalizations? Anyone with severe symptoms? Or are there thousands of kids with a cough and runny nose in which case let’s all just please move on.

You don't understand how small percentages of astronomically large numbers work.

And I'm not even talking about short-term effects on kids.

Any one individual is likely to be fine, in the near term. Collectively there will be tremendous damage. The worst outcomes will be borne by a small percentage of a HUGE group-- as much as 40% of the entire population.

But that's not even the biggest issue-- the biggest issue is-- what were you avoiding short-term virtual FOR?

Better education?
Better socialization?
Childcare?
Safety?

In-person won't be providing these more than virtual would for the vast majority of schools. And while, in theory, okay, fine, just shut down 60% of schools, then! That's more trouble than it's worth.

Enjoy, though.

This!!!!!!!

Last year when we debated going back at the end of the year, my son said he only wanted to go back for social reasons. When I said he'd have to mask, distance, have lunch in classrooms or facing in one direction in the cafeteria, he said forget it. That didn't sound like fun.

The social interaction that the "never closers" want is simply non existent right now. So is the learning.

Like it or not, lots of kids and teachers aren't coming to school (for Covid or fear of Covid). That really slows down learning so staying in person is not a win for anyone.

That’s simply not true. You’ve taken the exaggeration too far in order to push your policy of choice.

It's funny that they think we're unable to talk to our kids about what it's actually like at school. I talk to my daughter every day about who's there, who's missing, and what she did at school. She's getting all the socialization and education she always does. Her teachers are there. Her friends are there. Then I come here and people tell me that's not true. Crazy.