Allegedly there are several options for the fall none of which include being back full time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHO just announced that asymptomatic spreading of CoronaVirus "Very Rare". This sure seems like it should be a part of the decision making process.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html

Thank you for posting this. There have been similar results from different research organizations, but WHO announcing it is still important. This will be a game changer.

That's actually not what WHO announced. What WHO announced is that contact tracers traced most infections to people who eventually showed symptoms. If you infected somebody before you showed symptoms, and then you showed symptoms, you weren't asymptomatic, you were presymptomatic.

Read it one more time. It literally says that both asymptomatic and presymptomatic infection is rare. Furthermore, we also know that majority of infected youth is asymptomatic.

No, that's what the CNBC report says. And there's a lot of dispute about it.

You may dispute all you want. But WHO says that asymptomatic and presymptomatic infection is rare. The fact that WHO says this is an indisputable fact. This may not be what you want to hear, but WHO literally said it. Read the link.

Please link to the actual WHO statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go to Rio in Gaithersburg MD the restaurants are packed with HS and College kids. It is outdoor but no one really social distancing - so why no school?

College kids usually aren’t in school by June.

In this area, seniors stop attending in May.

School is over on one week for K-11 anyway.

You missed the point the pp was making. They aren't distancing anyway so there is no reason for school not to start back in the fall.

My daughter said only Average Joe’s had seating everywhere else long lines tonight! Heck NYC opened today so folks can ride subway to work but we can sit in a class room with a face mask on

The subway in NYC never shut down. You have to wear a mask everywhere in New York, including subways and private businesses. The governor passed an executive order that businesses can deny you entry or ask you to leave if you’re not wearing a mask. New York is only “open” in the sense that manufacturing and construction are back in business. Retail stores can only open for curbside pickup, and many stores are not reopening now at all for this reason. Restaurants are still shuttered except for takeout. Gyms are closed. “Open” is relative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHO just announced that asymptomatic spreading of CoronaVirus "Very Rare". This sure seems like it should be a part of the decision making process.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html

Thank you for posting this. There have been similar results from different research organizations, but WHO announcing it is still important. This will be a game changer.

That's actually not what WHO announced. What WHO announced is that contact tracers traced most infections to people who eventually showed symptoms. If you infected somebody before you showed symptoms, and then you showed symptoms, you weren't asymptomatic, you were presymptomatic.

Read it one more time. It literally says that both asymptomatic and presymptomatic infection is rare. Furthermore, we also know that majority of infected youth is asymptomatic.

No, that's what the CNBC report says. And there's a lot of dispute about it.

You may dispute all you want. But WHO says that asymptomatic and presymptomatic infection is rare. The fact that WHO says this is an indisputable fact. This may not be what you want to hear, but WHO literally said it. Read the link.

Please link to the actual WHO statement?

https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1270013794366812160?s=20

[Anonymous]

That's a whole Twitter thread from WHO that doesn't say anything about asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's a whole Twitter thread from WHO that doesn't say anything about asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection.

Sigh. You have to actually watch the press briefing. She also seems to be defining asymptomatic as people who never show symptoms, people who show very mild symptoms, AND people who are pre-symptomatic of more traditional COVID symptoms.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NQTBlbx1Xjs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go to Rio in Gaithersburg MD the restaurants are packed with HS and College kids. It is outdoor but no one really social distancing - so why no school?

College kids usually aren’t in school by June.

In this area, seniors stop attending in May.

School is over on one week for K-11 anyway.

You missed the point the pp was making. They aren't distancing anyway so there is no reason for school not to start back in the fall.

Lack of social distancing this week should not force us to make a decision now about schools in Sept. certainly people were eating in restaurants, packing malls, and going to school in late February even as we knew the risks. And then 100,000 of us died. And many previously young and healthy people remain ill with fatigue, respiratory impairment, and cognitive effects. Cases of the Kawasaki-like condition in children are climbing and no one knows if long term effects are possible, but scientists are concerned that this might contraindicated the vaccine for children since antibodies are what spark the overreaction and inflame their hearts.

We should make a decision in August based on August rates of infection, what school systems have managed to do in terms of precautions, and above all else science. Not what humans impulsively do because they are bored, anti-science, or making a political statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a whole Twitter thread from WHO that doesn't say anything about asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection.

Sigh. You have to actually watch the press briefing. She also seems to be defining asymptomatic as people who never show symptoms, people who show very mild symptoms, AND people who are pre-symptomatic of more traditional COVID symptoms.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NQTBlbx1Xjs

What Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said: "From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual. It’s very rare.”

Discussion of the data supporting (and not supporting) her statement here:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/06/09/did-the-who-say-asymptomatic-people-with-covid-19-dont-transmit-coronavirus/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go to Rio in Gaithersburg MD the restaurants are packed with HS and College kids. It is outdoor but no one really social distancing - so why no school?

College kids usually aren’t in school by June.

In this area, seniors stop attending in May.

School is over on one week for K-11 anyway.

You missed the point the pp was making. They aren't distancing anyway so there is no reason for school not to start back in the fall.

Lack of social distancing this week should not force us to make a decision now about schools in Sept. certainly people were eating in restaurants, packing malls, and going to school in late February even as we knew the risks. And then 100,000 of us died. And many previously young and healthy people remain ill with fatigue, respiratory impairment, and cognitive effects. Cases of the Kawasaki-like condition in children are climbing and no one knows if long term effects are possible, but scientists are concerned that this might contraindicated the vaccine for children since antibodies are what spark the overreaction and inflame their hearts.

We should make a decision in August based on August rates of infection, what school systems have managed to do in terms of precautions, and above all else science. Not what humans impulsively do because they are bored, anti-science, or making a political statement.

Just for the record, arguing for assuming a certain amount of risk in order to reopen schools has nothing to do with being "anti-science". This is not a purely scientific discussion. It is a discussion about what level of risk is acceptable in order to resume certain essential functions of society, such as school.

As for the science, neither Kawasaki nor the CFS symptoms or lingering respiratory problems (how long-term they will last we cannot know yet) that a small number of people infected with Covid experience are not specific to this virus. They can result from many viruses. We are just seeing a large number of infections with this coronavirus at the same time and therefore these cases are making the news. They should not be used to spread alarmism as the PP does. (I am loosely quoting an article by an epidemiologist I read a few weeks ago, who certainly was not "anti-science".)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been patiently reading this debate on multiple treads by now. I have a question that I hope someone can give a meaningful answer. It seems some teachers would like to go back to school in the new academic year, but some teachers would first like to see some protocols in place because they say otherwise it is not safe for them. On the other hand, the vast majority of parents (even when one of the parents stay at home) want schools to open for all students. Now these parents are willing to send their kids to schools that some teachers argue not safe. Every night, the kids come back home from school. So if they pose a risk to teachers, shouldn't they pose a risk to their parents as well? Why do the parents think the risk is manageable, but some teachers think otherwise? Also since being a teacher is not a virtue people are born with, instead people become teachers after they are born, would those teachers change their mind on this issue if they were not teachers?

If you talk to lower income parents of color and I do since they are my neighbors and the parents of many of my students, they are worried about their kids bring coronavirus home. They just aren’t on DCUM to chime in on these posts.

I'd think for lower income families it's even more critical that kids go to school. Otherwise parents would have difficulty going to work. Also those kids would have very little out of school enrichment opportunities.

I get that you THINK that, but I’m telling you what people are saying to me. They are scared. Scared their kids will get “mildly” ill and they will miss work. Scared that they themselves will get ill and miss work. They are worried about doctors’ bills and hospital fees that they can’t afford. Scared that household member already in bad health will die. Some sublease housing illegally and are afraid that they might be kicked out if they or their kids get ill with COVID. It’s important to actually ask lower income people what they think rather than assuming you know what is best for them.

I work with low income families and they absolutely want - and need - schools to reopen. Yes, reopen with safety protocols I’m place, but schools reopening is not just about stability and enabling a parent to work, it’s also about education and socialization kids need. The prospect that parents working hourly pay jobs are taking off time to help kids navigate Zoom classes is absurd. What’s actually happening in many cases is parents leaving kids alone - often relatively young middle schoolers or older elementary schoolers who then watch younger kids in the home.

We’ve managed to keep Costcos open but somehow balk at reopening schools. Kids are not vectors for this disease. They hysteria needs to stop. School needs to start.

The low income parents aren’t taking time off work to help their kids with Zoom classes. Not blaming them. Just stating a fact. Often the MS or HS sibling is home babysitting or there’s an elderly relative. However, the kids are mostly home alone all day. And this is nothing new. What do you think poor kids do all summer? Do you really think their parents either take 10 weeks off unpaid or somehow can afford 2.5 months of day camp? All summer, I hear the kids in the apartment two doors down. They walk over to the ES up the hill for free lunch and then go right back inside to watch tv.

DP, did you read what the PP wrote? He/she stated the same and is arguing that for the reasons you’ve noted, continuing to keep schools closed hurts low income families and thier kids (it hurts ALL kids but especially this group). This a disaster for kids who don’t have parents who can endlessly work from home.

Do you think schools should run 12 months a year for all students? Because there are two and a half months each year that schools are closed and low income parents still need to work.

Summer vacation actually is very harmful to kids of very low income parents. For example-I grew up very poor and raised by a single parent. From the age of 7 I was left home alone every summer all day.

That's what these parents do. They leave their kids at home. I was an only child so I was actually alone but basically an entire sibling group is left home alone. Sometimes the oldest not even being 10 and responsible for babies/toddlers.

I now work with low income families and let me tell you-they leave their young kids home alone ALL THE TIME.

Which deflated the argument that closing schools is causing low income parents to lose time from work.

You're right, closing schools only turns the summer slide problem of neglected low-income kids into a year-round problem. Which is apparently fine with you.

You can’t leave kids home alone for indefinite periods until 8 legally, so yes, low income people with little kids who count on daycare and school ARE suffering. But more importantly, their kids, who arguably benefit from school and count on school enrichment in the way UMC kids don’t have to, suffer.

Why is this okay with people? And why are we closing schools to protect a small fraction of people while the rest of population - an overwhelming number - are losing jobs, education, and suffering from other illnesses - some serious ailments - that are actually INCREASING because of the covid19 hysteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go to Rio in Gaithersburg MD the restaurants are packed with HS and College kids. It is outdoor but no one really social distancing - so why no school?

College kids usually aren’t in school by June.

In this area, seniors stop attending in May.

School is over on one week for K-11 anyway.

You missed the point the pp was making. They aren't distancing anyway so there is no reason for school not to start back in the fall.

Lack of social distancing this week should not force us to make a decision now about schools in Sept. certainly people were eating in restaurants, packing malls, and going to school in late February even as we knew the risks. And then 100,000 of us died. And many previously young and healthy people remain ill with fatigue, respiratory impairment, and cognitive effects. Cases of the Kawasaki-like condition in children are climbing and no one knows if long term effects are possible, but scientists are concerned that this might contraindicated the vaccine for children since antibodies are what spark the overreaction and inflame their hearts.

We should make a decision in August based on August rates of infection, what school systems have managed to do in terms of precautions, and above all else science. Not what humans impulsively do because they are bored, anti-science, or making a political statement.

Just for the record, arguing for assuming a certain amount of risk in order to reopen schools has nothing to do with being "anti-science". This is not a purely scientific discussion. It is a discussion about what level of risk is acceptable in order to resume certain essential functions of society, such as school.

As for the science, neither Kawasaki nor the CFS symptoms or lingering respiratory problems (how long-term they will last we cannot know yet) that a small number of people infected with Covid experience are not specific to this virus. They can result from many viruses. We are just seeing a large number of infections with this coronavirus at the same time and therefore these cases are making the news. They should not be used to spread alarmism as the PP does. (I am loosely quoting an article by an epidemiologist I read a few weeks ago, who certainly was not "anti-science".)

DP. Right. We use science to quantify the risks and uncertainties associated with those risks. But it's not up to scientists to decide what levels of risk, for whom, are acceptable. Ultimately, that's what we [are supposed to] have political leaders for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You can’t leave kids home alone for indefinite periods until 8 legally, so yes, low income people with little kids who count on daycare and school ARE suffering. But more importantly, their kids, who arguably benefit from school and count on school enrichment in the way UMC kids don’t have to, suffer.

Why is this okay with people? And why are we closing schools to protect a small fraction of people while the rest of population - an overwhelming number - are losing jobs, education, and suffering from other illnesses - some serious ailments - that are actually INCREASING because of the covid19 hysteria.

When nigh on 110,000 Americans have died from covid19 in just a few months, it's actually kind of despicable to refer to it as "covid19 hysteria".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a whole Twitter thread from WHO that doesn't say anything about asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection.

Sigh. You have to actually watch the press briefing. She also seems to be defining asymptomatic as people who never show symptoms, people who show very mild symptoms, AND people who are pre-symptomatic of more traditional COVID symptoms.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NQTBlbx1Xjs

What Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said: "From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual. It’s very rare.”

Discussion of the data supporting (and not supporting) her statement here:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/06/09/did-the-who-say-asymptomatic-people-with-covid-19-dont-transmit-coronavirus/

Oh dear. This site is run by a breast cancer surgeon and Van Kerkhove is an infectious disease epidemiologist. But again, you are free to only trust sources that fit your narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a whole Twitter thread from WHO that doesn't say anything about asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection.

Sigh. You have to actually watch the press briefing. She also seems to be defining asymptomatic as people who never show symptoms, people who show very mild symptoms, AND people who are pre-symptomatic of more traditional COVID symptoms.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NQTBlbx1Xjs

What Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said: "From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual. It’s very rare.”

Discussion of the data supporting (and not supporting) her statement here:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/06/09/did-the-who-say-asymptomatic-people-with-covid-19-dont-transmit-coronavirus/

Oh dear. This site is run by a breast cancer surgeon and Van Kerkhove is an infectious disease epidemiologist. But again, you are free to only trust sources that fit your narrative.

You're dismissing a discussion of the data, including by infectious disease epidemiologists, on grounds that the blogger himself is an oncologist. I don't know what my narrative is supposed to be here, besides "let's look at the data underlying the WHO person's assertion."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can’t leave kids home alone for indefinite periods until 8 legally, so yes, low income people with little kids who count on daycare and school ARE suffering. But more importantly, their kids, who arguably benefit from school and count on school enrichment in the way UMC kids don’t have to, suffer.

Why is this okay with people? And why are we closing schools to protect a small fraction of people while the rest of population - an overwhelming number - are losing jobs, education, and suffering from other illnesses - some serious ailments - that are actually INCREASING because of the covid19 hysteria.

When nigh on 110,000 Americans have died from covid19 in just a few months, it's actually kind of despicable to refer to it as "covid19 hysteria".

Because the are 21 million (yes, million) unemployed people in the US right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a whole Twitter thread from WHO that doesn't say anything about asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection.

Sigh. You have to actually watch the press briefing. She also seems to be defining asymptomatic as people who never show symptoms, people who show very mild symptoms, AND people who are pre-symptomatic of more traditional COVID symptoms.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NQTBlbx1Xjs

What Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said: "From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual. It’s very rare.”

Discussion of the data supporting (and not supporting) her statement here:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/06/09/did-the-who-say-asymptomatic-people-with-covid-19-dont-transmit-coronavirus/

Oh dear. This site is run by a breast cancer surgeon and Van Kerkhove is an infectious disease epidemiologist. But again, you are free to only trust sources that fit your narrative.

You're dismissing a discussion of the data, including by infectious disease epidemiologists, on grounds that the blogger himself is an oncologist. I don't know what my narrative is supposed to be here, besides "let's look at the data underlying the WHO person's assertion."

I’m not dismissing it because he’s an oncologist. The site itself says the data wasn’t available to them. So how can they be doing an honest review of the underlying data?