All schools should offer an all-virtual option

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding a study on childhood transmission:

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/146/2/e2020004879

"Of 39 evaluable households, in only 3 (8%) was a child the suspected index case, with symptom onset preceding illness in adult HHCs. In all other households, the child developed symptoms after or concurrent with adult HHCs, suggesting that the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them.

These findings are consistent with other recently published HHC investigations in China."

August 2020 LOL.

Yeah, we have to operate based on what we've seen. Do you have a study from the last week that shows differently? The prior poster certainly claimed to have knowledge of studies about children being as infectious as adults. Are those from a week ago? No?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For funsies, another one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/kids-likely-not-driving-household-covid-19-outbreaks

"A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases yesterday shows that children are unlikely to be the source of COVID-19 household outbreaks and are less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 by another household member, with implications for vaccine distribution."



And yes, that and all of these studies are pre-delta. But aside from delta being more transmissible overall (for adults and children) it hasn't been shown that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults).

Good for you that you're enjoying your funsies, but they are not relevant to the current situation.
The Director of the NIH has said that delta behaves so differently from the original covid that we needed to brush aside what we had learned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actual articles about delta in kids, that might help cut through the delta hysteria:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/30/990789.page#20539023

Oh, great, yes, let's link to your personal blog of editorials and reassuring out-of-date BS.

Out of date? Clearly you are just rejecting things out of hand. This was published less than one week ago. I am sure you didn't read it.

You have a habit of rejecting reality and substituting your own.

There is zero chance that officials are going to let Delta run wild through schools with under 12 kids. There will be quarantines, so maybe we should prepare a virtual option to keep those children engaged while out? I have no idea why that is controversial. Even Mississippi is already doing it.

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/14272/as-outbreaks-force-schools-to-go-all-virtual-districts-reinstate-mask-mandates/

Mississippi has much lower vaccination rates and thus more adults at risk.

Do you really think they are going to not quarantine if we have outbreak here?

I think PPP is making up a strawman. I don't know who said "DCPS is going to be ok with letting Delta run wild with under 12 kids" or anyone who suggested that we NOT prepare for quarantines. Certainly nearly everyone is concerned that there haven't been any plans released yet about how schools will deal with those quarantines.

There is clearly one person here who wants zero virtual learning at all costs. Even for quarantined kids.

And he/she/they are great at hurling ad hominem "you have a habit of rejecting reality and substituting your own" and demanding people look at *the data and the research*, but when it comes down to it, so bad at looking at the data themselves, you don't really know how/whether to bother with explaining it to them. Angry toddler.

GOD FORBID we look at data and research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding a study on childhood transmission:

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/146/2/e2020004879

"Of 39 evaluable households, in only 3 (8%) was a child the suspected index case, with symptom onset preceding illness in adult HHCs. In all other households, the child developed symptoms after or concurrent with adult HHCs, suggesting that the child was not the source of infection and that children most frequently acquire COVID-19 from adults, rather than transmitting it to them.

These findings are consistent with other recently published HHC investigations in China."

August 2020 LOL.

You sound like a YouTube conspiracy theorist. You are rejecting published research because you disagree with its conclusions. Show us a more recent academic publication which refutes it or shut up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For funsies, another one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/kids-likely-not-driving-household-covid-19-outbreaks

"A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases yesterday shows that children are unlikely to be the source of COVID-19 household outbreaks and are less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 by another household member, with implications for vaccine distribution."



And yes, that and all of these studies are pre-delta. But aside from delta being more transmissible overall (for adults and children) it hasn't been shown that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults).

Good for you that you're enjoying your funsies, but they are not relevant to the current situation.
The Director of the NIH has said that delta behaves so differently from the original covid that we needed to brush aside what we had learned.

So the prior poster's studies are also useless, yes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actual articles about delta in kids, that might help cut through the delta hysteria:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/30/990789.page#20539023

Oh, great, yes, let's link to your personal blog of editorials and reassuring out-of-date BS.

Out of date? Clearly you are just rejecting things out of hand. This was published less than one week ago. I am sure you didn't read it.

You have a habit of rejecting reality and substituting your own.

There is zero chance that officials are going to let Delta run wild through schools with under 12 kids. There will be quarantines, so maybe we should prepare a virtual option to keep those children engaged while out? I have no idea why that is controversial. Even Mississippi is already doing it.

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/14272/as-outbreaks-force-schools-to-go-all-virtual-districts-reinstate-mask-mandates/

Mississippi has much lower vaccination rates and thus more adults at risk.

Do you really think they are going to not quarantine if we have outbreak here?

I think PPP is making up a strawman. I don't know who said "DCPS is going to be ok with letting Delta run wild with under 12 kids" or anyone who suggested that we NOT prepare for quarantines. Certainly nearly everyone is concerned that there haven't been any plans released yet about how schools will deal with those quarantines.

There is clearly one person here who wants zero virtual learning at all costs. Even for quarantined kids.

And he/she/they are great at hurling ad hominem "you have a habit of rejecting reality and substituting your own" and demanding people look at *the data and the research*, but when it comes down to it, so bad at looking at the data themselves, you don't really know how/whether to bother with explaining it to them. Angry toddler.

GOD FORBID we look at data and research.

HHAHAH I love that there's someone trying to smear someone else for wanting to look at data and research. Jesus Chrsit this is why we are a failed country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actual articles about delta in kids, that might help cut through the delta hysteria:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/30/990789.page#20539023

Oh, great, yes, let's link to your personal blog of editorials and reassuring out-of-date BS.

Out of date? Clearly you are just rejecting things out of hand. This was published less than one week ago. I am sure you didn't read it.

You have a habit of rejecting reality and substituting your own.

There is zero chance that officials are going to let Delta run wild through schools with under 12 kids. There will be quarantines, so maybe we should prepare a virtual option to keep those children engaged while out? I have no idea why that is controversial. Even Mississippi is already doing it.

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/14272/as-outbreaks-force-schools-to-go-all-virtual-districts-reinstate-mask-mandates/

Mississippi has much lower vaccination rates and thus more adults at risk.

Do you really think they are going to not quarantine if we have outbreak here?

I think PPP is making up a strawman. I don't know who said "DCPS is going to be ok with letting Delta run wild with under 12 kids" or anyone who suggested that we NOT prepare for quarantines. Certainly nearly everyone is concerned that there haven't been any plans released yet about how schools will deal with those quarantines.

There is clearly one person here who wants zero virtual learning at all costs. Even for quarantined kids.

And he/she/they are great at hurling ad hominem "you have a habit of rejecting reality and substituting your own" and demanding people look at *the data and the research*, but when it comes down to it, so bad at looking at the data themselves, you don't really know how/whether to bother with explaining it to them. Angry toddler.

Actually there's clearly several of us here trying to shut down misinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actual articles about delta in kids, that might help cut through the delta hysteria:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/30/990789.page#20539023

Oh, great, yes, let's link to your personal blog of editorials and reassuring out-of-date BS.

Out of date? Clearly you are just rejecting things out of hand. This was published less than one week ago. I am sure you didn't read it.

You have a habit of rejecting reality and substituting your own.

There is zero chance that officials are going to let Delta run wild through schools with under 12 kids. There will be quarantines, so maybe we should prepare a virtual option to keep those children engaged while out? I have no idea why that is controversial. Even Mississippi is already doing it.

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/14272/as-outbreaks-force-schools-to-go-all-virtual-districts-reinstate-mask-mandates/

Mississippi has much lower vaccination rates and thus more adults at risk.

Do you really think they are going to not quarantine if we have outbreak here?

I think PPP is making up a strawman. I don't know who said "DCPS is going to be ok with letting Delta run wild with under 12 kids" or anyone who suggested that we NOT prepare for quarantines. Certainly nearly everyone is concerned that there haven't been any plans released yet about how schools will deal with those quarantines.

There is clearly one person here who wants zero virtual learning at all costs. Even for quarantined kids.

And he/she/they are great at hurling ad hominem "you have a habit of rejecting reality and substituting your own" and demanding people look at *the data and the research*, but when it comes down to it, so bad at looking at the data themselves, you don't really know how/whether to bother with explaining it to them. Angry toddler.

GOD FORBID we look at data and research.

HHAHAH I love that there's someone trying to smear someone else for wanting to look at data and research. Jesus Chrsit this is why we are a failed country.

Lord the two of you aren't just bad at looking at data and research, you're even bad at understanding single paragraphs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For funsies, another one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/kids-likely-not-driving-household-covid-19-outbreaks

"A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases yesterday shows that children are unlikely to be the source of COVID-19 household outbreaks and are less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 by another household member, with implications for vaccine distribution."



And yes, that and all of these studies are pre-delta. But aside from delta being more transmissible overall (for adults and children) it hasn't been shown that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults).

Good for you that you're enjoying your funsies, but they are not relevant to the current situation.
The Director of the NIH has said that delta behaves so differently from the original covid that we needed to brush aside what we had learned.

sings: *we need aaaaacaaadeeemic soooources not quooootes ba dum baaaa ba da ba* *ya gotta ba ba ya gotta find your own sooooources*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For funsies, another one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/kids-likely-not-driving-household-covid-19-outbreaks

"A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases yesterday shows that children are unlikely to be the source of COVID-19 household outbreaks and are less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 by another household member, with implications for vaccine distribution."



And yes, that and all of these studies are pre-delta. But aside from delta being more transmissible overall (for adults and children) it hasn't been shown that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults).

Good for you that you're enjoying your funsies, but they are not relevant to the current situation.
The Director of the NIH has said that delta behaves so differently from the original covid that we needed to brush aside what we had learned.

So the prior poster's studies are also useless, yes?

The prior poster has no studies. They either blatantly lied or are referring to older teenagers when they say kids. The follow up supporting poster then demanded a level of proof and study that is not possible on anything but lab rats: 100% daily pcr testing in a fully controlled environment over an extended period of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actual articles about delta in kids, that might help cut through the delta hysteria:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/30/990789.page#20539023

Oh, great, yes, let's link to your personal blog of editorials and reassuring out-of-date BS.

Out of date? Clearly you are just rejecting things out of hand. This was published less than one week ago. I am sure you didn't read it.

You have a habit of rejecting reality and substituting your own.

There is zero chance that officials are going to let Delta run wild through schools with under 12 kids. There will be quarantines, so maybe we should prepare a virtual option to keep those children engaged while out? I have no idea why that is controversial. Even Mississippi is already doing it.

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/14272/as-outbreaks-force-schools-to-go-all-virtual-districts-reinstate-mask-mandates/

Mississippi has much lower vaccination rates and thus more adults at risk.

Do you really think they are going to not quarantine if we have outbreak here?

I think PPP is making up a strawman. I don't know who said "DCPS is going to be ok with letting Delta run wild with under 12 kids" or anyone who suggested that we NOT prepare for quarantines. Certainly nearly everyone is concerned that there haven't been any plans released yet about how schools will deal with those quarantines.

There is clearly one person here who wants zero virtual learning at all costs. Even for quarantined kids.

And he/she/they are great at hurling ad hominem "you have a habit of rejecting reality and substituting your own" and demanding people look at *the data and the research*, but when it comes down to it, so bad at looking at the data themselves, you don't really know how/whether to bother with explaining it to them. Angry toddler.

GOD FORBID we look at data and research.

HHAHAH I love that there's someone trying to smear someone else for wanting to look at data and research. Jesus Chrsit this is why we are a failed country.

Lord the two of you aren't just bad at looking at data and research, you're even bad at understanding single paragraphs.

It's funny because you haven't taken the time to read anything posted aside from the published date before you decide to fart into your hands and type it on the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For funsies, another one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/kids-likely-not-driving-household-covid-19-outbreaks

"A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases yesterday shows that children are unlikely to be the source of COVID-19 household outbreaks and are less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 by another household member, with implications for vaccine distribution."



And yes, that and all of these studies are pre-delta. But aside from delta being more transmissible overall (for adults and children) it hasn't been shown that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults).

Good for you that you're enjoying your funsies, but they are not relevant to the current situation.
The Director of the NIH has said that delta behaves so differently from the original covid that we needed to brush aside what we had learned.

So the prior poster's studies are also useless, yes?

The prior poster has no studies. They either blatantly lied or are referring to older teenagers when they say kids. The follow up supporting poster then demanded a level of proof and study that is not possible on anything but lab rats: 100% daily pcr testing in a fully controlled environment over an extended period of time.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actual articles about delta in kids, that might help cut through the delta hysteria:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/30/990789.page#20539023

Oh, great, yes, let's link to your personal blog of editorials and reassuring out-of-date BS.

Out of date? Clearly you are just rejecting things out of hand. This was published less than one week ago. I am sure you didn't read it.

You have a habit of rejecting reality and substituting your own.

There is zero chance that officials are going to let Delta run wild through schools with under 12 kids. There will be quarantines, so maybe we should prepare a virtual option to keep those children engaged while out? I have no idea why that is controversial. Even Mississippi is already doing it.

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/14272/as-outbreaks-force-schools-to-go-all-virtual-districts-reinstate-mask-mandates/

Mississippi has much lower vaccination rates and thus more adults at risk.

Do you really think they are going to not quarantine if we have outbreak here?

I think PPP is making up a strawman. I don't know who said "DCPS is going to be ok with letting Delta run wild with under 12 kids" or anyone who suggested that we NOT prepare for quarantines. Certainly nearly everyone is concerned that there haven't been any plans released yet about how schools will deal with those quarantines.

There is clearly one person here who wants zero virtual learning at all costs. Even for quarantined kids.

And he/she/they are great at hurling ad hominem "you have a habit of rejecting reality and substituting your own" and demanding people look at *the data and the research*, but when it comes down to it, so bad at looking at the data themselves, you don't really know how/whether to bother with explaining it to them. Angry toddler.

GOD FORBID we look at data and research.

HHAHAH I love that there's someone trying to smear someone else for wanting to look at data and research. Jesus Chrsit this is why we are a failed country.

Lord the two of you aren't just bad at looking at data and research, you're even bad at understanding single paragraphs.

So, that paragraph ALSO makes up a strawman that there are people here who are not looking at data well. The only person here who is having a hard time grappling with data I think is you, and you are rejecting it out of hand. You aren't addressing it at all, other than to say it isn't relevant for unsubstantiated reasons. Obviously every researcher on covid is using what we already know about covid to inform decision-making on variants. No one is saying "oh i guess delta is different and we should start from scratch." That's just you.

I'm not entirely certain why you are so dug in on refusing to look at studies. What is your goal? What's your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right. We need to be able to do both at once. If schools aren’t able to pivot to virtual, either for entire classrooms or individual students who need to quarantine (because they are positive, they live with someone who is positive, etc), our choice is allowing these kids to continue to being covid to their classmates or for them to experience guaranteed learning loss. Especially with all we invested in DL last year, we shouldn’t be facing this choice.

It very much seems that there would be plenty of “demand” for virtual classrooms next year, both from parents uncomfortable sending their unvaxed kids during delta, and kids who should be isolating.

The answer is NOT to demand virtual, but to demand mandatory vaccination of staff/teachers, and to use rational quarantine policies that exclude the fewest kids possible- for example by rapid testing every day instead of sending them home.

Mandatory vaccines, yes, absolutely, but because that is not feasible by September, bringing it up in every discussion is a bit of an unproductive derailment. What we need are solutions for September - December 2021.

Alas, the fewest kids possible quarantined, with delta's R0, is nothing less than a whole (unvaccinated) classroom. I don't think someone can twist the science to pretend otherwise, with what we know about how contagious delta is.

Rapid testing everyday YES YES YES! At this point, though, we don't even have "10% of a cohort tested each week," which is what the asymptomatic testing program had derived to in theory, but which we never even got, because families didn't opt in. So good luck convincing anyone of daily rapid testing.

How is that a derailment to bring up mandatory vax? As soon as it starts the better. I think you’re going to be shocked to see the large number of staff that get covid.

(1) the mayor won’t do it
(2) it won’t help much because we have 30 unvaccinated kids in a classroom

I’m all for it, but it doesn’t solve problem #2.

Ok well how to we get the mayor to do it other than public pressure. Here we are.

Of course it will help - a huge percentage, still over half, of covid cases in school are staff and teachers. staff especially may create a huge issue because they come into contact with so many people — eg the security guard. Mandatory vax is THE most effective covid safety measure and it needs to be discussed.

+1

Plus I hate the number 2 argument because it means if someone is around ANYONE that's unvaccinated, it means you should just not care about anyone being vaccinated.

It helps, a bit, but I agree there still are 30 unvaccinated humans in one room, plus a vaccinated one. it's a total derailment, and a systematic one at that. It is the most effective covid safety measure, if it can be applied to everyone in the room. We are talking about those who cannot. I will start reporting the posts who bring up vaccinating teachers when we're talking about keeping unvaccinable children safe.

please take a look at the *actual research and data* - which shows that adults have a disproportionate role in bringing covid into schools. this not only increases the risk of transmission to kids (and other staff) but also increases the disruption caused by quarantines. the fact that you’re trying to suppress conversations about mandatory vaccination makes me wonder about your agenda. if you have some data showing that vaccination of adults in school isn’t important - let’s see it!

Actual research and data in classrooms? That sounds nice. You show me the actual research and data on delta transmission in classrooms with full systematic asymptomatic testing of students.
Adults are more likely to be symptomatic, and therefore more likely to be tested when there is no systematic asymptomatic testing program in place.

Exactly. What we know from European studies where they actually tested children in schools is that children are just as likely to transmit COVID.

this isn't about whether children transmit, but that adults are disproportionately represented in covid cases in school. DC's own data demonstrates that. Over 50% of DCPS positives are adults, despite adults being much less than 50% of people in DCPS schools. https://coronavirus.dc.gov/page/dc-public-schools-dcps-data

This is compatible with what the CDC says:

"Evidence from studies primarily done before vaccine approval for those 12 years of age and older suggests that staff-to-staff transmission is more common than transmission from students to staff, staff to student, or student to student.46, 50, 54 For example, in the large UK study, most outbreak cases were associated with an index case (initial case) in a staff member.46 Therefore, school interventions should include prevention strategies to reduce the transmission potential of staff members."

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/transmission_k_12_schools.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For funsies, another one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/12/kids-likely-not-driving-household-covid-19-outbreaks

"A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases yesterday shows that children are unlikely to be the source of COVID-19 household outbreaks and are less likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 by another household member, with implications for vaccine distribution."



And yes, that and all of these studies are pre-delta. But aside from delta being more transmissible overall (for adults and children) it hasn't been shown that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults).

Good for you that you're enjoying your funsies, but they are not relevant to the current situation.
The Director of the NIH has said that delta behaves so differently from the original covid that we needed to brush aside what we had learned.

Even if I took you at your word that we have absolutely no studies and no information relevant to the situation at hand, that wouldn't mean that I need to accept your unsupported histrionics as fact. By definition, you have no evidence to support your claims.