Have you sign-up for weekly asymptomatic testing at APS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is amazing, the same people who called last year's virtual schooling "garbage, non-existent education" now say they would totally sign up for APS's asymptomatic testing if virtual schooling were available while their kids were in quarantine!

So APS virtual schooling last year sucked, unless its unavailability can make me try to seem more reasonable, in which case it is a good thing.

I'm getting whiplash from your quickly changing positions.

I mean, you asked for evidence and I gave it to you, but you have nothing to say about it. You just go back to how hard this would be on your family to have kids home from school for any length of time.

And PP upthread is MAD because this study which was just published 14 days ago is not using recent enough data, because it studies kids from mid-2020 through January 2021!!! Nevermind that it takes several months to compile your data, analyze and write up the results, and get the study accepted for publication. This PP will only be convinced when someone gets results from the last several months, writes up the results and gets them published, and then travels back in time to show us those results in real time. Talk about moving the goalposts!! (PS -- the fact that this study uses earlier data just shows, if anything, that the results NOW with the more virulent Delta virus would spread even faster given its higher transmissiblility than last year's virus, but okay. I wouldn't expect a different result from you guys anyway.) (BTW APS's testing also includes high school kids which you seem to object to in this study for some reason -- if high school kids have higher levels of potential exposure, seems like that's a good reason to test them at APS, and the study tested lower grades as well just as APS is doing but I guess you need to object to something so...)

I am the person who posted a question about the study. That is the only post I have made on this thread. I'm not sure why asking a question makes me in any way MAD.

I'm not sure what you're imagining, but I'm an elementary parent who is on the fence about testing and trying to understand the relative benefits. You posted a study which you said supported testing. I asked a question about it. Just to be super clear, I haven't written anything objecting to any part of the study or the APS testing program.

I get that this is an emotional topic, and I probably shouldn't expect high quality guidance from an anonymous message board, but....big yikes on this over the top response.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is amazing, the same people who called last year's virtual schooling "garbage, non-existent education" now say they would totally sign up for APS's asymptomatic testing if virtual schooling were available while their kids were in quarantine!

So APS virtual schooling last year sucked, unless its unavailability can make me try to seem more reasonable, in which case it is a good thing.

I'm getting whiplash from your quickly changing positions.

I mean, you asked for evidence and I gave it to you, but you have nothing to say about it. You just go back to how hard this would be on your family to have kids home from school for any length of time.

And PP upthread is MAD because this study which was just published 14 days ago is not using recent enough data, because it studies kids from mid-2020 through January 2021!!! Nevermind that it takes several months to compile your data, analyze and write up the results, and get the study accepted for publication. This PP will only be convinced when someone gets results from the last several months, writes up the results and gets them published, and then travels back in time to show us those results in real time. Talk about moving the goalposts!! (PS -- the fact that this study uses earlier data just shows, if anything, that the results NOW with the more virulent Delta virus would spread even faster given its higher transmissiblility than last year's virus, but okay. I wouldn't expect a different result from you guys anyway.) (BTW APS's testing also includes high school kids which you seem to object to in this study for some reason -- if high school kids have higher levels of potential exposure, seems like that's a good reason to test them at APS, and the study tested lower grades as well just as APS is doing but I guess you need to object to something so...)

I get that studies are always going to be delayed based on data collection time. But I think the fact this data is from before vaccination and doesn’t differentiate between a kindergartener’s risk of infection vs. an 18 year old HS student and doesn’t distinguish between school environments (unmasked vs. masked, outdoor lunching, ventilation improvements, etc.) just doesn’t make it comparable to what parents here in Arlington are facing. These are reasonable critiques of this study even if you want to deny it.

+1 Agree!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please provide a source stating that when schools are in session, most transmission of covid to children happens from adult to child rather than from child to child.

Because there are certainly studies that show that children -- even very young asymptomatic children -- can easily transmit covid an in fact are usually the ones who bring it home and infect their families, over and above older teenagers. https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210817/youngest-kids-more-likely-spread-covid-to-family

You guys seem really mad.

I can see that you guys are saying that there is a cost benefit analysis to what the early testing can do, and I'm not going to add my kids into the testing group when getting a negative result might adversely affect them over other kids who aren't getting tested. Why should my kid be disadvantaged and unnecessarily miss school in such a small pool of kids when we don't really know if it will help anyone?

I mean, you're not crazy. I can understand your position. I just think it's very me-first and selfish in the same way that people who refuse to wear masks in grocery stores are being selfish. You know that accepting this inconvenience to yourself could hurt someone in the community, but your own need to stay on top is primary, so you won't do it.

Instead, you require curious levels of PROOF for an idea that is at it's core very rational -- early testing in schools can detect covid cases that otherwise wouldn't be caught, and thus quarantining those cases can stop kids from spreading covid to others in the school. Nah, you guys need stats from vaccinated people, and just kids in K-8, and a study that excludes the university kids, and a study that captures the same masking rates we have here in Arlington. We will be good and virtuous, you promise, if you just provide us exactly the precise study data we need at precisely the moment we need it. Whereas I thought people were just supposed to be good and virtuous and protective of their fellow community on principle, but I must have missed some meetings I guess.

If it's so critical and effective, then why don't you advocate and prove it to APS and get them to require it instead of trying to convince people here they're wrong and selfish? You're directing your anger and frustration and judgment in the wrong direction. People will let their kids be tested if it's required to be in-person; but if there isn't enough justification to prove its value with a small testing pool, many aren't going to buy-in. And if the justification is there, then APS would be requiring it. I'm one of the people on the fence, waiting for answers to specific questions about the testing program and policy clarification and "what if" scenario answers before agreeing to subject my vaccinated and masked secondary school level kids to the random (which Duran just clarified in today's email is not actually random) testing. I just don't see the equity and the value in it if the majority of students are not participating. And unnecessary lengthy (several days!!!!) disruption to their instruction after a year and a quarter of very little instruction and learning is the primary, if not sole, reason I have yet to opt-in.

[Anonymous]

Jumping into this wildly derailed thread to ask, should we / when should we expect to hear results from the weekly asymptomatic testing? My kids had their first round yesterday and I'm wondering if we will hear an official "all clear" or if it's just "no news is good news." I may have missed this part of the process if it was published somehwere.

[Anonymous]

We signed up but my kid didn’t actually get tested this week so you’re one step ahead of us.

[Anonymous]

My kids were tested last week too. I think no news is good news. However, seeing the limited number of opt-ins I'm considering pulling out of the program too.

Can someone list out the advantages of being IN the testing program?

[Anonymous]

Depends on your family situation. If you have at-risk family members (non-vaccinated, immunocomprimised, etc.), knowing about asymptomatic positives is better than not knowing. That benefit also applies more broadly to others in the school, and their families, to curb asymptomatic spread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jumping into this wildly derailed thread to ask, should we / when should we expect to hear results from the weekly asymptomatic testing? My kids had their first round yesterday and I'm wondering if we will hear an official "all clear" or if it's just "no news is good news." I may have missed this part of the process if it was published somehwere.

My kid was tested Tuesday morning. No results yet. They said results by email in 24-48 hours. It has been 47 hours for us. If I don't hear back by this afternoon, I will call (it only matters because we have grandparents coming in this weekend and I told them we would get tested before they come down. If the results won't be back by tomorrow, I need to get a rapid test for the kid).

[Anonymous]

Good for APS for setting up testing but ultimately, I agree with PP that the weekly surveillance program may not accomplish much in its current form. Agree that not enough families are signing up for weekly testing for it to be highly effective at identifying cases in schools. And pooled PCR isn’t as fast as rapid antigen/PCR follow-up, which was how the APS program was advertised back in August. That change will make it difficult to identify cases early when kids are the most contagious. Offering “test to stay” to families who sign up for weekly testing might convince more families to sign up (keeps close contacts of positives in school as long as they test negative every day, instead of quarantine) but seems like that is not on the table for APS. It’s too bad. Watching what Montgomery County parents had to go through to even get surveillance testing at school makes APS look good, by comparison. Adding “test to stay” might increase participation (and keep healthy close contacts in school!) and would also give APS some good PR. The walk-up testing for families, students and staff is still a good thing, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jumping into this wildly derailed thread to ask, should we / when should we expect to hear results from the weekly asymptomatic testing? My kids had their first round yesterday and I'm wondering if we will hear an official "all clear" or if it's just "no news is good news." I may have missed this part of the process if it was published somehwere.

My kid was tested Tuesday morning. No results yet. They said results by email in 24-48 hours. It has been 47 hours for us. If I don't hear back by this afternoon, I will call (it only matters because we have grandparents coming in this weekend and I told them we would get tested before they come down. If the results won't be back by tomorrow, I need to get a rapid test for the kid).

'

We were told you only hear back if its positive. We tested on Monday and have heard nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jumping into this wildly derailed thread to ask, should we / when should we expect to hear results from the weekly asymptomatic testing? My kids had their first round yesterday and I'm wondering if we will hear an official "all clear" or if it's just "no news is good news." I may have missed this part of the process if it was published somehwere.

My kid was tested Tuesday morning. No results yet. They said results by email in 24-48 hours. It has been 47 hours for us. If I don't hear back by this afternoon, I will call (it only matters because we have grandparents coming in this weekend and I told them we would get tested before they come down. If the results won't be back by tomorrow, I need to get a rapid test for the kid).

I think you only get results if it's positive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good for APS for setting up testing but ultimately, I agree with PP that the weekly surveillance program may not accomplish much in its current form. Agree that not enough families are signing up for weekly testing for it to be highly effective at identifying cases in schools. And pooled PCR isn’t as fast as rapid antigen/PCR follow-up, which was how the APS program was advertised back in August. That change will make it difficult to identify cases early when kids are the most contagious. Offering “test to stay” to families who sign up for weekly testing might convince more families to sign up (keeps close contacts of positives in school as long as they test negative every day, instead of quarantine) but seems like that is not on the table for APS. It’s too bad. Watching what Montgomery County parents had to go through to even get surveillance testing at school makes APS look good, by comparison. Adding “test to stay” might increase participation (and keep healthy close contacts in school!) and would also give APS some good PR. The walk-up testing for families, students and staff is still a good thing, though.

Test to stay would require having testing at every school every single day. No way APS has the resources to do this.

It's amazing that APS is going screening testing weekly for all who sign up. PLEASE do this. If we want schools to stay open and prevent outbreaks, we all need to do our part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please provide a source stating that when schools are in session, most transmission of covid to children happens from adult to child rather than from child to child.

Because there are certainly studies that show that children -- even very young asymptomatic children -- can easily transmit covid an in fact are usually the ones who bring it home and infect their families, over and above older teenagers. https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210817/youngest-kids-more-likely-spread-covid-to-family

You guys seem really mad.

I can see that you guys are saying that there is a cost benefit analysis to what the early testing can do, and I'm not going to add my kids into the testing group when getting a negative result might adversely affect them over other kids who aren't getting tested. Why should my kid be disadvantaged and unnecessarily miss school in such a small pool of kids when we don't really know if it will help anyone?

I mean, you're not crazy. I can understand your position. I just think it's very me-first and selfish in the same way that people who refuse to wear masks in grocery stores are being selfish. You know that accepting this inconvenience to yourself could hurt someone in the community, but your own need to stay on top is primary, so you won't do it.

Instead, you require curious levels of PROOF for an idea that is at it's core very rational -- early testing in schools can detect covid cases that otherwise wouldn't be caught, and thus quarantining those cases can stop kids from spreading covid to others in the school. Nah, you guys need stats from vaccinated people, and just kids in K-8, and a study that excludes the university kids, and a study that captures the same masking rates we have here in Arlington. We will be good and virtuous, you promise, if you just provide us exactly the precise study data we need at precisely the moment we need it. Whereas I thought people were just supposed to be good and virtuous and protective of their fellow community on principle, but I must have missed some meetings I guess.

If it's so critical and effective, then why don't you advocate and prove it to APS and get them to require it instead of trying to convince people here they're wrong and selfish? You're directing your anger and frustration and judgment in the wrong direction. People will let their kids be tested if it's required to be in-person; but if there isn't enough justification to prove its value with a small testing pool, many aren't going to buy-in. And if the justification is there, then APS would be requiring it. I'm one of the people on the fence, waiting for answers to specific questions about the testing program and policy clarification and "what if" scenario answers before agreeing to subject my vaccinated and masked secondary school level kids to the random (which Duran just clarified in today's email is not actually random) testing. I just don't see the equity and the value in it if the majority of students are not participating. And unnecessary lengthy (several days!!!!) disruption to their instruction after a year and a quarter of very little instruction and learning is the primary, if not sole, reason I have yet to opt-in.

Your kid would only be quarantined if they are positive. How is that unnecessary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for APS for setting up testing but ultimately, I agree with PP that the weekly surveillance program may not accomplish much in its current form. Agree that not enough families are signing up for weekly testing for it to be highly effective at identifying cases in schools. And pooled PCR isn’t as fast as rapid antigen/PCR follow-up, which was how the APS program was advertised back in August. That change will make it difficult to identify cases early when kids are the most contagious. Offering “test to stay” to families who sign up for weekly testing might convince more families to sign up (keeps close contacts of positives in school as long as they test negative every day, instead of quarantine) but seems like that is not on the table for APS. It’s too bad. Watching what Montgomery County parents had to go through to even get surveillance testing at school makes APS look good, by comparison. Adding “test to stay” might increase participation (and keep healthy close contacts in school!) and would also give APS some good PR. The walk-up testing for families, students and staff is still a good thing, though.

Test to stay would require having testing at every school every single day. No way APS has the resources to do this.

It's amazing that APS is going screening testing weekly for all who sign up. PLEASE do this. If we want schools to stay open and prevent outbreaks, we all need to do our part.

x1 million!!

[Anonymous]

Seriously, so many other school districts wish they had a testing program like this but Arlington residents are like “Nah, let them be at school with covid I won’t sign up until there is critical mass.” Arlington is the worst, man.