All schools should offer an all-virtual option

[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:

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Oh, great, yes, let's link to your personal blog of editorials and reassuring out-of-date BS.

Out of date?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?

Let's go easy on her. It has to be tough to live in a world where past evidence and experience can't inform future events. How does she even know if the sun will come up every day?

[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.

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.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

[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:

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?

Let's go easy on her. It has to be tough to live in a world where past evidence and experience can't inform future events. How does she even know if the sun will come up every day?

ha, thank you for the comic relief.

[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.

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.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Precautionary principle based on alarmed statement by Federal public health officials, CDC delta data, July 2021 data across the country.
vs
2020 studies and the 2021 magazine editorials that like to pontificate about them.

[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.

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.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Transmission higher with Delta amongst children in UK schools. I mean you aren’t going to have peer-reviewed studies on something that is happening in real-time.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1445

Based on the reports out of multiple pediatric hospitals, it probably makes sense to prepare here in the meantime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Precautionary principle based on alarmed statement by Federal public health officials, CDC delta data, July 2021 data across the country.
vs
2020 studies and the 2021 magazine editorials that like to pontificate about them.

Could you maybe try posting something that has substance that we can all look at, and grapple with together?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Precautionary principle based on alarmed statement by Federal public health officials, CDC delta data, July 2021 data across the country.
vs
2020 studies and the 2021 magazine editorials that like to pontificate about them.

An alarmed statement isn't actual evidence of your claims. And I will note that you quoted an alarmed statement that you interpreted as "we have no information," so your quote can't be used to substantiate any claim you make other than "I dunno."

Just admit you don't have any evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Transmission higher with Delta amongst children in UK schools. I mean you aren’t going to have peer-reviewed studies on something that is happening in real-time.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1445

Based on the reports out of multiple pediatric hospitals, it probably makes sense to prepare here in the meantime.

Yes, the fact that delta is more transmissible is not in question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Precautionary principle based on alarmed statement by Federal public health officials, CDC delta data, July 2021 data across the country.
vs
2020 studies and the 2021 magazine editorials that like to pontificate about them.

So the vaunted European studies are like a Canadian boy/girlfriend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Precautionary principle based on alarmed statement by Federal public health officials, CDC delta data, July 2021 data across the country.
vs
2020 studies and the 2021 magazine editorials that like to pontificate about them.

this argument is the equivalent of a confused shrug

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Precautionary principle based on alarmed statement by Federal public health officials, CDC delta data, July 2021 data across the country.
vs
2020 studies and the 2021 magazine editorials that like to pontificate about them.

So the vaunted European studies are like a Canadian boy/girlfriend?

+1

loooooool

[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.

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.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

The two of you are so bad at logic, or so good at pretend-logic.
"The studies you just quoted are not relevant and don't support your statement."
"Oh yeah?? Are you saying there are no relevant studies? Then how do you support your statements? How do you know the sun comes up, LOL!"

"The director of the NIH said this is really a different virus than last year and we need hit the reset button on everything we learned about covid a year ago" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlseO1ZKDp4
"sing song - can't quote some other person! Find your own sources!"

Do you even understand who the Director of the NIH is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

Transmission higher with Delta amongst children in UK schools. I mean you aren’t going to have peer-reviewed studies on something that is happening in real-time.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1445

Based on the reports out of multiple pediatric hospitals, it probably makes sense to prepare here in the meantime.

Yes, the fact that delta is more transmissible is not in question.

Yet, what is in question by our two virtual-hating trolls here, apparently, is "that delta causes kids to be WAY MORE infectious (than adults)."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is exactly correct. If the prior poster says there are no studies of any bearing, s/he has nothing to support any of his/her claims.

The two of you are so bad at logic, or so good at pretend-logic.
"The studies you just quoted are not relevant and don't support your statement."
"Oh yeah?? Are you saying there are no relevant studies? Then how do you support your statements? How do you know the sun comes up, LOL!"

"The director of the NIH said this is really a different virus than last year and we need hit the reset button on everything we learned about covid a year ago" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlseO1ZKDp4
"sing song - can't quote some other person! Find your own sources!"

Do you even understand who the Director of the NIH is?

You are just repeating the same thing. Do you have anything other than this quote which says we don't know anything?

[Anonymous]

FWIW, I think delta means we are going to see more cases in schools because it is more transmissible. That doesn't automatically suggest that we close schools, certainly. You can still have open schools and even the in-person quarantines even with higher cases. This is because even delta is not that virulent in kids (according to data from the UK and many infectious disease specialists). So the damage of closed schools still outweighs the impacts of delta in kids.