Have you sign-up for weekly asymptomatic testing at APS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

They will be at school with COVID for the rest of their lives. COVID is never going away as it is endemic.

And healthy unvaccinated kids are more protected from COVID than a vaccinated adult -> recent study from England's public health department, slides 15 and 16, including its delta wave:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016465/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf

More and more people in Arlington are joining Team Reality (welcome Bike Lady too). These minuscule opt-in rates show it. Glad to see Team Reality win out over Team Fear Porn.

[Anonymous]

The stupid thing about your position is that testing costs you nothing, and as a PP said, only kids who have tested positive on the individual tests that are given following any positive pooled tests will be kept home. You are saying that kids with covid should just go to school because most kids will not get very ill.

It is so easy! But you are against all extra levels of safety. You are probably the same person who doesn’t even want kids wearing masks in school anymore. I can’t even.

[Anonymous]

If this is the security blanket thumbsuckers need, fair enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The stupid thing about your position is that testing costs you nothing, and as a PP said, only kids who have tested positive on the individual tests that are given following any positive pooled tests will be kept home. You are saying that kids with covid should just go to school because most kids will not get very ill.

It is so easy! But you are against all extra levels of safety. You are probably the same person who doesn’t even want kids wearing masks in school anymore. I can’t even.

The kid who tests positive and all close contacts (who have to be out of school for a week until they test negative).

[Anonymous]

The horror! The horror!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It would be unnecessary if it's a false positive. For example, if your kids had an asymptomatic case a month ago and you aren't aware, your kids could still test positive even though your kid is no longer infectious.

[Anonymous]

As a teacher I am very thankful that I can get this done at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It would be unnecessary if it's a false positive. For example, if your kids had an asymptomatic case a month ago and you aren't aware, your kids could still test positive even though your kid is no longer infectious.

0% chance of getting a positive result 30 days after infection
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-01982-x

[Anonymous]

And that’s not really a “false positive”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They will be at school with COVID for the rest of their lives. COVID is never going away as it is endemic.

And healthy unvaccinated kids are more protected from COVID than a vaccinated adult -> recent study from England's public health department, slides 15 and 16, including its delta wave:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016465/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf

More and more people in Arlington are joining Team Reality (welcome Bike Lady too). These minuscule opt-in rates show it. Glad to see Team Reality win out over Team Fear Porn.

Says the person afraid of their kids getting a nasal swab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It would be unnecessary if it's a false positive. For example, if your kids had an asymptomatic case a month ago and you aren't aware, your kids could still test positive even though your kid is no longer infectious.

No that's false. The test can differentiate between a current infection and post viral shedding.

[Anonymous]

This info from the Cleveland Clinic says you can continue to test positive on a PCR test even once you are no longer infectious

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/21462-covid-19-and-pcr-testing
How long do you test positive after having had COVID-19?
Because the PCR test is so sensitive, it can detect very small amounts of virus material. This means that the test can continue to detect fragments of SARS-CoV-2 virus even after you’ve recovered from COVID-19 and are no longer contagious. So you may continue to test positive if you've had COVID-19 in the distant past, even though you can’t spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This info from the Cleveland Clinic says you can continue to test positive on a PCR test even once you are no longer infectious

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/21462-covid-19-and-pcr-testing
How long do you test positive after having had COVID-19?
Because the PCR test is so sensitive, it can detect very small amounts of virus material. This means that the test can continue to detect fragments of SARS-CoV-2 virus even after you’ve recovered from COVID-19 and are no longer contagious. So you may continue to test positive if you've had COVID-19 in the distant past, even though you can’t spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus to others.

0% chance 30 days out - per link above

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This info from the Cleveland Clinic says you can continue to test positive on a PCR test even once you are no longer infectious

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/21462-covid-19-and-pcr-testing
How long do you test positive after having had COVID-19?
Because the PCR test is so sensitive, it can detect very small amounts of virus material. This means that the test can continue to detect fragments of SARS-CoV-2 virus even after you’ve recovered from COVID-19 and are no longer contagious. So you may continue to test positive if you've had COVID-19 in the distant past, even though you can’t spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus to others.

0% chance 30 days out - per link above

m
I reAd the study you are citing. It definitely doesn’t say anything about a 0 percent chance of a positive test 30 Days out. The cdc specifically says not to retest to determine infectious east bc you can be ‘persistently positive’ for up to 90 days (but not infectious).
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/faq.html#Testing,-Diagnosis,-and-Notification

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This info from the Cleveland Clinic says you can continue to test positive on a PCR test even once you are no longer infectious

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/21462-covid-19-and-pcr-testing
How long do you test positive after having had COVID-19?
Because the PCR test is so sensitive, it can detect very small amounts of virus material. This means that the test can continue to detect fragments of SARS-CoV-2 virus even after you’ve recovered from COVID-19 and are no longer contagious. So you may continue to test positive if you've had COVID-19 in the distant past, even though you can’t spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus to others.

0% chance 30 days out - per link above

m
I reAd the study you are citing. It definitely doesn’t say anything about a 0 percent chance of a positive test 30 Days out. The cdc specifically says not to retest to determine infectious east bc you can be ‘persistently positive’ for up to 90 days (but not infectious).
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/faq.html#Testing,-Diagnosis,-and-Notification

Keep reading.

“ The probability of a positive PCR test then decreases to 50% (38–65%) by 10 days after infection and reaches virtually 0% probability by 30 days after infection (Fig. 3a, b). ”