All schools should offer an all-virtual option

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I agree. It's the future of education anyway.

No it’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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)."

Well, nothing in your article says that kids with delta are more transmissible than adults with delta. That is still a question, and so far there is no evidence that delta in kids is MORE transmissible than delta in adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)."

Well, nothing in your article says that kids with delta are more transmissible than adults with delta. That is still a question, and so far there is no evidence that delta in kids is MORE transmissible than delta in adults.

LOL, you're so comically bad at brain. Oh, I feel bad for saying this.

[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?

This person is the most literal version of a dunning-krueger graph I have ever seen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)."

Well, nothing in your article says that kids with delta are more transmissible than adults with delta. That is still a question, and so far there is no evidence that delta in kids is MORE transmissible than delta in adults.

LOL, you're so comically bad at brain. Oh, I feel bad for saying this.

I'm going to try one more time. What are you hoping to show with the BMJ article? The article says that there is spread in schools. What do you want us to see?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)."

Well, nothing in your article says that kids with delta are more transmissible than adults with delta. That is still a question, and so far there is no evidence that delta in kids is MORE transmissible than delta in adults.

LOL, you're so comically bad at brain. Oh, I feel bad for saying this.

Remember you don't like ad hominem?

[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.

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?

This person is the most literal version of a dunning-krueger graph I have ever seen.

It's truly painful. I am very glad that this person is not making public health decisions, if only because they can't express themselves well at all.

[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?

so you think Dr Collins meant absolutely none of the prior research on covid is relevant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)."

Well, nothing in your article says that kids with delta are more transmissible than adults with delta. That is still a question, and so far there is no evidence that delta in kids is MORE transmissible than delta in adults.

And frankly, delta would have to be over 50% more transmissable by kids relative to adults just to even out the variance in transmission seen in alpha. That would mean that kids are way more susceptible to delta than adults and would be a cataclysmic event. Instead what the data is showiing is that delta is more transmissable across the board but at the same underlying ratio. Thus kids are still not the vectors of transmission, adults are.

[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.

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?

so you think Dr Collins meant absolutely none of the prior research on covid is relevant?

I think it's fair to assume that prior research on indoor transmission is no longer relevant.

[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.

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?

so you think Dr Collins meant absolutely none of the prior research on covid is relevant?

Pretty sure that's what she means by "2020 LOL"

[Anonymous]

We know delta is more transmissible, among adults and kids. But we need to understand if delta is more dangerous to kids than the previous variants. If delta is no more dangerous to kids than the previous variants, then the main reason to shut down classrooms would be to prevent the spread to adult household members or other members of the community. When balancing the costs, I don't think that it makes sense to shut down classrooms to protect unvaccinated adults, who could choose to protect themselves simply by getting a vaccine.

If delta does pose a significant risk to kids' health, then the balance is different. Then, I think that quarantines are more warranted and every parent should have a virtual option so as to avoid the ethical quandary of exposing their child to a dangerous disease. Especially for kids who did not, in fact, have learning loss last year and we are confident will continue to be fine this year.

This AAP data will be important to follow. It already shows a pretty scary high current transmission rate among kids, considering that school is not yet in session in most places. https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20and%20CHA%20-%20Children%20and%20COVID-19%20State%20Data%20Report%207.29%20FINAL.pdf. I think it is way to early to draw any conclusions from the hospitalization data. We all know that usually lags case data by at least a few weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no questions cases will continue to rise for a few weeks and likely some hospitalizations too.

But, that doesn't mean individual schools should be trying to run virtual programs.

So kids just get suspended for sitting next to the wrong person and have to pay the price of falling behind? I’m not sure if that’s right given the technology resources we have developed. It’s not an ideal situation but surely we can do better than that.

All kids would fall behind much further if schools were trying to be all things to all people and have virtual and in person programs. If your kids are currently not behind after last year its either because they are preschoolers and this conversation is really about you wanting to keep your HRCS seat but not attend school or its because you had resources many/most families lack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We know delta is more transmissible, among adults and kids. But we need to understand if delta is more dangerous to kids than the previous variants. If delta is no more dangerous to kids than the previous variants, then the main reason to shut down classrooms would be to prevent the spread to adult household members or other members of the community. When balancing the costs, I don't think that it makes sense to shut down classrooms to protect unvaccinated adults, who could choose to protect themselves simply by getting a vaccine.

If delta does pose a significant risk to kids' health, then the balance is different. Then, I think that quarantines are more warranted and every parent should have a virtual option so as to avoid the ethical quandary of exposing their child to a dangerous disease. Especially for kids who did not, in fact, have learning loss last year and we are confident will continue to be fine this year.

This AAP data will be important to follow. It already shows a pretty scary high current transmission rate among kids, considering that school is not yet in session in most places. https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20and%20CHA%20-%20Children%20and%20COVID-19%20State%20Data%20Report%207.29%20FINAL.pdf. I think it is way to early to draw any conclusions from the hospitalization data. We all know that usually lags case data by at least a few weeks.

And thus far there's been no indication that delta is more virulent to kids than prior strains. We can look at countries like the UK that have already had delta to see what the hospitalization rate among kids with delta has been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

so you think Dr Collins meant absolutely none of the prior research on covid is relevant?

I think it's fair to assume that prior research on indoor transmission is no longer relevant.

That seems like a giant assumption.