For the "Close School" Crowd, help me with interpret these numbers...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Moco and MCPS 7 day positivity going down rapidly.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/covid19/data/

very low risk of transmission even as we have a high number of cases. This means positive case rate is dropping, as we are seeing in MCPS:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/coronavirus/dashboard/

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/Coronavirus/dashboaird/January%2020%20Daily%20Data.pdf
1/20 - grand total 279

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/Coronavirus/dashboaird/January%2013%20Daily%20Data.pdf
1/13 - grand total 1015
1/6 - grand total 1842

I'm so glad my kids' schools stayed open even though one DC was quarantined for 10 days.

The chart you posted says “high risk of transmission,” not “very low.”

NP. Are we really doing this again? There are five metrics. Some of them show "high risk." One of them shows "very low risk." You can debate which metric you think matters most, but let's have the literacy skills you'd expect from a high school freshman.

Hah, of course there's a typo in a message where I'm snarky. There are three metrics that show transmission risk, not five.

PP at whom you were snarking here. Writing "five" where you meant "three" is not a typo. At any rate, the real number is six. So, you misread the chart. Maybe you shouldn't be so snarky.

I did not misread the chart. This set of charts has a summary at the top, headed "Level of community transmission" that says "high risk." That's the overall COVID-related risk, assessed via the cumulative consideration of the six (not three or five) metrics on the page labeled "1 of 7."

That high level of overall risk is reflected in the two things labeled "primary metrics" both reading "high transmission" and one out of the five others labeled as "secondary indicators" reading "very low."

The only "very low" metric is the metric that reflects rate of change. Rate of change is important to us as a group but irrelevant to an individual, since an individual's likelihood of encountering COVID in the community has nothing to do with the rate of change and everything to do with what proportion of people are walking around with active COVID infections.

Do I have to use shouty capitals again?

"Percent change in cases: very low risk of transmission". Today's change -50.7%.

If this is not an important metric, why on earth is MoCo publishing it?

But, the metric is important because it shows the RISK of transmission.. your RISK of getting is it low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Moco and MCPS 7 day positivity going down rapidly.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/covid19/data/

very low risk of transmission even as we have a high number of cases. This means positive case rate is dropping, as we are seeing in MCPS:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/coronavirus/dashboard/

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/Coronavirus/dashboaird/January%2020%20Daily%20Data.pdf
1/20 - grand total 279

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/Coronavirus/dashboaird/January%2013%20Daily%20Data.pdf
1/13 - grand total 1015
1/6 - grand total 1842

I'm so glad my kids' schools stayed open even though one DC was quarantined for 10 days.

The chart you posted says “high risk of transmission,” not “very low.”

NP. Are we really doing this again? There are five metrics. Some of them show "high risk." One of them shows "very low risk." You can debate which metric you think matters most, but let's have the literacy skills you'd expect from a high school freshman.

Hah, of course there's a typo in a message where I'm snarky. There are three metrics that show transmission risk, not five.

PP at whom you were snarking here. Writing "five" where you meant "three" is not a typo. At any rate, the real number is six. So, you misread the chart. Maybe you shouldn't be so snarky.

I did not misread the chart. This set of charts has a summary at the top, headed "Level of community transmission" that says "high risk." That's the overall COVID-related risk, assessed via the cumulative consideration of the six (not three or five) metrics on the page labeled "1 of 7."

That high level of overall risk is reflected in the two things labeled "primary metrics" both reading "high transmission" and one out of the five others labeled as "secondary indicators" reading "very low."

The only "very low" metric is the metric that reflects rate of change. Rate of change is important to us as a group but irrelevant to an individual, since an individual's likelihood of encountering COVID in the community has nothing to do with the rate of change and everything to do with what proportion of people are walking around with active COVID infections.

There are three metrics that reflect risk of transmission. Hospital utilization isn't relevant to how likely you are to catch COVID. You seem to understand that in that you say "level of overall risk is reflected in the TWO things...and ONE out of the five others." Obviously neither of you were talking about the hospitalization metrics, so I didn't include those. I feel fine being snarky

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Moco and MCPS 7 day positivity going down rapidly.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/covid19/data/

very low risk of transmission even as we have a high number of cases. This means positive case rate is dropping, as we are seeing in MCPS:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/coronavirus/dashboard/

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/Coronavirus/dashboaird/January%2020%20Daily%20Data.pdf
1/20 - grand total 279

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/Coronavirus/dashboaird/January%2013%20Daily%20Data.pdf
1/13 - grand total 1015
1/6 - grand total 1842

I'm so glad my kids' schools stayed open even though one DC was quarantined for 10 days.

The chart you posted says “high risk of transmission,” not “very low.”

NP. Are we really doing this again? There are five metrics. Some of them show "high risk." One of them shows "very low risk." You can debate which metric you think matters most, but let's have the literacy skills you'd expect from a high school freshman.

Hah, of course there's a typo in a message where I'm snarky. There are three metrics that show transmission risk, not five.

PP at whom you were snarking here. Writing "five" where you meant "three" is not a typo. At any rate, the real number is six. So, you misread the chart. Maybe you shouldn't be so snarky.

I did not misread the chart. This set of charts has a summary at the top, headed "Level of community transmission" that says "high risk." That's the overall COVID-related risk, assessed via the cumulative consideration of the six (not three or five) metrics on the page labeled "1 of 7."

That high level of overall risk is reflected in the two things labeled "primary metrics" both reading "high transmission" and one out of the five others labeled as "secondary indicators" reading "very low."

The only "very low" metric is the metric that reflects rate of change. Rate of change is important to us as a group but irrelevant to an individual, since an individual's likelihood of encountering COVID in the community has nothing to do with the rate of change and everything to do with what proportion of people are walking around with active COVID infections.

There are three metrics that reflect risk of transmission. Hospital utilization isn't relevant to how likely you are to catch COVID. You seem to understand that in that you say "level of overall risk is reflected in the TWO things...and ONE out of the five others." Obviously neither of you were talking about the hospitalization metrics, so I didn't include those. I feel fine being snarky

Rate of change of transmission has nothing to do with one’s personal risk of contracting COVID.

[Anonymous]

Hospital risk is not as relevant as an individual’s risk to get and spread it as well as cause a community outbreak. It takes just one person to cause an outbreak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hospital risk is not as relevant as an individual’s risk to get and spread it as well as cause a community outbreak. It takes just one person to cause an outbreak.

I'm fairly certain that if one person had covid, schools would be 100 % in person with no masks. But then again, we are talking MoCo, so maybe the pro virtual crowd would want us to go full on lockdown because covid is super contagious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hospital risk is not as relevant as an individual’s risk to get and spread it as well as cause a community outbreak. It takes just one person to cause an outbreak.

So does that mean schools should be virtual for years and years, since it is highly likely there will always be at least 1 person in a school with Covid? What is an acceptable metric to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hospital risk is not as relevant as an individual’s risk to get and spread it as well as cause a community outbreak. It takes just one person to cause an outbreak.

So does that mean schools should be virtual for years and years, since it is highly likely there will always be at least 1 person in a school with Covid? What is an acceptable metric to you?

There is a huge difference between a few people having covid and hundreds testing positive on the same day.

Hospitalizations have always meant very little to the under 18 crowd, but the problem is those kids can bring home covid to their families but you don't care about anything logical.

I care my kids get covid. I care I get covid. You don't. You don't care if your kids get covid. You don't care if your kids infect the entire school. You don't care if someone dies because you sent your covid positive kid to school and cause an outbreak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hospital risk is not as relevant as an individual’s risk to get and spread it as well as cause a community outbreak. It takes just one person to cause an outbreak.

So does that mean schools should be virtual for years and years, since it is highly likely there will always be at least 1 person in a school with Covid? What is an acceptable metric to you?

There is a huge difference between a few people having covid and hundreds testing positive on the same day.

Hospitalizations have always meant very little to the under 18 crowd, but the problem is those kids can bring home covid to their families but you don't care about anything logical.

I care my kids get covid. I care I get covid. You don't. You don't care if your kids get covid. You don't care if your kids infect the entire school. You don't care if someone dies because you sent your covid positive kid to school and cause an outbreak.

You said 1 person. Just asking. So what positivity rate are you comfortable with?

Hyperbole, like the bolded, means nothing.

BTW, I had Covid more than a year ago, as did one of my children.

Please pound sand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hospital risk is not as relevant as an individual’s risk to get and spread it as well as cause a community outbreak. It takes just one person to cause an outbreak.

So does that mean schools should be virtual for years and years, since it is highly likely there will always be at least 1 person in a school with Covid? What is an acceptable metric to you?

There is a huge difference between a few people having covid and hundreds testing positive on the same day.

Hospitalizations have always meant very little to the under 18 crowd, but the problem is those kids can bring home covid to their families but you don't care about anything logical.

I care my kids get covid. I care I get covid. You don't. You don't care if your kids get covid. You don't care if your kids infect the entire school. You don't care if someone dies because you sent your covid positive kid to school and cause an outbreak.

You said 1 person. Just asking. So what positivity rate are you comfortable with?

Hyperbole, like the bolded, means nothing.

BTW, I had Covid more than a year ago, as did one of my children.

Please pound sand.

Our child's pediatrician told us in the fall that over 10%, she'd keep kids home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hospital risk is not as relevant as an individual’s risk to get and spread it as well as cause a community outbreak. It takes just one person to cause an outbreak.

So does that mean schools should be virtual for years and years, since it is highly likely there will always be at least 1 person in a school with Covid? What is an acceptable metric to you?

There is a huge difference between a few people having covid and hundreds testing positive on the same day.

Hospitalizations have always meant very little to the under 18 crowd, but the problem is those kids can bring home covid to their families but you don't care about anything logical.

I care my kids get covid. I care I get covid. You don't. You don't care if your kids get covid. You don't care if your kids infect the entire school. You don't care if someone dies because you sent your covid positive kid to school and cause an outbreak.

You said 1 person. Just asking. So what positivity rate are you comfortable with?

Hyperbole, like the bolded, means nothing.

BTW, I had Covid more than a year ago, as did one of my children.

Please pound sand.

You can get Covid more than once. Your kids do need to be out of your house as much as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Moco and MCPS 7 day positivity going down rapidly.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/covid19/data/

very low risk of transmission even as we have a high number of cases. This means positive case rate is dropping, as we are seeing in MCPS:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/coronavirus/dashboard/

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/Coronavirus/dashboaird/January%2020%20Daily%20Data.pdf
1/20 - grand total 279

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/Coronavirus/dashboaird/January%2013%20Daily%20Data.pdf
1/13 - grand total 1015
1/6 - grand total 1842

I'm so glad my kids' schools stayed open even though one DC was quarantined for 10 days.

The chart you posted says “high risk of transmission,” not “very low.”

NP. Are we really doing this again? There are five metrics. Some of them show "high risk." One of them shows "very low risk." You can debate which metric you think matters most, but let's have the literacy skills you'd expect from a high school freshman.

Hah, of course there's a typo in a message where I'm snarky. There are three metrics that show transmission risk, not five.

PP at whom you were snarking here. Writing "five" where you meant "three" is not a typo. At any rate, the real number is six. So, you misread the chart. Maybe you shouldn't be so snarky.

I did not misread the chart. This set of charts has a summary at the top, headed "Level of community transmission" that says "high risk." That's the overall COVID-related risk, assessed via the cumulative consideration of the six (not three or five) metrics on the page labeled "1 of 7."

That high level of overall risk is reflected in the two things labeled "primary metrics" both reading "high transmission" and one out of the five others labeled as "secondary indicators" reading "very low."

The only "very low" metric is the metric that reflects rate of change. Rate of change is important to us as a group but irrelevant to an individual, since an individual's likelihood of encountering COVID in the community has nothing to do with the rate of change and everything to do with what proportion of people are walking around with active COVID infections.

Do I have to use shouty capitals again?

"Percent change in cases: very low risk of transmission". Today's change -50.7%.

If this is not an important metric, why on earth is MoCo publishing it?

But, the metric is important because it shows the RISK of transmission.. your RISK of getting is it low.

It is highly contegous. Your risk is very high of getting it in an overcrowded school without proper precautions. We are talking about MCPS.

[Anonymous]

I haven't really read your entire "gotcha" thread, but what you're saying is that we people who wanted virtual schools for the first few weeks in January, who kept our kods home, were right? Our kids didn't get COVID and now cases are down as we're sending them?

Whereas your kids have had covid at least twice?

Oh, well. Sucks to be your kids.

Is there some nuance I'm missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hospital risk is not as relevant as an individual’s risk to get and spread it as well as cause a community outbreak. It takes just one person to cause an outbreak.

So does that mean schools should be virtual for years and years, since it is highly likely there will always be at least 1 person in a school with Covid? What is an acceptable metric to you?

There is a huge difference between a few people having covid and hundreds testing positive on the same day.

Hospitalizations have always meant very little to the under 18 crowd, but the problem is those kids can bring home covid to their families but you don't care about anything logical.

I care my kids get covid. I care I get covid. You don't. You don't care if your kids get covid. You don't care if your kids infect the entire school. You don't care if someone dies because you sent your covid positive kid to school and cause an outbreak.

I think you really need to stop posting on DCUM and get therapy for your anxiety. You are not in a healthy place

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't really read your entire "gotcha" thread, but what you're saying is that we people who wanted virtual schools for the first few weeks in January, who kept our kods home, were right? Our kids didn't get COVID and now cases are down as we're sending them?

Whereas your kids have had covid at least twice?

Oh, well. Sucks to be your kids.

Is there some nuance I'm missing?

Lots of kids went to school and managed not to get covid AND managed new things. And yes my kids teacher has not been out sick either

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't really read your entire "gotcha" thread, but what you're saying is that we people who wanted virtual schools for the first few weeks in January, who kept our kods home, were right? Our kids didn't get COVID and now cases are down as we're sending them?

Whereas your kids have had covid at least twice?

Oh, well. Sucks to be your kids.

Is there some nuance I'm missing?

Lots of kids went to school and managed not to get covid AND managed new things. And yes my kids teacher has not been out sick either

Last few weeks of Covid numbers sat otherwise and students getting Covid impacts just more than them. You live in a me world, the rest of us live as part of a community.