90,000 kids in school. Zero cases of child-to-adult transmission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools are magical places. Kids can infect parents at home, but the virus dare not enter a school building. It knows better! Even in those districts that refuse to enforce student masking. We could end this pandemic now if we just declared all public places school buildings.

You are the one who doesn't understand. No one is saying that schools are magical places where transmission does not occur. At the same time, if widespread transmission was happening, SOME students would be getting sick. If widespread community transmission was happening because unidentified asymptomatic student spreaders were spreading COVID-19 throughout the community, as the poster claims, SOME of the families of those students would be getting sick. That's not what has been observed. Actually the magic is in the PP's version of the facts, which suggests that magically, every student is an asymptomatic superspreader AND every member of the students' family remains healthy or asymptomatic.

If you read carefully, there were cases, but the numbers were low. That is the important point. We should be encouraged, but not overstate things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools are magical places. Kids can infect parents at home, but the virus dare not enter a school building. It knows better! Even in those districts that refuse to enforce student masking. We could end this pandemic now if we just declared all public places school buildings.

I realize you think you're being cute, but I think the strong inference from the research on schools is that schools ARE "magical" - in that they are safer than the general community. So yes, a small cohort, wearing masks, socially distanced, adequate ventilation, all work. Ideally workplaces that are in-person are also able to follow these rules. This is much different from an unmasked household with social distancing, where the risks are in fact much higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes it is so disheartening when you realize how ignorant most people are about how to read and critically think about scientific literature.

Let me state for the record that I think schools can be open for in-person learning, but, as has been recommended, there must be all the mitigation strategies in place. Not all school systems can do this as effectively as would be needed.

The other big piece that people gloss over is community spread. When this data was collected in August-October, community spread was lower than it has been in the past few months. Community spread has been higher almost everywhere. Thankfully it seems to be finally starting to drop week by week and with the vaccines, hopefully school openings will increase.

This study did not indicate ZERO spread in schools, as the OP indicated. It concludes that *with mitigation factors in place and enforced* it did not INCREASE spread in the community. They are very clear in the limitations section that testing was not universally enforced and they could not analyze child-child and adult-child transmission.

So the study is good news, but it is not this blanket endorsement of opening all schools without careful planning right now.

This study is absolutely news that schools SHOULD reopen with careful planning, right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools are magical places. Kids can infect parents at home, but the virus dare not enter a school building. It knows better! Even in those districts that refuse to enforce student masking. We could end this pandemic now if we just declared all public places school buildings.

You are the one who doesn't understand. No one is saying that schools are magical places where transmission does not occur. At the same time, if widespread transmission was happening, SOME students would be getting sick. If widespread community transmission was happening because unidentified asymptomatic student spreaders were spreading COVID-19 throughout the community, as the poster claims, SOME of the families of those students would be getting sick. That's not what has been observed. Actually the magic is in the PP's version of the facts, which suggests that magically, every student is an asymptomatic superspreader AND every member of the students' family remains healthy or asymptomatic.

But some students and their families ARE getting sick. For example, the NYC DOE is open (80% of students are remote, by choice, and only special ed and elementary are currently "in person", so numbers don't reflect the 1.1 million students who are technically enrolled) and there have been 6,411 known student cases so far, and 7,572 staff cases, for a grand total of 13,983 COVID cases between 9/21 and 2/1. They've had to close 7,548 classrooms so far, and implemented nearly 1300 extended building closures (meaning multiple COVID cases that couldn't be traced shut the school down). Some states don't require reporting of COVID numbers, and many teachers have gotten in trouble for telling their students' families that they themselves tested positive. There's very much a belief that things should be kept quiet to avoid getting in the way of the "Open Schools! They're Safe" rhetoric. I agree with the PP-let's just open up restaurants inside these magic school buildings, since indoor dining is so safe in a classroom setting.

https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-year-20-21/return-to-school-2020/health-and-safety/daily-covid-case-map

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes it is so disheartening when you realize how ignorant most people are about how to read and critically think about scientific literature.

Let me state for the record that I think schools can be open for in-person learning, but, as has been recommended, there must be all the mitigation strategies in place. Not all school systems can do this as effectively as would be needed.

The other big piece that people gloss over is community spread. When this data was collected in August-October, community spread was lower than it has been in the past few months. Community spread has been higher almost everywhere. Thankfully it seems to be finally starting to drop week by week and with the vaccines, hopefully school openings will increase.

This study did not indicate ZERO spread in schools, as the OP indicated. It concludes that *with mitigation factors in place and enforced* it did not INCREASE spread in the community. They are very clear in the limitations section that testing was not universally enforced and they could not analyze child-child and adult-child transmission.

So the study is good news, but it is not this blanket endorsement of opening all schools without careful planning right now.

This study is absolutely news that schools SHOULD reopen with careful planning, right now.

Sigh. I said it can’t be done *without* planning. If they can uphold all the mitigation procedures, yes.

There are people on this site who act like you can just send every single kid back in to the classroom with just masks and have the same outcome. You can’t. You have to do the distancing etc too.

And people should expect a low level of spread, esp with higher rates in the community and new variants. It’s not going to be zero. You don’t have to pretend it will be to make the argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes it is so disheartening when you realize how ignorant most people are about how to read and critically think about scientific literature.

Let me state for the record that I think schools can be open for in-person learning, but, as has been recommended, there must be all the mitigation strategies in place. Not all school systems can do this as effectively as would be needed.

The other big piece that people gloss over is community spread. When this data was collected in August-October, community spread was lower than it has been in the past few months. Community spread has been higher almost everywhere. Thankfully it seems to be finally starting to drop week by week and with the vaccines, hopefully school openings will increase.

This study did not indicate ZERO spread in schools, as the OP indicated. It concludes that *with mitigation factors in place and enforced* it did not INCREASE spread in the community. They are very clear in the limitations section that testing was not universally enforced and they could not analyze child-child and adult-child transmission.

So the study is good news, but it is not this blanket endorsement of opening all schools without careful planning right now.

They've been "planning" since March 2020.

This study is absolutely news that schools SHOULD reopen with careful planning, right now.

Sigh. I said it can’t be done *without* planning. If they can uphold all the mitigation procedures, yes.

There are people on this site who act like you can just send every single kid back in to the classroom with just masks and have the same outcome. You can’t. You have to do the distancing etc too.

And people should expect a low level of spread, esp with higher rates in the community and new variants. It’s not going to be zero. You don’t have to pretend it will be to make the argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes it is so disheartening when you realize how ignorant most people are about how to read and critically think about scientific literature.

Let me state for the record that I think schools can be open for in-person learning, but, as has been recommended, there must be all the mitigation strategies in place. Not all school systems can do this as effectively as would be needed.

The other big piece that people gloss over is community spread. When this data was collected in August-October, community spread was lower than it has been in the past few months. Community spread has been higher almost everywhere. Thankfully it seems to be finally starting to drop week by week and with the vaccines, hopefully school openings will increase.

This study did not indicate ZERO spread in schools, as the OP indicated. It concludes that *with mitigation factors in place and enforced* it did not INCREASE spread in the community. They are very clear in the limitations section that testing was not universally enforced and they could not analyze child-child and adult-child transmission.

So the study is good news, but it is not this blanket endorsement of opening all schools without careful planning right now.

This study is absolutely news that schools SHOULD reopen with careful planning, right now.

Sigh. I said it can’t be done *without* planning. If they can uphold all the mitigation procedures, yes.

There are people on this site who act like you can just send every single kid back in to the classroom with just masks and have the same outcome. You can’t. You have to do the distancing etc too.

And people should expect a low level of spread, esp with higher rates in the community and new variants. It’s not going to be zero. You don’t have to pretend it will be to make the argument.

Sigh. Almost every poster in this forum who has spoken about school reopening understands and will acknowledge everything you say. You need protocols for when someone gets sick or tests positive, reduced capacity to promote distancing, masks, cleaning, plans for the most risky times of a school day which are transportation and lunch, the best HVAC filters you can get, plans for students who don't follow protocols, and on and on. Most public school districts are far along if not finished with these plans. Plans have been made. No one is proposing to throw students in classrooms at usual with just masks. That's not on the table anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Mcps has 166k or so students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no scientific evidence or consensus that there have been “zero transmissions” in schools. That is a ridiculous claim.

Can you even read? In this particular study, there were zero cases of CHILD TO ADULT transmission among THESE PARTICULAR SCHOOLS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no scientific evidence or consensus that there have been “zero transmissions” in schools. That is a ridiculous claim.

Can you even read? In this particular study, there were zero cases of CHILD TO ADULT transmission among THESE PARTICULAR SCHOOLS.

The purpose is to misread and misinform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes it is so disheartening when you realize how ignorant most people are about how to read and critically think about scientific literature.

Let me state for the record that I think schools can be open for in-person learning, but, as has been recommended, there must be all the mitigation strategies in place. Not all school systems can do this as effectively as would be needed.

The other big piece that people gloss over is community spread. When this data was collected in August-October, community spread was lower than it has been in the past few months. Community spread has been higher almost everywhere. Thankfully it seems to be finally starting to drop week by week and with the vaccines, hopefully school openings will increase.

This study did not indicate ZERO spread in schools, as the OP indicated. It concludes that *with mitigation factors in place and enforced* it did not INCREASE spread in the community. They are very clear in the limitations section that testing was not universally enforced and they could not analyze child-child and adult-child transmission.

So the study is good news, but it is not this blanket endorsement of opening all schools without careful planning right now.

This study is absolutely news that schools SHOULD reopen with careful planning, right now.

Sigh. I said it can’t be done *without* planning. If they can uphold all the mitigation procedures, yes.

There are people on this site who act like you can just send every single kid back in to the classroom with just masks and have the same outcome. You can’t. You have to do the distancing etc too.

And people should expect a low level of spread, esp with higher rates in the community and new variants. It’s not going to be zero. You don’t have to pretend it will be to make the argument.

I second this well written post. There seems to be this dichotomous fallacy that if you admit that there is any risk, you don't believe school should be back in person.

The inability to hold two thoughts at once, the idea that kids should be back in school, that there is risk, and that there should be mitigations (So I guess three thoughts at once) It's truly disheartening.

As for the person who said they've been planning since last March. Plans have to change as the situation changes. New knowledge, new spread, and other factors mean sometimes we have to be flexible. And it also means that being flexible doesn't mean it doesn't suck. It just needs to be done

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes it is so disheartening when you realize how ignorant most people are about how to read and critically think about scientific literature.

Let me state for the record that I think schools can be open for in-person learning, but, as has been recommended, there must be all the mitigation strategies in place. Not all school systems can do this as effectively as would be needed.

The other big piece that people gloss over is community spread. When this data was collected in August-October, community spread was lower than it has been in the past few months. Community spread has been higher almost everywhere. Thankfully it seems to be finally starting to drop week by week and with the vaccines, hopefully school openings will increase.

This study did not indicate ZERO spread in schools, as the OP indicated. It concludes that *with mitigation factors in place and enforced* it did not INCREASE spread in the community. They are very clear in the limitations section that testing was not universally enforced and they could not analyze child-child and adult-child transmission.

So the study is good news, but it is not this blanket endorsement of opening all schools without careful planning right now.

This study is absolutely news that schools SHOULD reopen with careful planning, right now.

Sigh. I said it can’t be done *without* planning. If they can uphold all the mitigation procedures, yes.

There are people on this site who act like you can just send every single kid back in to the classroom with just masks and have the same outcome. You can’t. You have to do the distancing etc too.

And people should expect a low level of spread, esp with higher rates in the community and new variants. It’s not going to be zero. You don’t have to pretend it will be to make the argument.

Sigh. Almost every poster in this forum who has spoken about school reopening understands and will acknowledge everything you say. You need protocols for when someone gets sick or tests positive, reduced capacity to promote distancing, masks, cleaning, plans for the most risky times of a school day which are transportation and lunch, the best HVAC filters you can get, plans for students who don't follow protocols, and on and on. Most public school districts are far along if not finished with these plans. Plans have been made. No one is proposing to throw students in classrooms at usual with just masks. That's not on the table anywhere.

Tons of schools have opened this way- masks but not much else- but I don’t think we have the data to know whether they’ve been any worse off or not. And I agree no one is proposing that locally.