No quarantine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. CDC requires you either get a test or quarantine if you’ve had an exposure. How is sitting 3-6 ft from someone infected with covid not an exposure according to DCPS?

CDC updated its requirements (and DCPS followed suit) to recognize that if students are masked, then they aren't exposed when one of them tests positive. This is consistent with studies last year which showed that when students attend school while masked, exposures were not happening at school, and to the extent students did test positive, it was a result of exposure at home or elsewhere outside of school.

This is absolutely bonkers. As someone who has expertise in an adjacent area of public health, I’m so angry that public health guidance is a reflection of political interests rather than the public interest.

There are limited studies about transmission in the classroom, but they were all conducted *before* the Delta variant was prevalent. Epidemiologists know that Delta doesn’t need 15 minutes of exposure; it’s more contagious, and 15 minutes isn’t a magic number. Municipalities are already seeing school, camp and daycare-based transmissions. Preprint papers are talking about transmission happening in seconds, not minutes.

The whole point of the multi-layered, “swiss cheese” approach is that implementing multiple mitigation efforts reduces the risk and can make classrooms safe. But what’s the point of a cohort if they’re not going to be tested or quarantined when there’s an outbreak? CDC specifically does not count mask wearing when contract tracing for adults, but does for children. This just does not align with evolving data about the predominant variant constituting 97% of cases; it’s about politics and convenience. (Although CDC *does* say only “well-fitted and consistent” mask use is an exception to the “close contact” guidance, which honestly no student really meets).

Making politically convenient policy decisions and then justifying them by mischaracterizing the science makes my blood boil.

I am sorry, are you claiming expertise based on being in an “adjacent field?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. CDC requires you either get a test or quarantine if you’ve had an exposure. How is sitting 3-6 ft from someone infected with covid not an exposure according to DCPS?

CDC updated its requirements (and DCPS followed suit) to recognize that if students are masked, then they aren't exposed when one of them tests positive. This is consistent with studies last year which showed that when students attend school while masked, exposures were not happening at school, and to the extent students did test positive, it was a result of exposure at home or elsewhere outside of school.

This is absolutely bonkers. As someone who has expertise in an adjacent area of public health, I’m so angry that public health guidance is a reflection of political interests rather than the public interest.

There are limited studies about transmission in the classroom, but they were all conducted *before* the Delta variant was prevalent. Epidemiologists know that Delta doesn’t need 15 minutes of exposure; it’s more contagious, and 15 minutes isn’t a magic number. Municipalities are already seeing school, camp and daycare-based transmissions. Preprint papers are talking about transmission happening in seconds, not minutes.

The whole point of the multi-layered, “swiss cheese” approach is that implementing multiple mitigation efforts reduces the risk and can make classrooms safe. But what’s the point of a cohort if they’re not going to be tested or quarantined when there’s an outbreak? CDC specifically does not count mask wearing when contract tracing for adults, but does for children. This just does not align with evolving data about the predominant variant constituting 97% of cases; it’s about politics and convenience. (Although CDC *does* say only “well-fitted and consistent” mask use is an exception to the “close contact” guidance, which honestly no student really meets).

Making politically convenient policy decisions and then justifying them by mischaracterizing the science makes my blood boil.

I am sorry, are you claiming expertise based on being in an “adjacent field?”

not one intelligent person would accept this as authority

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. CDC requires you either get a test or quarantine if you’ve had an exposure. How is sitting 3-6 ft from someone infected with covid not an exposure according to DCPS?

CDC updated its requirements (and DCPS followed suit) to recognize that if students are masked, then they aren't exposed when one of them tests positive. This is consistent with studies last year which showed that when students attend school while masked, exposures were not happening at school, and to the extent students did test positive, it was a result of exposure at home or elsewhere outside of school.

This is absolutely bonkers. As someone who has expertise in an adjacent area of public health, I’m so angry that public health guidance is a reflection of political interests rather than the public interest.

There are limited studies about transmission in the classroom, but they were all conducted *before* the Delta variant was prevalent. Epidemiologists know that Delta doesn’t need 15 minutes of exposure; it’s more contagious, and 15 minutes isn’t a magic number. Municipalities are already seeing school, camp and daycare-based transmissions. Preprint papers are talking about transmission happening in seconds, not minutes.

The whole point of the multi-layered, “swiss cheese” approach is that implementing multiple mitigation efforts reduces the risk and can make classrooms safe. But what’s the point of a cohort if they’re not going to be tested or quarantined when there’s an outbreak? CDC specifically does not count mask wearing when contract tracing for adults, but does for children. This just does not align with evolving data about the predominant variant constituting 97% of cases; it’s about politics and convenience. (Although CDC *does* say only “well-fitted and consistent” mask use is an exception to the “close contact” guidance, which honestly no student really meets).

Making politically convenient policy decisions and then justifying them by mischaracterizing the science makes my blood boil.

I am sorry, are you claiming expertise based on being in an “adjacent field?”

Whatever her credentials, she is right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. CDC requires you either get a test or quarantine if you’ve had an exposure. How is sitting 3-6 ft from someone infected with covid not an exposure according to DCPS?

CDC updated its requirements (and DCPS followed suit) to recognize that if students are masked, then they aren't exposed when one of them tests positive. This is consistent with studies last year which showed that when students attend school while masked, exposures were not happening at school, and to the extent students did test positive, it was a result of exposure at home or elsewhere outside of school.

This is absolutely bonkers. As someone who has expertise in an adjacent area of public health, I’m so angry that public health guidance is a reflection of political interests rather than the public interest.

There are limited studies about transmission in the classroom, but they were all conducted *before* the Delta variant was prevalent. Epidemiologists know that Delta doesn’t need 15 minutes of exposure; it’s more contagious, and 15 minutes isn’t a magic number. Municipalities are already seeing school, camp and daycare-based transmissions. Preprint papers are talking about transmission happening in seconds, not minutes.

The whole point of the multi-layered, “swiss cheese” approach is that implementing multiple mitigation efforts reduces the risk and can make classrooms safe. But what’s the point of a cohort if they’re not going to be tested or quarantined when there’s an outbreak? CDC specifically does not count mask wearing when contract tracing for adults, but does for children. This just does not align with evolving data about the predominant variant constituting 97% of cases; it’s about politics and convenience. (Although CDC *does* say only “well-fitted and consistent” mask use is an exception to the “close contact” guidance, which honestly no student really meets).

Making politically convenient policy decisions and then justifying them by mischaracterizing the science makes my blood boil.

I am sorry, are you claiming expertise based on being in an “adjacent field?”

Whatever her credentials, she is right.

Her entire frame is incorrect. No decisions on these issues are ever purely 'scientific', and that's not even a meaningful way of thinking of it. Policymakers make decisions on the basis of multiple competing interests and values, and public health officials are one voice and source of information. And not one that the last year has made look better. Calling trying to keep schools open a 'convenient policy decision' shows a total lack of understanding of this situation and what's at stake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. CDC requires you either get a test or quarantine if you’ve had an exposure. How is sitting 3-6 ft from someone infected with covid not an exposure according to DCPS?

CDC updated its requirements (and DCPS followed suit) to recognize that if students are masked, then they aren't exposed when one of them tests positive. This is consistent with studies last year which showed that when students attend school while masked, exposures were not happening at school, and to the extent students did test positive, it was a result of exposure at home or elsewhere outside of school.

This is absolutely bonkers. As someone who has expertise in an adjacent area of public health, I’m so angry that public health guidance is a reflection of political interests rather than the public interest.

There are limited studies about transmission in the classroom, but they were all conducted *before* the Delta variant was prevalent. Epidemiologists know that Delta doesn’t need 15 minutes of exposure; it’s more contagious, and 15 minutes isn’t a magic number. Municipalities are already seeing school, camp and daycare-based transmissions. Preprint papers are talking about transmission happening in seconds, not minutes.

The whole point of the multi-layered, “swiss cheese” approach is that implementing multiple mitigation efforts reduces the risk and can make classrooms safe. But what’s the point of a cohort if they’re not going to be tested or quarantined when there’s an outbreak? CDC specifically does not count mask wearing when contract tracing for adults, but does for children. This just does not align with evolving data about the predominant variant constituting 97% of cases; it’s about politics and convenience. (Although CDC *does* say only “well-fitted and consistent” mask use is an exception to the “close contact” guidance, which honestly no student really meets).

Making politically convenient policy decisions and then justifying them by mischaracterizing the science makes my blood boil.

I am sorry, are you claiming expertise based on being in an “adjacent field?”

Whatever her credentials, she is right.

She has no credentials. If she had any, she would list them. She is misrepresenting her expertise just like her argument is full of misrepresentation. You like her conclusions. That’s all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. CDC requires you either get a test or quarantine if you’ve had an exposure. How is sitting 3-6 ft from someone infected with covid not an exposure according to DCPS?

CDC updated its requirements (and DCPS followed suit) to recognize that if students are masked, then they aren't exposed when one of them tests positive. This is consistent with studies last year which showed that when students attend school while masked, exposures were not happening at school, and to the extent students did test positive, it was a result of exposure at home or elsewhere outside of school.

This is absolutely bonkers. As someone who has expertise in an adjacent area of public health, I’m so angry that public health guidance is a reflection of political interests rather than the public interest.

There are limited studies about transmission in the classroom, but they were all conducted *before* the Delta variant was prevalent. Epidemiologists know that Delta doesn’t need 15 minutes of exposure; it’s more contagious, and 15 minutes isn’t a magic number. Municipalities are already seeing school, camp and daycare-based transmissions. Preprint papers are talking about transmission happening in seconds, not minutes.

The whole point of the multi-layered, “swiss cheese” approach is that implementing multiple mitigation efforts reduces the risk and can make classrooms safe. But what’s the point of a cohort if they’re not going to be tested or quarantined when there’s an outbreak? CDC specifically does not count mask wearing when contract tracing for adults, but does for children. This just does not align with evolving data about the predominant variant constituting 97% of cases; it’s about politics and convenience. (Although CDC *does* say only “well-fitted and consistent” mask use is an exception to the “close contact” guidance, which honestly no student really meets).

Making politically convenient policy decisions and then justifying them by mischaracterizing the science makes my blood boil.

I am sorry, are you claiming expertise based on being in an “adjacent field?”

Whatever her credentials, she is right.

Her entire frame is incorrect. No decisions on these issues are ever purely 'scientific', and that's not even a meaningful way of thinking of it. Policymakers make decisions on the basis of multiple competing interests and values, and public health officials are one voice and source of information. And not one that the last year has made look better. Calling trying to keep schools open a 'convenient policy decision' shows a total lack of understanding of this situation and what's at stake.

+1

I believe this is “Related Fields,” who claims some sort of expertise and then gives a scary story which never actually deals with the science at hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Her entire frame is incorrect. No decisions on these issues are ever purely 'scientific', and that's not even a meaningful way of thinking of it. Policymakers make decisions on the basis of multiple competing interests and values, and public health officials are one voice and source of information. And not one that the last year has made look better. Calling trying to keep schools open a 'convenient policy decision' shows a total lack of understanding of this situation and what's at stake.

Oh, look, here's the arbiter of understanding. What say you? PP shows a total lack of it? Oh, and since they didn't list their credentials, they shouldn't express an opinion? What are you credentials?

[Anonymous]

I don't think that's related fields; I'm not related fields; so there are at least three of us concerned scientific PhDs expressing concerns that trigger your denialist creative sneers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Her entire frame is incorrect. No decisions on these issues are ever purely 'scientific', and that's not even a meaningful way of thinking of it. Policymakers make decisions on the basis of multiple competing interests and values, and public health officials are one voice and source of information. And not one that the last year has made look better. Calling trying to keep schools open a 'convenient policy decision' shows a total lack of understanding of this situation and what's at stake.

Oh, look, here's the arbiter of understanding. What say you? PP shows a total lack of it? Oh, and since they didn't list their credentials, they shouldn't express an opinion? What are you credentials?

I don't care about her credentials. She's free to express her opinion. I'm free to say she's wrong. And I don't think saying what your credentials are in an anonymous forum is a meaningful exercise, but if you're trying to use them to establish credibility, of course you should expect for someone to doubt you or say they aren't relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that's related fields; I'm not related fields; so there are at least three of us concerned scientific PhDs expressing concerns that trigger your denialist creative sneers.

So there’s another moldy cantaloupe out there misrepresenting their expertise?

[Anonymous]

obviously they don’t have any credentials

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think that's related fields; I'm not related fields; so there are at least three of us concerned scientific PhDs expressing concerns that trigger your denialist creative sneers.

So there’s another moldy cantaloupe out there misrepresenting their expertise?

Moldy cantaloupe! Creative sneer is right!
Yes you go on focusing on smearing the people who disagree with you most vocally. Eventually facts catch up and make you wrong, and you move on to another topic to misrepresent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. CDC requires you either get a test or quarantine if you’ve had an exposure. How is sitting 3-6 ft from someone infected with covid not an exposure according to DCPS?

CDC updated its requirements (and DCPS followed suit) to recognize that if students are masked, then they aren't exposed when one of them tests positive. This is consistent with studies last year which showed that when students attend school while masked, exposures were not happening at school, and to the extent students did test positive, it was a result of exposure at home or elsewhere outside of school.

This is absolutely bonkers. As someone who has expertise in an adjacent area of public health, I’m so angry that public health guidance is a reflection of political interests rather than the public interest.

There are limited studies about transmission in the classroom, but they were all conducted *before* the Delta variant was prevalent. Epidemiologists know that Delta doesn’t need 15 minutes of exposure; it’s more contagious, and 15 minutes isn’t a magic number. Municipalities are already seeing school, camp and daycare-based transmissions. Preprint papers are talking about transmission happening in seconds, not minutes.

The whole point of the multi-layered, “swiss cheese” approach is that implementing multiple mitigation efforts reduces the risk and can make classrooms safe. But what’s the point of a cohort if they’re not going to be tested or quarantined when there’s an outbreak? CDC specifically does not count mask wearing when contract tracing for adults, but does for children. This just does not align with evolving data about the predominant variant constituting 97% of cases; it’s about politics and convenience. (Although CDC *does* say only “well-fitted and consistent” mask use is an exception to the “close contact” guidance, which honestly no student really meets).

Making politically convenient policy decisions and then justifying them by mischaracterizing the science makes my blood boil.

I am sorry, are you claiming expertise based on being in an “adjacent field?”

Whatever her credentials, she is right.

Yes, she is. And that’s why people are so upset at her post. The facts are very inconvenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. CDC requires you either get a test or quarantine if you’ve had an exposure. How is sitting 3-6 ft from someone infected with covid not an exposure according to DCPS?

CDC updated its requirements (and DCPS followed suit) to recognize that if students are masked, then they aren't exposed when one of them tests positive. This is consistent with studies last year which showed that when students attend school while masked, exposures were not happening at school, and to the extent students did test positive, it was a result of exposure at home or elsewhere outside of school.

This is absolutely bonkers. As someone who has expertise in an adjacent area of public health, I’m so angry that public health guidance is a reflection of political interests rather than the public interest.

There are limited studies about transmission in the classroom, but they were all conducted *before* the Delta variant was prevalent. Epidemiologists know that Delta doesn’t need 15 minutes of exposure; it’s more contagious, and 15 minutes isn’t a magic number. Municipalities are already seeing school, camp and daycare-based transmissions. Preprint papers are talking about transmission happening in seconds, not minutes.

The whole point of the multi-layered, “swiss cheese” approach is that implementing multiple mitigation efforts reduces the risk and can make classrooms safe. But what’s the point of a cohort if they’re not going to be tested or quarantined when there’s an outbreak? CDC specifically does not count mask wearing when contract tracing for adults, but does for children. This just does not align with evolving data about the predominant variant constituting 97% of cases; it’s about politics and convenience. (Although CDC *does* say only “well-fitted and consistent” mask use is an exception to the “close contact” guidance, which honestly no student really meets).

Making politically convenient policy decisions and then justifying them by mischaracterizing the science makes my blood boil.

I am sorry, are you claiming expertise based on being in an “adjacent field?”

Whatever her credentials, she is right.

Yes, she is. And that’s why people are so upset at her post. The facts are very inconvenient.

Very convincing. I see what you got out of that PhD program!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has no credentials. If she had any, she would list them. She is misrepresenting her expertise just like her argument is full of misrepresentation. You like her conclusions. That’s all.

I *could* list them, but no one should believe anything they read on the internet! That’s how we got into this whole mess.