The Wisconsin Study - valid analysis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You aren’t an office worker. Nurses and doctors have been working in person through most of the pandemic. Same with grocery store workers, people who work in manufacturing plants and distribution centers, etc. I don’t understand the obsession with what office dwellers are doing. It’s a different job!

It’s not like the people we like best get to stay home and the people we don’t like have to go to work. That’s true in some workplaces but not across the board. Generally, people whose work requires in person are in person, and people whose work is mostly staring at a computer screen stay home. It’s a practical consideration, not a prize. And the idea that teachers won’t go back until even office workers go back is crazy, not least because some office workers will never go back. That’s because their employers realized they just don’t need to be in person. I am sorry, but that is not the conclusion we’ve drawn about schools.

Sorry that your profession is really important and we’ve collectively found that it really needs to be done in person?

That's fine, you can have whatever attitude you want, but that's now what this thread is about. This thread is about the Wisconsin study people are citing as evidence that the risk to employees of returning to in person instruction in schools, with extensive mitigation, is less than it is to the general population. It appears that the risk to adult staff was higher than that of the general population. I think that is important information to have.

When you have looked up the rate of adults in Wisconsin, and compared, then you can state this. Since you haven't done that, you're speculating.

Here, I'll start: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/data.htm

Please share what number there shows an adult rate higher than 8868.5/100k.

Looking at the rates for age in Wisconsin, the rate for adults 25-34 was 9588/100k in October and for adults 35-44 was

https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/cases.htm#by%20age

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You aren’t an office worker. Nurses and doctors have been working in person through most of the pandemic. Same with grocery store workers, people who work in manufacturing plants and distribution centers, etc. I don’t understand the obsession with what office dwellers are doing. It’s a different job!

It’s not like the people we like best get to stay home and the people we don’t like have to go to work. That’s true in some workplaces but not across the board. Generally, people whose work requires in person are in person, and people whose work is mostly staring at a computer screen stay home. It’s a practical consideration, not a prize. And the idea that teachers won’t go back until even office workers go back is crazy, not least because some office workers will never go back. That’s because their employers realized they just don’t need to be in person. I am sorry, but that is not the conclusion we’ve drawn about schools.

Sorry that your profession is really important and we’ve collectively found that it really needs to be done in person?

That's fine, you can have whatever attitude you want, but that's now what this thread is about. This thread is about the Wisconsin study people are citing as evidence that the risk to employees of returning to in person instruction in schools, with extensive mitigation, is less than it is to the general population. It appears that the risk to adult staff was higher than that of the general population. I think that is important information to have.

When you have looked up the rate of adults in Wisconsin, and compared, then you can state this. Since you haven't done that, you're speculating.

Here, I'll start: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/data.htm

Please share what number there shows an adult rate higher than 8868.5/100k.

Looking at the rates for age in Wisconsin, the rate for adults 25-34 was 9588/100k in October and for adults 35-44 was 8642/100k.

https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/cases.htm#by%20age

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a new article for discussion.

https://www.chalkbeat.org/2021/1/12/22227990/covid-teachers-school-reopening?fbclid=IwAR3Fk2RscHicXJrnsgZNk09_-D-JHEgaDbRDz_F-IA4Z--wjB-iyeB0WCQ0

In New York, Texas, and a slice of the rest of the country where data is available, teachers and other staff where school buildings are open have higher COVID infection rates than their surrounding communities.

Critically, the data does not show whether teachers caught the virus in schools, or offer definitive answers about the risks of school reopening. It’s possible the results reflect more widespread testing among teachers, and the evidence that remote teachers have lower infection rates is mixed. But the latest data complicates our understanding of the risks of school reopening.

“The fact that the staff rates are growing at a faster rate than the community rates is something we should be paying attention to,” said Emily Oster, the Brown University researcher who spearheaded the analysis and collection of this data.

In November, Oster pointed to data showing that New York teachers were no more likely to have COVID than others in their community. That is no longer the case in New York, and it hasn’t been the case in Texas for months — two states that have some of the best data on the topic.

Experts consulted by Chalkbeat say the latest data is notable but not conclusive. The findings underscore how much the information school officials have to rely on when deciding to open school buildings continues to shift.

“The data do deserve further investigation and warrant explanation,” said Rebecca Haffajee, a public health researcher at the RAND Corporation.

School staff appear to be contracting COVID at higher rates than their surrounding communities

Ah, neat. "We don't know yet because we haven't evaluated all of the data, but decided to promote hysteria anyway!"

Meanwhile, the other studies go "we know, we know, even though we haven't evaluated all of the data, but decided to promote complacency anyway! Science!" and if someone says so, you reply "who cares if she doesn't like the studies. Nobody cares what she thinks."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a new article for discussion.

https://www.chalkbeat.org/2021/1/12/22227990/covid-teachers-school-reopening?fbclid=IwAR3Fk2RscHicXJrnsgZNk09_-D-JHEgaDbRDz_F-IA4Z--wjB-iyeB0WCQ0

In New York, Texas, and a slice of the rest of the country where data is available, teachers and other staff where school buildings are open have higher COVID infection rates than their surrounding communities.

Critically, the data does not show whether teachers caught the virus in schools, or offer definitive answers about the risks of school reopening. It’s possible the results reflect more widespread testing among teachers, and the evidence that remote teachers have lower infection rates is mixed. But the latest data complicates our understanding of the risks of school reopening.

“The fact that the staff rates are growing at a faster rate than the community rates is something we should be paying attention to,” said Emily Oster, the Brown University researcher who spearheaded the analysis and collection of this data.

In November, Oster pointed to data showing that New York teachers were no more likely to have COVID than others in their community. That is no longer the case in New York, and it hasn’t been the case in Texas for months — two states that have some of the best data on the topic.

Experts consulted by Chalkbeat say the latest data is notable but not conclusive. The findings underscore how much the information school officials have to rely on when deciding to open school buildings continues to shift.

“The data do deserve further investigation and warrant explanation,” said Rebecca Haffajee, a public health researcher at the RAND Corporation.

School staff appear to be contracting COVID at higher rates than their surrounding communities

Ah, neat. "We don't know yet because we haven't evaluated all of the data, but decided to promote hysteria anyway!"

Meanwhile, the other studies go "we know, we know, even though we haven't evaluated all of the data, but decided to promote complacency anyway! Science!" and if someone says so, you reply "who cares if she doesn't like the studies. Nobody cares what she thinks."

The difference is that these other studies have undergone peer review.

[Anonymous]

can i get a translator for "and if someone says so, you reply "who cares if she doesn't like the studies. Nobody cares what she thinks."

anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:can i get a translator for "and if someone says so, you reply "who cares if she doesn't like the studies. Nobody cares what she thinks."

anyone?

Page 4 of this thread

Eh. She found studies but she didn't' like them. So she's decided that it's not safe.

"Good science" isn't as clean as you're saying. You look at studies, at their results and their limitations, and then you use that information. If you throw it out, as PP has done, that's her issue. No one else's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:can i get a translator for "and if someone says so, you reply "who cares if she doesn't like the studies. Nobody cares what she thinks."

anyone?

Page 4 of this thread

Eh. She found studies but she didn't' like them. So she's decided that it's not safe.

"Good science" isn't as clean as you're saying. You look at studies, at their results and their limitations, and then you use that information. If you throw it out, as PP has done, that's her issue. No one else's.

thanks!