MCPS Covid Data Updated Daily (in a single thread)

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?


Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html


What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.



Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?


Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?


So, you realize as you get older you’re going to know more and more people with heart attacks, strokes, and clots, right? That’s one of many reasons why personal anecdotes isn’t meaningful data.

And if you read the studies about long Covid, they’re not finding large numbers of cases of heart attacks and clots. They’re finding large numbers of people reporting things like fatigue, congestion, cough, anxiety, and depression.

Obviously we're going to see higher rates of more unusual conditions, like heart attacks and strokes, in the first year after an infection. That's the case for things like influenza, too. But when people and news articles reference these large numbers of people with Covid, those aren't the problems they're talking about.


Let her be. Her MO is to spout scientifically unsound crap then throw in an insult at the end. She needs this. Let her be.


So, you are ok with your kids developing long term health issues from covid and having them suffer fro the rest of their lives?


The data doesn't bear that out to be a significant increased risk. Read the studies. The symptoms associated with "long Covid" occur at similar rates in kids that did and did not have Covid. They're typically mild and resolve on their own after a few weeks or months.

That's not to say there is zero risk, but there's no such thing as zero risk in life. And the risks of long Covid or other Covid-related complications are similar to other risks we've always implicitly or explicitly accepted.


Oooh don’t talk actual science to her. She confuses easily.
Anonymous
Although tomorrow will reflect data from the first day back-to-school, Friday will be the first indicator whether in-school spread occurred today. By Friday the post Memorial Day trend will continue.

This holiday data is from Monday, 5/30/22, reported today. There are 72 new student infections and 17 new staff infections reported since yesterday. There have been 1568 active infections at MCPS within the last 10 days. This is 192 less than yesterday's 10-day average. Of 210 schools in MCPS plus Central Office, 96 (46%) are improving, 95 (45%) are steady, and 19 (9%) are getting worse.

7% (15 of 210) schools have an infection rate of 2% or more. 0% (0 of 210) schools have an infection rate of 10% or more. This is the shortest this list has been in several weeks, although Churchill is an outlyer with 122 infections.
Location Last 10 Days (#) Total Staff & Students School Cases (%)
Central Office 24 N/A
Winston Churchill High 122 2,459 5.00%
Robert Frost Middle 41 1,088 3.80%
Wood Acres Elementary 17 582 2.90%
Bradley Hills Elementary 14 533 2.60%
Wyngate Elementary 19 773 2.50%
Woodfield Elementary 9 363 2.50%
Thomas S. Wootton High 49 2,132 2.30%
Cabin John Middle 26 1,155 2.30%
Farmland Elementary 20 888 2.30%
Burning Tree Elementary 11 476 2.30%
Cedar Grove Elementary 10 449 2.20%
Piney Branch Elementary 14 682 2.10%
Little Bennett Elementary 15 733 2.00%
William B. Gibbs Jr. Elementary 11 556 2.00%
Somerset Elementary 10 497 2.00%

55% (115 of 210) schools in MCPS plus Central Office have 4 or more reported infections in the past 10 days. Of those schools, 28% (58 of 209) are in the double-digits with 10 or more infections.

Location Last 10 Days (#) Total Staff & Students School Cases (%)
Winston Churchill High 122 2,459 5.00%
Richard Montgomery High 49 2,583 1.90%
Thomas S. Wootton High 49 2,132 2.30%
Walter Johnson High 46 3,139 1.50%
Robert Frost Middle 41 1,088 3.80%
Northwest High 31 2,773 1.10%
Quince Orchard High 29 2,320 1.30%
Cabin John Middle 26 1,155 2.30%
Central Office 24 N/A
Clarksburg High 23 2,546 0.90%
James Hubert Blake High 23 1,946 1.20%
Northwood High 22 2,046 1.10%
Damascus High 21 1,533 1.40%
Sherwood High 21 1,966 1.10%
Farmland Elementary 20 888 2.30%
North Bethesda Middle 20 1,270 1.60%
Wyngate Elementary 19 773 2.50%
Julius West Middle 18 1,502 1.20%
Rockville High 18 1,613 1.10%
Takoma Park Middle 18 1,247 1.40%
Bethesda-Chevy. Chase High 17 2,530 0.70%
Tilden Middle 17 1,146 1.50%
Wood Acres Elementary 17 582 2.90%
Col. Zadok Magruder High 16 1,797 0.90%
Albert Einstein High 15 2,127 0.70%
Gaithersburg High 15 2,615 0.60%
Hallie Wells Middle 15 1,086 1.40%
Little Bennett Elementary 15 733 2.00%
Bradley Hills Elementary 14 533 2.60%
Diamond Elementary 14 815 1.70%
Piney Branch Elementary 14 682 2.10%
Rocky Hill Middle 14 1,116 1.30%
Ashburton Elementary 13 939 1.40%
Garrett Park Elementary 13 762 1.70%
Herbert Hoover Middle 13 1,114 1.20%
Olney Elementary 13 680 1.90%
Sligo Middle 13 823 1.60%
Spark M. Matsunaga Elementary 13 679 1.90%
Walt Whitman High 13 2,213 0.60%
Georgian Forest Elementary 12 647 1.90%
Montgomery Blair High 12 3,501 0.30%
Poolesville High 12 1,382 0.90%
Burning Tree Elementary 11 476 2.30%
College Gardens Elementary 11 594 1.90%
Lucy V. Barnsley Elementary 11 778 1.40%
Ridgeview Middle 11 876 1.30%
Rosa Parks Middle 11 929 1.20%
Westland Middle 11 897 1.20%
William B. Gibbs Jr. Elementary 11 556 2.00%
Cedar Grove Elementary 10 449 2.20%
Fields Road Elementary 10 543 1.80%
Gaithersburg Middle 10 1,014 1.00%
Greencastle Elementary 10 771 1.30%
Lakelands Park Middle 10 1,214 0.80%
Luxmanor Elementary 10 730 1.40%
Maryvale Elementary 10 715 1.40%
Snowden Farm Elementary 10 822 1.20%
Somerset Elementary 10 497 2.00%
Watkins Mill High 10 1,802 0.60%
John T. Baker Middle 9 934 1.00%
Silver Spring International Middle 9 1,289 0.70%
Takoma Park Elementary 9 624 1.40%
Thomas W. Pyle Middle 9 1,454 0.60%
Thurgood Marshall Elementary 9 589 1.50%
Woodfield Elementary 9 363 2.50%
Bayard Rustin Elementary 8 823 1.00%
Earle B. Wood Middle 8 1,174 0.70%
Fallsmead Elementary 8 587 1.40%
Lois P. Rockwell Elementary 8 514 1.60%
Paint Branch High 8 2,292 0.30%
Rock Creek Valley Elementary 8 434 1.80%
Silver Creek Middle 8 891 0.90%
Wheaton High 8 2,666 0.30%
Bannockburn Elementary 7 469 1.50%
Carderock Springs Elementary 7 378 1.90%
Greenwood Elementary 7 596 1.20%
Kingsview Middle 7 1,105 0.60%
Meadow Hall Elementary 7 459 1.50%
Springbrook High 7 1,902 0.40%
Stone Mill Elementary 7 569 1.20%
Wayside Elementary 7 502 1.40%
Belmont Elementary 6 384 1.60%
Cold Spring Elementary 6 370 1.60%
Dr. Sally K. Ride Elementary 6 565 1.10%
Fairland Elementary 6 635 0.90%
Forest Knolls Elementary 6 551 1.10%
Jackson Road Elementary 6 745 0.80%
John F. Kennedy High 6 2,020 0.30%
Roberto W Clemente Middle 6 1,061 0.60%
Strathmore Elementary 6 553 1.10%
William H. Farquhar Middle 6 738 0.80%
Chevy Chase Elementary 5 509 1.00%
Glenallan Elementary 5 778 0.60%
Redland Middle 5 688 0.70%
Ritchie Park Elementary 5 420 1.20%
Rock Creek Forest Elementary 5 795 0.60%
Rock View Elementary 5 713 0.70%
Rosemary Hills Elementary 5 610 0.80%
Seneca Valley High 5 2,243 0.20%
Sherwood Elementary 5 551 0.90%
Sligo Creek Elementary 5 716 0.70%
A. Mario Loiederman Middle 4 1,059 0.40%
Argyle Middle 4 1,084 0.40%
Benjamin Banneker Middle 4 964 0.40%
Brown Station Elementary 4 676 0.60%
Burtonsville Elementary 4 677 0.60%
Captain James E. Daly Elementary 4 613 0.70%
Clarksburg Elementary 4 856 0.50%
Clopper Mill Elementary 4 520 0.80%
Darnestown Elementary 4 377 1.10%
Flower Valley Elementary 4 583 0.70%
Fox Chapel Elementary 4 651 0.60%
John Poole Middle 4 482 0.80%
Jones Lane Elementary 4 473 0.80%
Newport Mill Middle 4 737 0.50%
William Tyler Page Elementary 4 703 0.60%

119 students and 25 staff have been infected from 5/29/22 (Sunday of Memorial Day Weekend) through yesterday.
89 were infected (72 students and 17 staff) on 5/30/22; cumulative total since 5/29/22 is 144
+34 more daily infections occurred compared to the day prior.

116 (55.2%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 4 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
59 (28%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 10 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
16 (7.6%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 20 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
6 (2.8%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 30 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
5 (2.3%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 40 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 50 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 60 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 70 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 80 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
Anonymous
And as of today, 5/31, Maryland hospitals are reporting a total of 3 pediatric patients hospitalized with COVID. It's unclear if these patients are hospitalized for Covid-related illnesses or merely incidental positive tests, although past data suggests it's likely half and half.



Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?


Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html


What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.



Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?


Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?


I thought you were the poster from the health forum that didn’t know what antibodies were. This response pretty much confirms it. You still don’t seem to know what antibodies are, and certainly haven’t bothered to look at the performance of serology tests.

Look at the nucleocapsid tests here:
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance


Antibodies wane over time. You can keep insulting me as much as you want. But your own *science* is about as logical as your *logic,* which tends to posit examples like, "covid is just like the flu!" Or, "why would they expect us to keep getting boosters? We don't have to do that with the flu!" Or, one of my favorites, your recent: "we can't ask people to wear masks now because we might need them to wear masks later!"

Either you're paid, or you're just so far up some government-contracted K-hole that you can't wipe your own self. Either way, your continued attempts to pretend like you're being *scientific* are nothing more than amusing.

Dance, monkey. Dance.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:And as of today, 5/31, Maryland hospitals are reporting a total of 3 pediatric patients hospitalized with COVID. It's unclear if these patients are hospitalized for Covid-related illnesses or merely incidental positive tests, although past data suggests it's likely half and half.





This, on the other hand, is great news.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Although tomorrow will reflect data from the first day back-to-school, Friday will be the first indicator whether in-school spread occurred today. By Friday the post Memorial Day trend will continue.

This holiday data is from Monday, 5/30/22, reported today. There are 72 new student infections and 17 new staff infections reported since yesterday. There have been 1568 active infections at MCPS within the last 10 days. This is 192 less than yesterday's 10-day average. Of 210 schools in MCPS plus Central Office, 96 (46%) are improving, 95 (45%) are steady, and 19 (9%) are getting worse.

7% (15 of 210) schools have an infection rate of 2% or more. 0% (0 of 210) schools have an infection rate of 10% or more. This is the shortest this list has been in several weeks, although Churchill is an outlyer with 122 infections.
Location Last 10 Days (#) Total Staff & Students School Cases (%)
Central Office 24 N/A
Winston Churchill High 122 2,459 5.00%
Robert Frost Middle 41 1,088 3.80%
Wood Acres Elementary 17 582 2.90%
Bradley Hills Elementary 14 533 2.60%
Wyngate Elementary 19 773 2.50%
Woodfield Elementary 9 363 2.50%
Thomas S. Wootton High 49 2,132 2.30%
Cabin John Middle 26 1,155 2.30%
Farmland Elementary 20 888 2.30%
Burning Tree Elementary 11 476 2.30%
Cedar Grove Elementary 10 449 2.20%
Piney Branch Elementary 14 682 2.10%
Little Bennett Elementary 15 733 2.00%
William B. Gibbs Jr. Elementary 11 556 2.00%
Somerset Elementary 10 497 2.00%

55% (115 of 210) schools in MCPS plus Central Office have 4 or more reported infections in the past 10 days. Of those schools, 28% (58 of 209) are in the double-digits with 10 or more infections.

Location Last 10 Days (#) Total Staff & Students School Cases (%)
Winston Churchill High 122 2,459 5.00%
Richard Montgomery High 49 2,583 1.90%
Thomas S. Wootton High 49 2,132 2.30%
Walter Johnson High 46 3,139 1.50%
Robert Frost Middle 41 1,088 3.80%
Northwest High 31 2,773 1.10%
Quince Orchard High 29 2,320 1.30%
Cabin John Middle 26 1,155 2.30%
Central Office 24 N/A
Clarksburg High 23 2,546 0.90%
James Hubert Blake High 23 1,946 1.20%
Northwood High 22 2,046 1.10%
Damascus High 21 1,533 1.40%
Sherwood High 21 1,966 1.10%
Farmland Elementary 20 888 2.30%
North Bethesda Middle 20 1,270 1.60%
Wyngate Elementary 19 773 2.50%
Julius West Middle 18 1,502 1.20%
Rockville High 18 1,613 1.10%
Takoma Park Middle 18 1,247 1.40%
Bethesda-Chevy. Chase High 17 2,530 0.70%
Tilden Middle 17 1,146 1.50%
Wood Acres Elementary 17 582 2.90%
Col. Zadok Magruder High 16 1,797 0.90%
Albert Einstein High 15 2,127 0.70%
Gaithersburg High 15 2,615 0.60%
Hallie Wells Middle 15 1,086 1.40%
Little Bennett Elementary 15 733 2.00%
Bradley Hills Elementary 14 533 2.60%
Diamond Elementary 14 815 1.70%
Piney Branch Elementary 14 682 2.10%
Rocky Hill Middle 14 1,116 1.30%
Ashburton Elementary 13 939 1.40%
Garrett Park Elementary 13 762 1.70%
Herbert Hoover Middle 13 1,114 1.20%
Olney Elementary 13 680 1.90%
Sligo Middle 13 823 1.60%
Spark M. Matsunaga Elementary 13 679 1.90%
Walt Whitman High 13 2,213 0.60%
Georgian Forest Elementary 12 647 1.90%
Montgomery Blair High 12 3,501 0.30%
Poolesville High 12 1,382 0.90%
Burning Tree Elementary 11 476 2.30%
College Gardens Elementary 11 594 1.90%
Lucy V. Barnsley Elementary 11 778 1.40%
Ridgeview Middle 11 876 1.30%
Rosa Parks Middle 11 929 1.20%
Westland Middle 11 897 1.20%
William B. Gibbs Jr. Elementary 11 556 2.00%
Cedar Grove Elementary 10 449 2.20%
Fields Road Elementary 10 543 1.80%
Gaithersburg Middle 10 1,014 1.00%
Greencastle Elementary 10 771 1.30%
Lakelands Park Middle 10 1,214 0.80%
Luxmanor Elementary 10 730 1.40%
Maryvale Elementary 10 715 1.40%
Snowden Farm Elementary 10 822 1.20%
Somerset Elementary 10 497 2.00%
Watkins Mill High 10 1,802 0.60%
John T. Baker Middle 9 934 1.00%
Silver Spring International Middle 9 1,289 0.70%
Takoma Park Elementary 9 624 1.40%
Thomas W. Pyle Middle 9 1,454 0.60%
Thurgood Marshall Elementary 9 589 1.50%
Woodfield Elementary 9 363 2.50%
Bayard Rustin Elementary 8 823 1.00%
Earle B. Wood Middle 8 1,174 0.70%
Fallsmead Elementary 8 587 1.40%
Lois P. Rockwell Elementary 8 514 1.60%
Paint Branch High 8 2,292 0.30%
Rock Creek Valley Elementary 8 434 1.80%
Silver Creek Middle 8 891 0.90%
Wheaton High 8 2,666 0.30%
Bannockburn Elementary 7 469 1.50%
Carderock Springs Elementary 7 378 1.90%
Greenwood Elementary 7 596 1.20%
Kingsview Middle 7 1,105 0.60%
Meadow Hall Elementary 7 459 1.50%
Springbrook High 7 1,902 0.40%
Stone Mill Elementary 7 569 1.20%
Wayside Elementary 7 502 1.40%
Belmont Elementary 6 384 1.60%
Cold Spring Elementary 6 370 1.60%
Dr. Sally K. Ride Elementary 6 565 1.10%
Fairland Elementary 6 635 0.90%
Forest Knolls Elementary 6 551 1.10%
Jackson Road Elementary 6 745 0.80%
John F. Kennedy High 6 2,020 0.30%
Roberto W Clemente Middle 6 1,061 0.60%
Strathmore Elementary 6 553 1.10%
William H. Farquhar Middle 6 738 0.80%
Chevy Chase Elementary 5 509 1.00%
Glenallan Elementary 5 778 0.60%
Redland Middle 5 688 0.70%
Ritchie Park Elementary 5 420 1.20%
Rock Creek Forest Elementary 5 795 0.60%
Rock View Elementary 5 713 0.70%
Rosemary Hills Elementary 5 610 0.80%
Seneca Valley High 5 2,243 0.20%
Sherwood Elementary 5 551 0.90%
Sligo Creek Elementary 5 716 0.70%
A. Mario Loiederman Middle 4 1,059 0.40%
Argyle Middle 4 1,084 0.40%
Benjamin Banneker Middle 4 964 0.40%
Brown Station Elementary 4 676 0.60%
Burtonsville Elementary 4 677 0.60%
Captain James E. Daly Elementary 4 613 0.70%
Clarksburg Elementary 4 856 0.50%
Clopper Mill Elementary 4 520 0.80%
Darnestown Elementary 4 377 1.10%
Flower Valley Elementary 4 583 0.70%
Fox Chapel Elementary 4 651 0.60%
John Poole Middle 4 482 0.80%
Jones Lane Elementary 4 473 0.80%
Newport Mill Middle 4 737 0.50%
William Tyler Page Elementary 4 703 0.60%

119 students and 25 staff have been infected from 5/29/22 (Sunday of Memorial Day Weekend) through yesterday.
89 were infected (72 students and 17 staff) on 5/30/22; cumulative total since 5/29/22 is 144
+34 more daily infections occurred compared to the day prior.

116 (55.2%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 4 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
59 (28%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 10 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
16 (7.6%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 20 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
6 (2.8%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 30 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
5 (2.3%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 40 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 50 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 60 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 70 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 80 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.


It must just kill you that no one reads these or cares anymore. You lost this debate.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?


Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html


What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.



Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?


Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?


So, you realize as you get older you’re going to know more and more people with heart attacks, strokes, and clots, right? That’s one of many reasons why personal anecdotes isn’t meaningful data.

And if you read the studies about long Covid, they’re not finding large numbers of cases of heart attacks and clots. They’re finding large numbers of people reporting things like fatigue, congestion, cough, anxiety, and depression.

Obviously we're going to see higher rates of more unusual conditions, like heart attacks and strokes, in the first year after an infection. That's the case for things like influenza, too. But when people and news articles reference these large numbers of people with Covid, those aren't the problems they're talking about.


Let her be. Her MO is to spout scientifically unsound crap then throw in an insult at the end. She needs this. Let her be.


So, you are ok with your kids developing long term health issues from covid and having them suffer fro the rest of their lives?


The data doesn't bear that out to be a significant increased risk. Read the studies. The symptoms associated with "long Covid" occur at similar rates in kids that did and did not have Covid. They're typically mild and resolve on their own after a few weeks or months.

That's not to say there is zero risk, but there's no such thing as zero risk in life. And the risks of long Covid or other Covid-related complications are similar to other risks we've always implicitly or explicitly accepted.


Oooh don’t talk actual science to her. She confuses easily.


There is no actual science in those paragraphs.

"There's no such thing as zero risk in life" does not translate, for most ethical people, into "let's continually infect and spread a contagious virus to vulnerable people because there's no mandate and masks are icky."

No, that's just you and your misguided sense that you're on some noble crusade for freedom, dude.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Although tomorrow will reflect data from the first day back-to-school, Friday will be the first indicator whether in-school spread occurred today. By Friday the post Memorial Day trend will continue.

This holiday data is from Monday, 5/30/22, reported today. There are 72 new student infections and 17 new staff infections reported since yesterday. There have been 1568 active infections at MCPS within the last 10 days. This is 192 less than yesterday's 10-day average. Of 210 schools in MCPS plus Central Office, 96 (46%) are improving, 95 (45%) are steady, and 19 (9%) are getting worse.

7% (15 of 210) schools have an infection rate of 2% or more. 0% (0 of 210) schools have an infection rate of 10% or more. This is the shortest this list has been in several weeks, although Churchill is an outlyer with 122 infections.
Location Last 10 Days (#) Total Staff & Students School Cases (%)
Central Office 24 N/A
Winston Churchill High 122 2,459 5.00%
Robert Frost Middle 41 1,088 3.80%
Wood Acres Elementary 17 582 2.90%
Bradley Hills Elementary 14 533 2.60%
Wyngate Elementary 19 773 2.50%
Woodfield Elementary 9 363 2.50%
Thomas S. Wootton High 49 2,132 2.30%
Cabin John Middle 26 1,155 2.30%
Farmland Elementary 20 888 2.30%
Burning Tree Elementary 11 476 2.30%
Cedar Grove Elementary 10 449 2.20%
Piney Branch Elementary 14 682 2.10%
Little Bennett Elementary 15 733 2.00%
William B. Gibbs Jr. Elementary 11 556 2.00%
Somerset Elementary 10 497 2.00%

55% (115 of 210) schools in MCPS plus Central Office have 4 or more reported infections in the past 10 days. Of those schools, 28% (58 of 209) are in the double-digits with 10 or more infections.

Location Last 10 Days (#) Total Staff & Students School Cases (%)
Winston Churchill High 122 2,459 5.00%
Richard Montgomery High 49 2,583 1.90%
Thomas S. Wootton High 49 2,132 2.30%
Walter Johnson High 46 3,139 1.50%
Robert Frost Middle 41 1,088 3.80%
Northwest High 31 2,773 1.10%
Quince Orchard High 29 2,320 1.30%
Cabin John Middle 26 1,155 2.30%
Central Office 24 N/A
Clarksburg High 23 2,546 0.90%
James Hubert Blake High 23 1,946 1.20%
Northwood High 22 2,046 1.10%
Damascus High 21 1,533 1.40%
Sherwood High 21 1,966 1.10%
Farmland Elementary 20 888 2.30%
North Bethesda Middle 20 1,270 1.60%
Wyngate Elementary 19 773 2.50%
Julius West Middle 18 1,502 1.20%
Rockville High 18 1,613 1.10%
Takoma Park Middle 18 1,247 1.40%
Bethesda-Chevy. Chase High 17 2,530 0.70%
Tilden Middle 17 1,146 1.50%
Wood Acres Elementary 17 582 2.90%
Col. Zadok Magruder High 16 1,797 0.90%
Albert Einstein High 15 2,127 0.70%
Gaithersburg High 15 2,615 0.60%
Hallie Wells Middle 15 1,086 1.40%
Little Bennett Elementary 15 733 2.00%
Bradley Hills Elementary 14 533 2.60%
Diamond Elementary 14 815 1.70%
Piney Branch Elementary 14 682 2.10%
Rocky Hill Middle 14 1,116 1.30%
Ashburton Elementary 13 939 1.40%
Garrett Park Elementary 13 762 1.70%
Herbert Hoover Middle 13 1,114 1.20%
Olney Elementary 13 680 1.90%
Sligo Middle 13 823 1.60%
Spark M. Matsunaga Elementary 13 679 1.90%
Walt Whitman High 13 2,213 0.60%
Georgian Forest Elementary 12 647 1.90%
Montgomery Blair High 12 3,501 0.30%
Poolesville High 12 1,382 0.90%
Burning Tree Elementary 11 476 2.30%
College Gardens Elementary 11 594 1.90%
Lucy V. Barnsley Elementary 11 778 1.40%
Ridgeview Middle 11 876 1.30%
Rosa Parks Middle 11 929 1.20%
Westland Middle 11 897 1.20%
William B. Gibbs Jr. Elementary 11 556 2.00%
Cedar Grove Elementary 10 449 2.20%
Fields Road Elementary 10 543 1.80%
Gaithersburg Middle 10 1,014 1.00%
Greencastle Elementary 10 771 1.30%
Lakelands Park Middle 10 1,214 0.80%
Luxmanor Elementary 10 730 1.40%
Maryvale Elementary 10 715 1.40%
Snowden Farm Elementary 10 822 1.20%
Somerset Elementary 10 497 2.00%
Watkins Mill High 10 1,802 0.60%
John T. Baker Middle 9 934 1.00%
Silver Spring International Middle 9 1,289 0.70%
Takoma Park Elementary 9 624 1.40%
Thomas W. Pyle Middle 9 1,454 0.60%
Thurgood Marshall Elementary 9 589 1.50%
Woodfield Elementary 9 363 2.50%
Bayard Rustin Elementary 8 823 1.00%
Earle B. Wood Middle 8 1,174 0.70%
Fallsmead Elementary 8 587 1.40%
Lois P. Rockwell Elementary 8 514 1.60%
Paint Branch High 8 2,292 0.30%
Rock Creek Valley Elementary 8 434 1.80%
Silver Creek Middle 8 891 0.90%
Wheaton High 8 2,666 0.30%
Bannockburn Elementary 7 469 1.50%
Carderock Springs Elementary 7 378 1.90%
Greenwood Elementary 7 596 1.20%
Kingsview Middle 7 1,105 0.60%
Meadow Hall Elementary 7 459 1.50%
Springbrook High 7 1,902 0.40%
Stone Mill Elementary 7 569 1.20%
Wayside Elementary 7 502 1.40%
Belmont Elementary 6 384 1.60%
Cold Spring Elementary 6 370 1.60%
Dr. Sally K. Ride Elementary 6 565 1.10%
Fairland Elementary 6 635 0.90%
Forest Knolls Elementary 6 551 1.10%
Jackson Road Elementary 6 745 0.80%
John F. Kennedy High 6 2,020 0.30%
Roberto W Clemente Middle 6 1,061 0.60%
Strathmore Elementary 6 553 1.10%
William H. Farquhar Middle 6 738 0.80%
Chevy Chase Elementary 5 509 1.00%
Glenallan Elementary 5 778 0.60%
Redland Middle 5 688 0.70%
Ritchie Park Elementary 5 420 1.20%
Rock Creek Forest Elementary 5 795 0.60%
Rock View Elementary 5 713 0.70%
Rosemary Hills Elementary 5 610 0.80%
Seneca Valley High 5 2,243 0.20%
Sherwood Elementary 5 551 0.90%
Sligo Creek Elementary 5 716 0.70%
A. Mario Loiederman Middle 4 1,059 0.40%
Argyle Middle 4 1,084 0.40%
Benjamin Banneker Middle 4 964 0.40%
Brown Station Elementary 4 676 0.60%
Burtonsville Elementary 4 677 0.60%
Captain James E. Daly Elementary 4 613 0.70%
Clarksburg Elementary 4 856 0.50%
Clopper Mill Elementary 4 520 0.80%
Darnestown Elementary 4 377 1.10%
Flower Valley Elementary 4 583 0.70%
Fox Chapel Elementary 4 651 0.60%
John Poole Middle 4 482 0.80%
Jones Lane Elementary 4 473 0.80%
Newport Mill Middle 4 737 0.50%
William Tyler Page Elementary 4 703 0.60%

119 students and 25 staff have been infected from 5/29/22 (Sunday of Memorial Day Weekend) through yesterday.
89 were infected (72 students and 17 staff) on 5/30/22; cumulative total since 5/29/22 is 144
+34 more daily infections occurred compared to the day prior.

116 (55.2%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 4 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
59 (28%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 10 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
16 (7.6%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 20 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
6 (2.8%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 30 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
5 (2.3%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 40 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 50 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 60 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 70 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 80 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.


It must just kill you that no one reads these or cares anymore. You lost this debate.


I read them. And appreciate you posting them. It's heartening to see the low numbers at our high -Farms school. Although rationally, I realize the numbers may be low due to a lack of testing or reporting, I know a lot of the kids and staff as masking and the principal takes covid seriously.

When I look at the schools with the highest numbers, I do wonder how much of that has to do with reporting and how much of it has to do with arrogance and privilege. You just know Kensington Dad's kids are at a W feeder. And his opinions are probably the same as a lot of his neighbors.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Although tomorrow will reflect data from the first day back-to-school, Friday will be the first indicator whether in-school spread occurred today. By Friday the post Memorial Day trend will continue.

This holiday data is from Monday, 5/30/22, reported today. There are 72 new student infections and 17 new staff infections reported since yesterday. There have been 1568 active infections at MCPS within the last 10 days. This is 192 less than yesterday's 10-day average. Of 210 schools in MCPS plus Central Office, 96 (46%) are improving, 95 (45%) are steady, and 19 (9%) are getting worse.

7% (15 of 210) schools have an infection rate of 2% or more. 0% (0 of 210) schools have an infection rate of 10% or more. This is the shortest this list has been in several weeks, although Churchill is an outlyer with 122 infections.
Location Last 10 Days (#) Total Staff & Students School Cases (%)
Central Office 24 N/A
Winston Churchill High 122 2,459 5.00%
Robert Frost Middle 41 1,088 3.80%
Wood Acres Elementary 17 582 2.90%
Bradley Hills Elementary 14 533 2.60%
Wyngate Elementary 19 773 2.50%
Woodfield Elementary 9 363 2.50%
Thomas S. Wootton High 49 2,132 2.30%
Cabin John Middle 26 1,155 2.30%
Farmland Elementary 20 888 2.30%
Burning Tree Elementary 11 476 2.30%
Cedar Grove Elementary 10 449 2.20%
Piney Branch Elementary 14 682 2.10%
Little Bennett Elementary 15 733 2.00%
William B. Gibbs Jr. Elementary 11 556 2.00%
Somerset Elementary 10 497 2.00%

55% (115 of 210) schools in MCPS plus Central Office have 4 or more reported infections in the past 10 days. Of those schools, 28% (58 of 209) are in the double-digits with 10 or more infections.

Location Last 10 Days (#) Total Staff & Students School Cases (%)
Winston Churchill High 122 2,459 5.00%
Richard Montgomery High 49 2,583 1.90%
Thomas S. Wootton High 49 2,132 2.30%
Walter Johnson High 46 3,139 1.50%
Robert Frost Middle 41 1,088 3.80%
Northwest High 31 2,773 1.10%
Quince Orchard High 29 2,320 1.30%
Cabin John Middle 26 1,155 2.30%
Central Office 24 N/A
Clarksburg High 23 2,546 0.90%
James Hubert Blake High 23 1,946 1.20%
Northwood High 22 2,046 1.10%
Damascus High 21 1,533 1.40%
Sherwood High 21 1,966 1.10%
Farmland Elementary 20 888 2.30%
North Bethesda Middle 20 1,270 1.60%
Wyngate Elementary 19 773 2.50%
Julius West Middle 18 1,502 1.20%
Rockville High 18 1,613 1.10%
Takoma Park Middle 18 1,247 1.40%
Bethesda-Chevy. Chase High 17 2,530 0.70%
Tilden Middle 17 1,146 1.50%
Wood Acres Elementary 17 582 2.90%
Col. Zadok Magruder High 16 1,797 0.90%
Albert Einstein High 15 2,127 0.70%
Gaithersburg High 15 2,615 0.60%
Hallie Wells Middle 15 1,086 1.40%
Little Bennett Elementary 15 733 2.00%
Bradley Hills Elementary 14 533 2.60%
Diamond Elementary 14 815 1.70%
Piney Branch Elementary 14 682 2.10%
Rocky Hill Middle 14 1,116 1.30%
Ashburton Elementary 13 939 1.40%
Garrett Park Elementary 13 762 1.70%
Herbert Hoover Middle 13 1,114 1.20%
Olney Elementary 13 680 1.90%
Sligo Middle 13 823 1.60%
Spark M. Matsunaga Elementary 13 679 1.90%
Walt Whitman High 13 2,213 0.60%
Georgian Forest Elementary 12 647 1.90%
Montgomery Blair High 12 3,501 0.30%
Poolesville High 12 1,382 0.90%
Burning Tree Elementary 11 476 2.30%
College Gardens Elementary 11 594 1.90%
Lucy V. Barnsley Elementary 11 778 1.40%
Ridgeview Middle 11 876 1.30%
Rosa Parks Middle 11 929 1.20%
Westland Middle 11 897 1.20%
William B. Gibbs Jr. Elementary 11 556 2.00%
Cedar Grove Elementary 10 449 2.20%
Fields Road Elementary 10 543 1.80%
Gaithersburg Middle 10 1,014 1.00%
Greencastle Elementary 10 771 1.30%
Lakelands Park Middle 10 1,214 0.80%
Luxmanor Elementary 10 730 1.40%
Maryvale Elementary 10 715 1.40%
Snowden Farm Elementary 10 822 1.20%
Somerset Elementary 10 497 2.00%
Watkins Mill High 10 1,802 0.60%
John T. Baker Middle 9 934 1.00%
Silver Spring International Middle 9 1,289 0.70%
Takoma Park Elementary 9 624 1.40%
Thomas W. Pyle Middle 9 1,454 0.60%
Thurgood Marshall Elementary 9 589 1.50%
Woodfield Elementary 9 363 2.50%
Bayard Rustin Elementary 8 823 1.00%
Earle B. Wood Middle 8 1,174 0.70%
Fallsmead Elementary 8 587 1.40%
Lois P. Rockwell Elementary 8 514 1.60%
Paint Branch High 8 2,292 0.30%
Rock Creek Valley Elementary 8 434 1.80%
Silver Creek Middle 8 891 0.90%
Wheaton High 8 2,666 0.30%
Bannockburn Elementary 7 469 1.50%
Carderock Springs Elementary 7 378 1.90%
Greenwood Elementary 7 596 1.20%
Kingsview Middle 7 1,105 0.60%
Meadow Hall Elementary 7 459 1.50%
Springbrook High 7 1,902 0.40%
Stone Mill Elementary 7 569 1.20%
Wayside Elementary 7 502 1.40%
Belmont Elementary 6 384 1.60%
Cold Spring Elementary 6 370 1.60%
Dr. Sally K. Ride Elementary 6 565 1.10%
Fairland Elementary 6 635 0.90%
Forest Knolls Elementary 6 551 1.10%
Jackson Road Elementary 6 745 0.80%
John F. Kennedy High 6 2,020 0.30%
Roberto W Clemente Middle 6 1,061 0.60%
Strathmore Elementary 6 553 1.10%
William H. Farquhar Middle 6 738 0.80%
Chevy Chase Elementary 5 509 1.00%
Glenallan Elementary 5 778 0.60%
Redland Middle 5 688 0.70%
Ritchie Park Elementary 5 420 1.20%
Rock Creek Forest Elementary 5 795 0.60%
Rock View Elementary 5 713 0.70%
Rosemary Hills Elementary 5 610 0.80%
Seneca Valley High 5 2,243 0.20%
Sherwood Elementary 5 551 0.90%
Sligo Creek Elementary 5 716 0.70%
A. Mario Loiederman Middle 4 1,059 0.40%
Argyle Middle 4 1,084 0.40%
Benjamin Banneker Middle 4 964 0.40%
Brown Station Elementary 4 676 0.60%
Burtonsville Elementary 4 677 0.60%
Captain James E. Daly Elementary 4 613 0.70%
Clarksburg Elementary 4 856 0.50%
Clopper Mill Elementary 4 520 0.80%
Darnestown Elementary 4 377 1.10%
Flower Valley Elementary 4 583 0.70%
Fox Chapel Elementary 4 651 0.60%
John Poole Middle 4 482 0.80%
Jones Lane Elementary 4 473 0.80%
Newport Mill Middle 4 737 0.50%
William Tyler Page Elementary 4 703 0.60%

119 students and 25 staff have been infected from 5/29/22 (Sunday of Memorial Day Weekend) through yesterday.
89 were infected (72 students and 17 staff) on 5/30/22; cumulative total since 5/29/22 is 144
+34 more daily infections occurred compared to the day prior.

116 (55.2%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 4 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
59 (28%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 10 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
16 (7.6%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 20 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
6 (2.8%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 30 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
5 (2.3%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 40 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 50 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 60 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 70 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.
1 (0.4%) of the 209 MCPS schools and the Central Office had >= 80 infections in the past 10-days as of 5/30/22.


It must just kill you that no one reads these or cares anymore. You lost this debate.


If that's true, why are you still here on this thread? Not sure why you're trying to convince me I've "lost this debate" that I didn't even know I was debating? You can say all you want and comment all you want. What you don't seem to realize is that it is you that is irrelevant. Yet time and time again, you come back and comment. It's really very sad. Move on with your life and read a different thread. You'll be happier for it. Trust me. In the meantime, those of us who care, and care about our children, will continue to monitor.

An article caught my eye:
"The Massachusetts Department of Public Health reported 7,029 new confirmed COVID cases on Tuesday, after no reports over the long weekend."
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/massachusetts-reports-7029-new-covid-cases-over-4-days-6-additional-deaths/

Why is this important? On May 30th, Massachusetts reported zero new cases in the entire state, with a 7-DAY-AVERAGE OF 2,060 cases. The question is, how did they get 7,029 new cases in a single day with 0 cases the day prior?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?


Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html


What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.



Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?


Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?


I thought you were the poster from the health forum that didn’t know what antibodies were. This response pretty much confirms it. You still don’t seem to know what antibodies are, and certainly haven’t bothered to look at the performance of serology tests.

Look at the nucleocapsid tests here:
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance


Antibodies wane over time. You can keep insulting me as much as you want. But your own *science* is about as logical as your *logic,* which tends to posit examples like, "covid is just like the flu!" Or, "why would they expect us to keep getting boosters? We don't have to do that with the flu!" Or, one of my favorites, your recent: "we can't ask people to wear masks now because we might need them to wear masks later!"

Either you're paid, or you're just so far up some government-contracted K-hole that you can't wipe your own self. Either way, your continued attempts to pretend like you're being *scientific* are nothing more than amusing.

Dance, monkey. Dance.


How was your super important call with China?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?


Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html


What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.



Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?


Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?


I thought you were the poster from the health forum that didn’t know what antibodies were. This response pretty much confirms it. You still don’t seem to know what antibodies are, and certainly haven’t bothered to look at the performance of serology tests.

Look at the nucleocapsid tests here:
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance


Antibodies wane over time. You can keep insulting me as much as you want. But your own *science* is about as logical as your *logic,* which tends to posit examples like, "covid is just like the flu!" Or, "why would they expect us to keep getting boosters? We don't have to do that with the flu!" Or, one of my favorites, your recent: "we can't ask people to wear masks now because we might need them to wear masks later!"

Either you're paid, or you're just so far up some government-contracted K-hole that you can't wipe your own self. Either way, your continued attempts to pretend like you're being *scientific* are nothing more than amusing.

Dance, monkey. Dance.


How was your super important call with China?


Great, thanks.

It's still sad that I'm taking up so much space in your fluffy little head. You should talk to someone who isn't me about that.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?


Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html


What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.



Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?


Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?


So, you realize as you get older you’re going to know more and more people with heart attacks, strokes, and clots, right? That’s one of many reasons why personal anecdotes isn’t meaningful data.

And if you read the studies about long Covid, they’re not finding large numbers of cases of heart attacks and clots. They’re finding large numbers of people reporting things like fatigue, congestion, cough, anxiety, and depression.

Obviously we're going to see higher rates of more unusual conditions, like heart attacks and strokes, in the first year after an infection. That's the case for things like influenza, too. But when people and news articles reference these large numbers of people with Covid, those aren't the problems they're talking about.


Let her be. Her MO is to spout scientifically unsound crap then throw in an insult at the end. She needs this. Let her be.


So, you are ok with your kids developing long term health issues from covid and having them suffer fro the rest of their lives?


The data doesn't bear that out to be a significant increased risk. Read the studies. The symptoms associated with "long Covid" occur at similar rates in kids that did and did not have Covid. They're typically mild and resolve on their own after a few weeks or months.

That's not to say there is zero risk, but there's no such thing as zero risk in life. And the risks of long Covid or other Covid-related complications are similar to other risks we've always implicitly or explicitly accepted.


Oooh don’t talk actual science to her. She confuses easily.


There is no actual science in those paragraphs.

"There's no such thing as zero risk in life" does not translate, for most ethical people, into "let's continually infect and spread a contagious virus to vulnerable people because there's no mandate and masks are icky."

No, that's just you and your misguided sense that you're on some noble crusade for freedom, dude.


Holy sh!t. I thought you were just scientifically illiterate. Now it’s clear that you’re just plain illiterate.
I’m going to stop engaging with you now. It’s no longer amusing to debate with people that have actual diagnosable problems.
My apologies.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?


Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html


What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.



Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?


Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?


I thought you were the poster from the health forum that didn’t know what antibodies were. This response pretty much confirms it. You still don’t seem to know what antibodies are, and certainly haven’t bothered to look at the performance of serology tests.

Look at the nucleocapsid tests here:
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance


Antibodies wane over time. You can keep insulting me as much as you want. But your own *science* is about as logical as your *logic,* which tends to posit examples like, "covid is just like the flu!" Or, "why would they expect us to keep getting boosters? We don't have to do that with the flu!" Or, one of my favorites, your recent: "we can't ask people to wear masks now because we might need them to wear masks later!"

Either you're paid, or you're just so far up some government-contracted K-hole that you can't wipe your own self. Either way, your continued attempts to pretend like you're being *scientific* are nothing more than amusing.

Dance, monkey. Dance.


How was your super important call with China?


Great, thanks.

It's still sad that I'm taking up so much space in your fluffy little head. You should talk to someone who isn't me about that.


Who are you calling tonight? I expect a full report.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?


Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html


What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.



Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?


Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?


I thought you were the poster from the health forum that didn’t know what antibodies were. This response pretty much confirms it. You still don’t seem to know what antibodies are, and certainly haven’t bothered to look at the performance of serology tests.

Look at the nucleocapsid tests here:
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance


Antibodies wane over time. You can keep insulting me as much as you want. But your own *science* is about as logical as your *logic,* which tends to posit examples like, "covid is just like the flu!" Or, "why would they expect us to keep getting boosters? We don't have to do that with the flu!" Or, one of my favorites, your recent: "we can't ask people to wear masks now because we might need them to wear masks later!"

Either you're paid, or you're just so far up some government-contracted K-hole that you can't wipe your own self. Either way, your continued attempts to pretend like you're being *scientific* are nothing more than amusing.

Dance, monkey. Dance.


How was your super important call with China?


Great, thanks.

It's still sad that I'm taking up so much space in your fluffy little head. You should talk to someone who isn't me about that.


Are you kidding? Talking to you is like talking to Hannibal Lechter. I am intrigued, amazed and disgusted at the same time. Someone who is not you wouldn’t be nearly as entertaining.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?


Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html


What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.



Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?


Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?


I thought you were the poster from the health forum that didn’t know what antibodies were. This response pretty much confirms it. You still don’t seem to know what antibodies are, and certainly haven’t bothered to look at the performance of serology tests.

Look at the nucleocapsid tests here:
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance


Antibodies wane over time. You can keep insulting me as much as you want. But your own *science* is about as logical as your *logic,* which tends to posit examples like, "covid is just like the flu!" Or, "why would they expect us to keep getting boosters? We don't have to do that with the flu!" Or, one of my favorites, your recent: "we can't ask people to wear masks now because we might need them to wear masks later!"

Either you're paid, or you're just so far up some government-contracted K-hole that you can't wipe your own self. Either way, your continued attempts to pretend like you're being *scientific* are nothing more than amusing.

Dance, monkey. Dance.


You previously claimed antibodies disappear 5 days after an infection, with a vague statement saying it was from the CDC website. Obviously you didn't read that on the CDC website since it doesn't make any sense given how antibodies are produced. You never explained where you got that idea, so I can only guess. You might have been confusing tests that look for antigens (basically, the virus) versus tests that look for antibodies produced by the immune system.

Antibody levels wane over time, but serology testing is different than fighting off an infection. As the FDA’s page shows, serology tests for prior infections are certainly specific and sensitive enough to give good data for controlled covid studies. Your claim that we don't have reliable ways to test for prior infections is simply false.
post reply Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
Message Quick Reply
Go to: