Reason why it's nerve-racking to go back to school in person
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I understand that children are less likely to spread the virus and less likely to die from the virus but you still have the outbreak situations where lots of people are getting sick.
What assurances do we have from Montgomery County public schools that this won't happen if we go back to school? What can we learn from this? especially given that Montgomery County is saying that mass wearing for children would be optional and encouraged And there was no assurances that there would be more money set aside for cleaning supplies or improving the HVAC systems? https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/covid-19-cases-end-johns-creek-summer-camp/XAX7DVNW5VAZ3P5YRQY7V7E564/ https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/07/christian-summer-camp-kanakuk-82-cases-covid-19.amp https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/health/texas-coronavirus-cases-child-care-facilities/index.html |
Anonymous
|
OP, if you want a guarantee that nobody will get covid at school, that's not possible.
Just like it's not possible to guarantee that you won't get heart disease, and it's not possible to guarantee that you won't get in a car crash the next time you drive somewhere, and it's not possible to guarantee that you won't trip and fall when you get out of bed tomorrow morning. |
Anonymous
This exactly. OP, anything can happen. We should expect MCPS to take reasonable precautions - social distancing, masks, hand sanitizer. And then move along. |
Anonymous
|
Also, take anything you read on CNN Health and Slate about any medical issue with a grain of salt.
- A Physician |
Anonymous
| I hear you, but nerve-wracking doesn't mean impossible. I've been working with children in a group setting for about a month now. We've had two cases of positive children. These children do not wear masks and spent about 8 hours in a room with 7 other children and 2 adults. In neither case did anyone else test positive. |
Anonymous
Those are not accurate comparisons. OP, I'm not going to be wondering every single day if my kids were exposed, or if they brought it into our house. I'm just not. |
Anonymous
Maybe you would find it less nerve-wracking if they also told you how many of those positive cases resulted in serious negative consequences? The last two links talk about positive cases, but that doesn’t tell you much. People can test positive and have zero symptoms. People can test positive and end up in the hospital. It’s not helpful to learn how many positive cases there are without knowing how many of those ended up seriously ill. |
Anonymous
Nobody is forcing you to send your kid to school. Even if schools do reopen (unlikely), you can keep your kid home for as long as you want. |
Anonymous
Meaning, my kids are not going. |
Anonymous
The Slate story is about the sleepaway camp in Missouri. The issue is not with the Slate story, it's with the OP worrying about school on grounds that there was a case cluster at a sleepaway camp. |
Anonymous
They're absolutely accurate. The only way to guarantee that nobody will get covid at school is to not have school. The only way to guarantee that you won't get heart disease is to not be alive. The only way to guarantee that you won't get in a car crash the next time you drive is to not drive anywhere. The only way to guarantee that you won't trip and fall when you get out of bed is to not get out of bed. |
Anonymous
Children may be less likely to die from the virus, but read this - they still contract and transmit the virus. Children under ten are less likely to spread it than children ten and up but they still get and spread it. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/health/coronavirus-children-schools.html |
Anonymous
I think your post pretty much summarizes the situation. There are some people who refuse to accept any risk, and there are some people who think the risk level is acceptable and the benefit of being in school outweighs the risk. It seems like letting people choose remote vs physical learning is the most sensible approach. |
Anonymous
A large new study from South Korea offers an answer: Children younger than 10 transmit to others much less often than adults do, but the risk is not zero. And those between the ages of 10 and 19 can spread the virus at least as well as adults do. The findings suggest that as schools reopen, communities will see clusters of infection take root that include children of all ages, several experts cautioned. “I fear that there has been this sense that kids just won’t get infected or don’t get infected in the same way as adults and that, therefore, they’re almost like a bubbled population,” said Michael Osterholm, an infectious diseases expert at the University of Minnesota. “There will be transmission,” Dr. Osterholm said. “What we have to do is accept that now and include that in our plans.” Several studies from Europe and Asia have suggested that young children are less likely to get infected and to spread the virus. But most of those studies were small and flawed, said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. The new study “is very carefully done, it’s systematic and looks at a very large population,” Dr. Jha said. “It’s one of the best studies we’ve had to date on this issue.” ....Children under 10 were roughly half as likely as adults to spread the virus to others, consistent with other studies. That may be because children generally exhale less air — and therefore less virus-laden air — or because they exhale that air closer to the ground, making it less likely that adults would breathe it in. Even so, the number of new infections seeded by children may rise when schools reopen, the study authors cautioned. “Young children may show higher attack rates when the school closure ends, contributing to community transmission of Covid-19,” they wrote. Other studies have also suggested that the large number of contacts for schoolchildren, who interact with dozens of others for a good part of the day, may cancel out their smaller risk of infecting others. ....The study is more worrisome for children in middle and high school. This group was even more likely to infect others than adults were, the study found...." It's not "safe" to send your kids to school, if your definition of safe equals "won't catch covid." What you have to decide is whether having your kid or you have a much higher risk of covid is worth going to school in person. For me, the answer is no, it is not worth the risk. |
Anonymous
You make too much of the setting. The point is kids spread it to each other at camp so they can spread it to each other at school. |