No quarantine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of us *desperately* want schools to open.

And, presumably, most of us don’t want to contribute to a public health crisis.

Right now, we have a public health crisis staring down the barrel at us. Opening schools in a way that suddenly makes a bunch of kids sick (ie, opening right into the Delta wave) is not something we would normally do. It’s a little whacked when there are other options available (wait a few weeks before opening, open in hybrid mode, etc).

But none of us trusts our school leaders, especially, nor our fellow parents to manage this with rationality, creativity, and flexibility, so we all fear getting one of two polarized outcomes: (1) ridiculously prolonged school closures or (2) the equivalent of ‘emergency’ school closures in which half the kids are home sick and a handful of them are hospitalized, struggling for their lives.

Our experience of the past couple of years has everyone digging in their heels and failing to respond reasonably to an impending, visible threat.

I think the part where you are wrong is the second statement. Most want schools to open, but they do not care about the public health crisis. This is not to say that closing schools is the only way to prevent the expanding health crisis, because it is not, but there are many on here who seem adamantly against smaller measures, such as quarantines, testing, etc.

It's quite possible to care about it and be interested in common sense measures like symptomatic testing instead of asymptomatic.

Except that defies common sense for a contagious virus that is very contagious at least one day before symptoms.

So. Clearly you didn't read any of the arguments about testing presented in tons of other places. Can't help you if you can't read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of us *desperately* want schools to open.

And, presumably, most of us don’t want to contribute to a public health crisis.

Right now, we have a public health crisis staring down the barrel at us. Opening schools in a way that suddenly makes a bunch of kids sick (ie, opening right into the Delta wave) is not something we would normally do. It’s a little whacked when there are other options available (wait a few weeks before opening, open in hybrid mode, etc).

But none of us trusts our school leaders, especially, nor our fellow parents to manage this with rationality, creativity, and flexibility, so we all fear getting one of two polarized outcomes: (1) ridiculously prolonged school closures or (2) the equivalent of ‘emergency’ school closures in which half the kids are home sick and a handful of them are hospitalized, struggling for their lives.

Our experience of the past couple of years has everyone digging in their heels and failing to respond reasonably to an impending, visible threat.

I think the part where you are wrong is the second statement. Most want schools to open, but they do not care about the public health crisis. This is not to say that closing schools is the only way to prevent the expanding health crisis, because it is not, but there are many on here who seem adamantly against smaller measures, such as quarantines, testing, etc.

It's quite possible to care about it and be interested in common sense measures like symptomatic testing instead of asymptomatic.

Except that defies common sense for a contagious virus that is very contagious at least one day before symptoms.

So. Clearly you didn't read any of the arguments about testing presented in tons of other places. Can't help you if you can't read.

DP: We’re in this thread, and in any event, your deflection is hardly informative.

I, like PP, am trying to understand the arguments against testing, and I have yet to read any post that explains it clearly.

I get that some of the concern is false positives. I don’t get why that’s such a big deal. Seems less costly than allowing unchecked spread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of us *desperately* want schools to open.

And, presumably, most of us don’t want to contribute to a public health crisis.

Right now, we have a public health crisis staring down the barrel at us. Opening schools in a way that suddenly makes a bunch of kids sick (ie, opening right into the Delta wave) is not something we would normally do. It’s a little whacked when there are other options available (wait a few weeks before opening, open in hybrid mode, etc).

But none of us trusts our school leaders, especially, nor our fellow parents to manage this with rationality, creativity, and flexibility, so we all fear getting one of two polarized outcomes: (1) ridiculously prolonged school closures or (2) the equivalent of ‘emergency’ school closures in which half the kids are home sick and a handful of them are hospitalized, struggling for their lives.

Our experience of the past couple of years has everyone digging in their heels and failing to respond reasonably to an impending, visible threat.

I think the part where you are wrong is the second statement. Most want schools to open, but they do not care about the public health crisis. This is not to say that closing schools is the only way to prevent the expanding health crisis, because it is not, but there are many on here who seem adamantly against smaller measures, such as quarantines, testing, etc.

It's quite possible to care about it and be interested in common sense measures like symptomatic testing instead of asymptomatic.

Except that defies common sense for a contagious virus that is very contagious at least one day before symptoms.

So. Clearly you didn't read any of the arguments about testing presented in tons of other places. Can't help you if you can't read.

DP: We’re in this thread, and in any event, your deflection is hardly informative.

I, like PP, am trying to understand the arguments against testing, and I have yet to read any post that explains it clearly.

I get that some of the concern is false positives. I don’t get why that’s such a big deal. Seems less costly than allowing unchecked spread.

Okay, I will bite. Because simple math shows us that if a test has a false positivity rate that is higher than the community prevalence rate, you get more false positives than actual ones. Sometimes by a lot. That creates a lot of unnecessary disruption.

[Anonymous]

The point of surveillance testing is to have a broad repeated measure so that you can see if, over time or from one week to the next, the positivity rate is increasing (or decreasing).

If you simply refuse to contribute data then you are refusing to inform DCPS about the estimated population positive rate over time.

I hope that people are willing to consider the broader context here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point of surveillance testing is to have a broad repeated measure so that you can see if, over time or from one week to the next, the positivity rate is increasing (or decreasing).

If you simply refuse to contribute data then you are refusing to inform DCPS about the estimated population positive rate over time.

I hope that people are willing to consider the broader context here.

But if the community rate is low, you won't actually get that information. That's why pooled or wastewater testing is better and more cost-effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point of surveillance testing is to have a broad repeated measure so that you can see if, over time or from one week to the next, the positivity rate is increasing (or decreasing).

If you simply refuse to contribute data then you are refusing to inform DCPS about the estimated population positive rate over time.

I hope that people are willing to consider the broader context here.

This doesn't convince me as an argument to opt in for the following reasons:
1) DCPS generally sucks about data collection and analysis. They certainly aren't set up to do medical testing. I strongly doubt their ability to collect useful data.
2) Even if DCPS was just trying to get a trend in positivity at school, why? What would they do with that information? They have never tied opening or closing to any metric. There's no statements that they would use a positivity metric in the future for some stated purpose.
3) DCPS uses the testing as a tool to try to prevent spread (supposedly). It's unclear whether it is having that intended purpose. DCPS seems to have no ability to weigh or remediate the downsides of (highly likely) quarantines from false positives against any potential benefits from preventing spread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of surveillance testing is to have a broad repeated measure so that you can see if, over time or from one week to the next, the positivity rate is increasing (or decreasing).

If you simply refuse to contribute data then you are refusing to inform DCPS about the estimated population positive rate over time.

I hope that people are willing to consider the broader context here.

But if the community rate is low, you won't actually get that information. That's why pooled or wastewater testing is better and more cost-effective.

The community rate in DC is not low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of surveillance testing is to have a broad repeated measure so that you can see if, over time or from one week to the next, the positivity rate is increasing (or decreasing).

If you simply refuse to contribute data then you are refusing to inform DCPS about the estimated population positive rate over time.

I hope that people are willing to consider the broader context here.

But if the community rate is low, you won't actually get that information. That's why pooled or wastewater testing is better and more cost-effective.

The community rate in DC is not low.

It is, though, for the purposes of the math of false positives. And there's plenty of suggestion (even during delta) that school transmission and prevalence will be lower than community prevalence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of surveillance testing is to have a broad repeated measure so that you can see if, over time or from one week to the next, the positivity rate is increasing (or decreasing).

If you simply refuse to contribute data then you are refusing to inform DCPS about the estimated population positive rate over time.

I hope that people are willing to consider the broader context here.

But if the community rate is low, you won't actually get that information. That's why pooled or wastewater testing is better and more cost-effective.

The community rate in DC is not low.

It is, though, for the purposes of the math of false positives. And there's plenty of suggestion (even during delta) that school transmission and prevalence will be lower than community prevalence.

+1

The math for this isn't based on relative spread comparisons. It's independent of CDC definitions, which is where I think the confusion comes in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of surveillance testing is to have a broad repeated measure so that you can see if, over time or from one week to the next, the positivity rate is increasing (or decreasing).

If you simply refuse to contribute data then you are refusing to inform DCPS about the estimated population positive rate over time.

I hope that people are willing to consider the broader context here.

This doesn't convince me as an argument to opt in for the following reasons:
1) DCPS generally sucks about data collection and analysis. They certainly aren't set up to do medical testing. I strongly doubt their ability to collect useful data.
2) Even if DCPS was just trying to get a trend in positivity at school, why? What would they do with that information? They have never tied opening or closing to any metric. There's no statements that they would use a positivity metric in the future for some stated purpose.
3) DCPS uses the testing as a tool to try to prevent spread (supposedly). It's unclear whether it is having that intended purpose. DCPS seems to have no ability to weigh or remediate the downsides of (highly likely) quarantines from false positives against any potential benefits from preventing spread.

This is a really valid concern that I hadn't thought of. We've all seen DCPS educational data--it's not carefully collected or used. For them to now do this with health data?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of surveillance testing is to have a broad repeated measure so that you can see if, over time or from one week to the next, the positivity rate is increasing (or decreasing).

If you simply refuse to contribute data then you are refusing to inform DCPS about the estimated population positive rate over time.

I hope that people are willing to consider the broader context here.

This doesn't convince me as an argument to opt in for the following reasons:
1) DCPS generally sucks about data collection and analysis. They certainly aren't set up to do medical testing. I strongly doubt their ability to collect useful data.
2) Even if DCPS was just trying to get a trend in positivity at school, why? What would they do with that information? They have never tied opening or closing to any metric. There's no statements that they would use a positivity metric in the future for some stated purpose.
3) DCPS uses the testing as a tool to try to prevent spread (supposedly). It's unclear whether it is having that intended purpose. DCPS seems to have no ability to weigh or remediate the downsides of (highly likely) quarantines from false positives against any potential benefits from preventing spread.

This is a really valid concern that I hadn't thought of. We've all seen DCPS educational data--it's not carefully collected or used. For them to now do this with health data?

I think the testing is done by DOH, not DCPS, yes?

If so, DOH has done a great job of its testing systems. I have a lot more trust in their testing than in DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of surveillance testing is to have a broad repeated measure so that you can see if, over time or from one week to the next, the positivity rate is increasing (or decreasing).

If you simply refuse to contribute data then you are refusing to inform DCPS about the estimated population positive rate over time.

I hope that people are willing to consider the broader context here.

But if the community rate is low, you won't actually get that information. That's why pooled or wastewater testing is better and more cost-effective.

The community rate in DC is not low.

The DC test positivity rate is almost 3%.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/us/district-of-columbia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of surveillance testing is to have a broad repeated measure so that you can see if, over time or from one week to the next, the positivity rate is increasing (or decreasing).

If you simply refuse to contribute data then you are refusing to inform DCPS about the estimated population positive rate over time.

I hope that people are willing to consider the broader context here.

But if the community rate is low, you won't actually get that information. That's why pooled or wastewater testing is better and more cost-effective.

The community rate in DC is not low.

The DC test positivity rate is almost 3%.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/us/district-of-columbia

It's almost 3% if you look under the "past month" tab.
It's almost 5% if you look under the "past week" tab.