Reply to The Wisconsin Study

Forum Index » Schools and Education General Discussion

Reply to "The Wisconsin Study - valid analysis?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Washington Post guy/gal is saying it's not fair to compare total in-school rates to rates for everyone else in the community because school populations are heavily weighted toward kids who are less likely to get COVID regardless of setting.

The 2728/100k child school rate is (133 school kids who got COVID)/(4867 total students in school). That's a higher rate than the 1811/100k for all kids. (I'm assuming that 1811 rate came from the state data in the other link. I didn't look at that).

The rate for in-school teachers was 58/654 = 8868.5/100k.

The study adds kids and teachers together to get (133+58)/(4876+654) = 3454/100k.

They then say that is better than the community rate of 4746/100k (I'm estimating this based on 73k total population in the county for kids+adults because I don't think the study shows community rates split by kids and adults).

WP guy is saying of course the rate for people in school is lower than for people not in school because school is made up of 88% kids. The remaining community members will be very highly weighted toward adults. I don't think we can figure out the exact % from the study because we can't tell how many children there are below school age in the county, but we do know it will be quite high and nowhere near 88% kids.
[b]
This does not address anything about about where transmission occurred[/b], but this is what WP guy is saying. I apologize for any typos. I am very tired. [/quote]

I thought the whole point of the ridiculous numbers of the study was where transmission occurred - that it wasn't in school.[/quote]

This is "What is added by this report?" per CDC: "Among 17 rural Wisconsin schools, reported student mask-wearing was high, and the COVID-19 incidence among students and staff members was lower than in the county overall (3,453 versus 5,466 per 100,000). Among 191 cases identified in students and staff members, only seven (3.7%) cases, all among students, were linked to in-school spread."

All I meant was that my numbers address point #1 and not point #2 of that quote. Point #1 is just looking at # of cases for people in school or not, regardless of where they might have gotten it. Point #2 is only seven cases were linked to in-school spread. Personally, I would want to know how many of the non-school cases were linked to places of spread and how many of the school-attendee cases were not linked to a place of spread before I make any comments on that part. (I don't know if that's addressed in the article or not. I didn't read all of it.) I think WP guy is commenting on point #1 only, as far as I can tell.
 [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics