Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes much more sense to me so not surprised . It just does not make sense that tossing the kids all in a building together would not increase cases notably.

Even if true, everyone is done caring. Teachers are vaccinated. It’s over.

Yep, the conversation has changed. It's not about the teachers any more. It's about dealing with the students that have parents who won't let them back. They need to be aggregated into some dedicated program and be done with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares about your deep thoughts. Schools are finally
opening and they aren’t shutting down again.

+1

It’s hypocritical to say that “science” says it’s safe to open schools, then refuse to address the quality of the studies that the “science” relies on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes much more sense to me so not surprised . It just does not make sense that tossing the kids all in a building together would not increase cases notably.

Even if true, everyone is done caring. Teachers are vaccinated. It’s over.

Agree. A thousand studies could come out and schools will be opening full time in the fall. Everyone is DONE.

Anonymous wrote:I have seen people refer to the Wisconsin study as one that “proves” schools are safe with mitigation measure, but I just read a startling analysis of that study which highlights what it claims the study failed to report outright. What I have copied and pasted below is not my analysis. I saw this in the comments section of a Washington Post article. Can DCUM mom-epidemiologists offer their insight? Do you see any problems with this analysis? I really wish I had studied more of the STEM subjects in school...

——-

Executive summary: the CDC Wisconsin study showed that despite masking, cohorting, small classes and following CDC's advice about trying to maintain 6' separation, 60% more staff got infected than people in the general community.

That study did not report that figure*, instead making an 'apples to oranges' comparison of prevalence in the school population (children are less likely to have detected Covid cases) to the community population at large. As we would expect, the children had fewer cases than the total community. 

They report the school population had 37% less cases /100k than the community, lumping children and adults together for the school figures.
In children in the community, there were 1811/100k cases <18 yo, while in the schools, there were 2728/100k, also 50% higher than the general population.

Bottom line:
In the schools, staff had 60% higher rate of Covid infection than the general state population.
In the schools, children had 50% higher rate of Covid infection than the general state population.

We could make a judgement call and say a higher rate of infection is acceptable, but we should not misrepresent the data and say the risk in schools is lower than the community for either staff or students. It isn't.

Data from 
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/cases.htm#youth
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004e3.htm?s_cid=mm7004e3_w#F1_down

——

OP I looked at the links and I don't understand your analysis. You're quoting something that says the study was totally wrong. But the data doesn't show that.

Anonymous wrote:This makes much more sense to me so not surprised . It just does not make sense that tossing the kids all in a building together would not increase cases notably.

Even if true, everyone is done caring. Teachers are vaccinated. It’s over.

This makes much more sense to me so not surprised . It just does not make sense that tossing the kids all in a building together would not increase cases notably.

Anonymous wrote:No one cares about your deep thoughts. Schools are finally
opening and they aren’t shutting down again.

My deep thoughts? I’m not pondering the meaning of life; I am re-examining the oft quoted conclusions from a widely cited study.

I wasn’t really thinking about whether or not schools open or close. What I take issue with is how people are determining and reporting the risk factors and risk assessments to the community.

Anonymous wrote:No one cares about your deep thoughts. Schools are finally
opening and they aren’t shutting down again.

Are you willing to put money on that?

Anonymous wrote:No one cares about your deep thoughts. Schools are finally
opening and they aren’t shutting down again.

Succinct. +1.

Anonymous wrote:No one cares about your deep thoughts. Schools are finally
opening and they aren’t shutting down again.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares about your deep thoughts. Schools are finally
opening and they aren’t shutting down again.

I think you're wrong. I am a parent who is set on doing everything I can to keep school buildings closed. (DP)

And why so?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares about your deep thoughts. Schools are finally
opening and they aren’t shutting down again.

I think you're wrong. I am a parent who is set on doing everything I can to keep school buildings closed. (DP)

Wow. See a psychiatrist.

Anonymous wrote:No one cares about your deep thoughts. Schools are finally
opening and they aren’t shutting down again.

I think you're wrong. I am a parent who is set on doing everything I can to keep school buildings closed. (DP)

No one cares about your deep thoughts. Schools are finally
opening and they aren’t shutting down again.

I have seen people refer to the Wisconsin study as one that “proves” schools are safe with mitigation measure, but I just read a startling analysis of that study which highlights what it claims the study failed to report outright. What I have copied and pasted below is not my analysis. I saw this in the comments section of a Washington Post article. Can DCUM mom-epidemiologists offer their insight? Do you see any problems with this analysis? I really wish I had studied more of the STEM subjects in school...

——-

Executive summary: the CDC Wisconsin study showed that despite masking, cohorting, small classes and following CDC's advice about trying to maintain 6' separation, 60% more staff got infected than people in the general community.

That study did not report that figure*, instead making an 'apples to oranges' comparison of prevalence in the school population (children are less likely to have detected Covid cases) to the community population at large. As we would expect, the children had fewer cases than the total community. 

They report the school population had 37% less cases /100k than the community, lumping children and adults together for the school figures.
In children in the community, there were 1811/100k cases <18 yo, while in the schools, there were 2728/100k, also 50% higher than the general population.

Bottom line:
In the schools, staff had 60% higher rate of Covid infection than the general state population.
In the schools, children had 50% higher rate of Covid infection than the general state population.

We could make a judgement call and say a higher rate of infection is acceptable, but we should not misrepresent the data and say the risk in schools is lower than the community for either staff or students. It isn't.

Data from 
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/covid-19/cases.htm#youth
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004e3.htm?s_cid=mm7004e3_w#F1_down

——