Anonymous wrote:nice dodge

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what kind of maniac reads the WP comments and then takes them seriously?

this is not a trustworthy character

Are you referring to OP or to me (I did the math above to show what WP guy was saying) as not trustworthy? OP was actually not taking WP guy at blind faith. She wanted to understand his conclusions but didn't know how to. I think he has a point based on the math I showed. It's not helping anybody on either side to insult people without looking at what the numbers say. I don't understand why you don't want OP to be able to interpret the study and "come around" to the open schools side if that's what the study shows.

i do not believe that anyone asking these questions is looking for anything other than confirmation bias. would love to be proven wrong by op.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what kind of maniac reads the WP comments and then takes them seriously?

this is not a trustworthy character

Are you referring to OP or to me (I did the math above to show what WP guy was saying) as not trustworthy? OP was actually not taking WP guy at blind faith. She wanted to understand his conclusions but didn't know how to. I think he has a point based on the math I showed. It's not helping anybody on either side to insult people without looking at what the numbers say. I don't understand why you don't want OP to be able to interpret the study and "come around" to the open schools side if that's what the study shows.

Anonymous wrote:what kind of maniac reads the WP comments and then takes them seriously?

this is not a trustworthy character

Anonymous wrote: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.

This does not address anything about about where transmission occurred, but this is what WP guy is saying. I apologize for any typos. I am very tired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This does not address anything about about where transmission occurred, but this is what WP guy is saying. I apologize for any typos. I am very tired.

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

Anonymous wrote: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.

This does not address anything about about where transmission occurred, but this is what WP guy is saying. I apologize for any typos. I am very tired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, here.

Why does everyone assume a post is always an argument for or against school opening or closing? I wasn’t trying to build an evidenced based argument; in fact I wasn’t trying to build an argument at all. I was asking a question and reaching out to people who could better assess the quality of an “analysis” I encountered in the comments section of WaPo. Yeah, that is random, but I am not writing a research paper or trying to present an oral argument.

I created two threads based on this guy’s comments. Why did I feel the need to do that? Because people on this forum have been citing the “wisconsin study” and “cdc guidelines” as “supporting school opening” and this commenter’s analysis of the studies - which I admit I am too lazy undertake myself — made me feel a bit bamboozled by random DCUM posters who I had never pressed for details or explanation when they cited the “wisconsin study” or “the cdc report” as their “evidence.”

In short, I was admitting I am not a science person and examining and evaluating these studies with care would involve a lot of mental focus I need to dedicate to other projects so I was saying “Hey smart stem trained DCUM moms, is this guy’s analysis legitimate or flawed?”

I don’t know how to post a direct link to the guy’s comments but here is the link to the article he commented on. One of his posts brought up the CDC report and another the Wisconsin study:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/biden-schools-reopen/2021/02/11/3a63e3ee-6b2d-11eb-ba56-d7e2c8defa31_story.html

I'm not a science person either, but I could tell within seconds that the argument, with the links, made no sense whatsoever. I don't believe your intentions and believe you must be a teacher desperate to keep schools closed. This forum isn't helpful for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VARIANTS, people. Europe was forced to close most schools despite having been opened during most of the pandemic. Why would our crowded schools be an exception?

K-4 is still open with VARIANTS at a pretty high percentage of cases. France changed a few protocols for 2 of the 3 variants but stayed open...

Anonymous wrote:VARIANTS, people. Europe was forced to close most schools despite having been opened during most of the pandemic. Why would our crowded schools be an exception?

Anonymous wrote:VARIANTS, people. Europe was forced to close most schools despite having been opened during most of the pandemic. Why would our crowded schools be an exception?