Anonymous wrote:Man, I love these Janney threads. Y’all are absolutely bonkers! Godspeed to the staff there lol

This is not a Janney thread. This is the canary in the coalmine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janney's action in sending an entire cohort home is inconsistent with CDC guidelines for what type of "close contact" requires quarantine:

Exception: In the K–12 indoor classroom setting, the close contact definition excludes students who were within 3 to 6 feet of an infected student (laboratory-confirmed or a clinically compatible illness) where
- both students were engaged in consistent and correct use of well-fitting masks; and
- other K–12 school prevention strategies (such as universal and correct mask use, physical distancing, increased ventilation) were in place in the K–12 school setting.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html#contact

yes, it's inconsistent with CDC guidelines but it's consistent with the OSSE guidelines!
That's the whole point of this thread. The OSSE guidelines (as followed by Janney and previously this summer by Banneker) are what led to the quarantine.

The question remains: will the schools provide any instruction when these happens repeatedly during the school year?

The question remains: when is OSSE going to follow the CDC so we quit harming kids unnecessarily?

That is the million dollar question. It's what makes the Janney situation worrisome--it's proof that DCPS is following the policy now. It should be sobering to any of us with kids in DCPS. They're actually following this quarantine policy that is not really compatible with in-person school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Janney's action in sending an entire cohort home is inconsistent with CDC guidelines for what type of "close contact" requires quarantine:

Exception: In the K–12 indoor classroom setting, the close contact definition excludes students who were within 3 to 6 feet of an infected student (laboratory-confirmed or a clinically compatible illness) where
- both students were engaged in consistent and correct use of well-fitting masks; and
- other K–12 school prevention strategies (such as universal and correct mask use, physical distancing, increased ventilation) were in place in the K–12 school setting.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html#contact

yes, it's inconsistent with CDC guidelines but it's consistent with the OSSE guidelines!
That's the whole point of this thread. The OSSE guidelines (as followed by Janney and previously this summer by Banneker) are what led to the quarantine.

The question remains: will the schools provide any instruction when these happens repeatedly during the school year?

The question remains: when is OSSE going to follow the CDC so we quit harming kids unnecessarily?

Anonymous wrote:Janney's action in sending an entire cohort home is inconsistent with CDC guidelines for what type of "close contact" requires quarantine:

Exception: In the K–12 indoor classroom setting, the close contact definition excludes students who were within 3 to 6 feet of an infected student (laboratory-confirmed or a clinically compatible illness) where
- both students were engaged in consistent and correct use of well-fitting masks; and
- other K–12 school prevention strategies (such as universal and correct mask use, physical distancing, increased ventilation) were in place in the K–12 school setting.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html#contact

yes, it's inconsistent with CDC guidelines but it's consistent with the OSSE guidelines!
That's the whole point of this thread. The OSSE guidelines (as followed by Janney and previously this summer by Banneker) are what led to the quarantine.

The question remains: will the schools provide any instruction when these happens repeatedly during the school year?

Janney's action in sending an entire cohort home is inconsistent with CDC guidelines for what type of "close contact" requires quarantine:

Exception: In the K–12 indoor classroom setting, the close contact definition excludes students who were within 3 to 6 feet of an infected student (laboratory-confirmed or a clinically compatible illness) where
- both students were engaged in consistent and correct use of well-fitting masks; and
- other K–12 school prevention strategies (such as universal and correct mask use, physical distancing, increased ventilation) were in place in the K–12 school setting.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/appendix.html#contact

Man, I love these Janney threads. Y’all are absolutely bonkers! Godspeed to the staff there lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to wait until I see what the plan is when this happens for actual school before I panic about the fact that there's no plan for remote summer school. Remote summer school, after the last year and a half, would really seem more like a punishment than anything else.

You are missing the point. Summer school is following the OSSE quarantine policy which is also in place for the upcoming school year.

Well that's not good.

Best opt out of testing!

Maybe you are joking, but we absolutely are opting out.

Why would you opt out of testing? You are putting your kids and other kids at risk. Or, you know it and don't care.

No, the PP correctly thinks that asymptomatic testing does more harm than good, especially when any positive leads to blanket, long-term quarantines of large numbers of kids. Read up on it.

Anonymous[b wrote:]They need to switch to the model tested in the UK, where close contacts are tested daily instead of quarantined. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57930214
[/b]
Also, why are the cohorts mixing at Janney? Or was this an unvaccinated teacher/staff member who was present in both cohorts?

Mandatory vaccination, now.

This! This is the most reasonable way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to switch to the model tested in the UK, where close contacts are tested daily instead of quarantined. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57930214

Also, why are the cohorts mixing at Janney? Or was this an unvaccinated teacher/staff member who was present in both cohorts?

Mandatory vaccination, now.

Maybe the Janney cohorts mixed at lunch or recess or another activity? Or maybe it was a staff member who was positive? It wasn't shared with the school.
Regardless, one positive sent every kid who was on campus home for 2 weeks.

FWIW, current health guidance allows for students to mix in 1 additional cohort (so two cohorts mixing is very possible)

Anonymous wrote:They need to switch to the model tested in the UK, where close contacts are tested daily instead of quarantined. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57930214

Also, why are the cohorts mixing at Janney? Or was this an unvaccinated teacher/staff member who was present in both cohorts?

Mandatory vaccination, now.

Maybe the Janney cohorts mixed at lunch or recess or another activity? Or maybe it was a staff member who was positive? It wasn't shared with the school.
Regardless, one positive sent every kid who was on campus home for 2 weeks.

They need to switch to the model tested in the UK, where close contacts are tested daily instead of quarantined. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57930214

Also, why are the cohorts mixing at Janney? Or was this an unvaccinated teacher/staff member who was present in both cohorts?

Mandatory vaccination, now.

Reposting from another thread:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/04/19/schools-covid-testing-cost/

"But there are downsides to systematic testing that have been insufficiently considered, including costs, lost learning time, logistics and stress for those subjected to such a regime. False-positive results — which say you are infected when you aren’t — pose particular problems. Overall, this kind of widespread testing fails cost-benefit analysis: It will drain already insufficient public school resources while doing little to improve safety. "

"First, classrooms have thankfully been found — in studies examining schools in multiple states — to be places of limited disease transmission, compared with communities at large. The rate of transmission within schools from individuals who test positive has been estimated to be on the order of 0.5 percent to 0.7 percent (and this includes people exhibiting symptoms).

A rate that low implies that a testing regimen would need to identify roughly 200 infected people to prevent one person from transmitting the disease in school. It would take an awful lot of tests to achieve those numbers. In New York City, where more than 234,000 asymptomatic students and staff members across approximately 1,600 schools were tested last fall, the overall rate of positive tests was only 0.4 percent. That suggests that — even during a time of high community spread — about 40,000 tests among asymptomatic individuals would need to be performed to prevent one in-school transmission."

"And how accurate are these tests? Rapid antigen and saliva PCR tests, which are frequently used in schools, can have a false positive rate of 1 or 2 percent. That may sound low, but statisticians know that, when testing in a setting of low prevalence of disease, even a single-digit false-positive rate can be extremely problematic.

The current prevalence rate for the coronavirus in the United States is roughly 15 cases per 10,000 people per week. (Prevalence in schools tends to be similar to, or lower than, that in the surrounding community.) If you give 10,000 people a test that produces false positives 2 percent of the time, that means you might get 215 positives: 15 true positives and 200 false positives. In other words, more than 90 percent of the positive test results will be incorrect."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the guidance differ for vaccinated children in a cohort with a positive case? Or are all kids quarantining for two weeks, regardless?

I'm not speaking with authority on the matter, however as a teacher I was allowed to return to the classroom last spring after a known exposure because I am vaccinated, while the ES students in the class where I was exposed stayed home. As a parent of a MS & HS student (both vaccinated) I hope there is some consideration for vaccinated students not having to quarantine. Unvaccinated teachers and quarantine, well I guess that's another reason to argue for vaccination status of teachers.

So let's say you are taking Calculus and a classmate tests positive. The vaccinated teacher and 12 vaccinated kids stay in school but the 15 kids who are unvaccinated go home for 10 days and learn nothing? Does the class continue to learn without them?

Anonymous wrote:How is it crazy if they have a positive? That is being responsible.

There are a ton of false positives and 10 days with no instruction is completely unreasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to wait until I see what the plan is when this happens for actual school before I panic about the fact that there's no plan for remote summer school. Remote summer school, after the last year and a half, would really seem more like a punishment than anything else.

You are missing the point. Summer school is following the OSSE quarantine policy which is also in place for the upcoming school year.

Well that's not good.

Best opt out of testing!

Maybe you are joking, but we absolutely are opting out.

Why would you opt out of testing? You are putting your kids and other kids at risk. Or, you know it and don't care.