Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Are you kidding me? That’s a shit-ton.

On what planet is 0.08% a shit ton of anything?

On a planet where the R-number exceeds 1. Put that many positive kids in a school building and it will. Quickly.

+1 Five months in and people still don't understand exponential spread. This whole situation has convinced me that we are truly the stupidest country on Earth. All those cuts to education coming home to roost.

Yes. It's so depressing. And then you always get the predictable "but no it won't, because masks!" Masks are not the cure. They help -- somewhat. Prolonged indoor exposure, masked or unmasked, is still u significant risk for transmission. But they don't care.

And yet other countries do it.

Is there another country with community spread levels as high as the US that has successfully opened schools?

The problem isn't the way our schools are reacting, it's the way the rest of our society is reacting. The problem is also that we're asking the schools to deal with the virus without asking the rest of society to do what is necessary to get it under control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Are you kidding me? That’s a shit-ton.

On what planet is 0.08% a shit ton of anything?

On a planet where the R-number exceeds 1. Put that many positive kids in a school building and it will. Quickly.

+1 Five months in and people still don't understand exponential spread. This whole situation has convinced me that we are truly the stupidest country on Earth. All those cuts to education coming home to roost.

Yes. It's so depressing. And then you always get the predictable "but no it won't, because masks!" Masks are not the cure. They help -- somewhat. Prolonged indoor exposure, masked or unmasked, is still u significant risk for transmission. But they don't care.

And yet other countries do it.

Is there another country with community spread levels as high as the US that has successfully opened schools?

+1. Exactly. It’s unbelievable that people don’t get it. You can’t compare us to a country who has the virus under relatively good control.

In addition people still have no understanding if exponential spread 5 months into this as poster above stated. I can guarantee you that the R will be higher in the schools than what it currently is in the city. There is no way the kids will be wearing masks all day and correctly. I don’t care what age. So the kids will be infecting the other kids. In addition, each child bringing it home almost certainly will infect the family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Are you kidding me? That’s a shit-ton.

On what planet is 0.08% a shit ton of anything?

On a planet where the R-number exceeds 1. Put that many positive kids in a school building and it will. Quickly.

+1 Five months in and people still don't understand exponential spread. This whole situation has convinced me that we are truly the stupidest country on Earth. All those cuts to education coming home to roost.

Yes. It's so depressing. And then you always get the predictable "but no it won't, because masks!" Masks are not the cure. They help -- somewhat. Prolonged indoor exposure, masked or unmasked, is still u significant risk for transmission. But they don't care.

And yet other countries do it.

Is there another country with community spread levels as high as the US that has successfully opened schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Are you kidding me? That’s a shit-ton.

On what planet is 0.08% a shit ton of anything?

On a planet where the R-number exceeds 1. Put that many positive kids in a school building and it will. Quickly.

+1 Five months in and people still don't understand exponential spread. This whole situation has convinced me that we are truly the stupidest country on Earth. All those cuts to education coming home to roost.

Yes. It's so depressing. And then you always get the predictable "but no it won't, because masks!" Masks are not the cure. They help -- somewhat. Prolonged indoor exposure, masked or unmasked, is still u significant risk for transmission. But they don't care.

And yet other countries do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume a masked kid who is infected will infect other kids or teachers who are also masked and presumably, socially-distanced? This is far from a given.

Good probability they will infect other kids or teacher esp if 10 years or older. In addition, the greatest risk of infection is to other family members, kids bringing it home. That is what I read somewhere was the highest percentage of transmission of infection in China

Not really. Researchers say with face masks, the chance of infection or transmission is only 3%. Without masks it rises to 17%--still far from a sure thing.

https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-19-prevention.html

Let's assume at a school like Wilson each kid comes in contact with 100 people each day. So a 3% transmission rate means one infected kid infects three other people. If they start with a 0.8% infection rate that's 16 kids on the first day. Then they infect 48 more and that's 64. Then those 64 infect 192 more and it's 256. If they don't shut the school it doesn't take long before everyone in the school has it.

Thanks for doing the math. I guess people need to really understand how exponential growth works and quickly COVID-19 can spread. Just look at the camp in Georgia.

No, PP is wrong. One infected COVID person does not infect 3 more people. That would require the R0 to be 3.

In DC, the R0 is estimated to be 1.02, which means one infected kid would infect one other kid.

https://rt.live/

R0 for kids in high school is unlikely to be the same as it is for the district as a whole.

Anonymous wrote:A new study is attempting to estimate the number of kids infected per XXX students in a school on opening day.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/31/us/coronavirus-school-reopening-risk.html

For D.C., where the overall numbers aren’t as bad as parts of the South, the estimates are about 4 kids per 1,000 will be carrying the virus.

Interesting article about this new study. You can search any county and alter the school size with their calculator.

Pods look good in

Anonymous wrote:A new study is attempting to estimate the number of kids infected per XXX students in a school on opening day.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/31/us/coronavirus-school-reopening-risk.html

For D.C., where the overall numbers aren’t as bad as parts of the South, the estimates are about 4 kids per 1,000 will be carrying the virus.

Interesting article about this new study. You can search any county and alter the school size with their calculator.

And 99% will be not sick

Anonymous wrote:Let's see, 0.08% of a ton of shit. A ton has 2,000 pounds so 0.08% is 1.6 pounds. Normallly it weighs up to a pound, so if I were you, I'd visit a doctor and check out why you aren't concerned with your megaweighing shit. I think you have a problem.

It's 0.8 not 0.08, so sixteen pounds. Severe intestinal distress range.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume a masked kid who is infected will infect other kids or teachers who are also masked and presumably, socially-distanced? This is far from a given.

Good probability they will infect other kids or teacher esp if 10 years or older. In addition, the greatest risk of infection is to other family members, kids bringing it home. That is what I read somewhere was the highest percentage of transmission of infection in China

Not really. Researchers say with face masks, the chance of infection or transmission is only 3%. Without masks it rises to 17%--still far from a sure thing.

https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-19-prevention.html

Let's assume at a school like Wilson each kid comes in contact with 100 people each day. So a 3% transmission rate means one infected kid infects three other people. If they start with a 0.8% infection rate that's 16 kids on the first day. Then they infect 48 more and that's 64. Then those 64 infect 192 more and it's 256. If they don't shut the school it doesn't take long before everyone in the school has it.

Thanks for doing the math. I guess people need to really understand how exponential growth works and quickly COVID-19 can spread. Just look at the camp in Georgia.

No, PP is wrong. One infected COVID person does not infect 3 more people. That would require the R0 to be 3.

In DC, the R0 is estimated to be 1.02, which means one infected kid would infect one other kid.

https://rt.live/

The R0 is not a property of the virus, it's a property of the environment. The citywide R0 has no bearing on what happens inside a school. The PP said that the risk of infection is "only" 3% (a meaningless number in of itself without context but I digress). Another poster pointed out that if the risk is 3%, and an infected person is exposed to 100 people, the expected outcome is that 3 of them would get infected. In that environment R0 would be 3.0.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Anyone under 30 is at higher risk of dying from a car accident.

Oh, please stop with this idiotic refrain again and again. Car accidents aren't contagious diseases (where you're shut up all day with multiple other people indoors), which can be transmitted by BREATHING. Grow up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Are you kidding me? That’s a shit-ton.

On what planet is 0.08% a shit ton of anything?

On what planet is 4/1000 0.08%?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume a masked kid who is infected will infect other kids or teachers who are also masked and presumably, socially-distanced? This is far from a given.

Why do you assume a child will diligently keep on a mask?

This, or the prior poster who, hilariously, believes that "most" of the kids will wear their masks correctly all day (puh-LEAZE -- and oh, yeah, what about lunch?)

You can tell which parents have never darkened the door of a school, except to speed through the carpool line to drop off the kids to their free babysister on their way to mom's mani/pedi.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds pretty low-risk.

Are you kidding me? That’s a shit-ton.

On what planet is 0.08% a shit ton of anything?

On a planet where the R-number exceeds 1. Put that many positive kids in a school building and it will. Quickly.

+1 Five months in and people still don't understand exponential spread. This whole situation has convinced me that we are truly the stupidest country on Earth. All those cuts to education coming home to roost.

Yes. It's so depressing. And then you always get the predictable "but no it won't, because masks!" Masks are not the cure. They help -- somewhat. Prolonged indoor exposure, masked or unmasked, is still u significant risk for transmission. But they don't care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume a masked kid who is infected will infect other kids or teachers who are also masked and presumably, socially-distanced? This is far from a given.

Good probability they will infect other kids or teacher esp if 10 years or older. In addition, the greatest risk of infection is to other family members, kids bringing it home. That is what I read somewhere was the highest percentage of transmission of infection in China

Not really. Researchers say with face masks, the chance of infection or transmission is only 3%. Without masks it rises to 17%--still far from a sure thing.

https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-19-prevention.html

Let's assume at a school like Wilson each kid comes in contact with 100 people each day. So a 3% transmission rate means one infected kid infects three other people. If they start with a 0.8% infection rate that's 16 kids on the first day. Then they infect 48 more and that's 64. Then those 64 infect 192 more and it's 256. If they don't shut the school it doesn't take long before everyone in the school has it.

Thanks for doing the math. I guess people need to really understand how exponential growth works and quickly COVID-19 can spread. Just look at the camp in Georgia.

No, PP is wrong. One infected COVID person does not infect 3 more people. That would require the R0 to be 3.

In DC, the R0 is estimated to be 1.02, which means one infected kid would infect one other kid.

https://rt.live/

To add: so this is how it could work. If all 4 kids infected 1 kid each, you’d then have 8 infected kids. Then 16, then 32, etc. However, there’s no indication that every infected kid will infected another kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone assume a masked kid who is infected will infect other kids or teachers who are also masked and presumably, socially-distanced? This is far from a given.

Good probability they will infect other kids or teacher esp if 10 years or older. In addition, the greatest risk of infection is to other family members, kids bringing it home. That is what I read somewhere was the highest percentage of transmission of infection in China

Not really. Researchers say with face masks, the chance of infection or transmission is only 3%. Without masks it rises to 17%--still far from a sure thing.

https://www.livescience.com/face-masks-eye-protection-covid-19-prevention.html

Let's assume at a school like Wilson each kid comes in contact with 100 people each day. So a 3% transmission rate means one infected kid infects three other people. If they start with a 0.8% infection rate that's 16 kids on the first day. Then they infect 48 more and that's 64. Then those 64 infect 192 more and it's 256. If they don't shut the school it doesn't take long before everyone in the school has it.

Thanks for doing the math. I guess people need to really understand how exponential growth works and quickly COVID-19 can spread. Just look at the camp in Georgia.

No, PP is wrong. One infected COVID person does not infect 3 more people. That would require the R0 to be 3.

In DC, the R0 is estimated to be 1.02, which means one infected kid would infect one other kid.

https://rt.live/