Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So remember the question isn’t do we close the schools?

The question is do we close schools proactively and get the benefits or reactively and lose the benefits?

Honestly though the time to close proactively has likely been lost.

We are already several weeks into this outbreak at least. We just don’t have the tests that prove it.

So frustrated with our country.

And it's not so bad. So why would we close the schools again?

How do you know it's not so bad when almost no one is being tested?

Are hospitals being flooded with people with mysterious illnesses? If they're not sick enough to warrant medical attention, that sounds not so bad to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So remember the question isn’t do we close the schools?

The question is do we close schools proactively and get the benefits or reactively and lose the benefits?

Honestly though the time to close proactively has likely been lost.

We are already several weeks into this outbreak at least. We just don’t have the tests that prove it.

So frustrated with our country.

And it's not so bad. So why would we close the schools again?

How do you know it's not so bad when almost no one is being tested?

Are hospitals being flooded with people with mysterious illnesses? If they're not sick enough to warrant medical attention, that sounds not so bad to me.

Since nobody testing even for the flu how can we be sure anything anymore.

(CNN)So far this season,105 children have died from the flu, according to data released Friday by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is the highest number of child flu deaths at this point in the season since the CDC started keeping records in 2004, except for the 2009 flu pandemic.
This is the first time in 25 years where [influenza B] became so common so early.

The 2019-2020 flu season, which began September 29, is projected to be one of the worst in a decade, according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. At least 250,000 people have been hospitalized with complications from the flu, and that number is predicted to climb as flu activity swirls.
The influenza virus has infected at least 26 million Americans across the country and killed at least 14,000 people this season alone.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/healt...rnd/index.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So remember the question isn’t do we close the schools?

The question is do we close schools proactively and get the benefits or reactively and lose the benefits?

Honestly though the time to close proactively has likely been lost.

We are already several weeks into this outbreak at least. We just don’t have the tests that prove it.

So frustrated with our country.

And it's not so bad. So why would we close the schools again?

How do you know it's not so bad when almost no one is being tested?

Are hospitals being flooded with people with mysterious illnesses? If they're not sick enough to warrant medical attention, that sounds not so bad to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So remember the question isn’t do we close the schools?

The question is do we close schools proactively and get the benefits or reactively and lose the benefits?

Honestly though the time to close proactively has likely been lost.

We are already several weeks into this outbreak at least. We just don’t have the tests that prove it.

So frustrated with our country.

And it's not so bad. So why would we close the schools again?

NP - to try to keep it from getting "so bad."

Why do you believe broad school closures will keep it from getting "so bad"?

To stop the spread of the virus within the communities. To reduce the potential burden on the hospitals. There are many reasons to be proactive. Right before a snowstorm, we often have the early release to avoid any traffic problems. How is this different from a winter snowstorm that we know is coming? Why couldn't we take a proactive approach?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So remember the question isn’t do we close the schools?

The question is do we close schools proactively and get the benefits or reactively and lose the benefits?

Honestly though the time to close proactively has likely been lost.

We are already several weeks into this outbreak at least. We just don’t have the tests that prove it.

So frustrated with our country.

And it's not so bad. So why would we close the schools again?

NP - to try to keep it from getting "so bad."

Why do you believe broad school closures will keep it from getting "so bad"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Soap, watr, air, all we needed in 1918.. it work then it will work now. No worries.

Well in fairness, in 1918 they didn't even know it was a virus, so....

And killed 657,000 Americans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So remember the question isn’t do we close the schools?

The question is do we close schools proactively and get the benefits or reactively and lose the benefits?

Honestly though the time to close proactively has likely been lost.

We are already several weeks into this outbreak at least. We just don’t have the tests that prove it.

So frustrated with our country.

And it's not so bad. So why would we close the schools again?

How do you know it's not so bad when almost no one is being tested?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children are the best transmitters for these viruses. If you want to predict what the death rate will be for a flu season, check the rates of flu cases of 4 year olds in early fall. That number helps epidemiologists project how many will die by springtime when the flu dies down. Of course, it’s the elderly and immune compromised that have the dire consequences.

That’s why flu vaccines for children can have the greatest impact. The more they are protected from getting it, the fewer deaths for others.

This is why closing schools is a really good idea. It’s not because kids are dying from the virus, but because they more easily transmit it than others.

COVID-19 is not the flu.

Who said it was?

PP above and all the other posters who are relying exclusively on flu models to justify broad school closures.

Relying on models of of respiratory virus pandemics.

Man, it's like the same anti-fact people repeating ad deatheum "it's just the flu" have moved on to "Don't show me any science, it's not the flu."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So remember the question isn’t do we close the schools?

The question is do we close schools proactively and get the benefits or reactively and lose the benefits?

Honestly though the time to close proactively has likely been lost.

We are already several weeks into this outbreak at least. We just don’t have the tests that prove it.

So frustrated with our country.

And it's not so bad. So why would we close the schools again?

NP - to try to keep it from getting "so bad."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dulles is empty, 3 Acela trains a day have been taken off the schedule. Disney wi be empty at spring break.

Ooooh thanks for the laugh! I needed that.

Come back in Spring and we check again.

DP here. As a regular Disney goer, and a regular on Disney message boards, I can assure no one is cancelling and people are even planning last minute trips.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children are the best transmitters for these viruses. If you want to predict what the death rate will be for a flu season, check the rates of flu cases of 4 year olds in early fall. That number helps epidemiologists project how many will die by springtime when the flu dies down. Of course, it’s the elderly and immune compromised that have the dire consequences.

That’s why flu vaccines for children can have the greatest impact. The more they are protected from getting it, the fewer deaths for others.

This is why closing schools is a really good idea. It’s not because kids are dying from the virus, but because they more easily transmit it than others.

COVID-19 is not the flu.

Who said it was?

PP above and all the other posters who are relying exclusively on flu models to justify broad school closures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So remember the question isn’t do we close the schools?

The question is do we close schools proactively and get the benefits or reactively and lose the benefits?

Honestly though the time to close proactively has likely been lost.

We are already several weeks into this outbreak at least. We just don’t have the tests that prove it.

So frustrated with our country.

And it's not so bad. So why would we close the schools again?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of weird there's so much panic here but very little in real life, at least in my circles. Is it just a few doomsday posters?

Not to sound snippy but it's possible that no-one in your real life circle feels comfortable enough to share their concerns.

Here are two Twitter threads for you to glance over. You may think they are doomers. They sound very reasonable and fact-based to me but it's been adapted for layman understanding and the Twitter platform's format.

On why close schools:
https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1235204443362205699

On what the exponential nature of this disease's spread implies:
https://twitter.com/LizSpecht/status/1236095180459003909

Is there any evidence that covid-19 will behave like the flu as far as disappearing after a season? All of these links (and posters in this thread) seem to be acting as if it's known science that covid-19 will behave the way the flu does, and so closing schools will be a temporary measure that slows an epidemic. But why? It is entirely possible covid-19 will not act like the flu, and then what result? Do schools remain permanently closed?

I'm not opposed to closing schools in a more widespread fashion, but I haven't seen strong scientific evidence that it will work the was people claim it will, and it will come with enormous social costs. The science that there is seems to be based on the flu, but don't it we already know covid-19 doesn't uniformly act like the flu, particularly with respect to transmission through children? What basis is there for assuming the flu models are correct here?

A question or you: you say "I haven't seen strong scientific evidence", but have you looked enough? Are you familiar with reading scientific literature on topics slightly outside of your lane? Have you read scientific articles, reviews, guidelines, on non-pharmaceutical interventions? Or are you just trying to keep the doomers occupied typing?

Yes, I have looked and I read the literature as it comes out. Hence my questions.

As it comes out? Have you started reading on the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions before this coronavirus? There is a lot more to read than what has been published in a hurry in the past 2 months.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dulles is empty, 3 Acela trains a day have been taken off the schedule. Disney wi be empty at spring break.

Ooooh thanks for the laugh! I needed that.

Come back in Spring and we check again.