Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testing is a lot less important than getting 100 percent of school staff vaccinated. That should be priorities 1-10.

The share of adults fully vaccinated in Wards 7 and 8 is lower than the share in Alabama and Mississippi. The city says just 24 percent of those in Ward 8 are vaccinated.

Anonymous wrote:Testing is a lot less important than getting 100 percent of school staff vaccinated. That should be priorities 1-10.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frequent testing would be a disaster.
1)Under the DCPS current plan, any positive test will send home an entire class (and in the case of middle and high school 5-8 classes) for 2 weeks.
2)DCPS has no plan for virtual instruction once kids are sent home for 2 weeks. They will sit at home doing nothing. Then they will return to school, another kid will be postive and the entire group will be sent right back home.
3)the virus is overwhelmingly benign in kids.

Yep this. If they come up with a more sensible plan I'd be all for it. But not if this is the response.

THERE IS GOING TO BE VIRTUAL INSTRUCTION FOR QUARANTINES. They didn’t do it for summer school because there is no mandated instruction time. Do I need to scream this again for the people in the back?

I'm not that worried about #2. I am very worries about 1 and 3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Or they'll say nothing we've learned applies because *waving hands* DELTA! There can be no parameters that are acceptable to the PP because nothing is delta-y enough.

You, my friend, are a nimrod. It must be nice to believe that a more dangerous variant doesn't affect anything.

Delta spreads about 75% faster than the original virus. It doesn't make sense to believe studies of the spread of the original are still valid - at least until people who know what they're talking about come to some conclusions about it.

You seem to be confusing infectiousness with virulence.

New poster here. Not really. We all understand that Delta is more transmissible, and there is data to show that is tends to lead to more hospitalizations in each population compared to previous strains, even for pediatric populations. No data about deaths as yet.

But even if it Delta was "only" more transmissible, it would end up being more disruptive than previous strains, and therefore, in popular parlance, more dangerous, because it spreads quicker and more people get sick, need time off work and school, are stressed out because they feel unwell and may need hospitalization, and consume expensive medical resources and personnel when they do end up in hospital.

So yes, Delta is more dangerous than previous strains. The short-hand is actually true.

No. It is the same rate of hospitalization. Your short hand is imprecise and inaccurate. If you know that the "short hand" is wrong, and you know that it's about transmission/infectiousness, then use the right words. If you know the right words but refuse to use them, people have to wonder why you'd obfuscate the difference.

You'll have to give me some data on that, because the reports I have from hospitals is that unvaccinated populations are significantly more impacted by Delta than by previous strains. I agree that general numbers, which do not differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, may not be granular enough to highlight that difference.

But again, even without this concern over Delta being more virulent, by the very fact that it's more transmissible, it's more dangerous. Since I'm a scientist, I always use the term "more transmissible", but I defend the use by laypeople of the term "more dangerous".

But still, asymptomatic testing leads to a high degree of false positives. To the point of the thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Or they'll say nothing we've learned applies because *waving hands* DELTA! There can be no parameters that are acceptable to the PP because nothing is delta-y enough.

You, my friend, are a nimrod. It must be nice to believe that a more dangerous variant doesn't affect anything.

Delta spreads about 75% faster than the original virus. It doesn't make sense to believe studies of the spread of the original are still valid - at least until people who know what they're talking about come to some conclusions about it.

You seem to be confusing infectiousness with virulence.

New poster here. Not really. We all understand that Delta is more transmissible, and there is data to show that is tends to lead to more hospitalizations in each population compared to previous strains, even for pediatric populations. No data about deaths as yet.

But even if it Delta was "only" more transmissible, it would end up being more disruptive than previous strains, and therefore, in popular parlance, more dangerous, because it spreads quicker and more people get sick, need time off work and school, are stressed out because they feel unwell and may need hospitalization, and consume expensive medical resources and personnel when they do end up in hospital.

So yes, Delta is more dangerous than previous strains. The short-hand is actually true.

No. It is the same rate of hospitalization. Your short hand is imprecise and inaccurate. If you know that the "short hand" is wrong, and you know that it's about transmission/infectiousness, then use the right words. If you know the right words but refuse to use them, people have to wonder why you'd obfuscate the difference.

You'll have to give me some data on that, because the reports I have from hospitals is that unvaccinated populations are significantly more impacted by Delta than by previous strains. I agree that general numbers, which do not differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, may not be granular enough to highlight that difference.

But again, even without this concern over Delta being more virulent, by the very fact that it's more transmissible, it's more dangerous. Since I'm a scientist, I always use the term "more transmissible", but I defend the use by laypeople of the term "more dangerous".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Or they'll say nothing we've learned applies because *waving hands* DELTA! There can be no parameters that are acceptable to the PP because nothing is delta-y enough.

You, my friend, are a nimrod. It must be nice to believe that a more dangerous variant doesn't affect anything.

Delta spreads about 75% faster than the original virus. It doesn't make sense to believe studies of the spread of the original are still valid - at least until people who know what they're talking about come to some conclusions about it.

You seem to be confusing infectiousness with virulence.

New poster here. Not really. We all understand that Delta is more transmissible, and there is data to show that is tends to lead to more hospitalizations in each population compared to previous strains, even for pediatric populations. No data about deaths as yet.

But even if it Delta was "only" more transmissible, it would end up being more disruptive than previous strains, and therefore, in popular parlance, more dangerous, because it spreads quicker and more people get sick, need time off work and school, are stressed out because they feel unwell and may need hospitalization, and consume expensive medical resources and personnel when they do end up in hospital.

So yes, Delta is more dangerous than previous strains. The short-hand is actually true.

No. It is the same rate of hospitalization. Your short hand is imprecise and inaccurate. If you know that the "short hand" is wrong, and you know that it's about transmission/infectiousness, then use the right words. If you know the right words but refuse to use them, people have to wonder why you'd obfuscate the difference.