Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MAC_32 said:

The problem solution could not be more obvious. It's perplexing to me that only 22 states have given them priority. I think it would behoove this administration to be more direct about this issue and not dance around it like they are in hopes the states change their mind on their own.

I think it is up to 28 now.

If I was unsure if teachers would return to class even if vaccinated (which will happen in a lot of places) then I wouldn't move them up.

If in person schooling was already back I wouldn't move them any higher than other jobs that have the same risk.

I am not saying whether or not the places that haven't prioritized them are thinking this way, just saying what I would do. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 29.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is going to be a one off post because I don't want to get trolled or banned but if I were American, the context of Canada would be the biggest damning fact of how things have been handled in the

Australia has had months of little to no community spread and even then it was confined to one state. By and large Australians are running around doing the right thing, sport was and is still hap

I am confident we are going to hit >750K deaths.  I think it might be a million.  I don't post a ton but I'm an ER doc in a big city. This is by far the worse I've seen since the pandemic star

2 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I think it is up to 28 now.

If I was unsure if teachers would return to class even if vaccinated (which will happen in a lot of places) then I wouldn't move them up.

If in person schooling was already back I wouldn't move them any higher than other jobs that have the same risk.

I am not saying whether or not the places that haven't prioritized them are thinking this way, just saying what I would do. 

 

Don't agree with the bolded. Teachers being out with covid then leads to schools going back to remote again. That dynamic is different than most other industries. 

Agreed with the underlined though. The whole point of giving them vacc priority is opening schools. If the union won't agree to those terms then send them to the back of the line.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

Don't agree with the bolded. Teachers being out with covid then leads to schools going back to remote again. That dynamic is different than most other industries. 

Agreed with the underlined though. The whole point of giving them vacc priority is opening schools. If the union won't agree to those terms then send them to the back of the line.

Our school district is going back gradually soon after significant pressure from parents. They’ve followed the state guidelines for opening which have dictated staying remote. Now they decided to ignore them like many other districts. We’re considering sending our daughter back to in-person partially because they’ve gotten their immunizations.

I’ve reached out to see if there are still staff members still needing and offer assistance to anyone in need. Our company has put on several large PODS for school districts around the Phoenix area in some of the hardest hit areas. I strongly believe that staff should at least have the opportunity to get vaccinated before going back to school full time. I think the current guidelines stating staff do not need to be vaccinated is just to allow for flexibility to avoid school districts shutting down just because teachers and staff don’t have access to the vaccine.

Edit to add: one of my worries with sending our daughter back to school now is the potential for constant changes between in-school and distance learning due to exposure quarantines, increased cares, staff shortage, etc. I want her to have consistency if we’re going to make that move.

Edited by Biff84
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Commish said:

and I guess my reply to that is "so"?  :shrug:

I really don't get this obsession with the media from either side honestly.  And to be clear I wasn't TRYING to make anything.  I was TRYING to understand.  I usually do that first before giving an opinion.  And since I pay virtually no attention to our media, I had some questions first.

And FWIW....I think it's incredibly stupid for some kids to go back to school (still).  Ours went back in person at the beginning of this semester (our decision) and it's the worst decision we've made.  One week they are in school, the next week they are out.  It's incredibly disruptive.  I don't think it's wise for kids to go back in areas where schools are struggling to control the virus.  It's just too unstable right now.  I don't know if the media agrees with that or not and I don't really care.  My :2cents: 

I turned the TV off in my house, it's not enough to just tune out the news, you have to completely detach. I do watch the 3 hour NFL broadcasts but mostly commercial free RedZone. 

No Commercials

No Bias Politics

No Bad Food ads

No breaking story to ruin your morning

I also think it's terrible your kids had to start and stop, it's been like that most places from what I understand and it's not very healthy for anyone, the kids, parents, educators. 

I agree with you on the no TV stuff, it's much better for free thinking. 

Edited by Ministry of Pain
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Dude said:

Don’t bring your real life experience in here.  The sQuad runs on conjecture

I mean....I even made it clear that it wasn't a blanket statement.  In many cases it's fine for them to go back to school.  Forcing them all to get back to school is dumb just like forcing all of them online was dumb.  I'm not even sure you can label "hey this thing that doesn't exist isn't working" as conjecture though....that's for another thread.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

It's always amusing that the ones that seem to ##### about MSM the most around here are the ones that also consume it the most.  

It's hardly new.  It's been going on for years and I've never understood it.  Happens to a great many of the self professed "free thinkers" as well as the sheep.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ministry of Pain said:

I turned the TV off in my house, it's not enough to just tune out the news, you have to completely detach. I do watch the 3 hour NFL broadcasts but mostly commercial free RedZone. 

No Commercials

No Bias Politics

No Bad Food ads

No breaking story to ruin your morning

I also think it's terrible your kids had to start and stop, it's been like that most places from what I understand and it's not very healthy for anyone, the kids, parents, educators. 

I agree with you on the no TV stuff, it's much better for free thinking. 

:goodposting:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jm192 said:

Absolutely prioritize the teachers, let's get back to in person instruction in time for the start of the school year.  

This is my view.  Getting them back in school as a "priority" for the last month of a year they've been at home for as if it's going to make a difference is just dumb.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jm192 said:

Absolutely prioritize the teachers, let's get back to in person instruction in time for the start of the school year.  

Sure would be nice if we prioritized education in general. A year ago we should have been acting; I said it then and I’ll say it now. If we are going in person, schools need resources to make that happen safely- ppe, more space, vaccines, whatever they need. And if we have to use remote learning, communities will need increased WiFi capabilities, hardware/software for staff and students, etc. especially for rural students. We aren’t having discussions about innovative ways of changing the way we do it, we just want them open so our kids are taken care of for free while we are at work. The education part is important, but the political driver here is economical. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jm192 said:

Absolutely prioritize the teachers, let's get back to in person instruction in time for the start of the school year.  

I haven’t been following the vaccine updates but do they anticipate having a vaccine that kids can take and if so, how soon will they have it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:
10 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

It's always amusing that the ones that seem to ##### about MSM the most around here are the ones that also consume it the most.  

It's hardly new.  It's been going on for years and I've never understood it.  Happens to a great many of the self professed "free thinkers" as well as the sheep.

It amazes and confuses you two that the people that consume the most information point out the most flaws?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:
1 hour ago, The Commish said:
10 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

It's always amusing that the ones that seem to ##### about MSM the most around here are the ones that also consume it the most.  

It's hardly new.  It's been going on for years and I've never understood it.  Happens to a great many of the self professed "free thinkers" as well as the sheep.

It amazes and confuses you two that the people that consume the most information point out the most flaws?

:confused: 

I'm not sure that's quite it.  It confuses me that people piss and moan about the flawed news they choose to consume knowing it's flawed while also knowing there are less flawed sources they could be using instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AAABatteries said:

I haven’t been following the vaccine updates but do they anticipate having a vaccine that kids can take and if so, how soon will they have it?

I thought I saw a study had begun (though not in this country) on kids.  It seemed like a few hundred as a sample, so I'd guess it's going to be a while.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jm192 said:

Absolutely prioritize the teachers, let's get back to in person instruction in time for the start of the school year.  

If your goal is to re-open schools in the fall, there's no reason to prioritize teachers.  Everybody who wants to be vaccinated will have been vaccinated well before August.  

Prioritizing teachers only makes sense if you're already doing in-person classes or if you want to re-open schools now.    

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

It amazes and confuses you two that the people that consume the most information point out the most flaws?

 

:goodposting::lmao:.   The amount wasnt ever discussed. They just invented that. 

Edited by tonydead
Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly can't believe the "should we go back to school" discussions some states are still having at this point. At what point have you done irreparable damage to a whole generation of kids?

Our districts have been offering in-person learning 5 days per week since early August. It's not perfect (what is during these times?) but it creates a refreshing sense of normalcy in learning and routine for the children.

Put the protocols in place, give people the option to continue virtually if they deem it necessary, and move forward with life.

The science has been pretty clear that the benefits outweigh the risks on this. For a group of people who are hellbent on "following the science" ... this whole school thing seems like an oddly political line to draw in the sand. Weaponizing the well-being of kids is pretty terrible.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The below is part of a summary of an article Dan Crenshaw wrote - and he’s as guilty as the ones he’s calling out

 

There is, he says, way too much “performance,” rather than persuasion. Too much much grift; too much talking about “fighting” and “owning the libs in the snarkiest of fashions.” 

In a column headlined, “What It Really Means To ‘Fight’” — published in the lib-owning Daily Wire.

 

he nails it on this forum.  The sQuad (and if you don’t know who that is read the loyal opposition thread) does this all the time - prioritizing poorly conceived insults over content.

posted here due to recent posts.  Crenshaw saying be best.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RnR said:

At what point have you done irreparable damage to a whole generation of kids?

We are a long way from this sort of damage based on everything we know.  Kids are far more resilient than we give them credit for.  

2 minutes ago, RnR said:

Our districts have been offering in-person learning 5 days per week since early August. It's not perfect (what is during these times?) but it creates a refreshing sense of normalcy in learning and routine for the children.

We've had the option too.  Our kids were at home with us the first semester and are now back at school.  Since Jan, my oldest has been home for a week 3 times and my middle one 2 times.  They struggle with the change in routine and having to constantly flip from one set of expectations to another.  It's the opposite of "normal" for them.  This, of course, isn't a rebuttal to one or the other, just a different perspective of how kids CAN be affected.  In our area, cases are raging and our experience isn't uncommon.

6 minutes ago, RnR said:

The science has been pretty clear that the benefits outweigh the risks on this. For a group of people who are hellbent on "following the science" ... this whole school thing seems like an oddly political line to draw in the sand. Weaponizing the well-being of kids is pretty terrible.

Curious by what you mean when you say "this".  This entire situation is one big ball of gray.  In general it's best for kids to be in school.  I doubt anyone will argue with that if that's what you mean by "this".  But that's not the situation most of us are in.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Dude said:

The below is part of a summary of an article Dan Crenshaw wrote - and he’s as guilty as the ones he’s calling out

 

There is, he says, way too much “performance,” rather than persuasion. Too much much grift; too much talking about “fighting” and “owning the libs in the snarkiest of fashions.” 

In a column headlined, “What It Really Means To ‘Fight’” — published in the lib-owning Daily Wire.

 

he nails it on this forum.  The sQuad (and if you don’t know who that is read the loyal opposition thread) does this all the time - prioritizing poorly conceived insults over content.

posted here due to recent posts.  Crenshaw saying be best.

I was wondering what you were talking about when you made this reference before....now I know why I had no clue.  If it requires going in that thread, I'm good not knowing :lol:  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The Dude said:

The below is part of a summary of an article Dan Crenshaw wrote - and he’s as guilty as the ones he’s calling out

 

There is, he says, way too much “performance,” rather than persuasion. Too much much grift; too much talking about “fighting” and “owning the libs in the snarkiest of fashions.” 

In a column headlined, “What It Really Means To ‘Fight’” — published in the lib-owning Daily Wire.

 

he nails it on this forum.  The sQuad (and if you don’t know who that is read the loyal opposition thread) does this all the time - prioritizing poorly conceived insults over content.

posted here due to recent posts.  Crenshaw saying be best.

You've convinced yourself that you have it all figured out. Good for you!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Commish said:

We are a long way from this sort of damage based on everything we know.  Kids are far more resilient than we give them credit for.  

We've had the option too.  Our kids were at home with us the first semester and are now back at school.  Since Jan, my oldest has been home for a week 3 times and my middle one 2 times.  They struggle with the change in routine and having to constantly flip from one set of expectations to another.  It's the opposite of "normal" for them.  This, of course, isn't a rebuttal to one or the other, just a different perspective of how kids CAN be affected.  In our area, cases are raging and our experience isn't uncommon.

Curious by what you mean when you say "this".  This entire situation is one big ball of gray.  In general it's best for kids to be in school.  I doubt anyone will argue with that if that's what you mean by "this".  But that's not the situation most of us are in.

The bolded is why, after talking with our kids, my wife and I have opted to keep them both virtual this year.  Now, our district has just started phasing kids back into the schools again recently (started I think beginning of the semester, but district shut that down soon after again)...now started again, but interrrupted by snow and ice closing schools so far this week.  Everyone having a virtual day on Friday.  

I can get how it is not for everyone.  My daughter has done well in the virtual.  Have to keep a bit of an eye on her making sure she is caught up on everything...but she has done well.

My son needs more prodding to pay attention and get assignments in, but has done ok on testing.  Will be interesting to see how he does, and how his age group does on the ACT coming up soon.  After basically a full year without classes now. (I don't think they went much after March 3 last year.  Tornado her shutting them down for a few days...then Spring Break and Covid.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

We are a long way from this sort of damage based on everything we know.  Kids are far more resilient than we give them credit for.  

We've had the option too.  Our kids were at home with us the first semester and are now back at school.  Since Jan, my oldest has been home for a week 3 times and my middle one 2 times.  They struggle with the change in routine and having to constantly flip from one set of expectations to another.  It's the opposite of "normal" for them.  This, of course, isn't a rebuttal to one or the other, just a different perspective of how kids CAN be affected.  In our area, cases are raging and our experience isn't uncommon.

Curious by what you mean when you say "this".  This entire situation is one big ball of gray.  In general it's best for kids to be in school.  I doubt anyone will argue with that if that's what you mean by "this".  But that's not the situation most of us are in.

Graf 1-- Are we sure about this? It seems multi-faceted and pretty complicated to me. I'm talking about mental health impact on ages 12+, the developmental impact on ages 11 and under, and the well-being of single-parent, low-income children of all ages.

I'd be curious to see a thorough comparison of teen suicide vs. teen covid death during this period once this is all over. I'm afraid of what that data may say.

And the test scores for younger kids will be easy enough to analyze as the years move on, but I think we'd all agree that younger aged kids are the most at risk of falling behind (and some permanently so) as a product of virtual learning. It's hard to keep attention on a computer screen at that age. They need one-on-one instruction, and getting that at home is a big ask for some kids. That age bracket has almost no virus-related risk, but bears the burden of all the lockdown-related educational risk. Bad combo.

Graf 2-- Hate to hear they're struggling with it. I'd say that's more of an argument against the alternate scheduling method than in-person learning in Covid times. Our district considered that an option and it got voted down (thankfully). You're either in the "in-person learning" boat or the "virtual learning" boat. You get a chance to change at the end of 9 weeks (or if you have to quarantine because of contact tracing). FWIW, I think the tracing-induced flip flopping can be a struggle (one of our kid's classes had to deal with that last semester) so I can totally understand that being an issue.

Graf 3-- By "this" I mean most kids generally being better off (educationally, emotionally, psychologically) learning in-person at school than huddling at home for a year. What I'm saying is that we have plenty of data on this virus, and it thankfully is largely a nothingburger for kids. That's not to say everyone is perfectly safe, but protocols are available for mitigating risks. I just feel like we're not following what the data is actually telling us about this and kids: They can go to school.

As for the teachers, I think it's reasonable to expect a bump in vaccine priority and special classroom protections to keep them distanced and safe. And keeping at-risk teachers as the teachers who lead the virtual learning seems like common sense.

But I don't see this as any more risky than a company asking my wife to go run her customer-facing business every day. It's a part of having a public-facing job in these times. It stinks, but no one is making her do it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RnR said:

Graf 1-- Are we sure about this? It seems multi-faceted and pretty complicated to me. I'm talking about mental health impact on ages 12+, the developmental impact on ages 11 and under, and the well-being of single-parent, low-income children of all ages.

It's very complicated, but your bar was 'irreparable damage to a whole generation of kids"....that was either what you actually meant or hyperbole.  If it's what you actually meant...that the damage being done by not being in school is going to live with them forever, then I'm pretty confident that's not true.

4 minutes ago, RnR said:

And the test scores for younger kids will be easy enough to analyze as the years move on, but I think we'd all agree that younger aged kids are the most at risk of falling behind (and some permanently so) as a product of virtual learning. It's hard to keep attention on a computer screen at that age. They need one-on-one instruction, and getting that at home is a big ask for some kids. That age bracket has almost no virus-related risk, but bears the burden of all the lockdown-related educational risk. Bad combo.

Generally speaking, I agree with this.  I also believe it to be true for kids who have to constantly switch back and forth from in person to remote.  That said, we won't ever know in our state.  State testing isn't being done here.  It wasn't done the end of last year either.  

6 minutes ago, RnR said:

Graf 2-- Hate to hear they're struggling with it. I'd say that's more of an argument against the alternate scheduling method than in-person learning in Covid times. Our district considered that an option and it got voted down (thankfully). You're either in the "in-person learning" boat or the "virtual learning" boat. You get a chance to change at the end of 9 weeks (or if you have to quarantine because of contact tracing). FWIW, I think the tracing-induced flip flopping can be a struggle (one of our kid's classes had to deal with that last semester) so I can totally understand that being an issue.

So if your school has an outbreak, everyone still has to go?  We had to make the same choices only it was for the semester, not each 9 weeks.  The first semester they were home with us and this semester they are 'in person', but if there's an outbreak, they have to switch modes to 'on line' for the CDC recommended timeframe.

8 minutes ago, RnR said:

Graf 3-- By "this" I mean most kids generally being better off (educationally, emotionally, psychologically) learning in-person at school than huddling at home for a year. What I'm saying is that we have plenty of data on this virus, and it thankfully is largely a nothingburger for kids. That's not to say everyone is perfectly safe, but protocols are available for mitigating risks. I just feel like we're not following what the data is actually telling us about this and kids: They can go to school.

Thanks for the clarification.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, The Commish said:
41 minutes ago, The Dude said:

The below is part of a summary of an article Dan Crenshaw wrote - and he’s as guilty as the ones he’s calling out

 

There is, he says, way too much “performance,” rather than persuasion. Too much much grift; too much talking about “fighting” and “owning the libs in the snarkiest of fashions.” 

In a column headlined, “What It Really Means To ‘Fight’” — published in the lib-owning Daily Wire.

 

he nails it on this forum.  The sQuad (and if you don’t know who that is read the loyal opposition thread) does this all the time - prioritizing poorly conceived insults over content.

posted here due to recent posts.  Crenshaw saying be best.

Expand   Expand  

I was wondering what you were talking about when you made this reference before....now I know why I had no clue.  If it requires going in that thread, I'm good not knowing :lol:  

Meant to ask...was this a self identifying label by that group?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Commish said:

So if your school has an outbreak, everyone still has to go?  We had to make the same choices only it was for the semester, not each 9 weeks.  The first semester they were home with us and this semester they are 'in person', but if there's an outbreak, they have to switch modes to 'on line' for the CDC recommended timeframe.

It goes something like this...

If someone has exposure, they virtual learn for the CDC timeframe and then return to class with a negative test. Class goes on.

If someone shows up as a positive while attending school, that class goes home to virtual learn together for the CDC timeframe.

If the whole school reaches a predetermined, district-mandated level of infection... they'll close the whole school and send everyone home with laptops to learn virtually for the CDC timeframe.

---------------

And our district has tried to be proactive on things like Thanksgiving and Christmas break by scheduling planned virtual learning days going into and coming out of those holidays to account for increased potential for exposure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, RnR said:

I honestly can't believe the "should we go back to school" discussions some states are still having at this point. At what point have you done irreparable damage to a whole generation of kids?

Our districts have been offering in-person learning 5 days per week since early August. It's not perfect (what is during these times?) but it creates a refreshing sense of normalcy in learning and routine for the children.

Put the protocols in place, give people the option to continue virtually if they deem it necessary, and move forward with life.

The science has been pretty clear that the benefits outweigh the risks on this. For a group of people who are hellbent on "following the science" ... this whole school thing seems like an oddly political line to draw in the sand. Weaponizing the well-being of kids is pretty terrible.

I generally agree with your points.  However, I certainly don't think the science was settled in early August 2020.

Also, generalizing the situation of your local school system to all others is a bridge too far IMO.  Finally, I don't think any of the people that advocating for 100% distance learning to start the school year were trying to "weaponize the well-being of kids."  Rather, there were a whole bunch of unkowns about the spread of the disease and the public health policy makers that opted for 100% distance were erring on the side of caution for the health of the community as a whole.  Maybe they made the wrong call, but I think you are misattributing their motivations.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

I generally agree with your points.  However, I certainly don't think the science was settled in early August 2020.

Also, generalizing the situation of your local school system to all others is a bridge too far IMO.  Finally, I don't think any of the people that advocating for 100% distance learning to start the school year were trying to "weaponize the well-being of kids."  Rather, there were a whole bunch of unkowns about the spread of the disease and the public health policy makers that opted for 100% distance were erring on the side of caution for the health of the community as a whole.  Maybe they made the wrong call, but I think you are misattributing their motivations.

I guess we could argue on what defines settled re: this virus, but the CDC was recommending opening schools in July.

“It is critically important for our public health to open schools this fall.”

My personal anecdotal experiences aside, I just find it interesting that policymakers who say we should follow CDC recommendations on all things Covid appear to be the same people who are saying "yeah, but I don't want to follow that one."

And, to me, that one is as important to follow as almost any of them. Kids need school for a myriad of reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RnR said:

I just find it interesting that policymakers who say we should follow CDC recommendations on all things Covid appear to be the same people who are saying "yeah, but I don't want to follow that one.

I wouldn't have believed the CDC back in July for all the bananas in Cuba. Are there any left? That's an aside. I wouldn't trust that as far as I could throw a bear, how's that?

The CDC is a political agency in the executive branch of our government. Their opinion on the coronavirus had been so wrong, so often under President Trump that you'd have to be obtuse to think that politics were not affecting the recommendations and that the school openings that Trump insisted on weren't a political directive being touted by the CDC rather than a health directive.

That's what people had the problem with. I've been around the PSF to know you supported him a bit  -- or at least saw the problem amongst people who didn't support him and their hysteria therein -- but his work with the virus and policy led people to, IMO rightfully, believe that health was being bulldozed in the name of politics at times. It's rare that I have to take up traditional Democratic talking points to respond to something, but in this case people that picked and chose what recommendations they were listening to were dead on and dead right. He'd hyper-politicized an already political (by its very existence) body.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RnR said:

It goes something like this...

If someone has exposure, they virtual learn for the CDC timeframe and then return to class with a negative test. Class goes on.

If someone shows up as a positive while attending school, that class goes home to virtual learn together for the CDC timeframe.

If the whole school reaches a predetermined, district-mandated level of infection... they'll close the whole school and send everyone home with laptops to learn virtually for the CDC timeframe.

---------------

And our district has tried to be proactive on things like Thanksgiving and Christmas break by scheduling planned virtual learning days going into and coming out of those holidays to account for increased potential for exposure.

Yep, this is what the college I work for, the K-8 school my wife works for, and the school our kids go to has done. We all returned early-mid September. Both K-8 schools were remote the week after thanksgiving and the week after christmas out of precaution. The college was remote between thanksgiving and christmas then pushed the start of spring back from 1/4 to 1/11. Our kids school does one remote day every 2 weeks to minimize the whiplash should they decide to do an unplanned remote day or someone(s) gets exposed/test positive. The others don't.

My wife's school decided to go remote a few days before thanksgiving because they ran out of staff. They had one unplanned remote day out of precaution, but according to CDC guidelines they didn't have to (our kids have had 2). All 3 schools have had isolated positive/exposures and they're treated as described above. But there have been no school closures due to outbreaks.

Should have the above been done everywhere? No, of course not. Every community and school system is different. The ones that have laid the blueprint for how to do this and that it can be done relatively safely. I get not forcing the issue at high school right now, but K-8 can return. It requires teamwork between educators, community, and gov't though.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I wouldn't have believed the CDC back in July for all the bananas in Cuba. Are there any left? That's an aside. I wouldn't trust that as far as I could throw a bear, how's that?

The CDC is a political agency in the executive branch of our government. Their opinion on the coronavirus had been so wrong, so often under President Trump that you'd have to be obtuse to think that politics were not affecting the recommendations and that the school openings that Trump insisted on were a political directive being touted by the CDC rather than a health directive.

That's what people had the problem with. I've been around the PSF to know you supported him a bit  -- or at least saw the problem amongst people who didn't support him and their hysteria therein -- but his work with the virus and policy led people to, IMO rightfully, believe that health was being bulldozed in the name of politics at times. It's rare that I have to take up traditional Democratic talking points to respond to something, but in this case people that picked and chose what recommendations they were listening to were dead on and dead right. He'd hyper-politicized an already political (by its very existence) body.

I can understand this perspective, I suppose. But what about the data we've had on children and this virus all along? That's not a product of the CDC.

As for the bolded, it's the latter. Did not vote for him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RnR said:

I guess we could argue on what defines settled re: this virus, but the CDC was recommending opening schools in July.

“It is critically important for our public health to open schools this fall.”

My personal anecdotal experiences aside, I just find it interesting that policymakers who say we should follow CDC recommendations on all things Covid appear to be the same people who are saying "yeah, but I don't want to follow that one."

And, to me, that one is as important to follow as almost any of them. Kids need school for a myriad of reasons.

I wholeheartedly agree that kids need school, and that in-person school is best for almost all kids. 

At the time (July and into the fall) there was a lot of suspicion that Redfield and the CDC leadership was being heavily influenced politically from the White House.  Basically, there was little trust at the time that decisions were made on sound science.  It was around schools, but there was also concern that testing, contact tracing, and other public health aspects were being influenced politically.  The CDC reputation has taken a massive, massive hit from this.  A lot was self-inflicted and a lot was exacerbated by an admin that was antagonistic to a) expertise, b) bureaucracy in general, and c) people who speak truth to power.

Finally, if not much is being done to combat community transmission, opening up schools to create yet another (potential) vector for spread seems like a really bad idea, espcially when the science wasn't conclusive.  Heck, the science is not conclusive on what factors are really drive case increase/decrease rates.  As I said before COVID seems to defy a lot of logic.  There will be many many dissertations written on this topic in the next decade.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RnR said:

I can understand this perspective, I suppose. But what about the data we've had on children and this virus all along? That's not a product of the CDC.

As for the bolded, it's the latter. Did not vote for him.

What wasn't clear was whether children were vectors for infecting other, more vulnerable family members.  If kids can carry and transmit the virus without knowing they have it, that means a lot more elderly folks that interact with those kids will get the virus.  That was the big unknown, plus the long-term effects of kids getting mild cases and recovering quickly.  Will their organs (heart, lungs, brain) be damaged?  That wasn't terribly well known in the early fall.

These things are somewhat better known now, but the biggest thing we have now that we didn't have then is a vaccine that critical service workers will protect them from serious illness.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RnR said:

I can understand this perspective, I suppose. But what about the data we've had on children and this virus all along? That's not a product of the CDC.

As for the bolded, it's the latter. Did not vote for him.

I think the problem with young children is one thing, but we were getting conflicting reports about transmission to adults, if I'm not mistaken. That says nothing of fully mature sixteen year-olds of which someone, like, say my nephew is one (16, beard if he wants. Patchy. But full.) They could easily catch and transmit the virus just by the laws of physical maturity and spread.

And noted about the last sentence. I try awfully hard not to do ad hominem arguments, so I wanted to cover all bases.

Edited by rockaction
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Z Machine said:

What wasn't clear was whether children were vectors for infecting other, more vulnerable family members.  If kids can carry and transmit the virus without knowing they have it, that means a lot more elderly folks that interact with those kids will get the virus.  That was the big unknown, plus the long-term effects of kids getting mild cases and recovering quickly.  Will their organs (heart, lungs, brain) be damaged?  That wasn't terribly well known in the early fall.

These things are somewhat better known now, but the biggest thing we have now that we didn't have then is a vaccine that critical service workers will protect them from serious illness.

We're on the same page, I think. It was a calculated risk in the fall. But given that many districts have taken that risk and provided a roadmap for the rest of the country, I guess I'm just dismayed at the continued resistance. If these districts wait until the fall or later to resume in-person learning, that'll be 18 months between in-person learning sessions for some small children. I'm really uncomfortable with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, RnR said:

It goes something like this...

If someone has exposure, they virtual learn for the CDC timeframe and then return to class with a negative test. Class goes on.

If someone shows up as a positive while attending school, that class goes home to virtual learn together for the CDC timeframe.

If the whole school reaches a predetermined, district-mandated level of infection... they'll close the whole school and send everyone home with laptops to learn virtually for the CDC timeframe.

---------------

And our district has tried to be proactive on things like Thanksgiving and Christmas break by scheduling planned virtual learning days going into and coming out of those holidays to account for increased potential for exposure.

Ok....that's what happens here too.  Have you had to put the kids through those paces yet?  Last semester, my kids' schools had two incidents combined...the whole semester.  That's part of the reason we sent them back.  Now it's almost an every week occurrence with SOME portion of each school.  Both my kids have been hit multiple times and my four year old just had his first experience.  He's home with us until tomorrow (likely keeping him here until Monday)....it's been 10 days.  Flipping back and forth for the older ones has become problematic, but they're in it until the end of the year.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'd probably rank them as follows:

1.  In person 100%.
2.  At home 100%.
3.  At home one day, at school the next, come home for a week, then go back for 2-3, then back home....

Unfortunately, We are stuck with #3 when all indicators pointed to us being #1.....things change quickly. :kicksrock: 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:
On 2/17/2021 at 9:43 AM, Doug B said:

To me, all this "goals keep changing!" stuff is small potatoes ... but it looks to me that Jen Psaki (when she said "... one day a week") got caught flat-footed by a question and attempted to wing an answer instead of telling the reporter she's check and get back to them. This kind of stuff doesn't bug me, though -- people screw up, and not every last "i" will ever be dotted in any conceivable plan addressing any conceivable thing.

I have seen very little criticism about goals changing. The criticism I see is when goals are put out there that are achieved already. That is either incompetence or they are hoping nobody notices. 

In this case it wasn't a slip of the tongue or an accident. Those don't take almost a whole week to get corrected. They also floated a phone survey result that made it seem like we were below that metric currently. 

It was willful? No chance someone didn't dig a little deeper and truly see what the current lay of the land was before speaking on the topic?

Ah well. Even if it was exactly as you posit, I'm still not particularly concerned about it ... doesn't push my buttons in the least. Others' mileage may vary. Once schools re-open more fully and in more places, a lot of this stuff comes out in the wash.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If your goal is to re-open schools in the fall, there's no reason to prioritize teachers.  Everybody who wants to be vaccinated will have been vaccinated well before August.  

Prioritizing teachers only makes sense if you're already doing in-person classes or if you want to re-open schools now.    

I didn't do a good job of being clear.

I'd like to re-open schools tomorrow.  I assume it'll take a while to get it organized, get it done, you gotta wait weeks between shots, and then I think it's ~7 days after your 2nd dose you've really gotten the full benefit.  

I just assume we'll see a jig saw puzzle of getting teachers vaccines and schools re-opened nationwide between now and summer.  But I think let's get it done now and re-open what schools we can.  Let's get kids back to a better learning environment and some sense of normal.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anybody show a single data set where places with full time in person schooling have higher spread because of that? 

I dont mean a data point like see look some kids tested positive!

We have months of places with in person schooling. Does this data exist? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Can anybody show a single data set where places with full time in person schooling have higher spread because of that? 

I dont mean a data point like see look some kids tested positive!

We have months of places with in person schooling. Does this data exist? 

 

I'd take a general "because of...." breakdown honestly :shrug:

Is there a way to have accurate data when framed this way?  I can't think of one.  ANY report I've read with regard to "spreading" events is qualified with "it's believed to be from...." which seems like the best we can do.  Not sure the bar you have set is clearable.  This is where the scoffed at "contact tracing" would be helpful but we couldn't be bothered with that when it was a realistic thing.

Edited by The Commish
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'd take a general "because of...." breakdown honestly :shrug:

Is there a way to have accurate data when framed this way?  I can't think of one.  ANY report I've read with regard to "spreading" events is qualified with "it's believed to be from...." which seems like the best we can do.  Not sure the bar you have set is clearable.  This is where the scoffed at "contact tracing" would be helpful but we couldn't be bothered with that when it was a realistic thing.

Is there even one where they say believed to be from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'd take a general "because of...." breakdown honestly :shrug:

Is there a way to have accurate data when framed this way?  I can't think of one.  ANY report I've read with regard to "spreading" events is qualified with "it's believed to be from...." which seems like the best we can do.  Not sure the bar you have set is clearable.  This is where the scoffed at "contact tracing" would be helpful but we couldn't be bothered with that when it was a realistic thing.

Yep, it's unknown whether contact tracing would have provided relevant data, but it's a certainty that without it no data would be useful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

Yep, it's unknown whether contact tracing would have provided relevant data, but it's a certainty that without it no data would be useful. 

:confused:

I don't think there's anything in particular about contact tracing practices that would make it unusable here.  Of course, participation in contact tracing is a different story.  Is that what you mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Is there even one where they say believed to be from?

I highly doubt it given what a political football it is.  My four year old's preschool had two cases of it passed between students but they ONLY know that because the two families are friends and are pretty isolationist.  They basically "confessed" it on the facebook page in the interest of full disclosure.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Is there even one where they say believed to be from?

My local school district is quite certain that in-school transmission occurred (Nov 2020), to the tune of 40+ cases from a single infected attendee, at one of the elementary schools here.  They forced that school to remote only for several weeks while leaving the other schools open.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...