I’m with spidercrab on this one. I’m pretty sure literally no one here is saying that kids cannot catch or spread the virus. Maybe some mouthbreathers at a PTA meeting somewhere might think that, but they’re not posting here.
So if you have come across someone here who thinks that kids cannot catch or spread the virus, please link to the post. I don’t recall it.
The only debate among people here is how much kids will spread it (compared to adults) and how bad the consequences may be if they catch it. That is very different from someone thinking kids cannot catch or spread it. No one here thinks that.
Right, and if it’s not conclusively proven I’m never going to buy an argument that asymptotic children don’t spread the virus as easily as asymptotic adults. Or symptomatic children magically don’t pass on the virus as well as symptomatic adults. I’m also not buying that schools are somehow safer than say a place of business that has similar safety precautions in place. That’s kinda what a null hypothesis is.
Ok, but what if infected children are more likely to be asymptomatic than infected adults. In that case, would it not be accurate to say that children may be less likely to spread it than adults.
Note – I’m not necessarily espousing the above position, I’m just asking about it in a hypothetical sense.
Grunching but this or anything near this seems really really unlikely. There’s an upper limit on deaths per day because people modulate their behavior. I don’t know what that limit is but its probably a lot closer to the 2-3k deaths per day we saw back in April than 32k deaths per day. This may age poorly but i really don’t see us sustaining more than 4K deaths per day for very long, and 5k is probably the absolute cap, and probably even less than that. Still a lot of death though.
Ok I’m bad. I peeked again. Let me clarify something.
I did call bullshit and probably said it poorly but what I saying was just said much better by Will and Caffeine. I did get pissy and I did show my ego. But that is an ego born of experience and I don’t think I claimed otherwise.
All knowledge about the spread of respiratory diseases and the high level of spread of this thing where factors such as contact time, mask compliance, etc leads to the actionable conclusion that we must assume significant spread in schools and especially when numbers are to the point where every classroom is more likely than not to have a poz.
Actionable simply means that even though there is a lot of grey in the available information, I can still make a decision and take action. There is a possibility that new information will prove that wrong and mean I zigged when I should have zagged. For better or worse this where intuition comes in. Based on the type of contaminating bacteria in a fermentation tank I can infer the source such as water borne or air borne or failed sterilization to put limited resources to investigate or just make changes. My personal experience is more related to the question at hand than most.
I’m not a Dr or epidemiologist , just closer than most others. As far as my intuition, It’s not a brag. I have advanced, gotten nice positions, been hired by about 15 different companies as a consultant in my field.
In 3 years. So therefore I conclude my intuition is trusted by not just myself. My ego has some significant external validation. I hope others feel and have outside confirmation about their own competence as well.
I’m also not trying to do scientific proofs by posting here. Somethings I will read closely. Somethings i will skim. I’m willing to have a good faith discussion and I have retracted on more than one occasion. That’s scientific discussion.
Man, I don’t know, I’m down with taxing corporations and execs making too much mcney and all, but I gotta be honest, I have no fucking problem rewarding a company with billions of fucking dollars that may have literally just saved the fucking world in under 18 months.
It’s possible but again it is the less likely actionable conclusion. As pointed out a couple of days ago since spread seems to be driven by a few superspreaders then saying someone spreads 50% less means a perhaps they infect 3 on average instead of 6 while the majoring are 0 or 1. Or to think another way, maybe group A (adults) has 10 superspreaders out of 100 cases but group B (kids) has only 5.
In either case Is 1/2 less spread? Of course. But is 1/2 spread insignificant community spread? Unlikely. But it gets out in the lay community as “kids don’t spread it”.
Again what is the reasonable actionable conclusion? Shut down everything that can be that is likely to promote significant community spread, especially when case counts are high.
This is not true for any other viral syndrome that runs through schools, why should it be true for covid? Also, the idea that a cough is necessary for efficient spread of covid is simply uninformed. We literally know that isn’t true.
As for studies not having difficulty showing that, I’m honestly not aware of literature showing that. It probably exists. Regardless, that’s not a valid argument when literature doesn’t typically cover stuff that happened a few months ago. That’s not how medical literature works.
I’m generally in this camp but we are way past numbers where I thought this would kick in and people would just stay the eff home. I’m really afraid this number is going to be pushing the high single digit thousands. The lags from cases to deaths is just too long. Also geographically it’s whack a mole. The major population centers are only recently seeing significant climb. I’m worried the northeast and the south are going to have second rounds that overwhelm the rural centered numbers currently. I’m hoping 4K is the limit but I’m very worried.
I’m not only one (doc bro’s) that gets that vibe from a few folks. Not stated as explicitly but implicit in their arguments. I’m going to stay away from names tonight but at least one was called out this evening for being more explicit.
Is there anyone that is just saying just shut the schools no matter?
Someone more cynical than I may say this would be an example of arguing in bad faith:
Bro1: No one here thinks X
Bro2: That’s not true, people here definitely think X
Bro1: Ok, who? Link post please?
Bro2: Well, maybe nobody said it explicitly, but I’m getting a definite vibe. Also I’m not going to actually reveal who it is.
You make a lot of good points from time to time, but stuff like above detracts.
If you want to be truly cold-blooded about it, the way it basically works now in the US is that everything except schools stays open until the epidemic gets too overwhelming to ignore, then things tighten up a bit until the wave passes, then they (not schools) reopen. If schools are open and they do contribute to spread, then you just get to the point where people are scared away from bars and restaurants sooner and stay there longer. In that toy model, the severity of the pandemic is driven by how much risk people are willing to take on discretionary activities, and the biological question of how the virus spreads in different venues is secondary.
My limited sample size (2 kids in college - one living at home and having friends who are coming home from college) is that 18 year olds in college are finding ways to act like 18 year olds in college. My 21 year old has decided to stay away/not travel because of the surge of cases.
The answer is maybe? I think it’s been pretty well proven that kids are more likely to be asymptotic, but the first and foremost rule of infection control is stay the fuck home if you have symptoms. Covid kinda kicked us all in the nuts by being fairly contagious even when a person isn’t symptomatic. So kids are more likely to not have symptoms, and maybe less contagious than someone with symptoms, but they are also more likely to go to school while contagious because there is no reason for them to think they have covid.
Huh? I’m trying to depersonalize right now given the vitriol.
You can weight or not weight my opinion as you want. I can tell you why I think you should weight my opinion highly. Again you are free to agree or disagree.
I’m not going to cuse and 47 multi-quote rebuttal and refutation. Not my thing.
My impression is that there is a sub-group of folks that hold the no spread concept and there is another group that that at least leans that way by influence of those arguments.
I think that’s wrong based on a lot of factors including that aforementioned “intuition”, the net of what I’ve been able to read critically, the CDC guidance as I understand it. The opinions of the doc bro’s on here.
If that’s bad faith so be it. The doubt/grey/uncertainty is often left unsaid. I’m also willing to clarify what I know, what I think, what I believe, level of certainty and why. Just ask. I stated the above very explicitly when I joined this thread.
What am I missing? according to the CDC guidelines the school risk is “highest”
Am I missing something?
Are the guidelines wrong?
Is the data wrong?
Why would the CDC have these guidelines if the scientific consensus of real experts is not the basis? (Certainly the administration would not concur but they are the very definition of bad faith actors).
I think what you’re missing is my question of what happens when the outside community factors indicate “highest” risk, but the school has the ability to achieve all 5 key mitigation strategies and is thus “lowest” risk.
My belief (hope?) is that effective mitigation strategies can allow schools to operate in-person without generating significant transmission in school. Nothing I’ve seen in any of the articles I’ve read has countered that belief.
Right now, my elementary school kid is attending in person school. The circumstances are:
he’s there half a day rather than a full day, meaning class sizes are less than half of what they normally are. (Some students are in full remote mode, the remaining students are split into two cohorts that each attend a half day.)
Doesn’t ride the bus
Doesn’t change classrooms or mix with different groups of students
Doesn’t eat at school
Masks required and enforced by the teacher
Even though cases are through the roof in my county, I believe that these procedures are likely to be sufficient to limit transmission of the virus in school. If I thought otherwise, I obviously wouldn’t send him. So I guess what I’m (again) looking for is some evidence that in-person school under these mitigation techniques involves a material risk of within-school transmission.
I feel like I keep saying the same thing over and over again, so I’ll try to just bow out on this topic after this.
