I might not be as strict as before but no way going YOLO.
Not a snarky question: Are you more concerned for their health or yours?
Cite?
Posting it as new info so wtf does this mean. You didnāt mention any grey in your initial post. Please do better (thatās for all of is itt- itās a pain but necessary).
It sounded like you were directly quoting a study.
Thereās no methods but it sure looks like the other papers where they use bad methods that have near zero chance to find an affect and then declare it safe based on that.
The idea that schools donāt spread covid when they spread every other disease is not really a serious one.
Kids can and do spread the virus to each other, and then to their homes.
Lemma on goofyās post/NBZ poll
Will you feel comfortable resuming maskless, indoor activity with elderly relatives in private settings after both you and they are vaccinated?
- yes
- no
0 voters
Of course, the wishcasting otherwise is just silly.
100% of my nieces and nephews that have been attending in person school have contracted COVID-19. 100% of my nieces and nephews that have not been attending in person have not.
Small sample of 8, but still.
That was pretty much the goofy/NBZ question, no?
lol me, guess I just missed it or something. Iāll delete.
I think at first it will be uncomfortable just due to programming over such a long time with regards to wearing a mask. Iāll probably panic at random times when I realize nobody is wearing a mask. But, I think returning to life in general is going to feel weird after everyone is vaccinated.
Interesting results. I wouldnāt mind getting a bit more granularity.
- Yes
- No, I am worried they could still give it to me and my family
- No, Iām still worried they could be in the 5% and get it from us.
- No, I care for or otherwise have high risk people in my household, but if not for that, Iād be a yes.
- I voted no above thinking that āindoor activityā meant out on the town, not just in my own home. They could come to my home.
- No, but for some other reason
0 voters
Apparently students are expendable.
Yep, and the whole thing is just plain silly. Everyone with a lick of common sense knows that of course kids are coming down with COVID from in person schooling.
The only real debate is whether it is justifiable to expose children (and their teachers) to that risk in light of the many benefits.
I get the desire from parents and schools and politicians to WANT kids not to be getting the rona in schools. Parents never want to willfully expose their children to harm, and this is a scenario where some feel they must. Hence the dissonance imo.
The doctor who ran the study said this:
I would put a little asterisk by that and say that yes, there is a possibility that thereās an asymptomatic student who has given it to a teacher and we donāt really know, because I donāt know the source of infection in every case. But thereās no evidence of that. In most cases, the infection could be traced to a family member or a friend where they had spent time together outside of school. In some cases, sports activities, carpooling, and social gatherings were identified as the sources of infection.
Given that for known infections, they were acquired outside of school at a much higher clip than within school, why would it be any different for undetected infections? Presumably contact tracing involved testing kids who were in class with infected people (the article mentions setting up in-school saliva testing) whereas kids who have contact with infected people outside school arenāt always informed or tested. So if anything, weād expect infections acquired at school to be detected more frequently, in percentage terms, than those acquired outside.
OFS articles are like Bill Clinton bimbo eruptions. Emily Oster quality research based on church schools in south Carolina or whatever red state aināt gonna cut it.
Oh and there is a huge difference between trolling trolls that donāt even know they are being trolled and trolls and trolling out of lack of self awareness and knowledge.