[BobK]

https://santarosapressdemocrat-ca-app.ne...=39e792345

Sad very sad. Fortunately nothing serious. Yet

[BobK]

https://santarosapressdemocrat-ca-app.ne...=39e792345

Sad very sad. Fortunately nothing serious. Yet

[magnus]

Sonoma county's positive rate is 4-5%?

Just loosely correlating the two numbers.

[magnus]

Sonoma county's positive rate is 4-5%?

Just loosely correlating the two numbers.

[teejers1]

https://santarosapressdemocrat-ca-app.ne...=39e792345

Sad very sad.  Fortunately nothing serious.  Yet

Bob, I don't think anyone is arguing that you can open schools without risk of increased positive tests - indeed, increased positive tests are expected.  

The argument is that it's "worth it" because (a) the kids will be fine in virtually all cases, (b) the adults should be fine (especially if the high risk instructors/staff sit it out or remote instruct while kids in school), and © it's important to academic and social development to have kids not cooped up at home.  [And for the umpteenth time, additional positive tests are not dangerous or bad, just in and of themselves.  Is it ideal?  Of course not.  But that does not equate to life-threatening or even dangerous].  

And look at the colleges where kids are not only attending classes, but living in closer quarters.  Have there been positive tests?  Absolutely.  Has it been manageable/acceptable risk?  The results will not be known for sure for a while, but if you look at school reports/dashboards, the evidence is encouraging.  (See ND Dashboard; see what Northeastern is doing).

Bottom line: if "society" can find a way to field freaking sports teams on college campuses, you'd like to think that they could also find a way to get K-12 kids back to school.  It's about priority and the will to "find a way."

[teejers1]

https://santarosapressdemocrat-ca-app.ne...=39e792345

Sad very sad.  Fortunately nothing serious.  Yet

Bob, I don't think anyone is arguing that you can open schools without risk of increased positive tests - indeed, increased positive tests are expected.  

The argument is that it's "worth it" because (a) the kids will be fine in virtually all cases, (b) the adults should be fine (especially if the high risk instructors/staff sit it out or remote instruct while kids in school), and © it's important to academic and social development to have kids not cooped up at home.  [And for the umpteenth time, additional positive tests are not dangerous or bad, just in and of themselves.  Is it ideal?  Of course not.  But that does not equate to life-threatening or even dangerous].  

And look at the colleges where kids are not only attending classes, but living in closer quarters.  Have there been positive tests?  Absolutely.  Has it been manageable/acceptable risk?  The results will not be known for sure for a while, but if you look at school reports/dashboards, the evidence is encouraging.  (See ND Dashboard; see what Northeastern is doing).

Bottom line: if "society" can find a way to field freaking sports teams on college campuses, you'd like to think that they could also find a way to get K-12 kids back to school.  It's about priority and the will to "find a way."

[OutsiderFan]

Of course, you are led to believe there are safer ways than there really are, by a CDC that has been usurped by people with agendas that rely on misleading people about safety.

Moreover, getting a football team of grown adults to reduce infections is an entirely easier task than getting young kids who are spread vectors to mitigate spread.

But even those college football teams are struggling. Charlotte cancelled game with UNC. Arkansas State had to postpone a game three weeks because a whole position group was down. And Missouri is down 12 players against Alabama. There are other similar examples. And no way are K-12 schools equipped with adequate resources to implement the actual precautions advised by the CDC.

[OutsiderFan]

Of course, you are led to believe there are safer ways than there really are, by a CDC that has been usurped by people with agendas that rely on misleading people about safety.

Moreover, getting a football team of grown adults to reduce infections is an entirely easier task than getting young kids who are spread vectors to mitigate spread.

But even those college football teams are struggling. Charlotte cancelled game with UNC. Arkansas State had to postpone a game three weeks because a whole position group was down. And Missouri is down 12 players against Alabama. There are other similar examples. And no way are K-12 schools equipped with adequate resources to implement the actual precautions advised by the CDC.

[teejers1]

Of course, you are led to believe there are safer ways than there really are, by a CDC that has been usurped by people with agendas that rely on misleading people about safety.

Moreover, getting a football team of grown adults to reduce infections is an entirely easier task than getting young kids who are spread vectors to mitigate spread.

But even those college football teams are struggling. Charlotte cancelled game with UNC. Arkansas State had to postpone a game three weeks because a whole position group was down. And Missouri is down 12 players against Alabama. There are other similar examples. And no way are K-12 schools equipped with adequate resources to implement the actual precautions advised by the CDC.

This has nothing to do with CDC or any of the usual whipping boys in these parts.

This has everything to do with setting priorities and having the will to implement plans (or at least try) to effectuate those priorities.  
And of course, there are those who prefer to just say "can't be done" and leave it at that, without trying . . . which is a perfectly reasonable position, I'm sure guided by your own set of priorities.

[teejers1]

Of course, you are led to believe there are safer ways than there really are, by a CDC that has been usurped by people with agendas that rely on misleading people about safety.

Moreover, getting a football team of grown adults to reduce infections is an entirely easier task than getting young kids who are spread vectors to mitigate spread.

But even those college football teams are struggling. Charlotte cancelled game with UNC. Arkansas State had to postpone a game three weeks because a whole position group was down. And Missouri is down 12 players against Alabama. There are other similar examples. And no way are K-12 schools equipped with adequate resources to implement the actual precautions advised by the CDC.

This has nothing to do with CDC or any of the usual whipping boys in these parts.

This has everything to do with setting priorities and having the will to implement plans (or at least try) to effectuate those priorities.  
And of course, there are those who prefer to just say "can't be done" and leave it at that, without trying . . . which is a perfectly reasonable position, I'm sure guided by your own set of priorities.

[OutsiderFan]

Of course, you are led to believe there are safer ways than there really are, by a CDC that has been usurped by people with agendas that rely on misleading people about safety.

Moreover, getting a football team of grown adults to reduce infections is an entirely easier task than getting young kids who are spread vectors to mitigate spread.

But even those college football teams are struggling. Charlotte cancelled game with UNC. Arkansas State had to postpone a game three weeks because a whole position group was down. And Missouri is down 12 players against Alabama. There are other similar examples. And no way are K-12 schools equipped with adequate resources to implement the actual precautions advised by the CDC.

This has nothing to do with CDC or any of the usual whipping boys in these parts.

This has everything to do with setting priorities and having the will to implement plans (or at least try) to effectuate those priorities.  
And of course, there are those who prefer to just say "can't be done" and leave it at that, without trying . . . which is a perfectly reasonable position, I'm sure guided by your own set of priorities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7rGA0Zv...tu.be&t=90

[OutsiderFan]

Of course, you are led to believe there are safer ways than there really are, by a CDC that has been usurped by people with agendas that rely on misleading people about safety.

Moreover, getting a football team of grown adults to reduce infections is an entirely easier task than getting young kids who are spread vectors to mitigate spread.

But even those college football teams are struggling. Charlotte cancelled game with UNC. Arkansas State had to postpone a game three weeks because a whole position group was down. And Missouri is down 12 players against Alabama. There are other similar examples. And no way are K-12 schools equipped with adequate resources to implement the actual precautions advised by the CDC.

This has nothing to do with CDC or any of the usual whipping boys in these parts.

This has everything to do with setting priorities and having the will to implement plans (or at least try) to effectuate those priorities.  
And of course, there are those who prefer to just say "can't be done" and leave it at that, without trying . . . which is a perfectly reasonable position, I'm sure guided by your own set of priorities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7rGA0Zv...tu.be&t=90

[M T]

This has everything to do with setting priorities and having the will to implement plans (or at least try) to effectuate those priorities.  

And of course, there are those who prefer to just say "can't be done" and leave it at that, without trying . . . which is a perfectly reasonable position, I'm sure guided by your own set of priorities.

And of course, there are those who prefer to just say "must be done" and leave it at that,  I'm sure guided by your own set of priorities.


Your priorities are not my priorities.  Your trade-off of health risk & potential lives lost versus in-school presence is not my trade-off.

I just talked this afternoon to a member of a California community where the public school system just announced going back to partial-week in-school classes.  That person had just talked to the principal of a private school that is offering at-home schooling.  The principal indicated that they are being slammed by 1/3 of the public school students now wanting admission to the private school (an increase in enrollment by more than 10x).

Some will note this will further distance the haves and the have-nots.  Those that believe sending kids back to school is risky but don't have the resources or opportunity to seek other solutions will unfortunately have to bear those risks, if the public schools are not going to offer an alternative.

[M T]

This has everything to do with setting priorities and having the will to implement plans (or at least try) to effectuate those priorities.  

And of course, there are those who prefer to just say "can't be done" and leave it at that, without trying . . . which is a perfectly reasonable position, I'm sure guided by your own set of priorities.

And of course, there are those who prefer to just say "must be done" and leave it at that,  I'm sure guided by your own set of priorities.


Your priorities are not my priorities.  Your trade-off of health risk & potential lives lost versus in-school presence is not my trade-off.

I just talked this afternoon to a member of a California community where the public school system just announced going back to partial-week in-school classes.  That person had just talked to the principal of a private school that is offering at-home schooling.  The principal indicated that they are being slammed by 1/3 of the public school students now wanting admission to the private school (an increase in enrollment by more than 10x).

Some will note this will further distance the haves and the have-nots.  Those that believe sending kids back to school is risky but don't have the resources or opportunity to seek other solutions will unfortunately have to bear those risks, if the public schools are not going to offer an alternative.

[teejers1]

This has everything to do with setting priorities and having the will to implement plans (or at least try) to effectuate those priorities.  

And of course, there are those who prefer to just say "can't be done" and leave it at that, without trying . . . which is a perfectly reasonable position, I'm sure guided by your own set of priorities.

And of course, there are those who prefer to just say "must be done" and leave it at that,  I'm sure guided by your own set of priorities.


Your priorities are not my priorities.  Your trade-off of health risk & potential lives lost versus in-school presence is not my trade-off.

I just talked this afternoon to a member of a California community where the public school system just announced going back to partial-week in-school classes.  That person had just talked to the principal of a private school that is offering at-home schooling.  The principal indicated that they are being slammed by 1/3 of the public school students now wanting admission to the private school (an increase in enrollment by more than 10x).

Some will note this will further distance the haves and the have-nots.  Those that believe sending kids back to school is risky but don't have the resources or opportunity to seek other solutions will unfortunately have to bear those risks, if the public schools are not going to offer an alternative.

Not "must be done," but "should be tried." Maybe it doesn't work and you go back to distance learning.

Also, I conceded that others may have other priorities - that's what policy debate typically entails.

Also interesting anecdote, and contrary to what I've heard from public school parents looking into sending kids to private schools that have plans for in-classroom learning.  I would love to see what the tally is on parents wanting to go your anecdotal way versus the anecdotes I've heard.

But one thing I do agree on:  the chasm between haves and haves nots will grow because of schooling decisions made during the pandemic.

[teejers1]

This has everything to do with setting priorities and having the will to implement plans (or at least try) to effectuate those priorities.  

And of course, there are those who prefer to just say "can't be done" and leave it at that, without trying . . . which is a perfectly reasonable position, I'm sure guided by your own set of priorities.

And of course, there are those who prefer to just say "must be done" and leave it at that,  I'm sure guided by your own set of priorities.


Your priorities are not my priorities.  Your trade-off of health risk & potential lives lost versus in-school presence is not my trade-off.

I just talked this afternoon to a member of a California community where the public school system just announced going back to partial-week in-school classes.  That person had just talked to the principal of a private school that is offering at-home schooling.  The principal indicated that they are being slammed by 1/3 of the public school students now wanting admission to the private school (an increase in enrollment by more than 10x).

Some will note this will further distance the haves and the have-nots.  Those that believe sending kids back to school is risky but don't have the resources or opportunity to seek other solutions will unfortunately have to bear those risks, if the public schools are not going to offer an alternative.

Not "must be done," but "should be tried." Maybe it doesn't work and you go back to distance learning.

Also, I conceded that others may have other priorities - that's what policy debate typically entails.

Also interesting anecdote, and contrary to what I've heard from public school parents looking into sending kids to private schools that have plans for in-classroom learning.  I would love to see what the tally is on parents wanting to go your anecdotal way versus the anecdotes I've heard.

But one thing I do agree on:  the chasm between haves and haves nots will grow because of schooling decisions made during the pandemic.

[Snorlax94]

I agree sending kids to school — especially younger ones — *should* be a priority, but it isn’t.

All you have to do is close the bars (and stop restaurants from serving alcohol), require churches to have large gatherings outdoors (there is precedent for this as I recall Jesus gave many of his sermons outdoors), close indoor gyms and indoor dining, require people to wear masks indoors at all times and actually enforce the rule strictly, and reduce large social indoor gatherings using large fines and curfews if necessary.

This would reduce the cases to the point that we could open schools safely without putting older staff members, multigenerational households and communities at risk.

Other countries have been able to do this. In Vancouver, my nieces are going to school because the case counts are low enough to do this safely. Canada has a competent prime minister and communities in Canada apparently prioritize their children enough to wear their masks consistently.

Tenet, the latest Christopher Nolan movie, has now grossed over $200 million globally, but less than 30 million in North America and that includes the much-safer Canada, which has kept its southern border closed to keep out Americans. It’s as if most developed countries have controlled Covid so capably they are able to actually watch movies in theaters, an idea that feels like sci-fi to sad Americans.

[Snorlax94]

I agree sending kids to school — especially younger ones — *should* be a priority, but it isn’t.

All you have to do is close the bars (and stop restaurants from serving alcohol), require churches to have large gatherings outdoors (there is precedent for this as I recall Jesus gave many of his sermons outdoors), close indoor gyms and indoor dining, require people to wear masks indoors at all times and actually enforce the rule strictly, and reduce large social indoor gatherings using large fines and curfews if necessary.

This would reduce the cases to the point that we could open schools safely without putting older staff members, multigenerational households and communities at risk.

Other countries have been able to do this. In Vancouver, my nieces are going to school because the case counts are low enough to do this safely. Canada has a competent prime minister and communities in Canada apparently prioritize their children enough to wear their masks consistently.

Tenet, the latest Christopher Nolan movie, has now grossed over $200 million globally, but less than 30 million in North America and that includes the much-safer Canada, which has kept its southern border closed to keep out Americans. It’s as if most developed countries have controlled Covid so capably they are able to actually watch movies in theaters, an idea that feels like sci-fi to sad Americans.

[teejers1]

I agree sending kids to school — especially younger ones — *should* be a priority, but it isn’t.

All you have to do is close the bars (and stop restaurants from serving alcohol), require churches to have large gatherings outdoors (there is precedent for this as I recall Jesus gave many of his sermons outdoors), close indoor gyms and indoor dining, require people to wear masks indoors at all times and actually enforce the rule strictly, and reduce large social indoor gatherings using large fines and curfews if necessary.

This would reduce the cases to the point that we could open schools safely without putting older staff members, multigenerational households and communities at risk.

Other countries have been able to do this. In Vancouver, my nieces are going to school because the case counts are low enough to do this safely. Canada has a competent prime minister and communities in Canada apparently prioritize their children enough to wear their masks consistently.

Tenet, the latest Christopher Nolan movie, has now grossed over $200 million globally, but less than 30 million in North America and that includes the much-safer Canada, which has kept its southern border closed to keep out Americans. It’s as if most developed countries have controlled Covid so capably they are able to actually watch movies in theaters, an idea that feels like sci-fi to sad Americans.

1.  What "point" is that?

2.  And doesn't any such "point" assume competent track and tracing capability to contain the inevitable cases that will arise?

3.  Didn't realize that Utah (and other states where in-classroom schooling is tried) became part of Canada.

None of the above alters the fundamental point that the US has responded very poorly to the pandemic.  But we are where we are.  And I don't see further shutdowns being embraced unless and until we actually have the much-feared and discussed (but never really seen yet) Hospital Armageddon.

[teejers1]

I agree sending kids to school — especially younger ones — *should* be a priority, but it isn’t.

All you have to do is close the bars (and stop restaurants from serving alcohol), require churches to have large gatherings outdoors (there is precedent for this as I recall Jesus gave many of his sermons outdoors), close indoor gyms and indoor dining, require people to wear masks indoors at all times and actually enforce the rule strictly, and reduce large social indoor gatherings using large fines and curfews if necessary.

This would reduce the cases to the point that we could open schools safely without putting older staff members, multigenerational households and communities at risk.

Other countries have been able to do this. In Vancouver, my nieces are going to school because the case counts are low enough to do this safely. Canada has a competent prime minister and communities in Canada apparently prioritize their children enough to wear their masks consistently.

Tenet, the latest Christopher Nolan movie, has now grossed over $200 million globally, but less than 30 million in North America and that includes the much-safer Canada, which has kept its southern border closed to keep out Americans. It’s as if most developed countries have controlled Covid so capably they are able to actually watch movies in theaters, an idea that feels like sci-fi to sad Americans.

1.  What "point" is that?

2.  And doesn't any such "point" assume competent track and tracing capability to contain the inevitable cases that will arise?

3.  Didn't realize that Utah (and other states where in-classroom schooling is tried) became part of Canada.

None of the above alters the fundamental point that the US has responded very poorly to the pandemic.  But we are where we are.  And I don't see further shutdowns being embraced unless and until we actually have the much-feared and discussed (but never really seen yet) Hospital Armageddon.

[BostonCard]

1.  What "point" is that?



2.  And doesn't any such "point" assume competent track and tracing capability to contain the inevitable cases that will arise?



3.  Didn't realize that Utah (and other states where in-classroom schooling is tried) became part of Canada.



None of the above alters the fundamental point that the US has responded very poorly to the pandemic.  But we are where we are.  And I don't see further shutdowns being embraced unless and until we actually have the much-feared and discussed (but never really seen yet) Hospital Armageddon.

Again, it all comes down to R(eff), the number of people that the average infected person infects.  If it is above 1, then infections are going up, slowly at first, but because of exponential growth, barring intervention (which can include people freaking out and changing behavior voluntarily) eventually the number of cases will reach an unacceptable level.  Different people might have a different level in mind as to what is unacceptable, but because of exponential growth, absent thinking that there is no unacceptable level, eventually you will get there.

In my mind, then, policy should be geared towards keeping R(eff) at or below 1.  Every restriction you lift is likely to push R(eff) up a little bit, and every restriction you impose, is likely to push it down a bit.  Obviously, some make a much bigger difference than others, based on two factors: how inherently risky an activity is (outdoors is safer than indoors, fewer people is safer than more people, masking reduces the risk, etc.), and how many people participate in it.  So, under that umbrella, you have to pick which activities you prioritize.  If opening schools is important, then you can do it, but because it involves a large proportion of the population, even if you can open them relatively safely, you are likely going to push R(eff) up substantially, so you will probably be forced to take other measures to keep R(eff) down.

To complicate matters, R(eff) can't be directly observed; it can only be estimated, and usually with a lag of about 2 weeks.  So it is really easy to get into trouble without knowing it, which is what happened in June/July.

You can see how California's R(eff) here:

https://rt.live/us/CA

We are currently estimated to be at around 0.9, and cases are starting to come down.  So, you could say that we probably can relax some things and cases might still be able to continue dropping.

One last thought.  While R(eff) is more important than the number of cases over the long term, over the short term raw case numbers are still important; the higher the case number, the less time you have if cases start rising.

BC

[BostonCard]

1.  What "point" is that?



2.  And doesn't any such "point" assume competent track and tracing capability to contain the inevitable cases that will arise?



3.  Didn't realize that Utah (and other states where in-classroom schooling is tried) became part of Canada.



None of the above alters the fundamental point that the US has responded very poorly to the pandemic.  But we are where we are.  And I don't see further shutdowns being embraced unless and until we actually have the much-feared and discussed (but never really seen yet) Hospital Armageddon.

Again, it all comes down to R(eff), the number of people that the average infected person infects.  If it is above 1, then infections are going up, slowly at first, but because of exponential growth, barring intervention (which can include people freaking out and changing behavior voluntarily) eventually the number of cases will reach an unacceptable level.  Different people might have a different level in mind as to what is unacceptable, but because of exponential growth, absent thinking that there is no unacceptable level, eventually you will get there.

In my mind, then, policy should be geared towards keeping R(eff) at or below 1.  Every restriction you lift is likely to push R(eff) up a little bit, and every restriction you impose, is likely to push it down a bit.  Obviously, some make a much bigger difference than others, based on two factors: how inherently risky an activity is (outdoors is safer than indoors, fewer people is safer than more people, masking reduces the risk, etc.), and how many people participate in it.  So, under that umbrella, you have to pick which activities you prioritize.  If opening schools is important, then you can do it, but because it involves a large proportion of the population, even if you can open them relatively safely, you are likely going to push R(eff) up substantially, so you will probably be forced to take other measures to keep R(eff) down.

To complicate matters, R(eff) can't be directly observed; it can only be estimated, and usually with a lag of about 2 weeks.  So it is really easy to get into trouble without knowing it, which is what happened in June/July.

You can see how California's R(eff) here:

https://rt.live/us/CA

We are currently estimated to be at around 0.9, and cases are starting to come down.  So, you could say that we probably can relax some things and cases might still be able to continue dropping.

One last thought.  While R(eff) is more important than the number of cases over the long term, over the short term raw case numbers are still important; the higher the case number, the less time you have if cases start rising.

BC

[Goose]

To complicate matters, R(eff) can't be directly observed; it can only be estimated, and usually with a lag of about 2 weeks.  So it is really easy to get into trouble without knowing it, which is what happened in June/July.

Very true. San Mateo County is "all in" for R(eff). As they have pointed out, there are also many ways to compute R(eff), leading to even more confusion. I use https://calcat.covid19.ca.gov/cacovidmodels/, which shows several "models". The current State of California approach to increased opening utilizes the "simplified" way of scoring counties performance. The State uses the number of cases per 100,000 residents and the percentage of tests results reported positive over seven days. They aren't using R(eff). Seems a bit strange to me. I know of no justification (explanation) of why these metrics were chosen. I also know of no justification for the thresholds for the various "colors". The chosen metrics also have a "moving window" evaluation period, so they suffer from the same delays as R(eff). Very curious IMHO.

[Goose]

To complicate matters, R(eff) can't be directly observed; it can only be estimated, and usually with a lag of about 2 weeks.  So it is really easy to get into trouble without knowing it, which is what happened in June/July.

Very true. San Mateo County is "all in" for R(eff). As they have pointed out, there are also many ways to compute R(eff), leading to even more confusion. I use https://calcat.covid19.ca.gov/cacovidmodels/, which shows several "models". The current State of California approach to increased opening utilizes the "simplified" way of scoring counties performance. The State uses the number of cases per 100,000 residents and the percentage of tests results reported positive over seven days. They aren't using R(eff). Seems a bit strange to me. I know of no justification (explanation) of why these metrics were chosen. I also know of no justification for the thresholds for the various "colors". The chosen metrics also have a "moving window" evaluation period, so they suffer from the same delays as R(eff). Very curious IMHO.