Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

Page 110 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
True, the phrasing of that tweet makes it seem like the first positive was known 8 days ago. But that is not what happened according to her interviews. It sounds like her husband was tested first due to extreme lethargy. They did not quarantine at that point, then the Mayor and one of their children became positive by the next round of tests. She claims her minor symptoms were mistaken for allergies. She visited her mother in the interim, so I have to believe that she really did not think this was COVID-19. By my read, the first test result arrived after the second set were known because the latter were expedited through the "I am the Mayor" route. This is a good example why people should assume they are infected at all times and minimize close contacts with everybody, but especially if you have any symptoms or if you had someone in your household tested.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Being open 5 days a week for every student is probably not going to be doable, but there are ways to be safe-ish while opening schools. The trickier part in places where there is a lot of community spread is keeping them open. View: https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/1280873227502456832
First, I have to point out that they shouldn't have used that as their lead photo. Class size here ranges from 20-35 depending on age/grade. Some of our old neighborhood schools have 300 kids jammed in tiny old buildings, while some of the schools out in the sprawl have 600 kids jammed in. Every teacher will want to hold their class outside in the open air so it won't be a peaceful outdoor setting for five.

We have already heard that safety isn't the number one priority of dt and bd for school opening in the USA.

Boise schools sent out plans to every student/parent (they have an overall district plan and individual school plans).
 
Being open 5 days a week for every student is probably not going to be doable, but there are ways to be safe-ish while opening schools. The trickier part in places where there is a lot of community spread is keeping them open. View: https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/1280873227502456832
Hong Kong reopened their schools in May after a four month break - They used a combination of face to face school every second day or splitting the day into morning and afternoon classes - This week they got their first cases in two schools.
 
Reactions: djpbaltimore
Then there is the story out of AZ where a teacher just died after doing virtual summer school classes. Apparently, three teachers were using the same room but different computer stations and they all got sick anyway. The best laid plans..... If you open schools in these epicenters, there are going to be a lot of dead educators. This story is just beginning. I imagine it will be the biggest issue over the next 6 months here as it intersects with everything else people do.
 
We have already heard that safety isn't the number one priority of dt and bd for school opening in the USA.
Nonsense. There's more to "safety" than only considering COVID 19.

For many parents, the most pressing question as the nation emerges from pandemic lockdown is when they can send their children to school, camp or child care.
We asked more than 500 epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists when they expect to restart 20 activities of daily life, assuming that the coronavirus pandemic and the public health response to it unfold as they expect. On sending children to school, camp or child care, 70 percent said they would do so either right now, later this summer or in the fall — much sooner than most said they would resume other activities that involved big groups of people gathering indoors. Others, though, said they would wait for a vaccine, which could take a year or more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/upshot/epidemiologists-decisions-children-school-coronavirus.html

With the above principles in mind, the AAP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school. The importance of in-person learning is well-documented, and there is already evidence of the negative impacts on children because of school closures in the spring of 2020. Lengthy time away from school and associated interruption of supportive services often results in social isolation, making it difficult for schools to identify and address important learning deficits as well as child and adolescent physical or sexual abuse, substance use, depression, and suicidal ideation. This, in turn, places children and adolescents at considerable risk of morbidity and, in some cases, mortality. Beyond the educational impact and social impact of school closures, there has been substantial impact on food security and physical activity for children and families.

https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/clinical-guidance/covid-19-planning-considerations-return-to-in-person-education-in-schools/
 
Nonsense. There's more to "safety" than only considering COVID 19.

For many parents, the most pressing question as the nation emerges from pandemic lockdown is when they can send their children to school, camp or child care.
We asked more than 500 epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists when they expect to restart 20 activities of daily life, assuming that the coronavirus pandemic and the public health response to it unfold as they expect. On sending children to school, camp or child care, 70 percent said they would do so either right now, later this summer or in the fall — much sooner than most said they would resume other activities that involved big groups of people gathering indoors. Others, though, said they would wait for a vaccine, which could take a year or more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/upshot/epidemiologists-decisions-children-school-coronavirus.html

With the above principles in mind, the AAP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school. The importance of in-person learning is well-documented, and there is already evidence of the negative impacts on children because of school closures in the spring of 2020. Lengthy time away from school and associated interruption of supportive services often results in social isolation, making it difficult for schools to identify and address important learning deficits as well as child and adolescent physical or sexual abuse, substance use, depression, and suicidal ideation. This, in turn, places children and adolescents at considerable risk of morbidity and, in some cases, mortality. Beyond the educational impact and social impact of school closures, there has been substantial impact on food security and physical activity for children and families.

https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/clinical-guidance/covid-19-planning-considerations-return-to-in-person-education-in-schools/
Our grandsons are in that elementary to early middle school range and the challenges for healthy behavior are huge. They are good at home but in a school environment that will be tough. The current stress on the family is mitigated well but emotionally the kids could do with more contact and development that comes from exposure to peers. That said; this has to be managed better than business reopennings in the US. Florida, Texas having to shut stuff down again during the first wave of C-19 is more costly than what occurred before. They're facing ICU shortages already and the 4th of July holiday wave hasn't hit...it's a giant sh*t sandwich because of personal behavior.
You think kids will be better or worse off?
 
Reactions: jmdirt and Koronin
Our grandsons are in that elementary to early middle school range and the challenges for healthy behavior are huge. They are good at home but in a school environment that will be tough. The current stress on the family is mitigated well but emotionally the kids could do with more contact and development that comes from exposure to peers. That said; this has to be managed better than business reopennings in the US. Florida, Texas having to shut stuff down again during the first wave of C-19 is more costly than what occurred before. They're facing ICU shortages already and the 4th of July holiday wave hasn't hit...it's a giant sh*t sandwich because of personal behavior.
You think kids will be better or worse off?

It's hard to say.

My point is societies across the globe can not only be concerned with COVID. In the US we saw crazy stuff happen because of bad info right off the bat. Only COVID related hospitalizations causing all sorts of necessary procedures to be postponed including on-going cancer treatments.

If we want to ignore the dangers of kids being ordered out of the classroom then we do so at our own peril. In other words, if COVID considerations override every decision we make then those decisions are very likely to nothing short of catastrophic.
 
Reactions: yaco and Jagartrott
Our grandsons are in that elementary to early middle school range and the challenges for healthy behavior are huge. They are good at home but in a school environment that will be tough. The current stress on the family is mitigated well but emotionally the kids could do with more contact and development that comes from exposure to peers. That said; this has to be managed better than business reopennings in the US. Florida, Texas having to shut stuff down again during the first wave of C-19 is more costly than what occurred before. They're facing ICU shortages already and the 4th of July holiday wave hasn't hit...it's a giant sh*t sandwich because of personal behavior.
You think kids will be better or worse off?
This is a tough one. Kids need peer interaction, but at the same time schools can be a breeding ground for diseases. I'm glad I don't have to worry about these kinds of decisions.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
It's hard to say.

My point is societies across the globe can not only be concerned with COVID. In the US we saw crazy stuff happen because of bad info right off the bat. Only COVID related hospitalizations causing all sorts of necessary procedures to be postponed including on-going cancer treatments.

If we want to ignore the dangers of kids being ordered out of the classroom then we do so at our own peril. In other words, if COVID considerations override every decision we make then those decisions are very likely to nothing short of catastrophic.
Your conclusion is an over simplification of the varied situations that exist. Merckx Index noted that Ivy League schools have cancelled all Div I sports. ALL. That economic impact is real, too but not as compelling as the health consequences. No one here is saying C19 controls every decision but US citizens' behavior when encouraged to reassume a cautious approach to business has seen many behave in ignorant and self-serving ways. The religious and political extremists here are still in denial until they catch the bug. My grandsons live in an area with very vocal, religious anti-vaxxers that feel they have protection from a higher source. They look like normal people and so will their kids.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
Your conclusion is an over simplification of the varied situations that exist.
I replied to a comment stating that kids needing to get back to school was somehow disregarding their safety, which was nonsense. An argument can and is being made by many suggesting the keeping kids out of class may be negatively effecting their safety too.

There are lots of moving parts in this situation and all I'm saying is it's unfair to suggest those insisting on the need for kids to go back to school are somehow uninterested in their safety as a top priority.
 
There was a poll from Texas that 65% of parents were not comfortable sending their children to school. What if you open schools and no one comes? One can look at the stats and make a conclusion that there is little risk to the kids, but the parents often are hearing a different message. That there is some non-zero risk involved and will act accordingly. Interesting times, for sure. Prioritizing schools over bars makes sense, but the question is why that was not done.

View: https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1281297603221651456
 
I replied to a comment stating that kids needing to get back to school was somehow disregarding their safety, which was nonsense. An argument can and is being made by many suggesting the keeping kids out of class may be negatively effecting their safety too.

There are lots of moving parts in this situation and all I'm saying is it's unfair to suggest those insisting on the need for kids to go back to school are somehow uninterested in their safety as a top priority.
Watching the mixed messaging on reopening protocols from the US WH suggests that the pressure to open and threats of financial retaliation for those school systems that don't open is making it's own point. That, to me shows a condition less than uninterested and dangerously so.
 
Reactions: jmdirt
It's hard to say.

My point is societies across the globe can not only be concerned with COVID. In the US we saw crazy stuff happen because of bad info right off the bat. Only COVID related hospitalizations causing all sorts of necessary procedures to be postponed including on-going cancer treatments.

If we want to ignore the dangers of kids being ordered out of the classroom then we do so at our own peril. In other words, if COVID considerations override every decision we make then those decisions are very likely to nothing short of catastrophic.
I have read several, maybe as many as 10 of the various articles from non-school child professionals as well as about the same number from school professionals.

So let's say that no kids get sick. What you are saying is that thousands of dead adults is a good trade off for kids not being a year behind (but alive none-the-less). Now add in that some kids will get sick and some will die. I'll take a year behind over dead any day.

I also take issue with the emphasis on abused children as a focus argument for rushing back to school.
-Less than 1% of kids are abused yearly (its probably under reported so double it, 2%).
-The highest rate of abuse happens to children under one year of age (don't attend school so opening won't help them).
So we are pushing to open schools to protect 2% while risking 98% PLUS all of the adults?
-Note: Boise schools is continuing to run "at risk" camps for these kids as well as feeding thousands more. They do this in the summer C19 or not.

So yes, C19 should be the number one factor in making decisions. Death is the most catastrophic result IMO.

Other RE: to you post: "across the globe"--certainly some decision will be made on a global level, but we are talking about opening local schools.

While I understand that you are trying to speak to a broader range of decision making, talking about people choosing not to have elective procedures has nothing to do with opening schools. But on that topic, our two hospitals did not cancel life saving procedures ever*, and by May were doing things like joint replacements again. I think that more areas of the country were in that boat than the one you describe. The hospitals weren't stopping the procedures, the people were opting out. It is an terrifying conundrum for people though.

* I know several personally: neighbor who had quad-bypass in May, colleague of wife open heart in April, colleague of mine chemo all along, spouse of colleague dialyses all along (and scheduled for transplant this summer).
 
Watching the mixed messaging on reopening protocols from the US WH suggests that the pressure to open and threats of financial retaliation for those school systems that don't open is making it's own point. That, to me shows a condition less than uninterested and dangerously so.
This was my point last night: the CDC developed guidelines for safe reopening this fall and dt/bd said that they were too tough. That is saying that safety isn't the number one priority.
 
There are by now plenty of examples from around Europe that show that you can reopen schools without meaningful negative impacts on infection rates. What drives up infections much, much more is leisure (pubs, cinemas, restaurants, hotels, fitness clubs, choirs, etc.), so if you allow that, you should definitely allow reopening schools. It's in fact amazing to me that indoor leisure activities were actually allowed back before reopening schools in some regions.

In Belgium, face masks will be compulsory from Saturday on in shops, cinemas and basically all indoor environments with plenty of people. Reasons are: (a) infection numbers aren't dropping anymore, (b) we see resurgence in some places in Europe, (c) it's getting clearer and clearer that indoor venues are very risky for superspreader events, (d) making the face masks mandatory will remind people that we're not out of this mess yet.
Good.
 
Watching the mixed messaging on reopening protocols from the US WH suggests that the pressure to open and threats of financial retaliation for those school systems that don't open is making it's own point. That, to me shows a condition less than uninterested and dangerously so.

Well of course. One can't merely disagree, the rhetoric must include language that renders any opposition as evil. Apparently ignoring downside risk regarding kids ordered out of school is a virtue.

The only other thing I am left wondering is when can kids safely go back to school in your opinion? What are the metrics?
 
I'll take a year behind over dead any day.
So you completely ignore the risk in keeping kids home. Okay.

talking about people choosing not to have elective procedures has nothing to do with opening schools
I'm speaking to bad decisions in our recent past and using this as an example.

The hospitals weren't stopping the procedures, the people were opting out. It is an terrifying conundrum for people though.
That's not 100% true... but you prove my point.

So I'll ask the logical question: in your view, when do kids go back to school? What are the metrics? How would you justify the damage we know will happen to kids for the period of time there are kept out of school?
 
Well of course. One can't merely disagree, the rhetoric must include language that renders any opposition as evil. Apparently ignoring downside risk regarding kids ordered out of school is a virtue.

The only other thing I am left wondering is when can kids safely go back to school in your opinion? What are the metrics?
To your point and Jagartrott's comments; there are plenty of examples in Europe. Our problem is New York City has a very dense population and school facilities along with 1.1mil of students. That is a much different circumstance than the greater part of the country, for sure. That the individual States and school districts are being driven by a National policy is ignoring that fact to get more work force in play. I hate to sound totally cynical but we've passed this way before when commerce and politics forced meat packing plants to stay open. How did that turn out? Really fu*cking bad for workers.
Some areas could probably open shifted classes in lower density populations to lower risk. Local jurisdictions should have that right and responsibility to immediately respond to positive tests. What to do with NYC, LA, Miami....? Shutting down huge school populations for a few positive tests is worse than being closed. That will be the challenge as most of our hot outbreaks are urban environments.
We also have the tandem planning of parental re-entry to jobs that have been shuttered. As Jagartrott also mentioned:
(c) it's getting clearer and clearer that indoor venues are very risky for superspreader events, (d) making the face masks mandatory will remind people that we're not out of this mess yet.
Those are the very parental workers sitting on the sidelines with no unemployment benefits and can't work from home. Now they are in the highest risk work situation and going home to their kids who are now forced to go to school.
Unless major hot areas like Miami, Houston, wherever are stabilized and showing decline in positive tests (with a requisite amount of testing with full disclosure as opposed to the bs WH explanation) ; then the schools and risk businesses are still the overriding condition for success. Not simple and the answers and new questions will continue to come. We need a political consensus that agrees and it's doubtful that condition couldn't exist until after November's elections.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: jmdirt
There are by now plenty of examples from around Europe that show that you can reopen schools without meaningful negative impacts on infection rates. What drives up infections much, much more is leisure (pubs, cinemas, restaurants, hotels, fitness clubs, choirs, etc.), so if you allow that, you should definitely allow reopening schools. It's in fact amazing to me that indoor leisure activities were actually allowed back before reopening schools in some regions.

In Belgium, face masks will be compulsory from Saturday on in shops, cinemas and basically all indoor environments with plenty of people. Reasons are: (a) infection numbers aren't dropping anymore, (b) we see resurgence in some places in Europe, (c) it's getting clearer and clearer that indoor venues are very risky for superspreader events, (d) making the face masks mandatory will remind people that we're not out of this mess yet.
Good.
The teachers are the ones more worried about schools staying opened. There have been sporadic infections in Australian schools usually only one or two kids or one teacher, and one much larger outbreak in a school which was immediately closed for extra cleaning while self isolation and testing went on. Don't think there have been any Australian fatalities re schools so far. Australia has been using temporary closures, extra cleaning and online learning re schools but initially all schools were closed except for parents who had to work and could not make alternative arrangements for their children.
 
Reactions: yaco
There are by now plenty of examples from around Europe that show that you can reopen schools without meaningful negative impacts on infection rates. What drives up infections much, much more is leisure (pubs, cinemas, restaurants, hotels, fitness clubs, choirs, etc.), so if you allow that, you should definitely allow reopening schools. It's in fact amazing to me that indoor leisure activities were actually allowed back before reopening schools in some regions.

In Belgium, face masks will be compulsory from Saturday on in shops, cinemas and basically all indoor environments with plenty of people. Reasons are: (a) infection numbers aren't dropping anymore, (b) we see resurgence in some places in Europe, (c) it's getting clearer and clearer that indoor venues are very risky for superspreader events, (d) making the face masks mandatory will remind people that we're not out of this mess yet.
Good.
I agree that opening bars, theaters, gyms, etc was not wise. At this point in the USA though, schools would be out for summer so it wasn't a "should we open bars or schools" decision.
 
To your point and Jagartrott's comments; there are plenty of examples in Europe. Our problem is New York City has a very dense population and school facilities along with 1.1mil of students. That is a much different circumstance than the greater part of the country, for sure. That the individual States and school districts are being driven by a National policy is ignoring that fact to get more work force in play. I hate to sound totally cynical but we've passed this way before when commerce and politics forced meat packing plants to stay open. How did that turn out? Really fu*cking bad for workers.
Some areas could probably open shifted classes in lower density populations to lower risk. Local jurisdictions should have that right and responsibility to immediately respond to positive tests. What to do with NYC, LA, Miami....? Shutting down huge school populations for a few positive tests is worse than being closed. That will be the challenge as most of our hot outbreaks are urban environments.
We also have the tandem planning of parental re-entry to jobs that have been shuttered. As Jagartrott also mentioned:
(c) it's getting clearer and clearer that indoor venues are very risky for superspreader events, (d) making the face masks mandatory will remind people that we're not out of this mess yet.
Those are the very parental workers sitting on the sidelines with no unemployment benefits and can't work from home. Now they are in the highest risk work situation and going home to their kids who are now forced to go to school.
Unless major hot areas like Miami, Houston, wherever are stabilized and showing decline in positive tests (with a requisite amount of testing with full disclosure as opposed to the bs WH explanation) ; then the schools and risk businesses are still the overriding condition for success. Not simple and the answers and new questions will continue to come. We need a political consensus that agrees and it's doubtful that condition couldn't exist until after November's elections.
Trickery. You almost had me.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS