Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

This thread has been a great reminder about the power of persistence.

 

When I think of what I've seen the last page or 2, I think of this exchange:



.
@AOC
to
@tedcruz
: "...you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out."
@AOC
when asked about her exact quote: "Yeah, so that's not the quote and I will not apologize for what I said."

 

I don't see any and have mostly stopped following this thread. But agree the rhetoric is too much. You have been pretty straight up about several things and right about some things that I disagreed about early on. This thread has become a bit tough to moderate.

But in your defense, your point about schools by 95 seems overstated as my search only found the one post that was that cut and dry.

 

To clarify. I found one post backing your point...but not months of them. Most of the searches were him saying opening schools would raise numbers, but outside of the disaster remark he did not call for their closing in any that I found.

I think you win on semantics in that post, but you lose on the quantity of times that he took that strong of a stance.

 

It's becoming a great reminder of why I keep Tylenol on hand.

 

When I say schools should be open, not once has he agreed with one of my posts about schools being open but instead pushes back on the issue. He's had months to say he's for schools being open and has not. I have not gone back and looked but the post you posted shows where is stance is.

 

Mea culpa. It was four employees in five days, and confirmed they died from COVID-19. I still think there is more to the story, and six overall in the course of a month. Regardless, let's use the four number. Is 1:1,500 dead school district employees a more acceptable risk than 1:1,000? What is an acceptable risk?

Acceptable risk is up for debate, but I would argue it's certainly higher than 1 employee in 1,500. Unless you think the four dead in Tucson is acceptable? Perhaps if the risk were closer to 1:100,000 or higher, that would be acceptable. And by all metrics, the risks are this low or lower in areas where community spread is also very low. But in places where it's high, what's to stop another community from suffering the loss of 1 in every 1,500 school district employees from dying from COVID? And is it really worth the risk to keep schools open if this proves to be an average number, or worse, the actual risk is higher?

 

Persistence or persistent stupidity?

At any rate, you want to open schools? Vaccinate teachers.

 

Teachers should be next in line after the elderly no question. Just happy I live in Florida and not CA. A year without school or sports. Crazy.

 

I don't know the acceptable risk and don't know the specifics of each case. It seems like a very high number for sure. Any person dying is bad. But we can't have schools shut down until there is zero risk. But pointing out one area that had more deaths than the national average does not mean schools should be closed. I would look into the specific cases of the 4 deaths and see if there is a way to pinpoint was it the school or did they get covid at home or in the community. I'm not saying ignore the data at all. Look into it and make our decisions after looking at all the relevant data. I don't think you are looking at the issues that keeping schools shuttered have on children. I may of missed it but you seem to be against having kids in school.

 

No, I disagree with your stance that open schools have no impact on cases. It obviously does, and the people who have to spend 8 hours a day in that situation are right to be concerned. Whether or not schools should be open is a much more complex issue than you make it out to be. And you berate anyone who disagrees with you. In most cases I think schools probably should be open now, but I'm not a middle aged teacher with underlying conditions, so that's easy for me to say.

 

I'm against having kids in-person schooling in areas where community spread of COVID is high. The risk is of another Tucson, or Atlanta, or NYC, or LA, where multiple district employees died because of COVID in a short time period. Again, there seems to be correlation that in areas of high spread, keeping schools open comes with increased risk to teachers and school staff.

This is the reason JAMA and the CDC say in areas of high community spread, they recommend schools being closed. They can't say for certain just how much higher the risk is, and when you are dealing with multiple people's lives, it's better to be safe than sorry. Wait too long to close down because you're waiting on the next study, and what happens if the study shows significant increased risk?

Again, areas with low spread, keep schools open. That's a good portion of the country. But areas of high community spread? The evidence suggests there could be causation, and keeping schools open could lead to higher spread and deaths among school staff. And until we know for sure that this correlation doesn't mean causation, I don't think we should risk school staff lives unnecessarily.

 

First preliminary data showing that people vaccinated with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines are less likely to be able to transmit the virus. There are numerous other studies underway, but this is the very first data and is in agreement with what the experts at Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have hypothesized.

Covid-19: Treatments, Cures, and Vaccines | Page 40 | Swamp Gas Forums

 

what about the fact that if1 person in a household that is basically shut in has it, gives it to others in the home, and when the weather gets nice they go out and spread it. lockdowns and shut-ins are just as likely to cause future cases as being totally open.

 

No. If everything is truly locked down, cases will go down. Your household example is silly. If one person in a household of 4 has it, then there are only 3 other people it can be transmitted to in a quarantine situation (and those 3 would be quarantining as well). In a non-quarantine situation, if one person in a household of 4 has it, then the 3 people in the household are exposed to it, plus everyone the person comes into contact outside of the house is exposed to it. Plus, the 3 other people in the house are potentially going to get it and expose everyone they come into contact with. One situation exposes only 3 other people and the other potentially exposes dozens more people.

Do you honestly think quarantine's don't work?

 

That is a shame, given the value that many people that frequent this board could provide on the topic (i.e., we have a number of subject area experts on a large number of topics of interest to this issue that post here). Unfortunately, it might be the only move that makes sense after the thread was allowed to be completely thrown off the rails.

 

The idea is to have more topical threads on the specifics.

When this thread started I doubt any of us saw it reaching a year long point where we were worse off then when we started. This fact creates various conversations.

The thought is that experts are more likely to chime into a specific topic then they are to try and swim through the mess.
Instad of having one thread where people argue over schools and Trump 60% of the time, we could have topically based Covid threads

One that is medical.
One that is political.
One that speaks of personal experiences.
One that talks about the economy.
One that has a bit of humor.

This makes moderation easier and keeps the experts coming back to the proper thread with no need to search through minutiae.

It's similar to the idea of post game threads during football season.
The game thread starts to get too many topics and when it is over we need specific topical threads.

Covid is by no means over, but the thread is too splintered.

 

nooooooh...........

 

how did that lockdown in california turn out?