COVID-19

[King Colby]

I'm down with the 2:2:1 but they need to figure out how to protect vulnerable teachers - maybe they can have them be fully remote instructors while less at risk teachers be fully on site.

All of this predicated on the death rates continuing to drop (assuming they are). This to me falls in the LiTT category of "accepting the risk".

You're not going to get 100% adherence to rules and guidelines no matter what. That has to be built in to the assumption of risk.

Someone will get sick. That will be the hardest part. If someone gets sick Monday, do you let the Tuesday team come in? How long does the Monday team go remote?

[King Colby]

HOWEVER hand hygiene in public areas has not increase above baseline which is puzzling

Can you elaborate on this?

data suggests people are practicing hand hygiene no better than pre covid in public settings. its almost unbelievable

I dont believe it. I am finally able to buy soap and hand sanitizer in the store.

What hand worshing data is this anyway?

[nocera]

Source of the post Someone will get sick. That will be the hardest part. If someone gets sick Monday, do you let the Tuesday team come in? How long does the Monday team go remote?

Well the teacher was exposed so they will need to stay home. That Monday team needs to be remote for 2 weeks to be sure there isn't any spread, unless everybody is able to get tested. That would include the teacher as well. Are we good with a sub coming in, who has presumably been all around each district? What will the availability of subs be? City schools can't get a sub on a good day.

[Shyster]

this doesnt matter. the china virus (sic) is spread via droplet, it is not airborne. the likely hood of enough virus passing through an AC unit to infect someone is very low. this is also why there have been very few surface transmissions - this is spread via droplet, not contact. this is also why a surgical mask or a t shirt are OK to mitigate spread in 'normal' circumstances. you do not need a respirator or n95 for routine use since it is not airborne.

That was the advice yesterday. It might not be the advice tomorrow:

WHO confirms there's 'emerging evidence' of airborne transmission of coronavirus
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/health/a ... index.html

Mounting evidence suggests coronavirus is airborne — but health advice has not caught up
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02058-1

WHO revises how COVID-19 can be transmitted
https://www.axios.com/who-coronavirus-a ... 5dbe1.html

[nocera]

I read those a few days ago and it’s pretty misleading. It’s not airborne in the truest sense of the word. It can, however, latch on to very small droplets and travel with them. This also isn’t exactly new info. There’s been evidence of this for a while now. See: restaurant where the AC created a COVID path.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Get out of here with your facts

Not sure how that does anything but support my contention that churches are not a major source of coronavirus cases.

So knowing that each confirmed case likely results in a couple that are never positively identified, you think 650 confirmed cases coming from that small a sample size of locations that are practicing some combination of limiting capacity, mask wearing, social distancing, etc. is not alarming.

A conservative estimate has there being 45,000 churches in the United States.

Let's say for the sake of argument 5,000 of them are meeting in person with an average weekly attendance of 75.

There are 650 confirmed cases.

That's not a major source.

You are wrong, but okay.

Edit: Remember, the story is showing 650 cases from 40 congregations/events. Not 45,000, not 5,000... 40. Going by your estimate of 75 weekly attendees, that's 650 confirmed cases out of a population of as few as 3,000 people. Even if you blow that out and say there are 5 services a week with 100% different attendees at each, that's 650 from 15,000, which is still a scary number for a single source type.

Your math only makes sense if those were the only churches meeting.

If 5,000 churches are meeting weekly at 75 per, that's 375,000 people.

So 40 churches with 650 cases. That means 4,960 churches have no cases.

That's not a major source.

[tifosi77]

It makes sense because they only surveyed those 40 churches for contact tracing in that story. It's difficult to fathom that you somehow think that therefore means there are 4900+ churches with no cases. That can't be a serious take.

[Freddy Rumsen]

It makes sense because they only surveyed those 40 churches for contact tracing in that story. It's difficult to fathom that you somehow think that therefore means there are 4900+ churches with no cases. That can't be a serious take.

Well we're talking hypothetically here about the number of churches, obviously.

If 40 churches are somehow representative then you just explained the problem with statistics and making blanket statements through them.

[mikey]

The overwhelming majority of kids will be fine, sure. What about all of the employees who work at the school, some of which are old or otherwise high risk? What about the kids parents who catch it after their kid does? As you said, they don't go see great gam gam when they're sick with the flu but what about pre-symptomatic where you have no clue you're spreading this virus around? Those kids will see gam gam. I think saying 'we don't close down schools for flu season" is not a fair comparison, for a lot of reasons.

what specifically would need to happen to make you say that schools should be open

I believe schools could open safely if they follow every single guideline to the T. It would not look anything like "normal" school, though. Class sizes need to be diminished, that might be accomplished by an alternating schedule. Maybe one group of kids go Monday/Wednesday while the other goes Tues/Thurs. Friday could be 100% virtual learning. Masks must be worn at all times. Social distancing must be withheld at all times, including in the hallways. Meals would be tricky and I don't know how you handle that. I think it CAN be done but it will be extremely difficult on the staff to enforce. And then what happens when you get a positive case? Do you quarantine everybody for two weeks and go remote? Do you just take a day off and clean? Can it be done? Sure. Do I think most schools will be able to do it? Nope.

so what would be your preferred alternative?

Air tight safe, bottom of the ocean until a vaccine is found...no, no, no, not that vaccine...the next better vaccine...

[tifosi77]

I'll admit it, I didn't realize you were just trolling me until right now. I mean, three posts making blanket statements using 'statistics' wrongly applied, concluded with how I am the one who "just explained the problem with statistics and making blanket statements through them." You got me, you rascal.

[NTP66]

If we do get a vaccine, I’d hope that public schools would then require them. I still think we’re going to have issues with the knuckledraggers who side with the anti-bad lunatics.

[faftorial]

If we do get a vaccine, I’d hope that public schools would then require them. I still think we’re going to have issues with the knuckledraggers who side with the anti-bad lunatics.

[NTP66]

Anti-bad? Come on, Apple. That was anti-vax.

[MWB]

The overwhelming majority of kids will be fine, sure. What about all of the employees who work at the school, some of which are old or otherwise high risk? What about the kids parents who catch it after their kid does? As you said, they don't go see great gam gam when they're sick with the flu but what about pre-symptomatic where you have no clue you're spreading this virus around? Those kids will see gam gam. I think saying 'we don't close down schools for flu season" is not a fair comparison, for a lot of reasons.

what specifically would need to happen to make you say that schools should be open

I believe schools could open safely if they follow every single guideline to the T. It would not look anything like "normal" school, though. Class sizes need to be diminished, that might be accomplished by an alternating schedule. Maybe one group of kids go Monday/Wednesday while the other goes Tues/Thurs. Friday could be 100% virtual learning. Masks must be worn at all times. Social distancing must be withheld at all times, including in the hallways. Meals would be tricky and I don't know how you handle that. I think it CAN be done but it will be extremely difficult on the staff to enforce. And then what happens when you get a positive case? Do you quarantine everybody for two weeks and go remote? Do you just take a day off and clean? Can it be done? Sure. Do I think most schools will be able to do it? Nope.

The bolded part is the most difficult aspect, even in an alternating schedule. With zero movement, i can probably swing 16 kids in my class. We have roughly 500 kids per grade, so 250 per grade at half capacity. Moving kids from one class to another, to lunch, and to specials classes would probably require an extra 20 minutes per transition. So you’re cutting 80 minute classes to 60 minutes. Lunch transition, which usually takes 10 solid minutes, now probably doubles. Many kids use the restroom between classes. That wouldn’t be an option now, so you’ll have kids going to the restroom during class all the time. And how is that monitored? So, the question becomes, is it better to have kids in school with an extremely reduced instruction time, or not? I’d probably say yes, but it needs to be clear to parents that instruction will be affected.

[slappybrown]

Was hoping that deaths would continue to stay down somehow—treatment improvements and the possibility of reduced lethality—but they’re officially back up again on a 7-day Rolling a average. With big states like CA, FL, TX still seeing cases through the roof this does not look good. It seems unlikely we’re going to get those states under control.

[MWB]

Another aspect of the school thing... there will absolutely be parents who refuse to have their kids wear masks. Maybe 20% I’d guess.

[grunthy]

Was hoping that deaths would continue to stay down somehow—treatment improvements and the possibility of reduced lethality—but they’re officially back up again on a 7-day Rolling a average. With big states like CA, FL, TX still seeing cases through the roof this does not look good. It seems unlikely we’re going to get those states under control.

His week has more to do with a 4 day holiday week and LA and another couple counties not reporting for days until this week. Most weeks we were dropping 5% or so. Last week we dropped almost 30%. I would look to next week to see if it is truly and increase.

[Freddy Rumsen]

Another aspect of the school thing... there will absolutely be parents who refuse to have their kids wear masks. Maybe 20% I’d guess.

We've had multiple parents tell the school system that the will not send their kids to class in a mask.

And it's two sides on opposite spectrums.

The "this is a government conspiracy" and the "my kids aren't going back until there is zero Covid" crowds.

[Troy Loney]

https://www.kristv.com/news/local-news/ ... 19-victims

Looks bad.

[slappybrown]

Was hoping that deaths would continue to stay down somehow—treatment improvements and the possibility of reduced lethality—but they’re officially back up again on a 7-day Rolling a average. With big states like CA, FL, TX still seeing cases through the roof this does not look good. It seems unlikely we’re going to get those states under control.

His week has more to do with a 4 day holiday week and LA and another couple counties not reporting for days until this week. Most weeks we were dropping 5% or so. Last week we dropped almost 30%. I would look to next week to see if it is truly and increase.

I find it hard to believe that the hospitalization rates described in the graph next to deaths don’t reflect the beginning of an uptick in deaths. Moreover, that’s a rolling average above smoothing out the delay in reporting that you see one day to the next. Taking the 4,5,6 off and dumping deaths into the 7,8,9 doesn’t really make much of a difference for a rolling 7-Day average.

To me it’s no Longer will they rise but how high they rise. Plateau at late May early June? Or, match or surpass the worst days in April and early May. Best case is hope for the former suppose.

[nocera]

Another aspect of the school thing... there will absolutely be parents who refuse to have their kids wear masks. Maybe 20% I’d guess.

So what is the consequence of that? It seems a lot of districts are offering both in person and virtual instruction. If you refuse to mask up, are you forced to go virtual?

[MWB]

No idea. But knowing some of the parents we deal with, they will refuse to wear a mask, but also expect in person teaching. And I’m not sure what the legalities are... if a parent can get a note saying their kid has asthma or anxiety issues, would that be enough? Probably so.

[grunthy]

Was hoping that deaths would continue to stay down somehow—treatment improvements and the possibility of reduced lethality—but they’re officially back up again on a 7-day Rolling a average. With big states like CA, FL, TX still seeing cases through the roof this does not look good. It seems unlikely we’re going to get those states under control.

His week has more to do with a 4 day holiday week and LA and another couple counties not reporting for days until this week. Most weeks we were dropping 5% or so. Last week we dropped almost 30%. I would look to next week to see if it is truly and increase.

I find it hard to believe that the hospitalization rates described in the graph next to deaths don’t reflect the beginning of an uptick in deaths. Moreover, that’s a rolling average above smoothing out the delay in reporting that you see one day to the next. Taking the 4,5,6 off and dumping deaths into the 7,8,9 doesn’t really make much of a difference for a rolling 7-Day average.

To me it’s no Longer will they rise but how high they rise. Plateau at late May early June? Or, match or surpass the worst days in April and early May. Best case is hope for the former suppose.

Idk. I saw a bunch of states dump deaths that occurred in april this week. NJ hasn't had a day with more than 10 deaths in 24 hours since may, but this week they alone have reported like 300 deaths.

[Troy Loney]

Was hoping that deaths would continue to stay down somehow—treatment improvements and the possibility of reduced lethality—but they’re officially back up again on a 7-day Rolling a average. With big states like CA, FL, TX still seeing cases through the roof this does not look good. It seems unlikely we’re going to get those states under control.

His week has more to do with a 4 day holiday week and LA and another couple counties not reporting for days until this week. Most weeks we were dropping 5% or so. Last week we dropped almost 30%. I would look to next week to see if it is truly and increase.

I find it hard to believe that the hospitalization rates described in the graph next to deaths don’t reflect the beginning of an uptick in deaths. Moreover, that’s a rolling average above smoothing out the delay in reporting that you see one day to the next. Taking the 4,5,6 off and dumping deaths into the 7,8,9 doesn’t really make much of a difference for a rolling 7-Day average.

To me it’s no Longer will they rise but how high they rise. Plateau at late May early June? Or, match or surpass the worst days in April and early May. Best case is hope for the former suppose.

I believe this will quickly morph into a discussion about the fatality rate. And I don’t think Florida reports hospitalizations, I’m not sure how that site accounts for that.

The sheer volume of cases is bad, and really the only out here is for enough people to make good decisions on their own.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Things looking good over here.

Bucks County COVID Hospitalizations Drop to Lowest Level Since March

http://www.buckscounty.org/news/2020New ... ince-march