Page 726 of 1110 FirstFirst ... 226626676716724725726727728736776826 ... LastLast
Results 14,501 to 14,520 of 22186
  1. #14501
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostondevil View Post
    Perhaps too PPB, but I seriously doubt you'd get them all on board blaming teachers for the decades of underfunding for mental health treatment and support.
    That is my wife's exact field. She absolutely believes that children are better off in school than not; I mean, we ALL do. But she also thinks that curbing the spread of a deadly pandemic was of VITAL, and primary, importance. She definitely would NOT lay 15 months of "tremendous... (and) largely unnecessary suffering of children" at the feet of teacher unions. Rather, I think she would blame it on the obvious culprit: dealing with a historic, deadly global pandemic.

  2. #14502
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostondevil View Post
    Steering us back to why it matters where the virus originated.

    New information is being gathered about this virus all the time. Some things that I have learned, including some of it from an interview I heard on NPR that I have not been able to back up with multiple sources. There are 3 places in the world that do gain of function research on respiratory viruses (maybe just coronaviruses, if anyone knows more, please fix what I get wrong), Wuhan, China, Chapel Hill, NC, and Galveston, TX. The major source of funding for GoF research in all 3 locations is the US government and it would come to a complete and immediate halt if the US government stopped funding it. In either 2014 or 2015, the US government decided to pause all GoF research on these types of viruses because there is still scientific debate going on about its usefulness. The pause was lifted in December 2017 without much fanfare and, I'm sad to say, without any debate.

    There is this from someone I know - https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/fe...h-controversy/

    If discovering that the virus leaked from a lab doing gain of function research leads to a healthy debate and detailed risk benefit analysis of doing such research, then I'm all for it. If discovering that the virus leaked from a Chinese lab leads to blaming China and nothing else, then it's better to believe it came from animals. The US has not shown the ability to address problems they can blame on others over the past year and blaming China will do nothing to protect us from the next viral outbreak, and there will be another one. I will bet a pie that we will not get a grace period of 100 years between this global pandemic and the next one. The time to start preparing for the next one was 20 years ago, but starting now will have to do.
    Your last paragraph is the key.

    If it leads to improvements in safety in labs, and maybe as importantly more transparency between experts in different countries, YES, great.

    But if it just leads to endless finger pointing and anger in an era when racism against Asians and Asian-Americans is at a dangerous high...

  3. #14503
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostondevil View Post
    Steering us back to why it matters where the virus originated.

    New information is being gathered about this virus all the time. Some things that I have learned, including some of it from an interview I heard on NPR that I have not been able to back up with multiple sources. There are 3 places in the world that do gain of function research on respiratory viruses (maybe just coronaviruses, if anyone knows more, please fix what I get wrong), Wuhan, China, Chapel Hill, NC, and Galveston, TX. The major source of funding for GoF research in all 3 locations is the US government and it would come to a complete and immediate halt if the US government stopped funding it. In either 2014 or 2015, the US government decided to pause all GoF research on these types of viruses because there is still scientific debate going on about its usefulness. The pause was lifted in December 2017 without much fanfare and, I'm sad to say, without any debate.

    There is this from someone I know - https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/fe...h-controversy/

    If discovering that the virus leaked from a lab doing gain of function research leads to a healthy debate and detailed risk benefit analysis of doing such research, then I'm all for it. If discovering that the virus leaked from a Chinese lab leads to blaming China and nothing else, then it's better to believe it came from animals. The US has not shown the ability to address problems they can blame on others over the past year and blaming China will do nothing to protect us from the next viral outbreak, and there will be another one. I will bet a pie that we will not get a grace period of 100 years between this global pandemic and the next one. The time to start preparing for the next one was 20 years ago, but starting now will have to do.

    From what I have been able to determine, the US Government never engaged in the required risk benefit analysis for the research it (still) funds at the Wuhan lab.
    I'm loving too much on BostonDevil already today. Someone please spork.

  4. #14504
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostondevil View Post
    Steering us back to why it matters where the virus originated.

    New information is being gathered about this virus all the time. Some things that I have learned, including some of it from an interview I heard on NPR that I have not been able to back up with multiple sources. There are 3 places in the world that do gain of function research on respiratory viruses (maybe just coronaviruses, if anyone knows more, please fix what I get wrong), Wuhan, China, Chapel Hill, NC, and Galveston, TX. The major source of funding for GoF research in all 3 locations is the US government and it would come to a complete and immediate halt if the US government stopped funding it. In either 2014 or 2015, the US government decided to pause all GoF research on these types of viruses because there is still scientific debate going on about its usefulness. The pause was lifted in December 2017 without much fanfare and, I'm sad to say, without any debate.

    There is this from someone I know - https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/fe...h-controversy/

    If discovering that the virus leaked from a lab doing gain of function research leads to a healthy debate and detailed risk benefit analysis of doing such research, then I'm all for it. If discovering that the virus leaked from a Chinese lab leads to blaming China and nothing else, then it's better to believe it came from animals. The US has not shown the ability to address problems they can blame on others over the past year and blaming China will do nothing to protect us from the next viral outbreak, and there will be another one. I will bet a pie that we will not get a grace period of 100 years between this global pandemic and the next one. The time to start preparing for the next one was 20 years ago, but starting now will have to do.

    From what I have been able to determine, the US Government never engaged in the required risk benefit analysis for the research it (still) funds at the Wuhan lab.
    It is more accurate to state there are only three labs (Wuhan, Chapel Hill, and Galveston, TX) that work on live virus adaptation of animal betacoronaviruses to grow in other types of cells to study their function from this particular funding grant.

    There are many labs that have studied adaptation of flu viruses and other virus into other cell lines/species. Here is an article from 2014 when the ban (that was removed in 2018) went into place. The work from the Kawaoka lab adapting some avian flu viruses to ferrets was a big advance in the field. Some of those labs work on seasonal (non-pandemic) flu viruses.

    Dr. Lipsitch's answer to the last question in the link is correct on his point that some transmission studies can be done by safer approaches than live virus manipulation but I find his conclusion that the more informative questions can all be studied via genetic and partial virus methods while only narrow questions not important for public health are answered by live virus methods. There is much key work (see Kawaoka above) that requires live virus adaptation.

    I agree that there should be oversight and risk-benefit analyses for each particular virus that would want to use live virus adaptation methods. If the oversight review panels that were supposed to do this when the moratorium was lifted are not doing so that is not correct. We also need to make sure that every BSL-3 and BSL-4 lab in the world is properly maintained by independent agency. Having collaborated with people who have done this betacoronavirus work (on a different viral model) and known many people who have worked in BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs in various institutions (CDC, US Army, UTMB) I can tell you that there are very strong protocols/procedures to perform this work in those labs. However, it only takes one weak link and I also strongly agree that the US and the world need to move now worldwide to strengthen our efforts.
    Coach K on Kyle Singler - "What position does he play? ... He plays winner."

    "Duke is never the underdog" - Quinn Cook

  5. #14505
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston area, OK, Newton, right by Heartbreak Hill
    Quote Originally Posted by tbyers11 View Post
    It is more accurate to state there are only three labs (Wuhan, Chapel Hill, and Galveston, TX) that work on live virus adaptation of animal betacoronaviruses to grow in other types of cells to study their function from this particular funding grant.

    There are many labs that have studied adaptation of flu viruses and other virus into other cell lines/species. Here is an article from 2014 when the ban (that was removed in 2018) went into place. The work from the Kawaoka lab adapting some avian flu viruses to ferrets was a big advance in the field. Some of those labs work on seasonal (non-pandemic) flu viruses.

    Dr. Lipsitch's answer to the last question in the link is correct on his point that some transmission studies can be done by safer approaches than live virus manipulation but I find his conclusion that the more informative questions can all be studied via genetic and partial virus methods while only narrow questions not important for public health are answered by live virus methods. There is much key work (see Kawaoka above) that requires live virus adaptation.

    I agree that there should be oversight and risk-benefit analyses for each particular virus that would want to use live virus adaptation methods. If the oversight review panels that were supposed to do this when the moratorium was lifted are not doing so that is not correct. We also need to make sure that every BSL-3 and BSL-4 lab in the world is properly maintained by independent agency. Having collaborated with people who have done this betacoronavirus work (on a different viral model) and known many people who have worked in BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs in various institutions (CDC, US Army, UTMB) I can tell you that there are very strong protocols/procedures to perform this work in those labs. However, it only takes one weak link and I also strongly agree that the US and the world need to move now worldwide to strengthen our efforts.
    From what I have heard and/or been able to determine myself, the answer to the question "Is the oversight review panel doing its job?" the answer is no.

  6. #14506
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    There were zero issues or conflicts in our school district, where elementary school kids were able to go back in person (or do zoom school) last September
    I’m with luvdahops. There was massive conflict here in the DC burbs, especially across Fairfax, Montgomery, and Loudoun counties. There are grassroots groups that popped up to repeal school board members over this, and the response to the school districts was bipartisan, with both R and D politicians blasting them.

    We had 6 year olds fully virtual for over 12 months, with no option for in-person learning, even while privates ran pretty much BAU the whole time. Fairfax County lost a ton of students over it, and the ramifications will be felt for years to come.

  7. #14507
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Ash View Post
    I think trying to paint all teacher unions, with a total membership of nearly 4 million Americans, with some broad brush, saying something as jaw-droppingly negative as they "inflicted a tremendous amount of largely unnecessary suffering on children of all ages over the past 15 months" without acknowledging that...

    A) we were hit with a global pandemic that resulted in more American deaths in 15 months than we suffered in four years of World War

    B) we were hit with a pandemic that we really didn't totally understand the nuances of until fairly recently

    C) the vast majority of school districts do not have the trained, educated, and experienced health care personnel necessary to make completely educated and science-based decisions

    D) the vast majority of school districts are unable to meet many of the health standards set forth by the CDC for a good part of the pandemic

    E) 30 percent of teachers are over the age of 50

    G) schools are a unique mixing pot of entire communities, bringing together children into one confined space for hours on end and then sending them back out into their communities at large, carrying with them whatever illness they may have contracted, which makes them a potentially devastating center of community infection

    and

    H) EVERYTHING in this pandemic was an attempt at balancing the threat of widespread death with the negative impacts of steps taken, and that there were absolutely no "good" options, just "bad" options and "very bad" options, both of which will have long-term impacts on the people involved with them

    ... is incredibly short-sighted and foolish, and lacks an understanding of the issues involved in public schooling during a global pandemic of historic proportions. I suspect a number of "parents of school-age children, and the kids themselves" would not agree with you, judging from both my own experiences in the matter and also from virtual-schooling choice trends by families. And I won't even get into that the opinions of "businesses trying to get employees back to work" about school openings and closings doesn't really mean much at all to me.

    And the idea that teacher unions are on the wrong side of the school opening debate these days, despite the fact that 90 percent of American schools offer in-person learning just seems... well, incorrect. I would wager you won't be able to find many examples of districts in which Boards of Ed want to offer in-person instruction and tax payers want in-person instruction but teacher unions don't want to and are preventing it.
    You may some fair points, but also some shaky ones.

    I am undoubtedly guilty of painting teachers unions with an overly broad brush. Some behaved much more honorably than others over the 2020-21 school year. And in those communities where children suffered the most, it is absolutely wrong to put this solely on teachers unions, instead of citing a collective failure among teachers, administrators, School Boards and politicians.

    Let me try to clarify my views a bit better. My original comment was in response to the notion that only one side was guilty of politicizing things during the pandemic, with the other largely taking the high ground of "following the science" (or, more often in reality, following public health policy, especially federal; the distinction is not trivial).

    Allow me to provide some background for full disclosure. I am not a healthcare professional, but it is the industry I focus on as a finance professional. I am on the Board of a fairly large health insurance company, so have been privy to developing industry views on the pandemic since inception. I also work with a number of behavioral health organizations, and closely followed COVID's impact on these businesses, and their patients by extension. Finally, my wife is actively involved in our local school district, and for the past year, has been part of a task force dedicated to researching and benchmarking back to school initiatives across Metro Chicago, as well as comparable districts in other regions of the country. So I am perhaps better informed on these issues than you may believe.

    The basic, population-level risk stratification of COVID - by age group and health profile (pre-existing conditions, co-morbidities, etc.) - was pretty well established by June 2020. Pretty clear data around risk of spread by age group and type of activity was not far behind. Enough was known that the default assumption for last fall up through high school should have been full-time, in-person, with appropriate mitigation measures (e.g. masks) generally, and some accommodations for higher risk students and faculty members. And that was the case in some parts of the country, to generally good effect. But for a variety of reasons, including IMHO some political ones, it was not the default assumption in a number of large metro areas and districts, particularly in Blue States, and instead often derided as reckless and foolish. Despite the science - perhaps not the public health policy, but the actual science - suggesting otherwise.

    The necessity of in-person schooling only became more obvious during the course of the year. By mid-fall, the negative impacts of remote and hybrid schooling on youth behavioral health, not to mention their educational experience, were abundantly clear. But districts in many of those Blue states were slow to respond, despite growing evidence and community pressure. And often it was the teachers unions who were the last ones to come around - as others have noted, waiting on vaccines, then moving the goalposts and essentially running out the clock on the 2020-21 school year.

    I recognize that the vast majority of teachers now support going back to full-time, in-person in the fall. But that was not the case a year or even 6 months ago. Not making full-time, in-person the default assumption in the beginning opened a Pandora's box for all manner of stakeholders that made it that much more challenging to adjust during the year. And to me that was a tragic mistake. And an avoidable one. Some will argue that this is only obvious in hindsight, but I disagree. The evidence was already there, and kudos to those educational leaders who had sufficient courage and balance in their perspective to act on it.

  8. #14508
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostondevil View Post
    Perhaps too PPB, but I seriously doubt you'd get them all on board blaming teachers for the decades of underfunding for mental health treatment and support.
    Not my point at all. The lack of in-person schooling during the pandemic drove a demonstrable and well-documented spike in youth behavioral health issues. Do you dispute this?

  9. #14509
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Rent free in tarheels’ heads
    Quote Originally Posted by luvdahops View Post
    You may some fair points, but also some shaky ones.

    I am undoubtedly guilty of painting teachers unions with an overly broad brush. Some behaved much more honorably than others over the 2020-21 school year. And in those communities where children suffered the most, it is absolutely wrong to put this solely on teachers unions, instead of citing a collective failure among teachers, administrators, School Boards and politicians.

    Let me try to clarify my views a bit better. My original comment was in response to the notion that only one side was guilty of politicizing things during the pandemic, with the other largely taking the high ground of "following the science" (or, more often in reality, following public health policy, especially federal; the distinction is not trivial).

    Allow me to provide some background for full disclosure. I am not a healthcare professional, but it is the industry I focus on as a finance professional. I am on the Board of a fairly large health insurance company, so have been privy to developing industry views on the pandemic since inception. I also work with a number of behavioral health organizations, and closely followed COVID's impact on these businesses, and their patients by extension. Finally, my wife is actively involved in our local school district, and for the past year, has been part of a task force dedicated to researching and benchmarking back to school initiatives across Metro Chicago, as well as comparable districts in other regions of the country. So I am perhaps better informed on these issues than you may believe.

    The basic, population-level risk stratification of COVID - by age group and health profile (pre-existing conditions, co-morbidities, etc.) - was pretty well established by June 2020. Pretty clear data around risk of spread by age group and type of activity was not far behind. Enough was known that the default assumption for last fall up through high school should have been full-time, in-person, with appropriate mitigation measures (e.g. masks) generally, and some accommodations for higher risk students and faculty members. And that was the case in some parts of the country, to generally good effect. But for a variety of reasons, including IMHO some political ones, it was not the default assumption in a number of large metro areas and districts, particularly in Blue States, and instead often derided as reckless and foolish. Despite the science - perhaps not the public health policy, but the actual science - suggesting otherwise.

    The necessity of in-person schooling only became more obvious during the course of the year. By mid-fall, the negative impacts of remote and hybrid schooling on youth behavioral health, not to mention their educational experience, were abundantly clear. But districts in many of those Blue states were slow to respond, despite growing evidence and community pressure. And often it was the teachers unions who were the last ones to come around - as others have noted, waiting on vaccines, then moving the goalposts and essentially running out the clock on the 2020-21 school year.

    I recognize that the vast majority of teachers now support going back to full-time, in-person in the fall. But that was not the case a year or even 6 months ago. Not making full-time, in-person the default assumption in the beginning opened a Pandora's box for all manner of stakeholders that made it that much more challenging to adjust during the year. And to me that was a tragic mistake. And an avoidable one. Some will argue that this is only obvious in hindsight, but I disagree. The evidence was already there, and kudos to those educational leaders who had sufficient courage and balance in their perspective to act on it.
    I doubt many would find fault with your take on the mental health impact this has had on kids. As a father of a 12 year old and a 15 year old who spent the entire year in virtual school, I can vouch for the fact that it has had a horrendously negative impact on behavioral and physical health. That said, I don’t think it’s reasonable to examine this issue in a vacuum, as you seem to be doing by ignoring the strong points made by Lord Ash. It seems convenient to say that the evidence against virtual schooling was there early on while ignoring the greater impact in-person attendance would have had on the population at large as a result of even greater spread of the disease. It’s a nightmare of a choice, and I’m frustrated with the outcomes from this past year of virtual school. But I would have a hard time justifying incremental deaths in the community at large (as we surely would have seen) just so my kid could go to school in person amidst a raging pandemic.
    “Coach said no 3s.” - Zion on The Block

  10. #14510
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Rosenrosen View Post
    But I would have a hard time justifying incremental deaths in the community at large (as we surely would have seen) just so my kid could go to school in person amidst a raging pandemic.
    I agree somewhat, but the key question is what level of incremental deaths is acceptable. In person school definitely contributes to the death count in non-pandemic times with car accidents, flu, etc. And it's not a trivial number. Most studies suggested schools didn't really increase community transmission, and those not in school simply replaced that with other sometimes riskier social interactions so you're just shifting the risk from schools (where mitigation protocols could be in place) to something else (where they may not..). Many kids continued to see friends, parents formed pods, etc.

    I would argue that given the data, schools should have taken a nuanced view of things (some did admittedly). That is, at least have K-2 in person where the risk is incredibly low and it's also those children where you can't really simulate school online because the social aspects are so important. Continue to assess the data and don't take a "one size fits all" view. And that view should evolve based on local case counts and availability of the vaccine.

    High school would be the least prioritized given larger transmissibility among that group and ability to "replace" classroom activities online (I've heard cheating at the high school level was truly off the charts this year...online tests are tricky. My high school eliminated final exams, which is now permanent).

    I don't think it's always a clear "all or nothing" but many seem to think that way. I agree it's also not fair to generalize the entirety of teacher's unions in the entire country given that includes millions of people. But there's no doubt that the existence of a union has had a correlation with school closures. (Could also be because districts with unions tend to lean one way more politically). Another correlative factor of school closures was presence of Catholic schools nearby (should that be? No.)

  11. #14511
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Rosenrosen View Post
    I doubt many would find fault with your take on the mental health impact this has had on kids. As a father of a 12 year old and a 15 year old who spent the entire year in virtual school, I can vouch for the fact that it has had a horrendously negative impact on behavioral and physical health. That said, I don’t think it’s reasonable to examine this issue in a vacuum, as you seem to be doing by ignoring the strong points made by Lord Ash. It seems convenient to say that the evidence against virtual schooling was there early on while ignoring the greater impact in-person attendance would have had on the population at large as a result of even greater spread of the disease. It’s a nightmare of a choice, and I’m frustrated with the outcomes from this past year of virtual school. But I would have a hard time justifying incremental deaths in the community at large (as we surely would have seen) just so my kid could go to school in person amidst a raging pandemic.
    I think you are glossing over the first part of my argument. That it had already been established that the risk of COVID among school-age children, in terms of severity and transmission into the community at large, was negligible; and for the significant majority of teachers, it was higher but still manageable with proper risk mitigation measures and protocols. So the default assumption should have been full-time, in-person, and work back from there if needed. The past school year was far more satisfying for school districts who took that approach. It is tragic to me that more didn't.

    We had a 27 year old teacher with zero health issues in our HS teach in a face shield and haz mat suit throughout the fall semester. It was not done in jest. And as recently as early May, our local teachers union was still arguing for a hybrid schedule this fall. Thankfully, community dissatisfaction led to major turnover in our School Board elections this past spring. Our local dynamics may not have been representative of the country as a whole, but they were hardly unique.

  12. #14512
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    Quote Originally Posted by luvdahops View Post
    I think you are glossing over the first part of my argument. That it had already been established that the risk of COVID among school-age children, in terms of severity and transmission into the community at large, was negligible; and for the significant majority of teachers, it was higher but still manageable with proper risk mitigation measures and protocols. So the default assumption should have been full-time, in-person, and work back from there if needed. The past school year was far more satisfying for school districts who took that approach. It is tragic to me that more didn't.

    We had a 27 year old teacher with zero health issues in our HS teach in a face shield and haz mat suit throughout the fall semester. It was not done in jest. And as recently as early May, our local teachers union was still arguing for a hybrid schedule this fall. Thankfully, community dissatisfaction led to major turnover in our School Board elections this past spring. Our local dynamics may not have been representative of the country as a whole, but they were hardly unique.
    It's complicated. In our community (Montgomery County, MD) with a large, diverse school system, surveys showed more of the wealthier families wanted their kids back in school. More of the less affluent families, often multi-generational, wanted their kids to remain in virtual learning. Those living paycheck to paycheck - correlating closely with those unable to telework - couldn't afford to take time off for quarantining, much less manage health care costs.

    Our system remained all virtual until March, then opt-in for in-person classes. My son reported he had 4-8 kids in-person per class in his (more wealthy than not) school.

    -jk

  13. #14513
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston area, OK, Newton, right by Heartbreak Hill
    Quote Originally Posted by luvdahops View Post
    Not my point at all. The lack of in-person schooling during the pandemic drove a demonstrable and well-documented spike in youth behavioral health issues. Do you dispute this?
    Yep. Was there a spike or did we start paying more attention? And was the lack of in-person schooling to blame or was it something else? And instead of blaming teachers, all of these school districts should have been clamoring for increased mental health support for their kids. Maybe remote learning with mental health support would have been enough.

  14. #14514
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    I think what a lot of this discussion is missing is a background understanding of what was expected when it comes to respiratory viruses and school children.

    There is pretty ample evidence that school children actually are the drivers of the influenza epidemic every year. They spread the virus very efficiently amongst themselves, and then take it home to their families. In a Japanese study, mandating flu vaccination for children actually drove down all-cause mortality by a considerable amount. Many U.S. studies have also shown vast benefits from vaccinating school kids. As is the case with SARS-CoV-2, school kids are not at highest risk of dying from influenza; however, preventing influenza in children vastly decreases overall mortality in the entire population.

    So that was the background, and that was undoubtedly the main thought process behind closing down the schools. In retrospect, it turned out to not be necessarily the best decision, but at the time it was definitely the right thing to do. Clearly, as more information was gained that made it more and more clear that SARS-CoV-2 was NOT the same as influenza virus, school districts across the country took vastly different actions with regard to opening back up versus staying virtual, etc., and probably a fair bit of that was politically motivated.
    "We are not provided with wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the wilderness which no one else can take for us, an effort which no one can spare us, for our wisdom is the point of view from which we come at last to regard the world." --M. Proust

  15. #14515
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    I think what a lot of this discussion is missing is a background understanding of what was expected when it comes to respiratory viruses and school children.

    There is pretty ample evidence that school children actually are the drivers of the influenza epidemic every year. They spread the virus very efficiently amongst themselves, and then take it home to their families. In a Japanese study, mandating flu vaccination for children actually drove down all-cause mortality by a considerable amount. Many U.S. studies have also shown vast benefits from vaccinating school kids. As is the case with SARS-CoV-2, school kids are not at highest risk of dying from influenza; however, preventing influenza in children vastly decreases overall mortality in the entire population.

    So that was the background, and that was undoubtedly the main thought process behind closing down the schools. In retrospect, it turned out to not be necessarily the best decision, but at the time it was definitely the right thing to do. Clearly, as more information was gained that made it more and more clear that SARS-CoV-2 was NOT the same as influenza virus, school districts across the country took vastly different actions with regard to opening back up versus staying virtual, etc., and probably a fair bit of that was politically motivated.
    Thanks for your educated perspective. On a macro level, this virus is a very loaded topic for folks - the school conundrum is probably one of the more intense portions thereof. I for one am absurdly thankful for the fact that kids DIDN'T turn out to be the tiny Typhoid Marys that the sometimes are. I shudder to think what the last year and a half may have been like otherwise.

    Folks who are homeschooling for over a year are fatigued. Folks who work in education are frustrated. Kids are bored or worse. It's been far from an ideal scenario, but it does seem we are getting closer to normal this coming fall.

    As far as what mistakes in judgement were made - I'm willing to gain a bit more distance and perspective before handing out detention or gold stars.

  16. #14516
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    I think what a lot of this discussion is missing is a background understanding of what was expected when it comes to respiratory viruses and school children.

    There is pretty ample evidence that school children actually are the drivers of the influenza epidemic every year. They spread the virus very efficiently amongst themselves, and then take it home to their families. In a Japanese study, mandating flu vaccination for children actually drove down all-cause mortality by a considerable amount. Many U.S. studies have also shown vast benefits from vaccinating school kids. As is the case with SARS-CoV-2, school kids are not at highest risk of dying from influenza; however, preventing influenza in children vastly decreases overall mortality in the entire population.

    So that was the background, and that was undoubtedly the main thought process behind closing down the schools. In retrospect, it turned out to not be necessarily the best decision, but at the time it was definitely the right thing to do. Clearly, as more information was gained that made it more and more clear that SARS-CoV-2 was NOT the same as influenza virus, school districts across the country took vastly different actions with regard to opening back up versus staying virtual, etc., and probably a fair bit of that was politically motivated.
    So, should we shutting down schools every winter? Or, the very least, mandate mask wearing/social distancing among students during flu season? <Ducks>

    (I totally recognize that is NOT your point and I appreciate the perspective/thoughts. Just find it interesting that "normal rules" don't apply to COVID even after widespread vaccinations among the susceptible population. We've been conditioned to be extremely fearful of it -- for good reason one might argue --- and it's going to be VERY hard to change mindsets even if that risk profile changes because we've already established the mentality and protocols. Interestingly, according to the NY Times, Britain, Germany, and Israel (three countries ahead of the curve on many things COVID) are likely NOT to recommend/mandate vaccines among the under 12 crowd because of such low risk. So, if the older population is vaccinated, one might argue that things should be "back to normal" in the school setting -- that is, not mandating masks, social distancing, excessive cleaning and having full classroom sizes in person with cafeteria beings used and recess being allowed, etc.)

  17. #14517
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    So, should we shutting down schools every winter? Or, the very least, mandate mask wearing/social distancing among students during flu season? <Ducks>

    (I totally recognize that is NOT your point and I appreciate the perspective/thoughts. Just find it interesting that "normal rules" don't apply to COVID even after widespread vaccinations among the susceptible population. We've been conditioned to be extremely fearful of it and it's going to be VERY hard to change mindsets.)
    Well, these are absurd questions. But I guarantee you that many more people will elect to wear masks during flu season after this pandemic. They have them in their closets, they are used to them, and I know so many people who didn't get their usual cold/flu over the last winter. Why would people not implement some of these precautions into their normal rituals?

    Hand sanitizer may not be impossible to find like it was a year ago, but I guarantee you many folks will keep it around. What's the disadvantage of washing your hands more frequently? Or not breathing down someone's neck in line at the bank?

    Just because we've been overly flippant for a long time doesn't mean that precautions don't make sense.

  18. #14518
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    Well, these are absurd questions. But I guarantee you that many more people will elect to wear masks during flu season after this pandemic. They have them in their closets, they are used to them, and I know so many people who didn't get their usual cold/flu over the last winter. Why would people not implement some of these precautions into their normal rituals?

    Hand sanitizer may not be impossible to find like it was a year ago, but I guarantee you many folks will keep it around. What's the disadvantage of washing your hands more frequently? Or not breathing down someone's neck in line at the bank?

    Just because we've been overly flippant for a long time doesn't mean that precautions don't make sense.
    The question was meant to "absurd" to highlight that when COVID risks equate to flu risks (or are even LESS because of the amazingness of the COVID vaccines relative to the flu ones) in a given environment, they should be treated similarly in my opinion. But they are not. And, yes, the initial baseline risk of COVID sans vaccines was clearly MUCH greater than the flu, particularly for the 65+ crowd. I agree with you that many more people will elect to wear masks during flu season. I probably envision wearing a mask myself on planes and such during these periods. Better hygiene is certainly good. I am a compulsive hand washer (before COVID) and I've been ridiculed for it...

  19. #14519
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston area, OK, Newton, right by Heartbreak Hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    So, should we shutting down schools every winter? Or, the very least, mandate mask wearing/social distancing among students during flu season? <Ducks>

    (I totally recognize that is NOT your point and I appreciate the perspective/thoughts. Just find it interesting that "normal rules" don't apply to COVID even after widespread vaccinations among the susceptible population. We've been conditioned to be extremely fearful of it -- for good reason one might argue --- and it's going to be VERY hard to change mindsets even if that risk profile changes because we've already established the mentality and protocols. Interestingly, according to the NY Times, Britain, Germany, and Israel (three countries ahead of the curve on many things COVID) are likely NOT to recommend/mandate vaccines among the under 12 crowd because of such low risk.)
    Mandate flu shots. Those are available for children.

    So, we need to stop pretending that the choice is between vaccinated/not vaccinated. The choice is "Which precautions will you take to preserve public health - vaccine or face mask?" You gotta pick one, there is no third choice.

  20. #14520
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostondevil View Post
    Mandate flu shots. Those are available for children.

    So, we need to stop pretending that the choice is between vaccinated/not vaccinated. The choice is "Which precautions will you take to preserve public health - vaccine or face mask?" You gotta pick one, there is no third choice.
    I am all for that. My local institutions do that...

Similar Threads

  1. Masters 2020
    By OldPhiKap in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 175
    Last Post: 11-20-2020, 09:24 PM
  2. 2020 NBA Playoffs
    By cato in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1349
    Last Post: 10-17-2020, 11:29 PM
  3. Coronavirus - those we've lost
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 05-08-2020, 09:42 PM
  4. FB: 2020 Schedule is out
    By nocilla in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-22-2020, 07:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •