COVID-19 Thread

[OldSchoolSnapper]

it's going to make the case for closing schools past May look really poor.

 

I would bet a large sum of money that there will be another complete school closing again this coming fall/winter.

 

In Wisconsin? I can't see that happening. Way too many places are back to work as usual, more will be by then. There will be a huge childcare provider shortage if that happens.

 

It also just doesn't make sense for the asymptomatic spread reason and the extremely low rate at which kids have not only been seriously affected, but have spread it to others.

 

Closing when they did was clearly the right thing to do, but with where we sit now I don't see how it makes any sense. Unless you're talking universities, that's a whole different thing.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Another poor debate tactic is to attach the person's debate tactics instead of hte points.

 

Problem is that I haven't done this, I've debated your points plenty as have several others. You literally have spun words into other words, namely "judging," "calling them stupid" and "conspiracy." It's best to stick to the words people use rather than the words that develop in your head after they talk.

[et bbal]

it's going to make the case for closing schools past May look really poor.

 

I would bet a large sum of money that there will be another complete school closing again this coming fall/winter.

 

I was talking to a principal from west of Madison last week. He believes school will be back in session this fall.

[tmwiese55]

You have completely ignored the point that all this info was in the initial report. You have literally not addressed the point at all.

 

And even in your recent school post you seem to be misusing the 'asymptomatic' spread that I/they clarified and was in the initial report that it the presymptomatic is still very much a concern worry. It seems you're now taking that and running with it when it was never the point of the report at all.

 

I'd also be very surprised if WI public schools don't happen in the fall.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

You have completely ignored the point that all this info was in the initial report. You have literally not addressed the point at all.

 

Two of the four quotes I pulled from my initial post are from the report stating this info. I don't need to "address" it because it was in my first post. The one you did not read, and said was "horribly phrased" even though in contained this info.

 

I know the distinction between pre and a-symptomatic as well. I didn't learn it from you clearing it up. It doesn't change that there is little to no evidence of children transmitting, but again all of those reports contain the "more info needed" caveat.

[tmwiese55]

You have completely ignored the point that all this info was in the initial report. You have literally not addressed the point at all.

 

Two of the four quotes I pulled from my initial post are from the report stating this info. I don't need to "address" it because it was in my first post. The one you did not read, and said was "horribly phrased" even though in contained this info.

 

this is like pulling teeth. Their distinctions of 'Pre' and "A" were in the initial report. Their points of very few people truly don't show symptoms was in the initial. The things you're accusing them of rolling back after the fact were all there initially. That is the whole point and you're ignoring it. Your whole point was that they're changing their story (due to pressure yesterday) and that is factually not true

[OldSchoolSnapper]

You have completely ignored the point that all this info was in the initial report. You have literally not addressed the point at all.

 

Two of the four quotes I pulled from my initial post are from the report stating this info. I don't need to "address" it because it was in my first post. The one you did not read, and said was "horribly phrased" even though in contained this info.

 

this is like pulling teeth. Their distinctions of 'Pre' and "A" were in the initial report. Their points of very few people truly don't show symptoms was in the initial. The things you're accusing them of rolling back after the fact were all there initially. That is the whole point and you're ignoring it. Your whole point was that they're changing their story (due to pressure yesterday) and that is factually not true

 

That's truly fascinating because the WHO itself stated that it was a "misunderstanding" and that they "don't have the answer yet." Meanwhile Dr. Fauci called the statement flat-out "wrong."

 

Seems completely at odds with what you're saying, but make another teeth-pulling comment to "imply that I'm stupid" why don't you?

[tmwiese55]

Two of the four quotes I pulled from my initial post are from the report stating this info. I don't need to "address" it because it was in my first post. The one you did not read, and said was "horribly phrased" even though in contained this info.

 

this is like pulling teeth. Their distinctions of 'Pre' and "A" were in the initial report. Their points of very few people truly don't show symptoms was in the initial. The things you're accusing them of rolling back after the fact were all there initially. That is the whole point and you're ignoring it. Your whole point was that they're changing their story (due to pressure yesterday) and that is factually not true

 

That's truly fascinating because the WHO itself stated that it was a "misunderstanding" and that they "don't have the answer yet." Meanwhile Dr. Fauci called the statement flat-out "wrong."

 

Seems completely at odds with what you're saying, but make another teeth-pulling comment to "imply that I'm stupid" why don't you?

----

 

No I give up. If you're refusing to acknowledge or read what was said right away that night it's pointless. I have a post in here as I read it that night laying all this out as I read it, it was all there right away. The more data needed and possible unreliability of it was there. And yes, WHO is right, people are misunderstaing it do that horrible quote, seems you are too.

 

I implore to just find data and ignore trying to catch people in mistakes and proving them right/wrong. And that if they're wrong about one thing then they're wrong about everything or are intentionally misleading. And most importantly looking at everything as if you're being deceived.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I'm not sure how to make it any more clear that I know all of that was initially reported. Is this the fourth time I've said this, or just the fourth time you've given up and announced you're done, after shaking your head and walking out and 10 pages later thanking me and saying goodbye?

[PeaveyFury]

I was talking to a principal from west of Madison last week. He believes school will be back in session this fall.

 

Sorry if my initial post wasn't clear- I'm 100% certain school will be back in session in the fall. I'm also quite confident there will be another complete closing sometime around the holidays.

 

it's going to make the case for closing schools past May look really poor.

 

I would bet a large sum of money that there will be another complete school closing again this coming fall/winter.

 

In Wisconsin?

 

Yep. I'm sure others here also with knowledge of the K-12 system in Wisconsin can speak to the contingency plans their districts are working on for an eventual 20/21 school year closing. Those I've spoken with discuss it in 'when not if' terms. Obviously, things can change as we know more about the virus, but I think it's very possible there's another closing at some point next school year.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

 

Yep. I'm sure others here also with knowledge of the K-12 system in Wisconsin can speak to the contingency plans their districts are working on for an eventual 20/21 school year closing. Those I've spoken with discuss it in 'when not if' terms. Obviously, things can change as we know more about the virus, but I think it's very possible there's another closing at some point next school year.

 

If this happens, I may seriously just leave the state. I've heard about the contingency plans but not anywhere in those kinds of scary terms.

 

Edit: Hang on, so you just mean that school may close at some point again next year. Oof.

[jerichoholicninja]

It appears Wuhan may have had coronavirus in...wait for it... August 2019, per Harvard. Satellite imagery showing the hospitals experienced a surge.

 

If true, the world is going to have to unite and figure out how to put china on its knees...starting this whole thing by yelling fire in a crowded theatre is next level war games type stuff.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52975934

 

Here's an article for those interested. I agree it's far from concrete proof of anything but I don't why we would still believe anything that China says anymore. It wasn't just how full the parking lots were either it was based on internet searches for symptoms that are related to COVID from that time too.

 

Now there is an intriguing new clue, gleaned not from direct evidence, but from studying satellite imagery and internet search terms, which suggest hospital traffic and internet searches for symptoms were on the rise in Wuhan as early as late summer/early autumn.

 

And there's this line that I wished they would have elaborated on more.

 

Evidence has since emerged suggesting the virus might have been circulating earlier, including from a French doctor who said his patient tested positive for coronavirus in late December.

[PeaveyFury]

 

Yep. I'm sure others here also with knowledge of the K-12 system in Wisconsin can speak to the contingency plans their districts are working on for an eventual 20/21 school year closing. Those I've spoken with discuss it in 'when not if' terms. Obviously, things can change as we know more about the virus, but I think it's very possible there's another closing at some point next school year.

 

If this happens, I may seriously just leave the state. I've heard about the contingency plans but not anywhere in those kinds of scary terms.

 

Edit: Hang on, so you just mean that school may close at some point again next year. Oof.

 

Yep!

[Fear The Chorizo]

Sorry if my initial post wasn't clear- I'm 100% certain school will be back in session in the fall. I'm also quite confident there will be another complete closing sometime around the holidays.

 

I believe that is commonly referred to as Christmas break...

[PeaveyFury]

Sorry if my initial post wasn't clear- I'm 100% certain school will be back in session in the fall. I'm also quite confident there will be another complete closing sometime around the holidays.

 

I believe that is commonly referred to as Christmas break...

 

A lot of 2-month Christmas breaks in your neck of the woods?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

If they're going to do that again I hope they at least really go for it. Close everything down Jan-Feb so I can just move the whole operation to Florida for winter.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Sorry if my initial post wasn't clear- I'm 100% certain school will be back in session in the fall. I'm also quite confident there will be another complete closing sometime around the holidays.

 

I believe that is commonly referred to as Christmas break...

 

A lot of 2-month Christmas breaks in your neck of the woods?

 

As long as they extend the rest of the in-person school year into July to make up for the lag in returning, why not? If that's a problem, then everyone should stick to the normal break.

 

Why two months? Why not 6 weeks or 5 months? Do people really need that much extra time to online shop for gifts?

[PeaveyFury]

As long as they extend the rest of the in-person school year into July to make up for the lag in returning, why not?

 

I'd expect something like that to be build into said contingency plans, and I don't think that would be a bad idea at all.

 

Why two months? Why not 6 weeks or 5 months? Do people really need that much extra time to online shop for gifts?

 

I'd expect it'll depend on the situation that necessitates the shutdown in most cases, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the plans build in a shutdown between Thanksgiving and 14 days following Christmas (school back on Jan. 11th). That part is purely my own speculation, however.

[Baldkin]

From earlier today: https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/face-mask-use-needed-to-prevent-covid-19-second-wave/

 

Lead author, Dr Richard Stutt, part of a team that usually models the spread of crop diseases at Cambridge’s department of plant sciences, said: “Our analyses support the immediate and universal adoption of face masks by the public.

 

“If widespread face mask use by the public is combined with physical distancing and some lockdown, it may offer an acceptable way of managing the pandemic and re-opening economic activity long before there is a working vaccine.”

[OldSchoolSnapper]

As long as they extend the rest of the in-person school year into July to make up for the lag in returning, why not?

 

I'd expect something like that to be build into said contingency plans, and I don't think that would be a bad idea at all.

 

Why two months? Why not 6 weeks or 5 months? Do people really need that much extra time to online shop for gifts?

 

I'd expect it'll depend on the situation that necessitates the shutdown in most cases, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the plans build in a shutdown between Thanksgiving and 14 days following Christmas (school back on Jan. 11th). That part is purely my own speculation, however.

 

I'd honestly love this for my own selfish reasons. It would open up a whole bunch of travel options.

[tmwiese55]

I'm not sure how to make it any more clear that I know all of that was initially reported. Is this the fourth time I've said this, or just the fourth time you've given up and announced you're done, after shaking your head and walking out and 10 pages later thanking me and saying goodbye?

 

Then what are you arguing about of my sole point that it's not a roll back, change of course, deception, contradiction?

 

You: They're walking back on this due to the outside pressure today.

Me: No, the clarifications they emphasized now were all in the initial report so its not a rollback or any change of course. Just a bad quote. Not some kind conspiracy (I acknowledge better use of word should've been used)

You: But x y z was in the initial too. and you're arguing tactics are bad. Don't call me a conspiracy theorist for my argument accusing of these guys of deceiving us

Me: All I said it's all in the initial report so it can't be a roll back like you're saying. You're latching onto parts of it and ignoring everything they pointed out today. Again, which was all there the whole time if you read it

You: what about x y z said since then and don't call me stupid (which was never done)

Me: It was in the initial report. you're push that they're changing their story (and implication we're being deceived) is inaccurate

You: I know what was in the initial report

Me: Soooo, they didn't change their points based on the pushback yesterday? Or, you really haven't read it.

[Machu Peach]

From earlier today: https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/face-mask-use-needed-to-prevent-covid-19-second-wave/

 

Lead author, Dr Richard Stutt, part of a team that usually models the spread of crop diseases at Cambridge’s department of plant sciences, said: “Our analyses support the immediate and universal adoption of face masks by the public.

 

“If widespread face mask use by the public is combined with physical distancing and some lockdown, it may offer an acceptable way of managing the pandemic and re-opening economic activity long before there is a working vaccine.”

 

I'm confused as to why someone with a background in crop diseases would be consulted on respiratory disease transmission.

[FVBrewerFan]

From earlier today: https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/face-mask-use-needed-to-prevent-covid-19-second-wave/

 

Lead author, Dr Richard Stutt, part of a team that usually models the spread of crop diseases at Cambridge’s department of plant sciences, said: “Our analyses support the immediate and universal adoption of face masks by the public.

 

“If widespread face mask use by the public is combined with physical distancing and some lockdown, it may offer an acceptable way of managing the pandemic and re-opening economic activity long before there is a working vaccine.”

 

I'm confused as to why someone with a background in crop diseases would be consulted on respiratory disease transmission.

 

We were hoping you or Igor would know.

[igor67]

This is probably one of the toughest situations to handle, publishing outside your 'area'. Scientists interest can and do legitimately evolve over time, and theoretically part of earning the PhD is that you demonstrate the skill to move in new directions should you choose. However, it can also signal goofy motivations and questionable behavior. For example a computer science trained individual publishing anti-evolution nonsense.

Looking at Stutt's background he is a trained mathematical modeler in epidemiology that had been focused on plants. I would consider that fairly close skill sets. Still worthy of some caution, but not an automatic don't take this seriously.

[Machu Peach]

I am well aware that scientists can change fields. My PhD is in Microbiology and Immunology and while I still do a little of that I switched to gene engineering 5 years ago.

 

This guy is "part of a team that usually models the spread of crop diseases" at "Cambridge’s department of plant sciences." By contrast I am "part of a team that usually engineers genes" at a major university's "gene engineering center." This seems more like a one off foray into a completely different field which historically is a giant red flag for any study.

 

I would consider the skillsets vastly different, so agree to disagree. He's not automatically wrong of course, but there are an abundance of trained mathematical modelers in epidemiology that have been focused on respiratory diseases. I'd be more interested in their thoughts.

 

...and actually, if the subject is mask wearing, I'd be far far more interested in the mechanisms of mask wearing on transmission rather than weird estimates like "masks that only capture 50 per cent of exhaled droplets would still provide a “population-level benefit”". Do masks capture 50% of exhaled droplets? Is that the 50% that carry virions? Does catching 50% of droplets (and assuming that means 50% of virions) actually reduce transmission? If so, by how much? It's been estimated that 80% of infections occur in co-living environments. Does that mean that masks should be worn at home to reduce that 80%? If one can't answer these questions, it's really hard to trust any modeling based on assumptions like that.