@@ Covid Thread - Week of 3/15

[Velar Fricative]

Mar 17, 2021 8:47:07 GMT -5 noodleoo said:

Mar 17, 2021 8:35:03 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

I'm personally not arguing that schools are unsafe. My thinking (and direct experience) is that the data simply may not be complete. Of the data we have? Yes, I agree with their conclusions because numbers don't lie. But very few school districts are doing testing in schools and there is a general reluctance outside of school among parents to test their kids - they may opt to monitor symptoms after exposure instead, which is fine except data and studies show that kids are more likely to remain asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms that can easily be chalked up to a typical kid cold. 

As an example (anecdote alert) - NYC public schools have in-school testing. You must consent to this testing if you want to send your kid into the school building for learning. The testing is random and the tests are PCR (shorter swabs so not the super deep ones at least), so you don't get results right away but they're pretty accurate. DD1 has only been tested in school twice so far (in January, aka the day or the day before she was actually infected so it was too early to detect, plus yesterday). She says 3 kids in her class out of 10 get called for the testing. I can look on our state school data portal to see when testing has occurred in school and how many people were tested, and generally, it looks like 2-4 times a month to ensure some kids in each cohort gets tested, with about 60-70 people (could be students or teachers) tested each of those days. But, we have 800+ people who come on-site to school - that includes teachers, but also includes every child and they are divided into cohorts to I'll estimate about 400 people in the building on a given day. I'm not sure if that's considered a good scientific sampling or not, but my gut says that if kids are more likely to be asymptomatic, we should probably up those numbers and/or test more often. Pooled testing could be a great way to test more kids. And maybe the plan is for her school to do more regular testing, expect they've had a 10-day closure every month in 2021 so far. 

But again the issue is not whether or not kids will get Covid, it is whether it spreads in the school.  I'm not surprised that you have had 10 day quarantines, that's kind of the point!  If covid is in the community, kids are going to get it.  The schools then quarantine the class to prevent the spread.  Testing won't prevent quarantine or prevent covid acquired outside the school.  But testing can prove that the precautions of masking, distancing, and quarantining will prevent outbreaks spreading through the schools.

I've seen multiple people on this board say that it is spreading in the schools and we just don't know it because no one is testing for it.  That doesn't pass the common sense test to me, but we there have been several studies where they are performing testing in schools that prove that schools are not spreading it.  I'm sure there are anecdotes where individual cases have spread in school (someone on here said they know their kid got it at school, I can't remember who), but it hasn't been the widespread problem people seem to fear it is.

That would be me lol.

I didn't mention the 10-day shutdowns because I don't agree with them, just that it's possible my kid's school would have done more testing if not for being shut down, so I don't know if the 2-4 days a month was the plan from the beginning or if they planned to test every single week but just didn't because school was closed. I am also not sure if this testing is where positives were discovered that caused the school to shut down or if it was from out-of-building testing - DD1's positive precipitated our February shutdown and the test that came back positive was done outside of school.

And to add, unless a family has been hunkered down except for school during the relevant timeframe, a family may never be 100% positive that patient zero in their household was their child or that their child was infected at school. We happened to be hunkered down minus school for both kids and only DD1 ever tested positive, so that's how we know.

We may never know how much transmission is happening in schools BUT if school testing reflects lower or roughly the same amount of cases when compared to the broader community, that's a reason to keep schools open with safety protocols in place. Not because we are super duper confident that no one is spreading covid in a school. But...you have to have testing inside schools with consent from all parents to know this, which I don't believe most school districts provide. Testing will be even more critical in the fall when most adults will be vaccinated, most kids will be back in the school building, and what's mostly left as part of the unvaccinated group are kids. And we know this virus is like a wildfire looking for people to infect.

[Velar Fricative]

Mar 17, 2021 8:45:45 GMT -5 eddy said:

It is our spring break this week. H has a very busy week so even if we wanted to do a COVID safe trip to like a cabin it just isn't an option.

Anyways it is rainy today.I was racking my brain for what we could do. And really I just ended up being pissed. I think every once in awhile it hits me how much our lives have been altered. No movie theaters. No jump parks. No restaurants. It feels like we have to be really agile to even just wander around Target. No random friends houses. It just fucking sucks and I feel bad for my kids.We have been doing this for a year and I am OVER IT. Plus of course I am looking on social media of all the families who have traveled. I am so jealous.

At least when they are in school they are getting face-to-face socialization with their peers. Just like last spring break I feel like I have to fill this void and be their "friend."

Anyways better days are ahead of us. It is actually going to be nice this weekend so that alleviates so many of my gloomy feelings.

Yeah we are planning a lot of zoo days with the weather getting warmer, including with cousins they've barely seen in the last year. I don't need to travel far at all, I just need to get out of the house and do something fun and see another household. 

[wanderingback]

Mar 17, 2021 8:53:15 GMT -5 timorousbeastie said:

Mar 17, 2021 8:35:03 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

I'm personally not arguing that schools are unsafe. My thinking (and direct experience) is that the data simply may not be complete. Of the data we have? Yes, I agree with their conclusions because numbers don't lie. But very few school districts are doing testing in schools and there is a general reluctance outside of school among parents to test their kids - they may opt to monitor symptoms after exposure instead, which is fine except data and studies show that kids are more likely to remain asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms that can easily be chalked up to a typical kid cold. 

As an example (anecdote alert) - NYC public schools have in-school testing. You must consent to this testing if you want to send your kid into the school building for learning. The testing is random and the tests are PCR (shorter swabs so not the super deep ones at least), so you don't get results right away but they're pretty accurate. DD1 has only been tested in school twice so far (in January, aka the day or the day before she was actually infected so it was too early to detect, plus yesterday). She says 3 kids in her class out of 10 get called for the testing. I can look on our state school data portal to see when testing has occurred in school and how many people were tested, and generally, it looks like 2-4 times a month to ensure some kids in each cohort gets tested, with about 60-70 people (could be students or teachers) tested each of those days. But, we have 800+ people who come on-site to school - that includes teachers, but also includes every child and they are divided into cohorts to I'll estimate about 400 people in the building on a given day. I'm not sure if that's considered a good scientific sampling or not, but my gut says that if kids are more likely to be asymptomatic, we should probably up those numbers and/or test more often. Pooled testing could be a great way to test more kids. And maybe the plan is for her school to do more regular testing, expect they've had a 10-day closure every month in 2021 so far. 

This is exactly what I was going to say. Also add in the number of parents (at least in my district) who think this is all a hoax and refuse to participate in testing their children in or out of school, so we just don’t know the true number of kids who have had COVID. I’m not by any means saying that schools definitely aren’t safe, but I’m not comfortable with the studies at this point to say schools definitely are safe, either. I just don’t think we can possibly have a clear picture either way at this point, given the flaws in the studies I’ve seen so far.

What are people’s thoughts about the definition of things being safe?
No positive cases? Less than 5% of those tested? Less than 10% of those tested? Etc.
It’d be helpful for people to define their definition of safe in order to make progress.
Can you link the studies you’re talking about with the flaws you’re talking about? There’s always so much coming out I know I miss a lot!

[laurack]

Ok one shortcoming of the Covid pooled testing in MA is that it is voluntary and parents can opt out. So we aren’t getting the “full picture” however people in the general community who are getting tested are also likely to not be the kind of people who’d opt their kids out of free testing in school?

Therefore we can at least extrapolate that if incidence of positive result in pooled school testing in MA is approx 0.2% based on those who opt in to testing, and the incidence of positive result in the general population who are opting in for testing is 2.1%, the incidence of Covid in schools is lower than that in the general population.

[noodleoo]

Mar 17, 2021 9:08:34 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Mar 17, 2021 8:47:07 GMT -5 noodleoo said:

But again the issue is not whether or not kids will get Covid, it is whether it spreads in the school.  I'm not surprised that you have had 10 day quarantines, that's kind of the point!  If covid is in the community, kids are going to get it.  The schools then quarantine the class to prevent the spread.  Testing won't prevent quarantine or prevent covid acquired outside the school.  But testing can prove that the precautions of masking, distancing, and quarantining will prevent outbreaks spreading through the schools.

I've seen multiple people on this board say that it is spreading in the schools and we just don't know it because no one is testing for it.  That doesn't pass the common sense test to me, but we there have been several studies where they are performing testing in schools that prove that schools are not spreading it.  I'm sure there are anecdotes where individual cases have spread in school (someone on here said they know their kid got it at school, I can't remember who), but it hasn't been the widespread problem people seem to fear it is.

That would be me lol.

I didn't mention the 10-day shutdowns because I don't agree with them, just that it's possible my kid's school would have done more testing if not for being shut down, so I don't know if the 2-4 days a month was the plan from the beginning or if they planned to test every single week but just didn't because school was closed. I am also not sure if this testing is where positives were discovered that caused the school to shut down or if it was from out-of-building testing - DD1's positive precipitated our February shutdown and the test that came back positive was done outside of school.

And to add, unless a family has been hunkered down except for school during the relevant timeframe, a family may never be 100% positive that patient zero in their household was their child or that their child was infected at school. We happened to be hunkered down minus school for both kids and only DD1 ever tested positive, so that's how we know.

We may never know how much transmission is happening in schools BUT if school testing reflects lower or roughly the same amount of cases when compared to the broader community, that's a reason to keep schools open with safety protocols in place. Not because we are super duper confident that no one is spreading covid in a school. But...you have to have testing inside schools with consent from all parents to know this, which I don't believe most school districts provide. Testing will be even more critical in the fall when most adults will be vaccinated, most kids will be back in the school building, and what's mostly left as part of the unvaccinated group are kids. And we know this virus is like a wildfire looking for people to infect.

Oh, haha, oops!  I think we're on the same page.  wanderingback brought up a good point too.  I don't define safe as 0 cases in schools.  I define it as the school is not a significant source of spread. 

I come at this from a different perspective because our elementary schools have been in person for half days since the fall with the afterschool program running, so many kids are there for full day.  Grades 6-12 are hybrid. They have not seen any evidence of significant spread in the elementary schools.  In fact, it has been lower than the 6-12 schools (where there seems to be more cases from outside activities).  Basically what we've seen is that kids are getting it in the community, but the precautions in the schools are working.  I've been tracking our community rates since the fall and we have 2 neighboring districts that have been fully remote the entire time (not even a hybrid option).  The community rates have followed the exact same trend all year.  I think fear is keeping a lot of schools closed, but hopefully between teacher vaccinations and more data coming out, they will start to reopen. 

We are going to full day elementary starting April 5, so I guess we will see what happens.  I've been pleasantly surprised that I've seen almost no pushback on the move from half day to full day (from parents or teachers).  I watched the school committee meeting and was shocked that no one showed up for public participation on that topic.  That's a first!  I think the success we've had so far has really eased people's fears. 

[InBetweenDays]

Mar 17, 2021 9:16:10 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Mar 17, 2021 8:53:15 GMT -5 timorousbeastie said:

This is exactly what I was going to say. Also add in the number of parents (at least in my district) who think this is all a hoax and refuse to participate in testing their children in or out of school, so we just don’t know the true number of kids who have had COVID. I’m not by any means saying that schools definitely aren’t safe, but I’m not comfortable with the studies at this point to say schools definitely are safe, either. I just don’t think we can possibly have a clear picture either way at this point, given the flaws in the studies I’ve seen so far.

What are people’s thoughts about the definition of things being safe?
No positive cases? Less than 5% of those tested? Less than 10% of those tested? Etc.
It’d be helpful for people to define their definition of safe in order to make progress.
Can you link the studies you’re talking about with the flaws you’re talking about? There’s always so much coming out I know I miss a lot!

This is such an important question. H and I were having this exact conversation last night. So many of the posts I see on our local school facebook page act like any case of COVID in school is too much and we can't open until there is no risk of the kids getting it. But that's just not realistic. Unfortunately we have to define the metrics around what is an acceptable risk because COVID is likely going to be with us for a long time.

[sillygoosegirl]

Mar 17, 2021 9:45:54 GMT -5 laurack said:

Ok one shortcoming of the Covid pooled testing in MA is that it is voluntary and parents can opt out. So we aren’t getting the “full picture” however people in the general community who are getting tested are also likely to not be the kind of people who’d opt their kids out of free testing in school?

Therefore we can at least extrapolate that if incidence of positive result in pooled school testing in MA is approx 0.2% based on those who opt in to testing, and the incidence of positive result in the general population who are opting in for testing is 2.1%, the incidence of Covid in schools is lower than that in the general population.

But the people getting tested in the community are presumably mostly people with symptoms or known exposure or who work in high risk jobs that involve routine testing, vs pooled testing at schools is everyone who didn't opt out or a random sample of people who didn't opt out, right? So community testing at large is really not an appropriately matched control group.

[laurack]

Mar 17, 2021 10:01:36 GMT -5 sillygoosegirl said:

Mar 17, 2021 9:45:54 GMT -5 laurack said:

Ok one shortcoming of the Covid pooled testing in MA is that it is voluntary and parents can opt out. So we aren’t getting the “full picture” however people in the general community who are getting tested are also likely to not be the kind of people who’d opt their kids out of free testing in school?

Therefore we can at least extrapolate that if incidence of positive result in pooled school testing in MA is approx 0.2% based on those who opt in to testing, and the incidence of positive result in the general population who are opting in for testing is 2.1%, the incidence of Covid in schools is lower than that in the general population.

But the people getting tested in the community are presumably mostly people with symptoms or known exposure or who work in high risk jobs that involve routine testing, vs pooled testing at schools is everyone who didn't opt out or a random sample of people who didn't opt out, right? So community testing at large is really not an appropriately matched control group.

I think a large amount of people getting tested in the community are not those with symptoms. Doctors office ordered tests perhaps, but Massachusetts has a ton of “stop the spread” sites all over the state where they encourage asymptomatic residents to get tested for free. Most people I know go to those sites to either test before or after traveling out of state, or just because (I know several people who just get a test once a week because it’s free and easy)

Now it would be interesting to see the numbers split out between those ordered by doctors offices and those administered at the free testing locations. It’s quite possible that if split out, one group (doctor ordered due to symptoms) would be like 5% positive and the other like half a percent or so, similar to school levels.

[eddy]

Mar 17, 2021 9:54:44 GMT -5 melmaria said:

Mar 17, 2021 8:45:45 GMT -5 eddy said:

I had kind of a mental breakdown about this last night and I relate so hard.

We’ve been so relatively lucky and fortunate throughout this pandemic (didn’t lose our jobs, everyone’s healthy)...but winter here is brutal, and I don’t feel like we have any safe indoor options for DD who isn’t even 2 yet. I want to take my DD to the children’s museum, to her cousin’s house, to a library...fucking anything. She can’t keep a mask on, so I don’t.

It had been pretty warm/nice for over a week...and then it snowed 5 inches on Monday. Which is a totally normal thing for mid-March here, but I just can’t take it this year. And in terms of outdoor activities, even if it were nice, I really don’t want to go to the same three damn parks by our house anymore.

I personally think I will let down my guard a lot more by summer when I am vaccinated (and when all/most adults have had a chance to be), even before kids are vaccinated, because I just can’t do this anymore.

H and I are in the middle of our  2 shot sequence. If cases keep falling we are absolutely going to start opening up. There is also a bitterness of putting in the time when others have not. I am tired of it. The only motivation I have right now is keeping the boys virus free so they don't potentially infect their classmates. Otherwise I am very close to throwing in the towel.  Hang in there. We are really close.

[laurack]

Honestly though, beyond putting q tips into noses without parental consent, if 0.2% positivity isn’t enough to satisfy someone that schools aren’t a significant source of spread I guess I can’t really say anything else that could be convincing to someone with that low of a risk tolerance.

[tacom]

Mar 17, 2021 9:16:10 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Mar 17, 2021 8:53:15 GMT -5 timorousbeastie said:

This is exactly what I was going to say. Also add in the number of parents (at least in my district) who think this is all a hoax and refuse to participate in testing their children in or out of school, so we just don’t know the true number of kids who have had COVID. I’m not by any means saying that schools definitely aren’t safe, but I’m not comfortable with the studies at this point to say schools definitely are safe, either. I just don’t think we can possibly have a clear picture either way at this point, given the flaws in the studies I’ve seen so far.

What are people’s thoughts about the definition of things being safe?
No positive cases? Less than 5% of those tested? Less than 10% of those tested? Etc.
It’d be helpful for people to define their definition of safe in order to make progress.
Can you link the studies you’re talking about with the flaws you’re talking about? There’s always so much coming out I know I miss a lot!

The CDC has guidelines, but I don't see people reference them often

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/operation-strategy.html

"Low Transmission" (blue) allows for 0-9 new cases per 100k people in 7 days. Test positivity <5%. Our county is now at 6.8 cases per 100k and 2.7% positive, and my city is even lower.

The CDC's threshold is what we used to decide to allow my son (2.5 years, low risk) to start a group outdoor masked sport where distancing is encouraged but likely won't happen reliably - now that the high risk person in our house (me) is fully vaccinated. He starts this weekend and will continue once weekly until our situation changes. We will have to recalibrate when his brother is born, since we will again have a high risk unvaccinated person in our household. 

We aren't re-enrolling in a school program since this window we have is too narrow, but I'd feel fine with him in a school program based on the CDC's guidance.

[orval]

tacom, I saw on the news yesterday that woman that had been vaccinated in FL gave birth and her baby had antibodies. So maybe yours will too when he is born. I think they said that is the first documented case like this.

[tacom]

Mar 17, 2021 10:42:51 GMT -5 orval said:

tacom , I saw on the news yesterday that woman that had been vaccinated in FL gave birth and her baby had antibodies. So maybe yours will too when he is born. I think they said that is the first documented case like this.

Thanks for sharing! I've seen a few reports of this, even for partially vaccinated pregnant women. my OB and GI are optimistic that maternal vaccination will help provide some protection to the baby (especially since I self tested + for antibodies) - my pediatrician still seems very cautious because of his exposure to infliximab. So I'm cautiously optimistic but will proceed carefully, especially those first few months. (my meds should be all out of his system by around 6 mo of age.)

[wanderingback]

Mar 17, 2021 10:39:28 GMT -5 tacom said:

Mar 17, 2021 9:16:10 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

What are people’s thoughts about the definition of things being safe?
No positive cases? Less than 5% of those tested? Less than 10% of those tested? Etc.
It’d be helpful for people to define their definition of safe in order to make progress.
Can you link the studies you’re talking about with the flaws you’re talking about? There’s always so much coming out I know I miss a lot!

The CDC has guidelines, but I don't see people reference them often

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/operation-strategy.html

"Low Transmission" (blue) allows for 0-9 new cases per 100k people in 7 days. Test positivity <5%. Our county is now at 6.8 cases per 100k and 2.7% positive, and my city is even lower.

The CDC's threshold is what we used to decide to allow my son (2.5 years, low risk) to start a group outdoor masked sport where distancing is encouraged but likely won't happen reliably - now that the high risk person in our house (me) is fully vaccinated. He starts this weekend and will continue once weekly until our situation changes. We will have to recalibrate when his brother is born, since we will again have a high risk unvaccinated person in our household. 

We aren't re-enrolling in a school program since this window we have is too narrow, but I'd feel fine with him in a school program based on the CDC's guidance.

Yep, I definitely know what public health experts are saying/recommending but wondering what people’s actual real-time definition of safe is. Public health experts also often use extrapolated data to come up with recommendations but I think people are finding faults in that as well. So I think it’s important for people to define what they mean when they say something is or isn’t safe because if not we’ll be chasing different goal posts and talking over each other.

[waverly]

I think this is the point. There is nothing with Covid that is 100% safe. There ARE risks with schools being open. This risk varies depending on the mitigations methods that a school is doing. Most school districts have been doing well with their mitigations methods. Not all have though.

If parents are not comfortable or school districts are not doing well, then there is the option for the child to continue to e-learn. For school districts that haven't tried to open, though they are taking away that choice.

I'll link the above link again www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/operation-strategy.html. Many times the risk is at acceptable levels. If there is a spike in cases in a location, then schools might close. It is not an either or choice. If you can be open when cases look well, then open because now is your window of opportunity. If you are seeing a problem in schools, then close that school.

ETA- yes, if we are all talking different metrics then that is a problem.  If you want zero cases in your school, then e-learning might be for you.  If you are OK with 5 cases a month or something, and your school is hitting that metric, then in person school might be OK for you.  

[Pilsy]

noodleoo , did you see this? I'm sure it'll be a ridiculous struggle to get an appointment, but at least we can try soon (4/19)! 

www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2021/03/17/baker-massachusetts-full-vaccine-timeline-rollout

[krystee]

Pretty much everyone we know is taking a trip in March or April, and I am so jealous.

I am also worried that they’re going to ruin the good thing we have going at school. We went back hybrid the day after MLK day and full time five days in February, and the school had had zero covid cases and zero quarantines. It’s crazy because we had like 10 cases in the three weeks we were at school in October (but no spread).

[formerlyak]

Mar 17, 2021 9:16:10 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Mar 17, 2021 8:53:15 GMT -5 timorousbeastie said:

What are people’s thoughts about the definition of things being safe?
No positive cases? Less than 5% of those tested? Less than 10% of those tested? Etc.
It’d be helpful for people to define their definition of safe in order to make progress.
Can you link the studies you’re talking about with the flaws you’re talking about? There’s always so much coming out I know I miss a lot!

Right now, LA County has a 7 day average case rate of 5/100,000 and a 2% positivity rate. That's about as "safe" as we have been since testing started. And the daily numbers are still trending down per the daily report the LA County Dept of PH puts out. Yesterday, for example, there were only 314 total new cases in all of LA County. We had a big uptick in vaccines this week as well, and our vaccine equity is getting better each week. Could numbers be better? Of course. But until vaccines are available to everyone (including teens and kids), I feel pretty safe with those numbers plus choosing mostly outdoor activities and wearing masks. 

I may have cried tears of joy when we got the email that my teen gets to go to high school orientation in person next week and starts classes in person two mornings a week in mid-April (after Spring Break).

[noodleoo]

Mar 17, 2021 11:57:59 GMT -5 Pilsy said:

noodleoo , did you see this? I'm sure it'll be a ridiculous struggle to get an appointment, but at least we can try soon (4/19)! 

www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2021/03/17/baker-massachusetts-full-vaccine-timeline-rollout

YES I DID!  I'm so freaking excited!  Agreed that being eligible and actually getting an appt are very different things, but I feel like my hope to get a shot by my birthday in May might actually be attainable!  It is much easier to be patient for another month than having no idea when.  I was afraid it would be June or later...  Hooray!

I've been tracking MA on the NYT vaccine rollout page and it is so encouraging.  We're at 26% of population with 1 dose and it has been creeping up steadily.  As much as I complain, we really are making great progress.

I wonder how the preregistration system will work.  I signed up, but i know it is only for the mass vax sites.  I'd really rather go to a nearby CVS than drive an hour to Gillette.  But if they send me an appt, I'll take it!

[timorousbeastie]

Mar 17, 2021 9:16:10 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

What are people’s thoughts about the definition of things being safe?
No positive cases? Less than 5% of those tested? Less than 10% of those tested? Etc.
It’d be helpful for people to define their definition of safe in order to make progress.
Can you link the studies you’re talking about with the flaws you’re talking about? There’s always so much coming out I know I miss a lot!

I will freely admit that the definition of safe is one that I have a hard time with. Given my lung damage, we have done everything we can to keep our household risk as close to 0 as possible this past year - virtual school for DD, no going into stores/restaurants, outdoor visits with only a handful of people who were also taking things seriously, etc. Now that H and I are vaccinated, we are starting the process of reevaluating what is safe, and I am having an admittedly hard time with that. I fully realize that 0% risk is not feasible, and I have never advocated that no kids should be in school at all. I honestly don’t know what level of risk we should be aiming for at a community level.

I’ll have to see if I can find the studies I was looking at again. I think part of my problem may be that I spent too much time in grad school being trained to poke holes in the methods and conclusions of other scientists’ work. I think I may need to just take a step back and trust the experts in the field, rather than having a knee jerk reaction of “but what about X, Y, and Z!”

[waverly]

timorousbeastie, I am struggling with part of that too. Not that poking holes in studies thing. But I am vaccinated, and my H will be fully vaccinated by mid April. The kids will hopefully be vaccinated in August/ September maybe.

There are so many decisions during this pandemic. And now we have more decisions to make in terms of how to we move forward slowly out of the pandemic while also being safe for ourselves, kids and community.

[InBetweenDays]

Mar 17, 2021 12:04:32 GMT -5 timorousbeastie said:

Mar 17, 2021 9:16:10 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

What are people’s thoughts about the definition of things being safe?
No positive cases? Less than 5% of those tested? Less than 10% of those tested? Etc.
It’d be helpful for people to define their definition of safe in order to make progress.
Can you link the studies you’re talking about with the flaws you’re talking about? There’s always so much coming out I know I miss a lot!

I will freely admit that the definition of safe is one that I have a hard time with. Given my lung damage, we have done everything we can to keep our household risk as close to 0 as possible this past year - virtual school for DD, no going into stores/restaurants, outdoor visits with only a handful of people who were also taking things seriously, etc. Now that H and I are vaccinated, we are starting the process of reevaluating what is safe, and I am having an admittedly hard time with that. I fully realize that 0% risk is not feasible, and I have never advocated that no kids should be in school at all. I honestly don’t know what level of risk we should be aiming for at a community level.

I’ll have to see if I can find the studies I was looking at again. I think part of my problem may be that I spent too much time in grad school being trained to poke holes in the methods and conclusions of other scientists’ work. I think I may need to just take a step back and trust the experts in the field, rather than having a knee jerk reaction of “but what about X, Y, and Z!”

It's so funny you say this because this is SO true for me. I am contracted to run a state program for approving proprietary devices. Companies submit their reports and I have to review and scrutinize them to determine whether or not they meet the criteria. I've realized (or H pointed out to me) that this has started to carry over to things outside of work - often times my go-to response is to scrutinize and look for flaws.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Mar 17, 2021 12:06:13 GMT -5 melmaria said:

Mar 17, 2021 11:57:59 GMT -5 Pilsy said:

noodleoo , did you see this? I'm sure it'll be a ridiculous struggle to get an appointment, but at least we can try soon (4/19)! 

www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2021/03/17/baker-massachusetts-full-vaccine-timeline-rollout

Every time I see another state speed up their timeline I get more pissed at my state dragging its feet. My H and I each have one underlying health condition (as defined by our state), but at our ages we currently need two. I’m so anxious.

I'm guessing we'll have an announcement in the next week-ish.

[Roc A Bee]

Mar 16, 2021 14:13:24 GMT -5 formerlyak said:

Mar 16, 2021 14:00:35 GMT -5 Roc A Bee said:

Where I am in CA, schools are just opening in a hybrid schedule. And those have been delayed by union negotiations.

My CA district has been open for K-6 hybrid. They are working with La County to get the 7-12 back now that we are in the red tier, but LA County has this one stable cohort thing which clearly causes issues in upper grades. Our district wants to get approval for three stable cohorts since numbers are now very low here so middle and high school kids would go to half their classes in person and the other half Online.

Meanwhile, on the elementary school FaceBook (I also have a first grader) parents who don’t have older kids are whining that out hybrid plan isn’t enough and the district needs to dedicate time to getting their babies back full time now. I just want to scream, “Can we please let them focus on getting the 7-12 kids on campus in some way first!!?!” These are white, UMC stay at home parents who are whining. No one who has trouble with the schedule because of work or other needs.

I’m in the Central Valley and close to red, but still in the purple tier. My 6th grader could go back in April but pick up being 11am is not doable with working parents, so he will stay virtual. My 8th grader probably would be able to go back in April once we are officially in the red, but again, half day is not doable for us. My bf teaches HS but only senior teachers are being brought back, and they are still figuring out what that will look like.

[formerlyak]

Mar 17, 2021 14:13:40 GMT -5 Roc A Bee said:

Mar 16, 2021 14:13:24 GMT -5 formerlyak said:

I’m in the Central Valley and close to red, but still in the purple tier. My 6th grader could go back in April but pick up being 11am is not doable with working parents, so he will stay virtual. My 8th grader probably would be able to go back in April once we are officially in the red, but again, half day is not doable for us. My bf teaches HS but only senior teachers are being brought back, and they are still figuring out what that will look like.

We found out yesterday that 7-12 will get to go back two mornings a week 7:55-12:35. They will go to three of their classes each of those mornings (only half the class goes at a time, so that's why they get two mornings). They don't eat lunch on campus. Luckily I can work from home most of the time, and my parents are close to us to help with pick up of the first grader when I can't. And the pick up/drop off times are staggered just enough that I should be able to do both for elementary and high school (though pick up will be cutting it close). Our high school is less than a mile from our house, so the teen can either bike or walk as well. But from the little I know about schools in the centra valley, there is a lot of bussing required in some areas, and it's not like here in LA where things are so close together, so even if busses aren't an option in your district, walking/biking likely isn't an option either. Sorry it's not easier for working parents.

[Roc A Bee]

Mar 17, 2021 14:42:23 GMT -5 formerlyak said:

Mar 17, 2021 14:13:40 GMT -5 Roc A Bee said:

I’m in the Central Valley and close to red, but still in the purple tier. My 6th grader could go back in April but pick up being 11am is not doable with working parents, so he will stay virtual. My 8th grader probably would be able to go back in April once we are officially in the red, but again, half day is not doable for us. My bf teaches HS but only senior teachers are being brought back, and they are still figuring out what that will look like.

We found out yesterday that 7-12 will get to go back two mornings a week 7:55-12:35. They will go to three of their classes each of those mornings (only half the class goes at a time, so that's why they get two mornings). They don't eat lunch on campus. Luckily I can work from home most of the time, and my parents are close to us to help with pick up of the first grader when I can't. And the pick up/drop off times are staggered just enough that I should be able to do both for elementary and high school (though pick up will be cutting it close). Our high school is less than a mile from our house, so the teen can either bike or walk as well. But from the little I know about schools in the centra valley, there is a lot of bussing required in some areas, and it's not like here in LA where things are so close together, so even if busses aren't an option in your district, walking/biking likely isn't an option either. Sorry it's not easier for working parents.

Thanks! The other problem is we have 50/50 custody and we live 30 mins from their school. In “normal times,” it is fine. But not during half day hybrid schedules. My 8th grader could walk to her mom’s house and wait for us to get her later on our days, but it just seems like a big hassle. They are both doing fine and don’t want to face to face so we will keep virtual. I’m hoping in August they can be at school most of the day 🤞🏼

[mouse]

Mar 17, 2021 9:16:10 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

What are people’s thoughts about the definition of things being safe?
No positive cases? Less than 5% of those tested? Less than 10% of those tested? Etc.
It’d be helpful for people to define their definition of safe in order to make progress.
Can you link the studies you’re talking about with the flaws you’re talking about? There’s always so much coming out I know I miss a lot!

I accept that we won’t ever get to zero cases. Our best strategy seems to be gauging relative risk (outdoor walks = good, bar hopping = bad) and mitigation efforts. (Masking pays off, sanitizing surfaces maybe not).

To feel comfortable, I need to feel those have been seriously addressed for the young specifically. Not just in the context of vs the general population, but in the risks they are most likely to see what’s relatively safer and what mitigation efforts are being taken? Wrestling seems like a bad idea, could baseball with masks be okay? Would no extracurriculars be better? Ventilation in schools have been a problem for years - our district is addressing it over this summer. Does it still make sense to open this April? If there’s no meaningful difference in 3’ or 6’ distance - is it because 6’ isn’t far enough to help or is 3’ really sufficient? What happens when 3’ is combined with wriggly young bodies and imperfect mask wearing?

I’ve really appreciated the Swiss cheese analogy of mitigation efforts for adults. I want to see that with kids, in schools specifically. There might be good reasons to emphasize that the relative risks to young are already exceedingly low. But our society has shown with everything from global warming to gun violence that we’re willing to sacrifice our young, so emphasizing a small risk that we know will cause someone to lose everything, comes across as hand waving to me.

At this point, I plan on returning my kid to school in a few weeks. I was hoping that by this point I’d feel less like “there are no good choices” but a year later, I’m still there.

[neverfstop]

this is a really neat simulation of a typical classroom ventilation

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/26/science/reopen-schools-safety-ventilation.html

[fancynewbeesly]

Mar 18, 2021 5:38:22 GMT -5 neverfstop said:

this is a really neat simulation of a typical classroom ventilation

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/26/science/reopen-schools-safety-ventilation.html

The problem is so many of our classrooms don’t have windows. Or if they do...they don’t open.

[magpie]

Mar 18, 2021 7:13:03 GMT -5 fancynewbeesly said:

Mar 18, 2021 5:38:22 GMT -5 neverfstop said:

this is a really neat simulation of a typical classroom ventilation

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/26/science/reopen-schools-safety-ventilation.html

The problem is so many of our classrooms don’t have windows. Or if they do...they don’t open.

Our school windows open... But upon reopening in-person school we were told NOT to open them because of allergy and safety concerns. I noticed they the teacher with the smallest, stuffiest classroom put a screen in and opened it anyway.