Cont: The all-new "US Politics and coronavirus" thread pt. 2

[acbytesla]

I don't see why people are deliberately cutting off her explanation in full. I mean, i understand why, I just don't see why people are aware but celebrating the misrepresentation..

If you disagree with the science she is referencing, perfectly reasonable to debate it though.

You aren't connecting all the dots. Yes, the COVID virus may not be very deadly for children. But that doesn't mean it isn't deadly for their teachers, their counselors, the janitors or the children's parents and other relatives.

Ninja'd by Babbylonian. Not to mention, his post is much better than mine.

 

[newyorkguy]

...If you disagree with the science she is referencing, perfectly reasonable to debate it though.

What science? No other country is considering reopening schools while the virus is still surging as it is in the U.S. Kayleigh McEnany said, "Everyone else in the Western world, our peer nations are doing it. We are the outlier here." The U.S. IS the outlier here, no doubt about that. The chart below is for March 1st through June 28th. If it was updated to July 15th the difference between the EU and the United States would be even more drastic.

 

[newyorkguy]

Here's U.S. trending after June 28th. It's almost doubled.

 

[rdwight]

Other countries are doing it because they, for the most part, have their Covid-19 problem under control or can at least see the light at the end of the tunnel. The United States is drowning in new infections and it's only getting worse.

Also, focusing on how the virus on average affects children (setting aside the callous disregard demonstrated by purposely putting children in a position to be infected with a virus that absolutely can kill them, even if it does so very rarely) ignores the secondary infections that will surely result from school infections. Teachers and other school employees will get sick, parents and other family members will get sick.

• Children, especially younger ones, will not properly socially distance themselves from their classmates if that's even possible.
• Children, especially younger ones, will not maintain good mask discipline.
• Asymptomatic (and some symptomatic, for that matter) children absolutely will infect other children.
• Even if the problem stopped only with infecting children (it won't), some of those children will end up hospitalized from the infection, and a few of those children will die.

It's a bad situation, no doubt, and I'm not happy about the expense of dealing with current school-aged children ending up spending an extra 6 months to a year in public schools (ameliorated somewhat by distance learning at home), but the answer to this issue isn't "**** it, we're opening the schools no matter what."

You aren't connecting all the dots. Yes, the COVID virus may not be very deadly for children. But that doesn't mean it isn't deadly for their teachers, their counselors, the janitors or the children's parents and other relatives.

Ninja'd by Babbylonian. Not to mention, his post is much better than mine.

What science? No other country is considering reopening schools while the virus is still surging as it is in the U.S. Kayleigh McEnany said, "Everyone else in the Western world, our peer nations are doing it. We are the outlier here." The U.S. IS the outlier here, no doubt about that. The chart below is for March 1st through June 28th. If it was updated to July 15th the difference between the EU and the United States would be even more drastic.

I feel like I didn't make my point clear. All of these are completely valid, and because you guys took the time to voice them I will give my view since I have less than a month to decide on my own children's school plans. But the main issue I have is with the characterization of what she said, and the obvious editing of length to put forward a snippet that doesn't reflect what was said. The fact it is being spread widely and prominently by even mainstream news sources is not a good look to me.


As for the science, I would say it is definitely not settled at all at this point, which is why most school districts are still dealing with getting a plan together on what they are going to do. Of the plans currently circulating, I don't see anything that make sense besides making people feel better that they are attempting something.

Limited class sizes, seating distances as much as possible, split in school and at home learning switching on and off between weeks, masks for students all day, deep cleaning classrooms every few days. None of this seems more than a small minimization of risk.

But we do have to admit that two working parent families/singe parent families exist, and are by no means rare. Instead of school, children will be put in less controlled day cares, or taken care of by grandparents, increasing their exposure.

Closing schools will cause undue hardship on the poorest segments of people. It does seem like there is a level of opposition from those like myself who have the ability to deal with this without major disruptions normal life that lacks any nuance to others situations. Saving lives is a wonderful goal but I haven't seen any science coming out that puts forward the risks of each situation and makes a glaringly obvious distinction. Given the disruption this will cause on top of every other covid related problem people have to deal with, I think a we need some very solid data showing a statistically significant reason to keep schools closed.

 

[Babbylonian]

Given the disruption this will cause on top of every other covid related problem people have to deal with, I think a we need some very solid data showing a statistically significant reason to keep schools closed.

This specific thing has to be proven with statistics? We know that the infection spreads between people in close proximity; even if class populations were cut in half we know that children in schools will be in close proximity (for up to 6 hours per day!). We know that temperature checks (a common "precaution" utilized currently by businesses) won't identify asymptomatic carriers and so there is no way to prevent these children from going to school. What more information do you need? A couple pilot programs so we can see how many more dead people result from sending kids back to school?

We're in the situation we're in now because we haven't had the will to do what was necessary to stem the tide of this illness. We never had a chance since our government leaders completely failed us by treating this as a political issue rather than a science issue.

We're already screwed unless/until there's an effective vaccine and a comprehensive inoculation program. I don't see why we should screw ourselves worse and give our children the responsibility of being the next epicenter of sickness and death.

 

[Meadmaker]

I feel like I didn't make my point clear. All of these are completely valid, and because you guys took the time to voice them I will give my view since I have less than a month to decide on my own children's school plans. But the main issue I have is with the characterization of what she said, and the obvious editing of length to put forward a snippet that doesn't reflect what was said. The fact it is being spread widely and prominently by even mainstream news sources is not a good look to me.


As for the science, I would say it is definitely not settled at all at this point, which is why most school districts are still dealing with getting a plan together on what they are going to do. Of the plans currently circulating, I don't see anything that make sense besides making people feel better that they are attempting something.

Limited class sizes, seating distances as much as possible, split in school and at home learning switching on and off between weeks, masks for students all day, deep cleaning classrooms every few days. None of this seems more than a small minimization of risk.

But we do have to admit that two working parent families/singe parent families exist, and are by no means rare. Instead of school, children will be put in less controlled day cares, or taken care of by grandparents, increasing their exposure.

Closing schools will cause undue hardship on the poorest segments of people. It does seem like there is a level of opposition from those like myself who have the ability to deal with this without major disruptions normal life that lacks any nuance to others situations. Saving lives is a wonderful goal but I haven't seen any science coming out that puts forward the risks of each situation and makes a glaringly obvious distinction. Given the disruption this will cause on top of every other covid related problem people have to deal with, I think a we need some very solid data showing a statistically significant reason to keep schools closed.

That last part ought to be the kind of thing that hardly needs to be said. Alas, in Donald Trump's America, science isn't the number one reason for doing anything. And it's not completely Donald Trump and his friends that are guilty of that. Plenty of people pick and choose science that they think makes Trump look bad. However, the Trump administration sets the tone. "A fish rots from the head."*

In a decent world, not even a perfect one, the words of a Presidential Press Secretary wouldn't be a big story. Instead, the task force, or a subgroup within the task force, would gather real data, analyze it, and publish it. There would be a "conclusions and recommendations" section, which would include guidance about schools opening, and for people who are skeptical of those conclusions, and willing and able to think through a statistical and data based argument, there would be enough data to see how those conclusions were arrived at.

At that point, there still could be disputes. There really is a tradeoff between number of people who die and the degredation of quality of life due to trying to minimize the number of deaths. In other words, if we kept schools shut down to save 100 lives, I would say it's not worth it. If we kept schools shut down to save 100,000 lives, you would have to work hard to convince me that opening them was a good idea.

Unfortunately, in the real America we live in, the administration wants a particular outcome, and they will declare that outcome is what will happen, science be damned.

As for "the science" that the Press Secretary referred to today, here it is:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2766037

I think the conclusion she drew from the paper is a bit premature. Her comparison between flu and COVID-19 It was based on number of pediatric deaths from Covid-19 versus the flue between Jan 1, 2020 and April 28, 2020. Before making a decision about what to do in September of 2020, I think a refresher on the data, and a bit deeper analysis, is in order.

****************
*I picked up that saying from Michael Dukakis. George H. W. Bush made much of that line, expressing outrage that someone would compare the President of the United States to a rotting fish. Today, I think the outrage would come from the fish.

 

[slyjoe]

That last part ought to be the kind of thing that hardly needs to be said. Alas, in Donald Trump's America, science isn't the number one reason for doing anything. And it's not completely Donald Trump and his friends that are guilty of that. Plenty of people pick and choose science that they think makes Trump look bad. However, the Trump administration sets the tone. "A fish rots from the head."*

In a decent world, not even a perfect one, the words of a Presidential Press Secretary wouldn't be a big story. Instead, the task force, or a subgroup within the task force, would gather real data, analyze it, and publish it. There would be a "conclusions and recommendations" section, which would include guidance about schools opening, and for people who are skeptical of those conclusions, and willing and able to think through a statistical and data based argument, there would be enough data to see how those conclusions were arrived at.

At that point, there still could be disputes. There really is a tradeoff between number of people who die and the degredation of quality of life due to trying to minimize the number of deaths. In other words, if we kept schools shut down to save 100 lives, I would say it's not worth it. If we kept schools shut down to save 100,000 lives, you would have to work hard to convince me that opening them was a good idea.

Unfortunately, in the real America we live in, the administration wants a particular outcome, and they will declare that outcome is what will happen, science be damned.

As for "the science" that the Press Secretary referred to today, here it is:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2766037

I think the conclusion she drew from the paper is a bit premature. Her comparison between flu and COVID-19 It was based on number of pediatric deaths from Covid-19 versus the flue between Jan 1, 2020 and April 28, 2020. Before making a decision about what to do in September of 2020, I think a refresher on the data, and a bit deeper analysis, is in order.

****************
*I picked up that saying from Michael Dukakis. George H. W. Bush made much of that line, expressing outrage that someone would compare the President of the United States to a rotting fish. Today, I think the outrage would come from the fish.

That link you provided deals with PICUs - why do you think that is what she was referring to?

 

[Meadmaker]

That link you provided deals with PICUs - why do you think that is what she was referring to?

Because it was a JAMA study of pediatric ICUs in 46 hospitals, and compared death counts between Covid and the flu, exactly as McEnany said.

 

[rdwight]

This specific thing has to be proven with statistics? We know that the infection spreads between people in close proximity; even if class populations were cut in half we know that children in schools will be in close proximity (for up to 6 hours per day!). We know that temperature checks (a common "precaution" utilized currently by businesses) won't identify asymptomatic carriers and so there is no way to prevent these children from going to school. What more information do you need? A couple pilot programs so we can see how many more dead people result from sending kids back to school?

Is that a serious question on a skeptics forum? Yes, we need data. Because it's not as simple as "we'll just keep schools closed and that'll fix things.. for now.. maybe."

Where do you think all these kids go when they don't go to school? Does everyone have a budget for day care if they work? Do they all have dependable child care to fall back on? Can one parent or the other leave their job to homeschool? It's easy to say we'll just not send them to that place, and completely overlook that they are going to go someplace else. And there will be a cost, to parents, that a certain percentage won't be able to meet.

Which can put kids in riskier situations. And their families. That doesn't even get into any of the many problems that can arise in regards to socialization, special needs and occupational therapy offered in school but not always possible with virtual learning etc. You're being simplistic in your answer because you want to avoid the myriad of other issues, or you don't know about them.

We're in the situation we're in now because we haven't had the will to do what was necessary to stem the tide of this illness. We never had a chance since our government leaders completely failed us by treating this as a political issue rather than a science issue.

We're already screwed unless/until there's an effective vaccine and a comprehensive inoculation program. I don't see why we should screw ourselves worse and give our children the responsibility of being the next epicenter of sickness and death.

So we cannot take studies from other countries like Sweden that kept their schools open and get an idea of the risk? Compare it to other nordic countries that closed schools and see what differences we find, whether between child cases or teachers, whether they were important in the spread to the community etc.

We can't look at Israel and see how large of a spread was caused by opening schools compared to the rest of the economy? Disagreeing with the path that was taken is fine, but acting as if your intuition on this is somehow correct when I don't see some general consensus in the scientific community about school openings and closings.

And that is just based on the science of spread and risk. Not the totality of everything involved beyond that. If you have some specific studies you want to reference they show me to be ignorant, please post it. I am not at all set on any one direction we should go, mainly because there are still so many things that we don't know.

 

[Minoosh]

According to the LA Times there's a good chance that children will not prove to be significant spreaders of the virus:

Will children spread COVID-19 If they go back to school?

That doesn't mean schools aren't good places for teachers to catch it from other adults.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I strongly suspect that she meant, "There is nothing in the scientific studies which should stand in the way of reopening schools." i.e. the science says it's safe enough to open schools.

What came out was more like, "We don't care what the science says. We want to open up regardless."

The second version, while it probably isn't what she meant to say, is probably a more accurate statement of White House policy.

The way the GOP takes words out of context, serves them right to get a taste of their own medicine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You aren't connecting all the dots. Yes, the COVID virus may not be very deadly for children. But that doesn't mean it isn't deadly for their teachers, their counselors, the janitors or the children's parents and other relatives.

Ninja'd by Babbylonian. Not to mention, his post is much better than mine.

It also doesn't mean kids are at zero risk. This is a nasty virus and Trump's fantasy that it's not an issue for 99% of the population, that he can just open the economy up before Nov, sucks big time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because it was a JAMA study of pediatric ICUs in 46 hospitals, and compared death counts between Covid and the flu, exactly as McEnany said.

There are more things to consider than just the number of deaths. Not to mention that study is about

46 North American PICUs, between March 14 and April 3, 2020, 48 children were admitted to 14 PICUs in the US and none in Canada.

That's completely inadequate of a study population and time frame.

 

[Stacyhs]

If you thought that the wackos in Palm Beach County, Florida were a lot of fun, check out this mask meeting in Utah. [nbc news] It had to be cancelled due to the room being "packed with unmasked people" and boy did they bring the crazy.

“We are perpetuating a lie,” one woman who said she has five grandchildren said. “COVID is a hoax. It’s a lie. It’s a political stunt," The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

A mother suggested that masks cut down on a person’s oxygen, and a father said COVID-19 is no different than the flu, according to the Tribune.

Another parent of two children, ages 10 and 3, said she is concerned that wearing a mask would teach her older child to fear the world and that both of her kids would not learn proper socialization if their faces were covered, the Tribune reported.

“It’s going to rewire their brains,” the mother said. “I’m especially not going to send my son back to have his mind broken.”

You can't fix stupid. And these people are just plain
stupid.

 

[smartcooky]

It also doesn't mean kids are at zero risk. This is a nasty virus and Trump's fantasy that it's not an issue for 99% of the population, that he can just open the economy up before Nov, sucks big time.

Of course, Trump's fantasy also doesn't address the fact that kids can get the virus, and not seem very sick, if at all, but are totally capable of passing it on to others.

 

[Aridas]

Oh dear.

And... things are not going well from the HHS side, by the looks of it.

As the Idaho Statesman reports, the switchover had an immediate effect on the ability of state officials to see what was going on in their own states, with the spokesperson for the Idaho Department of Health reporting “significant challenges” in their ability to monitor the number of hospitalizations. With the way information is now being routed, it’s not being congregated at the state level, or available on the public website of the CDC. It’s all going into HHS, directly from individual hospitals, and what comes out the other side is only what the White House chooses to make available.

Elsewhere, this isn't just US Politics, but...

U.K. intelligence reports Russian hackers are infiltrating companies developing COVID-19 vaccines

 

[alfaniner]

It also doesn't mean kids are at zero risk. This is a nasty virus and Trump's fantasy that it's not an issue for 99% of the population, that he can just open the economy up before Nov, sucks big time.

Perhaps it's a long-game strategy. Perhaps, sometime in early autumn, The PDJT will change his tune and start promoting mask-wearing with a vengeance, resulting in a marked reduction in transmission rates and all related data. He takes the credit, and actually gets some. This puts him over the top and gets him reelected. (Never mind all those people that could have been saved earlier.)

 

[The Don]

Perhaps it's a long-game strategy.

I see no evidence of this kind of strategic thinking from the Trump Administration or the Trump Campaign. They seem to move tactically from one dumpster fire to the next.

I could see them do something, in a panic, in October, but not having planned it this far in advance.

Perhaps, sometime in early autumn, The PDJT will change his tune and start promoting mask-wearing with a vengeance, resulting in a marked reduction in transmission rates and all related data. He takes the credit, and actually gets some. This puts him over the top and gets him reelected. (Never mind all those people that could have been saved earlier.)

An easier way is to do what they've already done, take charge of the statistics. That way they can change the numbers without having to actually do anything to address the underlying issues.

I can foresee a drop in the number of reported cases as testing is largely abandoned and/or the definition of what constitutes a Covid-19 case is narrowed significantly and a corresponding reduction in the death toll (but there still being a huge number of "excess deaths" among people who haven't officially died of Covid-19)

That, and the grand announcement of a vaccine/cure in October may be enough to convince enough people that President Trump has conquered Covid-19 and reelect him

 

[newyorkguy]

"We'll just keep schools closed and that'll fix things."

My understanding is, no one is really saying that. Even trump isn't claiming that. Instead, he has complained the CDC guidelines are "very tough [and] expensive." From CNN:

The CDC has three different sets of recommendations in its guidelines for administrators: for communities where there's no virus spread, for those where there is minimal to moderate transmission, and for those where there is "substantial" spread. Link

The charge is made -- without evidence -- that American public health officials ignore what is working in other countries. I doubt that's true. In New York State the governor has said specifically that New York health officials are consulting with health officials in other countries.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

An easier way is to do what they've already done, take charge of the statistics. That way they can change the numbers without having to actually do anything to address the underlying issues.

...snip..

It really gets to heart of one of the major problems with our current popular politicians: It is the "numbers" that are the problem, so it is the numbers that need to be fixed. They are divorced from the numbers having any meaning beyond how it impacts them.