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

Status
Not open for further replies.
To expand on the last point:
This isn’t going to last. In every single board meeting, planning meeting, and staff meeting I’ve attended in multiple districts this July, the administration concedes that we will end up having to default to remote at some point. When asked questions about how we will deal with open windows and outdoor space in the winter, administrators will literally admit that they don’t want to cross that bridge yet because there’s a good chance that we won’t make it that long. I hear a lot of parents saying that they “get to choose which option to do” or “are going to be in person for the full year”. No one — not your administrator, not your school board, not your teachers — knows that or can promise it. Hell, they don’t even believe it. The truth is that you will likely end up remote at some point, regardless of whatever snake oil you’re being sold in parent emails.
Click to expand...
 
uke2se said:
Think about it a bit further. Especially in terms of the spread of an infectious disease.
Click to expand...
Deaths in young people (from babies to college students) are almost non-existent. The first age group to provide a substantial contribution to the death toll is 45-54 years, who contribute nearly 5% of all coronavirus deaths. More than 80% of deaths occur in people aged 65 and over. That increases to over 92% if the 55-64 age group is included.
It’s saying I can’t post links until I have had 15 posts
 
Gavin said:
Deaths in young people (from babies to college students) are almost non-existent. The first age group to provide a substantial contribution to the death toll is 45-54 years, who contribute nearly 5% of all coronavirus deaths. More than 80% of deaths occur in people aged 65 and over. That increases to over 92% if the 55-64 age group is included.
It’s saying I can’t post links until I have had 15 posts
Click to expand...

And? Think a bit more.

Do kids have parents? Are many of those parents in the vulnerable age groups?

You do realise that mortality is only the tip of the iceberg? About 10% of those infected have at least medium term severe health impacts.

https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-long-term
 
uke2se said:
Parents, grandparents etc.

Not to mention that school also requires teachers.
Click to expand...


... and assistants, admin staff, nurses*, food service workers**, bus drivers***, etc.

*even more so, if students' temperatures are being checked every day, and minor coughs an sniffles are being acted upon and documented

**even more so, if students are not congregating in the cafteteria but eating at their classroom desks instead, and not bringing in packed meals

***even more so, if seating on buses is being staggered for distancing purposes
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Testing allows you to spot those you have to isolate or treat, and how many people have antibodies. It's not just a statistic.
Click to expand...

Isolating people who test positive gains you very little. People don’t get tested on their own unless they have symptoms, which means they have already been spreading the virus for a while.

You contain the virus is by tracking down everyone that person has come into contact with and isolate them before they become infectious themselves. Without the contact tracing all testing really does is track the progress of the virus, it doesn't stop it.
 
lomiller said:
Isolating people who test positive gains you very little. People don’t get tested on their own unless they have symptoms, which means they have already been spreading the virus for a while.

You contain the virus is by tracking down everyone that person has come into contact with and isolate them before they become infectious themselves. Without the contact tracing all testing really does is track the progress of the virus, it doesn't stop it.
Click to expand...

Isolating those who have it is not worth nothing. They can't infect more people than they already have, and contact tracking can be done either way.

I don't see what your point is.
 
Gavin said:
Deaths in young people (from babies to college students) are almost non-existent.
Click to expand...

I still await source for your silly "1 in milion chance" nonsense. And no, small count of posts is no excuse, you can give webaddress (for example using spaces around dots) without triggering forum software.

And you are still ignoring consequences of kids running around unchecked.
 
We are learning through this pandemic that there are consequences that come short of death. There is a real concern about lingering cardiovascular and respiratory damage done by those that get sick and recover.

Saying we should send kids to school cause they won't die when they invariably catch covid is absurd. Eliding that this would undoubtedly place their teachers and other adult staff in extreme risk is ghoulish, and hand-waving away the suffering this would inflict on people who get sick and survive is obscenely cruel.
 
What do you all reckon Trump's motive for sending school children back to school to be in the first place? Aiding the economy, since faculty, janitors, and security staff get paid? Sacrificing children to aid the illusion that things are improving? Triggering the libs?
 
Safe-Keeper said:
What do you all reckon Trump's motive for sending school children back to school to be in the first place? Aiding the economy, since faculty, janitors, and security staff get paid? Sacrificing children to aid the illusion that things are improving? Triggering the libs?
Click to expand...

IMO the reasons, in no particular order are:

  • He thinks it will improve his chances of reelection
  • He has to do something, this is something so this will be done
  • It gives the impression that things are improving - indeed they are back to normal
  • If some Democratic governors make a decision not to force schools to open then he can claim that they are using Coronavirus for political gain
  • If the students are back in school, there's no childcare reason for their parents not to go back to work
 
Safe-Keeper said:
What do you all reckon Trump's motive for sending school children back to school to be in the first place? Aiding the economy, since faculty, janitors, and security staff get paid? Sacrificing children to aid the illusion that things are improving? Triggering the libs?
Click to expand...


My thought was, somebody showed him a chart or cartoon stating that education is a high priority among swing voter parents. He didn't stay for the part explaining that the reason education is a high priority for them is they want schools to be better, not because they like students being marched into classrooms regardless of quality or circumstances.
 
Our local school district decided to start online and stay that way at least through the end of the first marking period. They looked at the required social distancing, quarantine for symptoms, and cleanliness measures that were required and they decided it would be simply impossible to actually open up the schools and maintain staffing. Absennteeism among teachers would be too high as they not only had to stay out if they were sick, they had to stay out if they were exposed to someone who was sick so they thought they might become sick.
 
Trump said this morning that kids are "practically immune" to the virus. Which is, of course, complete ********. They aren't immune, they just don't get as sick.
 
Trebuchet said:
Trump said this morning that kids are "practically immune" to the virus. Which is, of course, complete ********. They aren't immune, they just don't get as sick.
Click to expand...

I could respect, "Based on what we know, we think it's worth the risk. Yes, some people, including a few kids, will die, but not many. Our estimates are (1 out of 100,000? 250,000? Certainly more than 1 in 1 million). Sadly, that's a risk we are willing to take to get life back to normal."

That's a tough pill to swallow, but if a politician wanted to say that, I could respect it.

What I can't respect is, "Ahhh, c'mon. Kids don't get this disease anyway."
 
Meadmaker said:
I could respect, "Based on what we know, we think it's worth the risk. Yes, some people, including a few kids, will die, but not many. Our estimates are (1 out of 100,000? 250,000? Certainly more than 1 in 1 million). Sadly, that's a risk we are willing to take to get life back to normal."

That's a tough pill to swallow, but if a politician wanted to say that, I could respect it.

What I can't respect is, "Ahhh, c'mon. Kids don't get this disease anyway."
Click to expand...

It is what it is.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
We are learning through this pandemic that there are consequences that come short of death. There is a real concern about lingering cardiovascular and respiratory damage done by those that get sick and recover.

Saying we should send kids to school cause they won't die when they invariably catch covid is absurd. Eliding that this would undoubtedly place their teachers and other adult staff in extreme risk is ghoulish, and hand-waving away the suffering this would inflict on people who get sick and survive is obscenely cruel.
Click to expand...

Yes, for example:

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2815

What does the evidence say?
Aside from anecdotal evidence, there is as yet little research on this issue. However, it is being actively discussed within the research community. Writing in JAMA, a team of researchers from Italy reported that nearly nine in 10 patients (87%) discharged from a Rome hospital after recovering from covid-19 were still experiencing at least one symptom 60 days after onset. They found that 13% of the 143 people were completely free of any symptoms, while 32% had one or two symptoms, and 55% had three or more.3 Although none of the patients had fever or any signs or symptoms of acute illness, many still reported fatigue (53%), dyspnoea (43%), joint pain (27%), and chest pain (22%). Two fifths of patients reported a worsened quality of life.

Meanwhile, the team behind the UK Covid-19 Symptom Study app, which collects symptom information from nearly four million users, says their data show that one in 10 people with covid-19 are sick for three weeks or more.4 The team said, “Most health sources suggest that people will recover within two weeks or so. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that this isn’t the case for everyone infected with coronavirus.” The app was developed by the health science company ZOE, and the data are being analysed in collaboration with researchers at King’s College London.
Click to expand...
 
Trebuchet said:
Trump said this morning that kids are "practically immune" to the virus. Which is, of course, complete ********. They aren't immune, they just don't get as sick.
Click to expand...

And in the Axios interview he made it clear he believes the virus is no more than a case of "sniffles" in most people.
 
Covid19-brownshirts.png
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And in the Axios interview he made it clear he believes the virus is no more than a case of "sniffles" in most people.
Click to expand...

I should ask my cousin in Kansas what her sniffles felt like. Oh wait, I can't, because she's dead.
She died on Easter Sunday, while Republicans in her state were demanding churches be allowed to have packed services.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom