Food for thought: COVID up, flu WAY down

[Phoenixmgs]

you keep gliding over this, weird

Why does opening school = no precautions? Schools are open in many places and everything is fine, you just do a Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V of whatever they're doing.

Determining the optimal strategy for reopening schools, the impact of test and trace interventions, and the risk of occurrence of a second COVID-19 epidemic wave in the UK: a modelling study

To prevent a second COVID-19 wave, relaxation of physical distancing, including reopening of schools, in the UK must be accompanied by large-scale, population-wide testing of symptomatic individuals and effective tracing of their contacts, followed by isolation of diagnosed individuals.

www.thelancet.com

Finding a path to reopen schools during the COVID-19 pandemic

As any parent knows, young children are extremely efficient at catching and passing on respiratory infections. This intuition is backed up by a raft of scientific evidence, which was greatly bolstered during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Many studies demonstrated the crucial role that...

www.thelancet.com

Those studies.

It's not a good idea for schools to be closed for so long. Nobody wants that to happen; researchers & healthcare practitioners readily say it would be best for them to be open. But if they are to open safely, then extensive precautions need to be in place-- significantly beyond what's currently in place in the UK and US.

Put the necessary precautions in place, and by all means, open up. But don't just ignore the former and do the latter.

1st Lancet article:

"we also simulated infectiousness of children and young adults aged younger than 20 years at 50% relative to older ages (20 years and older)"

We know that modeling isn't true now.

--

2nd Lancet article:

"Yet at the population level, the benefits of closing schools might outweigh the costs if children play a key role in transmission to others."

Children don't play a key role in transmission.

"Macartney and colleagues focused on the paediatric and adult population who had attended a school or early childhood education and care facility while infectious (defined as 24 h before symptom onset). 27 primary cases were identified (56% staff). 1448 close contacts were identified. Nearly half of these close contacts were tested virologically or serologically, yet only 18 secondary cases were identified. These very low rates of infection need to be interpreted with caution, because mitigation measures were in place: most educational facilities were closed briefly after case identification, and close contacts were expected to home quarantine for 14 days. Nevertheless, the result do align with findings from a similar study from Ireland, also done during the early part of the epidemic, in which six confirmed cases (three adults and three children) attended schools. No secondary cases were documented as arising from the paediatric cases."

"A notable exception to the general pattern of very low attack rates in school settings occurred during an outbreak centred in a high school in northern France.
Infection attack rates were high in students (aged 14–18 years) and staff (38% and 49%, respectively), and much lower among parents and siblings (11% and 10%, respectively) suggesting that infection was concentrated within the school environment. A follow-up study in local primary schools revealed much lower infection rates (6–12%) among staff, students and family members, and no convincing evidence of any secondary transmission within schools. The contrast between the infection rates in the secondary and primary schools might turn out to be important. Contact tracing from South Korea suggests that rates of COVID-19 among household contacts of cases was lowest when the index case was younger than age 10 years (three [5%] of 57) and highest when the index case was aged 10–19 years (43 [19%] of 231). If young children are less infectious than adults, then there must be an age when they start to become as infectious as older individuals. The French and Korean studies suggest that this might occur during adolescence, which could have major implications when schools, colleges, and universities return fully, as they must do soon."

So maybe high schools should be closed.

---

I don't much care about the kids with regards to covid. I care about the staff, and the staff's families, and all the other people the kids and staff might pass covid-19 onto, this in the context of a bunch of people who don't work in schools deciding teachers should be exposed to covid-19.

For much the same reason I couldn't give a monkeys if 20-year-olds want to swan around getting themselves infected, cocksure about their personal safety: what pisses me off to the nth degree is that they'll spread the plague to a ton of other people who might not get away with it so lightly.

The kids don't transmit it. The staff has to take precautions with themselves like any other job. If it's too dangerous for teachers to go to work, then it's too dangerous for basically anyone else to go to work.

 

[Agema]

The kids don't transmit it.

Yes, they do. It's just you neither research the topic adequately nor critically appraise what you read effectively.

This is the basis of the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

 

[Seanchaidh]

Why does opening school = no precautions? Schools are open in many places and everything is fine, you just do a Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V of whatever they're doing.

A lot of the precautions

wait for it

COST MONEY

 

[Silvanus]

1st Lancet article:

"we also simulated infectiousness of children and young adults aged younger than 20 years at 50% relative to older ages (20 years and older)"

We know that modeling isn't true now.

--

2nd Lancet article:

"Yet at the population level, the benefits of closing schools might outweigh the costs if children play a key role in transmission to others."

Children don't play a key role in transmission.

OK, it's extremely clear that you skimmed it for a little snippet that would ostensibly support your argument, without reading any further into it.

To address the first: no, we don't. Notice that the model age range is >20; so, including young adults and older adolescents. The Lancet specifically says there's an age at which the risk starts to catch up with the risk experienced by adults, and that there's a likelihood that it's during adolescence. You know, while kids are in secondary school.

To address the second: that line is from the preamble of that article, in order to frame and introduce the research it's discussing. It's not meant to just end with an unqualified "well, maybe, but there's no reason to think so!" You might notice that the article proceeds to state that if we are to reopen, then systems need to be "greatly improved", and that there's a risk attached. That's the conclusion.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Oh yeah, just completely revamp the ventilation and have much, much, much, much, much smaller class sizes. Easy! Any school can do this.

And if they can't, well, yes they deserve to die and I hope they burn in hell!

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes, they do. It's just you neither research the topic adequately nor critically appraise what you read effectively.

This is the basis of the saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

So Dr. Vinay Prasad that read 50-100 studies and talked with experts in the fields of school policy, impact of school on children's livelihoods, and people who study viral transmission has "a little knowledge"? You do realize, I did not personally come to this conclusion, I trust the experts that came to this conclusion. I did not read 50+ studies or interview these experts. What experts are saying that keeping schools closed is a good idea now? The CDC even says to open schools. We have tons of studies showing opening schools doesn't alter infection numbers because tons of schools are open across the world to, you know, study.

A lot of the precautions

wait for it

COST MONEY

What type of precautions do you think you need for schools to be open, everyone in hazmat suits with oxygen tanks? Testing every single kid and staff every day? It just takes a few common sense guidelines to keep transmissions down. Just look at Japan, they spent nothing basically on the pandemic and they didn't lockdown. They didn't smother the virus like Australia or New Zealand, they didn't have fancy testing and tracing system and infrastructure in place like South Korea, they got by with basic common sense guidelines. Oh, and their schools only closed for a very short period of time.

OK, it's extremely clear that you skimmed it for a little snippet that would ostensibly support your argument, without reading any further into it.

To address the first: no, we don't. Notice that the model age range is >20; so, including young adults and older adolescents. The Lancet specifically says there's an age at which the risk starts to catch up with the risk experienced by adults, and that there's a likelihood that it's during adolescence. You know, while kids are in secondary school.

To address the second: that line is from the preamble of that article, in order to frame and introduce the research it's discussing. It's not meant to just end with an unqualified "well, maybe, but there's no reason to think so!" You might notice that the article proceeds to state that if we are to reopen, then systems need to be "greatly improved", and that there's a risk attached. That's the conclusion.

They based their conclusion off modeling we know isn't true. Schools are open across the world that show community transmission doesn't change prove that modeling is wrong. We have real world data showing it isn't true. It's like when the weather modeling says it's gonna rain, but you literally walk outside and see that it isn't raining. Guess what? It's not raining outside.

Did you miss the 2 whole other paragraphs I quoted from the 2nd study and said that maybe it's not smart to open high schools?

Oh yeah, just completely revamp the ventilation and have much, much, much, much, much smaller class sizes. Easy! Any school can do this.

And if they can't, well, yes they deserve to die and I hope they burn in hell!

Who says we need muchx5 smaller classes? The Wisconsin study had 12% of the kids virtual and the rest in school. Kids don't transmit the virus, you don't need smaller class sizes because that makes no sense.

 

[Agema]

So Dr. Vinay Prasad that read 50-100 studies and talked with experts in the fields of school policy, impact of school on children's livelihoods, and people who study viral transmission has "a little knowledge"? You do realize, I did not personally come to this conclusion, I trust the experts that came to this conclusion. I did not read 50+ studies or interview these experts. What experts are saying that keeping schools closed is a good idea now? The CDC even says to open schools. We have tons of studies showing opening schools doesn't alter infection numbers because tons of schools are open across the world to, you know, study.

I don't have an objection to a measured decisions to re-open schools based on a well conducted risk assessment, and taking into account the educationa and social needs of children. I have a problem with comments like:

"The kids don't transmit it."
"studies show opening schools has no affect on covid spread "
" The science says kids don't spread the virus."

All these sorts of statements are objectively wrong even from the studies providing evidence supportive of re-opening schools. And that's without taking into account the studies that show there is a potential risk from open schools. Lower risk is not the same as no risk: the decisions to open or close the school must reasonably be made depending on the general level of community infection, and the capability of the school to ensure infection control measures amongst staff and pupils. This is in fact the official line: the CDC absolutely does recommend monitoring, and closing schools where the risk is deemed to be too high. And I have no idea what the real expertise of people like Vinay Prasad is: he appears to be an oncologist with a sideline in journalism.

 

[stroopwafel]

A memo between German government and infectious disease center was publicized(although heavily redacted) under the freedom of information act where authorities pressured scientists to cooperate in a scheme to deliberately fear monger the population into submission and make people ready for lockdowns. That is literally the request in an email correspondence between Seehofer and RKI.

That is some ammunition for conspiracy theorists lmao.

Interner E-Mail-Verkehr: Innenministerium spannte Wissenschaftler ein - WELT

Ein umfangreicher Schriftwechsel, der WELT AM SONNTAG vorliegt, zeigt: In der ersten Hochphase der Pandemie wirkte das Haus von Innenminister Horst Seehofer auf Forscher ein. Daraufhin lieferten sie Ergebnisse für ein dramatisches „Geheimpapier“ des Ministeriums.

www.welt.de

 

[dreng3]

A memo between German government and infectious disease center was publicized(although heavily redacted) under the freedom of information act where authorities pressured scientists to cooperate in a scheme to deliberately fear monger the population into submission and make people ready for lockdowns. That is literally the request in an email correspondence between Seehofer and RKI.

That is some ammunition for conspiracy theorists lmao.

Counter point, people are so goddamn stupid that you need to make it seem way more serious in order for them to care.

Not saying it is the right thing to do, but if you'd informed the morons that they'd litterally die if they didn't stay inside perhaps a few more would've stayed in.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Counter point, people are so goddamn stupid that you need to make it seem way more serious in order for them to care.

Not saying it is the right thing to do, but if you'd informed the morons that they'd litterally die if they didn't stay inside perhaps a few more would've stayed in.

Until it gets out. It might work for a bit, but once discovered you've been exaggerating things, it's safe to ignore you.

On the other hand, yeah, getting the point across is not an easy thing to do.

 

[Agema]

A memo between German government and infectious disease center was publicized(although heavily redacted) under the freedom of information act where authorities pressured scientists to cooperate in a scheme to deliberately fear monger the population into submission and make people ready for lockdowns. That is literally the request in an email correspondence between Seehofer and RKI.

The politicians were right to do so.

Scientists are there to provide objective evidence about reality. Politicians are there to turn evidence into practical policy application. And if there's one thing we all should have learnt from this sorry affair and as demonstrated in innumerable ongoing discussions, a huge proportion of the public are bunch of fucking idiots and / or self-absorbed wankers. They have no hope of turning facts into useful actions (if not perversely doing the opposite) and so need to be shepherded, corralled and coerced for the good of society.

That's nothing I say happily as a liberal, but honestly, liberalism is fucked if people cannot apply responsibility to their freedoms, and there's far too much of that narcissistic twattery going around at the moment: "Wah wah wah free speech wah I don't want to wear a mask wah wah election was stolen wah wah wah wah GIVE ME WHAT I WANT".

 

[Seanchaidh]

Japan got by with

basic common sense guidelines.

So, not a useful comparison to the United States. Got it.

Who says we need muchx5 smaller classes?

The size

of

classrooms.

Kids don't transmit the virus

Yes they fucking do.

 

[stroopwafel]

The politicians were right to do so.

Scientists are there to provide objective evidence about reality. Politicians are there to turn evidence into practical policy application. And if there's one thing we all should have learnt from this sorry affair and as demonstrated in innumerable ongoing discussions, a huge proportion of the public are bunch of fucking idiots and / or self-absorbed wankers. They have no hope of turning facts into useful actions (if not perversely doing the opposite) and so need to be shepherded, corralled and coerced for the good of society.

That's nothing I say happily as a liberal, but honestly, liberalism is fucked if people cannot apply responsibility to their freedoms, and there's far too much of that narcissistic twattery going around at the moment: "Wah wah wah free speech wah I don't want to wear a mask wah wah election was stolen wah wah wah wah GIVE ME WHAT I WANT".

How are they not shooting themselves in the foot if they have to pressure scientists into a scheme to make coronavirus look way worse than it actually is? Like pretending millions and millions of deaths and staging hospital scenarios? The scientific facts are no longer objective because the scientisis collaborated with the exaggeration and the government lost all of it's credibility by making false claims and deliberately misleading the public. The link to a fake democracy is easily made. I do wonder to what degree Merkel was involved or if it was just on initiative of Seehofer. Still it's somewhat unsettling RKI would lend itself to something like this.

But it's a lose/lose situation regardless. Both for science, government and the public at large.

 

[Agema]

How are they not shooting themselves in the foot if they have to pressure scientists into a scheme to make coronavirus look way worse than it actually is?

It is standard risk management for governments to demand models of reasoanble worst case scenarios in order for them to plan for what they may need to do to respond. The British government did the same over Brexit to see what extreme measures they may need to do to avert a potential crisis.

What exactly is the problem here?

 

[Silvanus]

A memo between German government and infectious disease center was publicized(although heavily redacted) under the freedom of information act where authorities pressured scientists to cooperate in a scheme to deliberately fear monger the population into submission and make people ready for lockdowns.

That's not what that says. The model wasn't intended for public distribution, so it obviously isn't created to "fear monger the public"; it was a worst-case scenario for the government to use to plan preventative measures. That's not the same thing at all, and is perfectly responsible for a government to do.

 

[stroopwafel]

It is standard risk management for governments to demand models of reasoanble worst case scenarios in order for them to plan for what they may need to do to respond. The British government did the same over Brexit to see what extreme measures they may need to do to avert a potential crisis.

What exactly is the problem here?

That's not what that says. The model wasn't intended for public distribution, so it obviously isn't created to "fear monger the public"; it was a worst-case scenario for the government to use to plan preventative measures. That's not the same thing at all, and is perfectly responsible for a government to do.

That's just not true. The interior ministry deliberately wanted to exaggerate the threat with the cooperation of scientists to scare people into submission so they would thank the government for lockdowns without further questions. Fear mongering was the entire purpose. It's not a 'model for worst case scenario' it's a tactic of psychological warfare. Now I won't argue about intent here but it's no surprise it feeds into sentiments that the government is dishonest about the severity of the threat.

 

[Avnger]

The interior ministry deliberately wanted to exaggerate the threat with the cooperation of scientists to scare people into submission so they would thank the government for lockdowns without further questions.

 

[stroopwafel]

It's in the article.

Im E-Mail-Wechsel bittet etwa der Staatssekretär im Innenministerium, Markus Kerber, die angeschriebenen Forscher, ein Modell zu erarbeiten, auf dessen Basis „Maßnahmen präventiver und repressiver Natur“ geplant werden könnten.

It's literally in their communication that the interior ministry devised a model to deliberately be of a repressive nature and to have scientists exaggerate the threat so the public is fear mongered into submission.

 

[Generals]

It's in the article.

Im E-Mail-Wechsel bittet etwa der Staatssekretär im Innenministerium, Markus Kerber, die angeschriebenen Forscher, ein Modell zu erarbeiten, auf dessen Basis „Maßnahmen präventiver und repressiver Natur“ geplant werden könnten.

It's literally in their communication that the interior ministry devised a model to deliberately be of a repressive nature and to have scientists exaggerate the threat so the public is fear mongered into submission.

Yes and no. They asked for a model based on which they could plan repressive and preventive measures. Sure they took the "worst case scenario" and they clearly did that to ensure the highest buy-in for the measures among the population. But, in the face of a still largely unknown pandemic isn't that the right thing to do? This was in March... We didn't know when we'd get a vaccine, didn't have enough data to be sure about how much it would mutate, didn't have a clear idea of its fatality rate, etc.... Best is to take the worst case scenario and prepare for that.

 

[tstorm823]

Counter point, people are so goddamn stupid that you need to make it seem way more serious in order for them to care.

No.

The politicians were right to do so.

And no.

Lying to people is not the answer. Lying to people is stupid and ridiculous. Lying to people is how you turn "please stop buying surgical masks, we need those at hospitals" into "no, you shouldn't be wearing masks, they're not important" and then deal with a year of fallout over that lie.