|
Post by Bevo on Aug 19, 2020 15:17:56 GMT
It’s quite clearly true for the 0-18 year age group. I think it’s pretty obvious that it’s true up to at least 25 years old. Probably a bit higher. But, the reality is, the risk for those age groups is quite insignificant. 98+% of the people in those age groups that die, do so from something else. There is NO reason children shouldn’t be in school, or college. Faculty have to be in the classrooms. Why? Why not have them project remotely? They could have younger, TA's in the rooms, to make sure the students aren't making out, and to manage questions and such.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 19, 2020 15:50:02 GMT
A new, very interesting study: www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2671Basically says: - People don't catch COVID taking public transportation - People with severe cases are much more likely to transmit the disease to others. - People with no symptoms DON'T pass the virus to anyone. - Nearly all transmitted cases happen in homes.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Aug 19, 2020 16:32:40 GMT
Faculty have to be in the classrooms. Why? Why not have them project remotely? They could have younger, TA's in the rooms, to make sure the students aren't making out, and to manage questions and such. I guess they don't have to but parents are paying a lot of money for kids to be in class with faculty. If it's on line what's the point of being on campus and paying all the room and board fees? I'm pretty sure the kids want to be at school and living in dorms or apartments but when classes are on line a parent has to think, 'why pay money ($10-12K) for my kid to be on campus when everything is on-line?'
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 19, 2020 17:25:26 GMT
Why? Why not have them project remotely? They could have younger, TA's in the rooms, to make sure the students aren't making out, and to manage questions and such. I guess they don't have to but parents are paying a lot of money for kids to be in class with faculty. If it's on line what's the point of being on campus and paying all the room and board fees? I'm pretty sure the kids want to be at school and living in dorms or apartments but when classes are on line a parent has to think, 'why pay money ($10-12K) for my kid to be on campus when everything is on-line?' I would assume SOME professors could be there... any that are healthy and under 45. Plus, Grad students TA's can be there to help. If I were running a Uni, that's what I'd be trying.. KEEP THOSE KIDS THERE! In a month or two, it would all be over for them.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Aug 19, 2020 17:43:29 GMT
You should have seen some of the Zoom calls I was on over the summer with faculty and staff. Let's just say faculty are a rare breed. And another big problem is childcare for faculty and staff whose kids schools' are on-line, who stays home with them? I have 2 colleagues who have kids under 10 and they have to be remote because they depend on the kids being in school most of the day but they're home. And someone needs to be there for the home school Zoom calls.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 19, 2020 17:51:23 GMT
I’d be pissed if I was paying full price, especially room and board included(and all of the other forced on campus luxuries tacked on, I’m sure some of which aren’t available) for online only. If full prices are charged, this is the most universities having their cake and eating it too.
At that point the best bet might be a community college if you’re a freshman or sophomore, or trying to get an internship/co-op/other experience growing job, and just wait until you can attend college properly.
I know if I had to do online only, especially in the later years, I’d have struggled. Takes some strong discipline to do everything remotely.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 19, 2020 20:16:26 GMT
You should have seen some of the Zoom calls I was on over the summer with faculty and staff. Let's just say faculty are a rare breed. And another big problem is childcare for faculty and staff whose kids schools' are on-line, who stays home with them? I have 2 colleagues who have kids under 10 and they have to be remote because they depend on the kids being in school most of the day but they're home. And someone needs to be there for the home school Zoom calls. Yes.. Not having kids in school is a big problem for ALL businesses. We have the same issue where I work. All the more reason for kids to be back in school too... They're even LESS at risk than college aged kids.
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 20, 2020 2:12:35 GMT
A new, very interesting study: www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2671Basically says: - People don't catch COVID taking public transportation - People with severe cases are much more likely to transmit the disease to others. - People with no symptoms DON'T pass the virus to anyone. - Nearly all transmitted cases happen in homes. Nevermind that the study didn’t use the absolutes you did about public transportation and asymptotic carriers. But it seems like the mitigation protocols, which included mandatory masking in public, may have been effective during this study?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 20, 2020 11:40:46 GMT
A new, very interesting study: www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2671Basically says: - People don't catch COVID taking public transportation - People with severe cases are much more likely to transmit the disease to others. - People with no symptoms DON'T pass the virus to anyone. - Nearly all transmitted cases happen in homes. Nevermind that the study didn’t use the absolutes you did about public transportation and asymptotic carriers. But it seems like the mitigation protocols, which included mandatory masking in public, may have been effective during this study? I "qualified" all the absolutes when I started by saying, "Basically". That's what engineers do. We take abstract, highly detailed academic information and break it down into practical terms. Your interpretation is one possible way to interpret the data. Another way would be to say, what we SHOULD have done is... Strictly Quarantine and put mask on SICK people, not heathy people (as we've done with every other wide-spread virus) and we could have controlled this faster. Remember, in China, they didn't just put mask on everyone and stay home. They actively went into homes and removed sick people (with force) and took them to make-shift hospitals, where they survived or died on their own but didn't spread it to others. It was easy for them, since they could easily cover up the true number of deaths. They had people in apartments ratting on each other... "My neighbor is sick!" That worked REALLY well in China. But, I don't want to live in China. If THAT's what it takes to stop the spread, I prefer to let it run its course.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Aug 20, 2020 12:34:49 GMT
How does removing people from homes have anything to do with what I said? This study you liked basically said transmission in public is not a huge threat - especially compared to spread at home. And this study was done when social distancing and masks were enforced. Seems like social distancing and mask usage was a good strategy, this study showed that if we do that, the threat of spread is relatively low.
Removing people from their homes is a non-sequitur. We don't have to do that, and won't (at least not for having a virus). It seems like these mask mandates really generate fear that we are turning into authoritarian China.
Also, basically would mean to simplify. Saying the study said people without symptoms do NOT spread the virus is not a simplification, it is misrepresenting the study. It sounds good though, a Bevo fact.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Aug 20, 2020 13:34:51 GMT
I’d be pissed if I was paying full price, especially room and board included(and all of the other forced on campus luxuries tacked on, I’m sure some of which aren’t available) for online only. If full prices are charged, this is the most universities having their cake and eating it too. At that point the best bet might be a community college if you’re a freshman or sophomore, or trying to get an internship/co-op/other experience growing job, and just wait until you can attend college properly. I know if I had to do online only, especially in the later years, I’d have struggled. Takes some strong discipline to do everything remotely.Agree - I had one employee who tried it for 3-4 weeks and came right back to the office. Too many interrruptions at home.
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Aug 20, 2020 13:42:16 GMT
If you go out to the CDC it clearly indicates the impact on the young is minimal. You are simply providing an opinion of an assumption that it is foolish to assume opening classes will increase the death rates. Not to concrete on your part.
We all have data points that we can point that evolve on a daily bases. Early my family isolated until we got a better understanding of the impact of this virus. Based on the information that I have seen I think it is far more important to get our lives back to the precovid days a quickly as possible. There are many people that have severe financial hardships which is leading to much more drug and alcohol abuse. The primary goal was the flatten the curve which clearly was accomplished. Now we need to protect our elders and the best way I see moving forward is to isolate them as much as we can.
I think it is a very fair assumption to say that getting people back in class rooms with increase infections, and thus deaths. This isn't to say the impact on the young has been less on the old, but just how the virus spreads.
If canceling classes/schools didn't make an impact on infections or deaths, then I guess the wrong move was made early on. Should have kept them open.
I think it is a very fair assumption to say that in regards to the flu, getting people back in class rooms will increase infections and deaths. Would you agree with that?
I assume your answer would be yes and based on your responses your solution is to never send kids back into the classroom ever.
When classes/schools were cancelled in the spring I thought it was the right decision based on the amount of information that we had and what we were being told. Now we have far more information and the effects on young and I think it is the correct decision to get back in the classroom.
At some point you need to weigh your options of the risks of getting back to normalcy and spreading this disease and the risks or continue to isolate which has brought in a whole new set of issues such as job loss, depression, and drug dependency.
I personally have to deal with this looking at it from many situations and age groups.
Elderly - my parents are still alive and live in an assisted living facility where they have had a out break of covid. The pretty much stay in there room as meals are delivered to them. They have a balcony to the outside so I can at least go over to talk with them when I delivery them there drugs and goodies.
Middle Age - I personally am in my 50's and I have been blessed with good health and what I feel is a pretty strong immune system. I exercise quite often which I think is a huge benefit to staying healthy. Clearly I am aware that if I do get it the chances of it taking life are very minimal but could have a long term effects that I am not aware. Based on this I do go back in the office and interface with people. I tend not to were a mask in the office unless it is requested which I ask anyone that I interface with.
I have a daughter that I just dropped off to the University of Cincinnati yesterday. It was a tough day saying goodbye as now the misses and I are officially empty nesters. When making the decision to send her to college it was largely based on the impact of covid on the 0 - 24 which is clearly minimal based on the CDC and many many other reports that I have seen. When you look at this age group from ages 0 - 5 you are much better off getting covid as opposed to most strains of the flu. Anyway back to my daughter. The decision to send her was made because I truly feel the education and experiences that she will get will far outweigh the lost opportunity by keeping her home isolated from others while taking on=line classes. My son just graduated from WVU and when we saw how he grew up into adults in 4 years it made this decision a no brainer.
This is life and we have to live it. Hiding under a rock until this thing goes away may be the way you approach this but let that be your choice and not force it on everyone especially those at the least amount of risk. I feel horrible for these kids and some of the leadership and decision being made seem to have no reasoning or data behind it which certainly has been the case with the leadership in the BIG.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Aug 20, 2020 14:24:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Aufan on Aug 20, 2020 14:47:06 GMT
Spending kids back to school will probably increase flu. It will probably increase car accidents and alcohol poisoning too. Risks exist in life, and you can’t avoid them all. I’m not arguing to shut down schools completely and I believe there are valid points on both sides. I don’t really know the correct answer and won’t argue either way on schools.
However this digression started with the notion that the flu was more dangerous. I disagree, and so do many others.
Navigating this is difficult, I don’t envy anyone making these decisions. But the decisions need to be based on sound reasoning. If the reasoning is to dismiss this as less dangerous than the flu, or even institute an scorched earth policy and get everyone infected and put it behind us, I’ll disagree with that reasoning.
But I agree shutting down all aspects of life is not practical or a long term solution. But the solution so far is to basically let every school, university, city, state, etc. figure this out for themselves. The result hasn’t been great. Confusion, misinformation and refusal to do simple things like wear a mask has run rampant.
I agree that the threat is likely overblown by many. The correct response to that is not to dismiss the threat entirely, but for some, that is what has happened. Can’t make an informed decision using that reasoning.
Based on your post, I believe we’re on the same page. It is overblown and less risky for some, but for others it is a very real and life threatening situation. A very difficult balance to achieve, and I don’t know the correct answer.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 20, 2020 16:04:21 GMT
How does removing people from homes have anything to do with what I said? This study you liked basically said transmission in public is not a huge threat - especially compared to spread at home. And this study was done when social distancing and masks were enforced. Seems like social distancing and mask usage was a good strategy, this study showed that if we do that, the threat of spread is relatively low. Removing people from their homes is a non-sequitur. We don't have to do that, and won't (at least not for having a virus). It seems like these mask mandates really generate fear that we are turning into authoritarian China. Also, basically would mean to simplify. Saying the study said people without symptoms do NOT spread the virus is not a simplification, it is misrepresenting the study. It sounds good though, a Bevo fact. Basically: "used to indicate that a statement summarizes the most important aspects, or gives a roughly accurate account, of a more complex situation".That is exactly what I did. I actually never said I "Liked" this study.. I simply said it was "interesting". It's frustratingly incomplete, but offers a new perspective. What was interesting to me was: Asymptomatic people didn't appear to spread the disease, even in a home environment. Where, presumably, people were NOT wearing mask. Isn't that the primary reason we're making EVERYONE wear masks? Because, you might be spreading it even if you have no symptoms? According to this study, that mostly didn't happen. If we focused on people WITH symptoms, rather than EVERYONE... we'd likely have achieved at least the same result we've seen with wide-spread mask application. That helps explain why the actual data (like Los Angeles) doesn't show correlation between mandate mask wearing and COVID spread. My point about China taking people out of their homes is just a reminder. If you believe their data, they have fared much better than we have, with regards to overall cases and deaths. But, they didn't achieve this with "Stay at home" orders and strict mask wearing. They went significantly farther... Taking steps that we're NOT going to do.
|
|