NYT: We kept schools closed too long

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

It is fun looking at old posts that are incorrect

We had a recession. 2 qtrs of negative GDP, then the dems decided to just change the definition of a word, weird.... just like the did with vaccine....


Thanks for pointing out my impressive foresight though bruv, there are some goodies in there.

 

[Joes Place]

then the dems decided to just change the definition of a word, weird.... just like the did with vaccine....

False on both counts.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

False on both counts.

So you agree we had a recession.

 

[McLovin32]

We had a recession. 2 qtrs of negative GDP, then the dems decided to just change the definition of a word, weird.... just like the did with vaccine....


Thanks for pointing out my impressive foresight though bruv, there are some goodies in there.

Right right

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Right right

Much appreciated bronacho.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

The data spoke by mid summer that year, and it said that kids had a non existent risk of death without pre existing conditions. The states that did remote learning for a year or more were completely ignoring a mountain of data. And anyone with kids quickly realized how little was being learned by young kids in remote settings.

Were they aware that, despite early findings to the contrary, children can pass a Covid infection to other family members? A Canadian study that included 6,280 households found that over 25% of them with a pediatric initial case had one or more secondary infections. And younger children were more likely to pass on the infection than older children. Is that "following the science"?

 

[artradley]

Were they aware that, despite early findings to the contrary, children can pass a Covid infection to other family members? A Canadian study that included 6,280 households found that over 25% of them with a pediatric initial case had one or more secondary infections. And younger children were more likely to pass on the infection than older children. Is that "following the science"?

Apparently that wasn’t this Canadian study:

Characterising COVID-19 school and childcare outbreaks in Canada in 2021: a surveillance study

Background In January 2021, the Public Health Agency of Canada launched the Canadian COVID-19 Outbreak Surveillance System to monitor outbreaks by setting. Schools and childcare centres were identified as settings of interest, as children play a key role in the transmission chain of other...

bmjpublichealth.bmj.com

You are arguing against consensus.

 

[Finance85]

<shrugs> Oh, well, we tried our best. We were just going with the best science at the time. Nothing political about it at all. We would certainly have been open to discuss various competing evidence without vilifying the messenger. But at this point, what's the value of looking back?

It probably wasn't the best science at the time. The NIH knew a lot more about COVID early in the process than they will openly admit to. They knew the genetic structure enough to be talking about vaccines by February 2020. I'm guessing that's because they had been studying the original SARS virus, and how to make it more transmissible to humans since 2014.

 

[hexumhawk]

A few of the good governors looked at the actual science and didn't bow down to the teachers unions. They took a lot of crap at the time but commend them for making the decision.

 

[Joes Place]

The NIH knew a lot more about COVID early in the process than they will openly admit to.

No. They did not.

 

[Pinehawk]

Lot of the posters who were loudly cheering on the closure of schools are noticeably absent in this thread.

 

[Joes Place]

Lot of the posters who were loudly cheering on the closure of schools are noticeably absent in this thread.

Uh, no one "cheered on" the closures of schools.

And some of them closed because they ran short of healthy teachers to teach at them.

 

[Pinehawk]

I should pull up the Iowa City School District thread and we can revisit it together.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Apparently that wasn’t this Canadian study:

Characterising COVID-19 school and childcare outbreaks in Canada in 2021: a surveillance study

Background In January 2021, the Public Health Agency of Canada launched the Canadian COVID-19 Outbreak Surveillance System to monitor outbreaks by setting. Schools and childcare centres were identified as settings of interest, as children play a key role in the transmission chain of other...

bmjpublichealth.bmj.com

You are arguing against consensus.

Why no, it wasn't - I don't know why it would be. It was this one, which is actually on point because it looks at pediatric cases brought into the home rather than the spread of cases in the school environment where mitigation efforts were in place.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2783022

You're arguing a strawman.

 

[artradley]

Why no, it wasn't - I don't know why it would be. It was this one, which is actually on point because it looks at pediatric cases brought into the home rather than the spread of cases in the school environment where mitigation efforts were in place.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2783022

You're arguing a strawman.

Strawman? That doesn’t even make sense.

I posted the assertion that closing schools did little to curb the spread. You posted a study that merely showed that children ages 0-3 may be more likely to infect a caregiver than older children. Which doesn’t in any way refute the claim in the NYT article.

Again, you are arguing against consensus.

 

[abby97]

That damn truth again, McLovin32 hates it when people keep rubbing his face in the damn truth, again.....

 

[ClarindaA's]

Appears we have an abundance of armchair quarterbacks today with the "I told you so" approach.

Kinda like betting on the 49ers vs Chiefs on the day after the Super Bowl.

If we were saying it then, we weren’t armchair QBs

 

[IAFB2021Champs]

I disagree with the premise in OP's post. Its more likely lazy parents that didn't make sure their kids were doing the online learning.

Yeah didn’t they get the memo that they were to quit their jobs and stay home and make sure their kids were attending zoom classes.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Strawman? That doesn’t even make sense.

I posted the assertion that closing schools did little to curb the spread. You posted a study that merely showed that children ages 0-3 may be more likely to infect a caregiver than older children. Which doesn’t in any way refute the claim in the NYT article.

Again, you are arguing against consensus.

I wasn't trying to "refute" your article. It's irrelevant to the discussion - therefore, a strawman. Per the cited study: IF a child presented as an index case in a household, they had a 27.3% chance of passing it to someone else in their home. That's across ALL age groups. Infants to elementary school students would be over that percentage while teens would be under it. That's how percentages work.

Based on that science, sending your child to school presents a non-zero possibility that they will acquire a Covid infection, bring it home, and infect someone else in the house. Parents with comorbidities or multi-generational households would be at greater risk. Nothing in your article even remotely deals with that.

 

[Finance85]

No. They did not.

Read the Fauci article published by the NEJM February 28, 2020.

 

[Finance85]

Uh, no one "cheered on" the closures of schools.

And some of them closed because they ran short of healthy teachers to teach at them.

You did.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Read the Fauci article published by the NEJM February 28, 2020.

An article from a month after the first identified Covid case in the US? An article published a month before the WHO declared it a global pandemic?

 

[artradley]

I wasn't trying to "refute" your article. It's irrelevant to the discussion - therefore, a strawman. Per the cited study: IF a child presented as an index case in a household, they had a 27.3% chance of passing it to someone else in their home. That's across ALL age groups. Infants to elementary school students would be over that percentage while teens would be under it. That's how percentages work.

Based on that science, sending your child to school presents a non-zero possibility that they will acquire a Covid infection, bring it home, and infect someone else in the house. Parents with comorbidities or multi-generational households would be at greater risk. Nothing in your article even remotely deals with that.

Given that my article is the OP, not sure how you can say points regarding the article are not relevant to the discussion.

The consensus is that closing schools did not help curb the spread. Your study does not dispute this consensus, and deals with preschool aged children. If you did not post it to refute the OP, then I’m struggling to see the relevance.

 

[ThorneStockton]

It gets worse, another NYT story: Wildlife: A new study complicates the idea that animals thrived while people were stuck at home during the pandemic.

Where the Wild Things Went During the Pandemic​

A new study of camera-trap images complicates the idea that all wildlife thrived during the Covid lockdowns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/science/pandemic-lockdowns-wildlife-anthropause.html

 

[BubsFinn]

LOL...2,000+ people were dying every day. ICU's were overwhelmed. They were stacking bodies in refrigerator trucks. A large percentage of people knew someone who died. Would you not think "(excessive) precaution" might be warranted in such a situation?

None, or nearly none, of those bodies were school children. The vast majority were elderly. If excessive precaution was warranted, the Governor of New York putting sick people back into nursing homes certainly was not excessive precaution. It was reckless endangerment, bordering on manslaughter.

 

[ANYCHawk]

Yeah didn’t they get the memo that they were to quit their jobs and stay home and make sure their kids were attending zoom classes.

Weren't they home already?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Given that my post is the OP, not sure how you can say points regarding my post are not relevant to the discussion.

The consensus is that closing schools did not help curb the spread. Your study does not dispute this consensus, and deals with preschool aged children. If you did not post it to refute the OP, then I’m struggling to see the relevance.

LOL...I'll try to type slowly...opening schools doesn't mean shit if parents don't send their kids. When we DID open, over half our parents opted for on-line instruction. They didn't want to risk covid...and the study cited gives credence to their take no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise. To put it as simply as possible, they didn't give two shits about "community spread"...they didn't want household spread.

And, FTR, the study covered children 0-17.

We sought to conduct an age analysis of residents aged 0 to 17 years in Ontario, Canada, who were the index case of SARS-CoV-2 infection in their household between June and December 2020.

Reading is fundamental.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

None, or nearly none, of those bodies were school children. The vast majority were elderly. If excessive precaution was warranted, the Governor of New York putting sick people back into nursing homes certainly was not excessive precaution. It was reckless endangerment, bordering on manslaughter.

Good thing those school children never went home, huh?

 

[artradley]

LOL...I'll try to type slowly...opening schools doesn't mean shit if parents don't send their kids. When we DID open, over half our parents opted for on-line instruction. They didn't want to risk covid...and the study cited gives credence to their take no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise. To put it as simply as possible, they didn't give two shits about "community spread"...they didn't want household spread.

And, FTR, the study covered children 0-17.

We sought to conduct an age analysis of residents aged 0 to 17 years in Ontario, Canada, who were the index case of SARS-CoV-2 infection in their household between June and December 2020.

Reading is fundamental.

Okay, so you accept the consensus that closing schools did not mitigate community spread.

Now you appear to be arguing the point that closing schools did harm children. And your argument is conjecture and anecdotal experience, which you believe outweighs the studies in my article.

 

[IAFB2021Champs]

Weren't they home already?

I know a pretty large amount of people that work and I don’t know a single person that was forced to work from home during covid besides some teachers.

So I doubt that many were already home.

 

[FFRoadster]

Are you telling me that there were negative side effects during a global pandemic?

Well I for one am shocked!

No, we’re telling you there were negative side effects of the pandemic response

 

[SI_NYC]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/upshot/pandemic-school-closures-data.html

“The more time students spent in remote instruction, the further they fell behind. And, experts say, extended closures did little to stop the spread of Covid.”

Note that we were NOT acting on our best evidence. By fall of 2020 we knew it would be better to open schools than to keep them closed. The most vulnerable continue to pay the price.

Remote learning actually helped my daughter. I know it wasn't the greatest for all, but in her case it really helped. Now she's getting straight As in middle school.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Okay, so you accept the consensus that closing schools did not mitigate community spread.

Now you appear to be arguing the point that closing schools did harm children. And your argument is conjecture and anecdotal experience, which you believe outweighs the studies in my article.

And you accept that parents didn't GAF about community spread. They were worried about bringing Covid into their own home. That's not conjecture - that's common sense, which seems to be in short supply on your end. That partially opened schools where Covid mitigation standards were being followed didn't increase community spread doesn't mean anything if you don't compare it to fully opened schools - and if you're not going to fully open schools and REQUIRE that students report for in-person learning...not one thing you posted means anything. if you believe that, at the height of the pandemic, parents would have sent their children to schools with 30+ students in a classroom, there's really nothing else to talk about.

Fortunately, we have a massive experiment that did that kind of comparison when Sweden opened lower level schools but went online with higher level schools. They found that keeping schools open with only minimal precautions in the spring "roughly doubled teachers' risk of being diagnosed with the pandemic coronavirus. Their partners faced a 29% higher risk of becoming infected than partners of teachers who shifted to teaching online. Parents of children in school were 17% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 than those whose children were in remote learning".

 

[tarheelbybirth]

No, we’re telling you there were negative side effects of the pandemic response

NO WAY!!!

 

[BelemNole]

No, we’re telling you there were negative side effects of the pandemic response

So....that didn't happen 'during a global pandemic'?

 

[artradley]

And you accept that parents didn't GAF about community spread. They were worried about bringing Covid into their own home. That's not conjecture - that's common sense, which seems to be in short supply on your end. That partially opened schools where Covid mitigation standards were being followed didn't increase community spread doesn't mean anything if you don't compare it to fully opened schools - and if you're not going to fully open schools and REQUIRE that students report for in-person learning...not one thing you posted means anything. if you believe that, at the height of the pandemic, parents would have sent their children to schools with 30+ students in a classroom, there's really nothing else to talk about.

Fortunately, we have a massive experiment that did that kind of comparison when Sweden opened lower level schools but went online with higher level schools. They found that keeping schools open with only minimal precautions in the spring "roughly doubled teachers' risk of being diagnosed with the pandemic coronavirus. Their partners faced a 29% higher risk of becoming infected than partners of teachers who shifted to teaching online. Parents of children in school were 17% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 than those whose children were in remote learning".

You are still simply arguing that the study in the OP is wrong.

Because it DID compare schools that were fully remote, to schools that were fully open. So any conjecture about the motivation of parents, or how many of them would actually choose to send their children to school, are already part of the reality of what happened.

• The longer schools engaged in remote learning the more students' learning was hindered.
• The sooner schools returned to in-person learning the less students' learning was hindered.
• Communities were schools engage in remote learning did not see the spread of COVID mitigated.

These are all facts. Everything you are posting is conjecture about what might or might not happen. The study is the result of what DID happen.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You are still simply arguing that the study in the OP is wrong.

Because it DID compare schools that were fully remote, to schools that were fully open. So any conjecture about the motivation of parents, or how many of them would actually choose to send their children to school, are already part of the reality of what happened.

• The longer schools engaged in remote learning the more students' learning was hindered.
• The sooner schools returned to in-person learning the less students' learning was hindered.
• Communities were schools engage in remote learning did not see the spread of COVID mitigated.

These are all facts. Everything you are posting is conjecture about what might or might not happen. The study is the result of what DID happen.

JFC...parents were worried about Covid coming into their homes. Teachers were worried about being exposed.

They. Did. Not. Give. A. Fvck. About. "Community. Spread".

Their interests were personal.

What about that escapes you? The Quebec study demonstrates that those fears were legitimate. The Swedish experiment demonstrates that those fears were legitimate. That's not "conjecture". That's "following the science". But this isn't even about science - it's about psychology.

In August of 2020 when - I assume - you would have fully reopened schools with required attendance - around 6,000 people per day were dying of Covid. By December, it was tens of thousands. And there are morans who think that parents were unaware of that and were more than willing to send their children back to school because otherwise, they'd "fall behind". It's baffling how stupid that is.

 

[Joes Place]

Read the Fauci article published by the NEJM February 28, 2020.

You mean, before Covid had even really shown up in the US? That's your go-to?

 

[Joes Place]

And you accept that parents didn't GAF about community spread. They were worried about bringing Covid into their own home. That's not conjecture - that's common sense, which seems to be in short supply on your end. That partially opened schools where Covid mitigation standards were being followed didn't increase community spread doesn't mean anything if you don't compare it to fully opened schools - and if you're not going to fully open schools and REQUIRE that students report for in-person learning...not one thing you posted means anything. if you believe that, at the height of the pandemic, parents would have sent their children to schools with 30+ students in a classroom, there's really nothing else to talk about.

Fortunately, we have a massive experiment that did that kind of comparison when Sweden opened lower level schools but went online with higher level schools. They found that keeping schools open with only minimal precautions in the spring "roughly doubled teachers' risk of being diagnosed with the pandemic coronavirus. Their partners faced a 29% higher risk of becoming infected than partners of teachers who shifted to teaching online. Parents of children in school were 17% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 than those whose children were in remote learning".

...which is exactly illustrating my point about "running out of teachers" during a pandemic...

 

[artradley]

JFC...parents were worried about Covid coming into their homes. Teachers were worried about being exposed.

They. Did. Not. Give. A. Fvck. About. "Community. Spread".

Their interests were personal.

What about that escapes you? The Quebec study demonstrates that those fears were legitimate. The Swedish experiment demonstrates that those fears were legitimate. That's not "conjecture". That's "following the science". But this isn't even about science - it's about psychology.

In August of 2020 when - I assume - you would have fully reopened schools with required attendance - around 6,000 people per day were dying of Covid. By December, it was tens of thousands. And there are morans who think that parents were unaware of that and were more than willing to send their children back to school because otherwise, they'd "fall behind". It's baffling how stupid that is.

Nothing about that escapes me. You are completely ignoring the substance of my posts.