I’m advocating for a uniform state wide application of a return to school policy. However I’m also for adjustments in that policy on a local or micro local level as needs arise and circumstances on the ground dictate.
So....school reopening is going well...
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
Some districts are attempting decision making based on fear and politics rather then the recommendations of the state. This is why I am against local decision making now. But transitioning to local level once we begin to return to school.
You continue to miss the point. The effect on ED is substantial as well, helping to prevent them from being overloaded. Providing quicker triage assessments. It does for orthopedic surgery as well - pre-surgery assessment, post surgery follow ups. Similarly with long term primary education - teaching can be more effective in some cases. What is lost are social interactions and such which also need to be addressed. But that doesn't mean we ignore these wonderful tools to aid teaching/healthcare efforts while also potentially reducing the costs.
Your viewpoints are so narrow - time to open up to alternative thinking.
Deaths are climbing at an alarming rate huh?...
(Well, my link is broken...but spoiler alert...they are not.)
Then you're against what Trump and Reynolds are proposing. They are actively discouraging local/micro level adjustments. And, for me, that's a big issue.
Oh FFS. Let the locals handle it when the shit hits the fan. You are deep in the Trump camp.
1000+ per day due just to C19. You don't find that alarming? Wow.Deaths are climbing at an alarming rate huh?...
Agree Telehealth and online education are tools to be applied where it makes sense. You bring up examples of how this can be used in certain areas and I agree with those. But in this moment we aren’t talking about selective use of tele-education. We have those advocating for an entire move to that indefinitely. You may not be but others are. And this isn’t adequate. Students up thru at least 8th grade need in person class. Just my opinion.
I don’t think the shit will hit the fan in most areas. What is your definition of that? Does one class in one school count? Because that’s an unreasonable expectation.
Last three days of deaths in Iowa: 0,2,1.
https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/outcome-analysis-deaths
@RileyHawk
Where you coming up with 'deaths are climbing at an alarming rate'?
And, don't tell me it is somewhere not remotely close or relevant to Iowa's situation.
Last edited:
My opinions on this are not based on any politicians position believe it or not.
It's beyond unreasonable to say the state provides the rules for opening and then abdicates responsibility after they open. If the state is going to mandate schools open then the state needs to handle any outbreak issues.
If a student has the virus then all who came in contact with them have to be tested/traced and isolated until they are negative or have no symptoms for 14 days. The state needs to do this. If it's multiple students affecting many, the school may need to close. The state needs to determine this and do all the follow up. If those things happen, the state needs to provide online access for the students and teachers to continue the education process.
The state is not prepared to do these things. So when it happens, it will be shit on a fan.
We live in Iowa. Look at the Iowa numbers. Very, very low deaths. Not 'climbing at an alarming rate' at all.
I thought you advocated for a local approach...
And, by the way, this link does not support your claim, or show a graph of deaths increasing. It does show overall cases in the US have begun to decrease.
You may be surprised with my response here. I am not in agreement with a 14 day quarantine for exposed students. If someone is positive they shouldn't be in school. People who are exposed to that person should be tested prior to being let back in school. If the rule is that everyone who is exposed to a case has to quarantine for 14 days, you are correct, we are not going to have school. My opinion all along has been consistent. Test people. If they are positive they isolate. We shelter in place those are the highest risk. If you were a student in the classroom with an exposure then you also should avoid exposing yourself to those at high risk. But that does not mean that you should not go back into a classroom with a bunch of other students that have also tested negative. Which as you may recall, was my criteria for being let back in the classroom.This does mean more broad-based test and capability. The ability to do this should be part of a plan to return to school.
That may be because the politicians are relying on medical opinions and these medical opinions tend to agree with mine. This is not to say that my opinion is entirely of my own, it is obviously based on others medical opinions as well.
A local approach everywhere. Not just my backyard.
I live in the United States. This is a national issue. It should be alarming to everyone but it's not, thus more rapid spread and more avoidable deaths.
It shows right at the top:
TOTAL CASES 4,601,526 58,947 New Cases*
TOTAL DEATHS 154,002 1,132 New Deaths*
I'm fine with that once someone is tested after an incubation period. That means a LOT more testing and then a LOT, LOT more contact tracing for those who test positive. It also means the online portion has to be ready to go and scalable. I don't believe the state has prepared for any of that.
It shows right at the top:
TOTAL CASES 4,601,526 58,947 New Cases*
TOTAL DEATHS 154,002 1,132 New Deaths*
You said they are 'climbing at an alarming rate'. Show me where they are going up and at what rate.
You got caught making things up and being an alarmist.
Last three days in Iowa. 3 deaths total.
No.
Each district was required by the Iowa Department of Education to assemble three "return-to-learn" models over the summer: one for fully remote learning, one with fully in-person classes, and a "hybrid" model in which the school district can transition between the two modes, given coronavirus developments.
Ugh - overall deaths are climbing at an alarming rate. They are increasing by over 1000/day and keep climbing. Try again.
I don't believe you. You have not provided any evidence for your claim.
But, we are talking about reopening schools in Iowa. Iowa deaths remain very low and have even come down significantly.
I have provided evidence of that. Take a look for yourself:
https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/outcome-analysis-deaths
On April 30 when Governor Reynolds started loosening restrictions, Iowa had a total of 7,145 cases and 164 deaths. Today a little over 3 months later Iowa has 45,801 cases and 874 deaths. That's an over 6 times increase in cases and 5 times increase in deaths. Now imagine when we reopen schools thereby adding another factor to increase the spread of the virus.
This was the reporting from KTIV on April 30:
Iowa health officials are reporting 302 additional cases of COVID-19, bringing the statewide total to 7,145.
According to the Iowa Department of Public Health, there have been 14 additional deaths due to COVID-19, bringing the state's total to 162.
https://ktiv.com/2020/04/30/iowa-covid-19-cases-rise-to-7145-officials-reporting-14-new-deaths/
Well actually...
If you look at the data compared to most states you can draw a couple of conclusions. Again, we are testing through the roof so number of positive cases of course is going to increase. Iowa has been average to bad in the number of cases department. As for deaths, we are sitting around 900 which is pretty good considering our population and age bracket of a large chunk of our state. Virus is gonna virus guys.
I gave you the link in post #213 and even copied/pasted the numbers from there for you in post #222. I can't make you read or comprehend them.
I've been talking about the blanket measures by many states and our President to open schools no matter what. It's foolish and dangerous.
The poster I was responding to insisted we needed to look at Iowa data. My point is Iowa hasn't flattened the curve and the fact is schools reopening in a couple of weeks is going to increase the spread.
Well that’s the point of the 14 days. That’s the potential incubation period.
However there is no evidence that people are contagious in a period prior to a time they’d test positive. So I’m advocating for early testing and return to school for exposed students and staff once they test negative. Not waiting the entire 14 days. That’s a recommendation the was needed prior to the availability of more broad based testing availability. The state needs to have that testing capability in place upon return if they want a plan to succeed. They can move forward without it but then they have to stick with the 14 day rule and I don’t think that bodes well for a long term return to school for most. Just too many that would fall if even one got sick. 20 positive cases in a school cloud close it. Unless testing is available. And it need to be.
There's an incubation period between exposure and when it will show up on a test. I believe that is about 5 days. If someone is exposed, waits 5 days and then tests negative they should be allowed to go back.
Yes, it's true cases have risen when we've started to relax restrictions (i.e. open up restaurants, pools, theaters, gyms, etc.).
To expect that they wouldn't rise at all is unrealistic.
But, it's the price most of us are agreeing to pay. In your example, it was for the economy and for people to have jobs.
Now, the next step is for kids to be able to effectively learn and socialize once again. And, there will be some price to pay.
But, when assessing that risk, many think it is worth it.
Especially when you look at the numbers, and even see that the numbers that you reference, which have risen, reflect very low case numbers among children (5% 0-17, 0 deaths).
Your link did not show a graph with a trend at all. It shows a single day increase. Which has no context to the previous week or month. You claimed growth and provided a single data point which does not support your claim.
Not sure why you can't understand that.
My link shows all deaths in Iowa by day. You can clearly see the overall numbers AND the trend in those numbers.
https://coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/outcome-analysis-deaths
And there is one of the major issues laid out right there. An exposed teacher will miss...at best...a week of school from quarantine to test result. A positive test means a minimum of another two weeks...actually more because it will take time to get test results at the end of that isolation. Conservatively, a teacher who tests positive will miss a month of school (assuming testing turn-around doesn't get far, far, better). If 3-4 teachers had exposure to a positive student...might as well shut down.
And then, of course, there are the students who were exposed.
