Covid cases, hospitalizations, death trends and other touchy subjects…

[bsjkki]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/08/the-science-of-masking-kids-at-school-remains-uncertain.html?utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=nym&utm_medium=s1

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by bsjkki

[Rain]

Planned timing or no?  

The prophet just made an announcement about masks and vaccines.  This week (ending today) Come Follow Me is about keeping our bodies healthy and following the prophet.

[BlueDreams]

Probably not. But maybe? 
 

I hope people get it. I had two active members/extended relatives who shared a story on FB that was basically defending their decisions to not vaccinate in spite of the prophet/FP coming out with the statement. One of the comments on it talked about self-righteousness of those who were vaxxed and the other talking about shame culture in our church. There was a part of me that wanted to talk about the difference between shame and gullt and that calling you names would be inappropriate but saying you’re wrong in certain choices wouldn’t be. But I’m pretty sure that would put me in the self-righteous category in their eyes. So what’s the point? 😅

seriously it frustrated me. Like if a world-renowned surgeon-prophet that you profess belief in can’t convince you your wrong, who will? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, Rain said:

Planned timing or no?  

The prophet just made an announcement about masks and vaccines.  This week (ending today) Come Follow Me is about keeping our bodies healthy and following the prophet.

It was definitely good timing.

We had church again today for the first time since the First Presidency letter came out (though by broadcast). Our elders quorum president shared his testimony, and he alluded to Come, Follow Me in bearing his witness of the importance of prophets. He specifically said that God has called us to be still in a time of turmoil and that the pathway to such stillness runs directly through the teachings and counsel of the prophets. Then the final speaker's entire sermon was on the importance of living prophets. He's an American here on a six-month posting, and he talked about how he and his family have been blessed since they started consciously implementing changes in their lives/home based on what the prophets have been teaching over the past few years.

The bishopric member who conducted took the opportunity at the end of the meeting to make specific reference to the First Presidency letter and to add his personal witness of the wisdom in listening to living prophets. He is one of my former Young Men, and I'm grateful for his boldness.

It was a powerful meeting!

[Rain]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Probably not. But maybe? 
 

I admit I struggle with the Come Follow Me Format so I finally chose different personal scripture study that work with me.  This week I was late for preparing my junior primary lesson.  

The junior lessons are so simply set up. The only 2 concepts are take care of your body and follow the prophet. That's why it made me wonder if the timing of his announcement was planned. 

I don't know if it will stand out so strongly in the other lessons or not. Even just the senior lesson is less simply stated for obvious reasons.  

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I hope people get it. I had two active members/extended relatives who shared a story on FB that was basically defending their decisions to not vaccinate in spite of the prophet/FP coming out with the statement. One of the comments on it talked about self-righteousness of those who were vaxxed and the other talking about shame culture in our church. There was a part of me that wanted to talk about the difference between shame and gullt and that calling you names would be inappropriate but saying you’re wrong in certain choices wouldn’t be. But I’m pretty sure that would put me in the self-righteous category in their eyes. So what’s the point? 😅

seriously it frustrated me. Like if a world-renowned surgeon-prophet that you profess belief in can’t convince you your wrong, who will? 

 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It was definitely good timing.

We had church again today for the first time since the First Presidency letter came out (though by broadcast). Our elders quorum president shared his testimony, and he alluded to Come, Follow Me in bearing his witness of the importance of prophets. He specifically said that God has called us to be still in a time of turmoil and that the pathway to such stillness runs directly through the teachings and counsel of the prophets. Then the final speaker's entire sermon was on the importance of living prophets. He's an American here on a six-month posting, and he talked about how he and his family have been blessed since they started consciously implementing changes in their lives/home based on what the prophets have been teaching over the past few years.

The bishopric member who conducted took the opportunity at the end of the meeting to make specific reference to the First Presidency letter and to add his personal witness of the wisdom in listening to living prophets. He is one of my former Young Men, and I'm grateful for his boldness.

It was a powerful meeting!

Thanks for sharing your experience of hearing about the connection at church.  I would love to hear if others heard connections at church a well. 

[Chum]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Several of the experts I spoke with said that given the lack of evidence of a substantial benefit from a student-masking requirement, it’s not at all clear this measure will be effective against a more transmissible variant. One of the costs of an intervention that lacks clear benefit, said the immunologist, is distraction from the tools that we know protect people — in the case of schools, vaccination and ventilation.

The above Aug 20 article leads with inferences that a May CDC report says masking, etc is ineffective - which seems weird that schools have some ability to negate the benefit of indoor masking, that exists everywhere else.

The article interestingly omits the Aug 4 CDC guidelines.
 

Quote

Summary of Recent Changes

Updated to recommend universal indoor masking for all students, staff, teachers, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status.

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Chum

[smac97]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9914969/Popular-blue-surgical-face-masks-NOT-stop-people-infected-COVID-19.html

[Calm]

Quote

The blue, cloth surgical masks that have become popular during the pandemic were found be only 10 percent effective as it doe not cover the face properly…

There is no question it is beneficial to wear any face covering, both for protection in close proximity and at a distance in a room,' study leader Serhiy Yarusevych, a professor of mechanical and mechatronics engineering, said in a statement. 

'However, there is a very serious difference in the effectiveness of different masks when it comes to controlling aerosols.'

Cloth?

10% effective is certainly not best practice so much better to go with kn95 or n95s, but if that surgical mask is all that is available, mask up and social distance as much as possible and others are still better off than not even trying.

I am not impressed by the Daily Mail setting up its headline and opening paragraph as a black and white scenario as if we were to expect masks to actually stop all infections.  No one has claimed that, even for the n95s.  “Alarming new study”…alarming to whom?  Not those already informed and not depending in headlines and fearmongering media for their awareness.  At least if you keep reading they add some decent stuff.

The Daily Mail was one source of the claim that the spike in Martha’s Vineyard was a result of Obama’s outdoor birthday party even though within their own article they quote a medical official saying there is no evidence of connection while ignoring the location is a very popular retreat.  While I think having the party was stupid, it is irresponsible journalism on the part of the Daily Mail to suggest it was the reason for the spikes, the Daily Mail is pretty much a tabloid and should only be used when there is no other source and then with major caution, IMO.  Their errors and assumptions with the Daybell case were not confidence inspiring IMO.

Quote

New COVID-19 cases doubled on the island to 48 last week, mixing in three new COVID clusters that could be traced back to Edgartown restaurants, the boards of health confirm.

https://patch.com/massachusetts/marthasvineyard/vineyard-covid-clusters-spark-worry-tourists-flock-island

Edited August 23, 2021 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not impressed by the Daily Mail setting up its headline and opening paragraph as a black and white scenario as if we were to expect masks to actually stop all infections.  No one has claimed that, even for the n95s.  “Alarming new study”…alarming to whom?  Not those already informed and not depending in headlines and fearmongering media for their awareness.  At least if you keep reading they add some decent stuff.

Working in politics, I am not longer surprised by sensational reporting. It is their stock-in-trade, I'm afraid.

Here's the actual research. Things I found interesting:

The 'significant aerosol build-up in the indoor space [occurred] over a long duration (10 h)'. So time matters.

Ventilation was also tested using an air purifier. Result: 'increased ventilation/air-cleaning capacity significantly reduces the transmission risk in an indoor environment, surpassing the apparent mask filtration efficacy even at relatively low air-change rates (∼2 room volumes per hour)'. So air exchange really matters!

The researchers didn't measure inhalation but assume that masks would work better in that case: 'Furthermore, although the present study does not characterize the effectiveness of masks during inhalation, the aforementioned loss of filtration efficiency due to perimeter leakage is also expected to be present during inhalation, although it is to a lesser extent due to the improved sealing effect produced by the negative pressure difference relation to the ambient'.

It would be interesting to know what this lower leakage rate might be, but taking the 12.4 per cent effectiveness of a standard surgical mask in blocking outgoing aerosols over ten hours and assuming that incoming aerosols are reduced by a further 15 per cent (just a guess based on the statement above), then that would give an overall reduction of aerosol transmission of 25.54 per cent if two people are in the same unventilated room together for ten hours.

If a surgical mask were twice as effective (24.8 per cent) at reducing the inhalation of aerosols, then that would give an overall reduction of aerosol transmission of 35.13 per cent if two people are in the same unventilated room together for ten hours.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Working in politics, I am not longer surprised by sensational reporting. It is stock in trade, I'm afraid.

Here's the actual research. Things I found interesting:

The 'significant aerosol build-up in the indoor space [occurred] over a long duration (10 h)'. So time matters.

Ventilation was also tested using an air purifier. Result: 'increased ventilation/air-cleaning capacity significantly reduces the transmission risk in an indoor environment, surpassing the apparent mask filtration efficacy even at relatively low air-change rates (∼2 room volumes per hour)'.

The researchers didn't measure inhalation but assume that masks would work better in that case: 'Furthermore, although the present study does not characterize the effectiveness of masks during inhalation, the aforementioned loss of filtration efficiency due to perimeter leakage is also expected to be present during inhalation, although it is to a lesser extent due to the improved sealing effect produced by the negative pressure difference relation to the ambient'.

It would be interesting to know what this lower leakage rate might be, but taking the 12.4 per cent effectiveness of a standard surgical mask in blocking outgoing aerosols over ten hours and assuming that incoming aerosols are reduced by a further 15 per cent (just a guess based on the statement above), then that would give an overall reduction of aerosol transmission of 25.54 per cent if two people are in the same unventilated room together for ten hours.

Also, it appears they are only measuring aerosols - although it uses the term “aerosol droplets” (just a tad confusing).  To say that they are only 12.5% effective is a little misleading without context. The CDC has made it clear that the primary mode of transmission is droplets, not aerosols.  

“There is no question it is beneficial to wear any face covering, both for protection in close proximity and at a distance in a room,” said Serhiy Yarusevych, a professor of mechanical and mechatronics engineering and the leader of the study. “However, there is a very serious difference in the effectiveness of different masks when it comes to controlling aerosols.””

Nothing new.

Edited August 23, 2021 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

Also, it appears they are only measuring aerosols.

Yes, the research very much focuses on the effects of masks and ventilation on the accumulation of aerosols in enclosed places over time. It will certainly help explain why so many of our outbreaks here have occurred inside unheated/uncooled workshops where labourers tend to work long shifts.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[CA Steve]

Pfizer gets full FDA approval.

US regulators give full approval to Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine

 

One less excuse for anti-vaxers.

[Robert J Anderson]

I never thought that masks would provide complete protection.  The size of the virus is smaller than the spaces in between the various masks commonly worn. https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-wearing-a-cloth-face-mask-is-less-about-science-and-more-about-solidarity-138461 

Also, studies have shown for some time that masks may delay exposure but eventually we will be exposed if around an infected person for too long.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33087517/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7579175/

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210729/NIH-scientists-demonstrate-efficient-aerosol-transmission-of-SARS-CoV-2-in-hamsters.aspx

Hence, I got the vaccine

[Robert J Anderson]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Pfizer gets full FDA approval.

US regulators give full approval to Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine

 

One less excuse for anti-vaxers.

They will say the process was rushed and that it usually takes 10 years to produce a vaccine.  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/vaccine-development-barriers-coronavirus/

[juliann]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

Also, it appears they are only measuring aerosols - although it uses the term “aerosol droplets” (just a tad confusing).  To say that they are only 12.5% effective is a little misleading without context. The CDC has made it clear that the primary mode of transmission is droplets, not aerosols.  

“There is no question it is beneficial to wear any face covering, both for protection in close proximity and at a distance in a room,” said Serhiy Yarusevych, a professor of mechanical and mechatronics engineering and the leader of the study. “However, there is a very serious difference in the effectiveness of different masks when it comes to controlling aerosols.””

Nothing new.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fscience%2Fscience-briefs%2Fscientific-brief-sars-cov-2.html

Infectious exposures to respiratory fluids carrying SARS-CoV-2 occur in three principal ways (not mutually exclusive):

1. Inhalation of air carrying very small fine droplets and aerosol particles that contain infectious virus. Risk of transmission is greatest within three to six feet of an infectious source where the concentration of these very fine droplets and particles is greatest.
2. Deposition of virus carried in exhaled droplets and particles onto exposed mucous membranes (i.e., “splashes and sprays”, such as being coughed on). Risk of transmission is likewise greatest close to an infectious source where the concentration of these exhaled droplets and particles is greatest.
3. Touching mucous membranes with hands soiled by exhaled respiratory fluids containing virus or from touching inanimate surfaces contaminated with virus.

[Bob Crockett]

I got the vaccine but my terrible hay fever remains.  What a rip. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fscience%2Fscience-briefs%2Fscientific-brief-sars-cov-2.html

Infectious exposures to respiratory fluids carrying SARS-CoV-2 occur in three principal ways (not mutually exclusive):

1. Inhalation of air carrying very small fine droplets and aerosol particles that contain infectious virus. Risk of transmission is greatest within three to six feet of an infectious source where the concentration of these very fine droplets and particles is greatest.
2. Deposition of virus carried in exhaled droplets and particles onto exposed mucous membranes (i.e., “splashes and sprays”, such as being coughed on). Risk of transmission is likewise greatest close to an infectious source where the concentration of these exhaled droplets and particles is greatest.
3. Touching mucous membranes with hands soiled by exhaled respiratory fluids containing virus or from touching inanimate surfaces contaminated with virus.

 From the same link:

Quote

The principal mode by which people are infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is through exposure to respiratory fluids carrying infectious virus

Droplets are number one.  Aerosols (particles not suspended in fluid) probably come in second.  Masks are much better at capturing droplets than aerosols, so when we speak of the efficacy of masks, it can be misleading to only address aerosols.  

[rongo]

This was interesting.

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2021/08/23/lets_stop_pretending_about_the_covid-19_vaccines_791050.html

TL:dnr summary:

1) From a Hawaii doctor who is vaccinated and encourages vaccination for almost everyone

2) "Patients and doctors looking to the CDC for guidance in decision-making receive low quality or dated information. The mainstream media is stuck between reporting public health dictates as valid, while being unable to resist doom-and-gloom reports of vaccine “failures” that sell ad space. The obvious gap between “what the CDC says” and “what we see, hear and read” has left a large space for grifters, self-styled experts, and conspiracy theorists to thrive, especially among the large group of vaccine-hesitant (often vaccine-terrified) Americans. The whole thing might have gone better had we stuck to telling the truth as we knew it."

3) "It is often inconvenient, especially for someone like me, who preferred the easy days of being a vaccine cheerleader when the initial trial data emerged," but we are better off leveling with our patients.

4) "Let’s stop pretending the vaccines are 90% effective and breakthrough cases are “uncommon.”

5) "Let’s stop pretending that vaccinated people are far less likely to spread SARS-CoV-2."

6) "Let’s stop pretending that it’s rare for vaccinated people to develop severe Covid-19 or die."

7) "Let’s stop pretending that prior infection should not influence the decision to vaccinate." [rongo: this is a big factor for my family, for whom prior infection continues to appear to be superior to vaccination in an ostensible high-risk profession and high-risk location].

"Much has already been written about the CDC’s willful decision to ignore the relevance of prior infection, as if natural immunity simply did not exist . . . So - what does the science say? It says: barring new evidence, there is no clear benefit to immunizing those with confirmed prior infection. Common sense suggests there is a good chance these people would benefit from at least one (and possibly only one) shot as a “booster,” especially after 6 months or more have passed since the time of infection, especially with a more transmissible variant on the loose - but that’s common sense, not good quality data."

8 ) "Let’s stop pretending that the vaccines are a no-brainer for adolescents and children."

"Sometimes “do everything possible” is not the best long-game response to a short-term crisis. I question whether the reward of adolescent vaccination is so great and conclusively demonstrated that we should shame parents opting against this vaccine, or take schooling options away from their children."

9) "Let’s stop pretending that a third booster is definitely going to help."

"Right now, theories are all we have. Perhaps one more dose of the original vaccine, by boosting overall antibodies, will help fight off the large infectious doses of delta. Or perhaps, by only stimulating the same imperfect antibodies, it won’t. Maybe the delta-specific boosters Pfizer and Moderna are developing will be ready for arms before the next variant arrives — and maybe not. Maybe we find new adverse effects with repeat doses of boosters. Maybe the extra protection lasts 4 months, or maybe years. Little is clear now. Given their muted responses, on average, to their initial vaccine doses, the immunocompromised are most likely to benefit, and the most obvious candidates for a booster. Again though, this is based on laboratory studies of improved immune response, not actual trial data. As to the rest of us, I suspect the benefit will be modest, and/or quite possibly fleeting (remember, our annual flu shot’s efficacy fades about 10% per month, too). Until we see more definitive evidence that protection against severe disease truly is waning, I will be reluctant to recommend a booster except for my highest risk patients."

10) "Let’s stop pretending that these vaccines are “kill-shots,” cause sterility, spread disease, etc." [rongo: hysteria from vaccine hesitant is a problem as well]

11) "Let’s stop pretending that the vaccines are the only way to reduce the burden of Covid-19."

"No, I am not going to talk about Ivermectin here, having already said more than enough on the subject elsewhere [rongo: he's against it as a panacea or a therapeutic]. Our federal fascination with vaccination, however, has led to a frustrating lack of definitive research into potential treatments for covid-19, especially early in the disease course. We know HCQ failed; and that Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody treatments appear effective but are hard to access, costly and untested against delta; and that remdesivir only works a bit, and dexamethasone a bit more, but only for the very ill. Whatever happened to colchicine, famotidine, inhaled steroids, quercetin, fluvoxamine, and all the other potential agents which had an appealing study or two but never a large, definitive RCT? Perhaps a small diversion of some of the billions spent on vaccines could have led to an actual, evidence-based recommendation for physicians like me after our patients have a Covid-19 exposure or positive test. We literally have no CDC/NIH-endorsed treatments to offer that do not involve a trip to the hospital.

It’s also time to get real about obesity in this country. The US has an obesity rate of 36%, highest among “large” nations; for comparison sake, European nations generally fall in the 20-25% range, and Japan, South Korea, and China are all under 7%. At what point in the “pandemic era” does this become a national security risk? Studies of overweight/obesity on covid-19 hospital and ICU admissions suggest a 2- to 5-fold increased risk for the obese. That makes a normal BMI about a 65-85% effective “vaccine” against severe infection - one that keeps people out of the hospital from a variety of diseases, including the flu, and probably the next pandemic virus. Approaches to slimming down Americans come in many shapes and sizes, from Blue Zones concepts to soda taxes - which could be extended to all sweetened, calorie-dense processed and fast foods. This pandemic has been an utter disaster. The next one might be worse. Bolstering our national capacity to fight off viruses would be a wise investment."

12) "And, finally, let’s stop pretending that vaccines alone will bring an end to Covid-19."

 

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, rongo said:

This was interesting.

I agree that it was "interesting", but probably for different reasons.

* No one is pretending that vaccines are 90% effective against Delta.

* I will stop pretending that vaccinated people are less likely to transmit the virus when I see the data.  If one is less likely to become infected, and on top of that transmits the virus for fewer days, that all means that vaccinated people are less likely to transmit the virus.  Also, vaccinated people are also more likely to wear masks...so there's that too.

* It is relatively rare for vaccinated people to have severe disease or death from Covid.  Ask any ICU nurse.  

* Prior infection shouldn't be a factor.  We know that prior infection does not give adequate protection from Delta.

43 minutes ago, rongo said:

11) "Let’s stop pretending that the vaccines are the only way to reduce the burden of Covid-19."

"No, I am not going to talk about Ivermectin here, having already said more than enough on the subject elsewhere [rongo: he's against it as a panacea or a therapeutic]. Our federal fascination with vaccination, however, has led to a frustrating lack of definitive research into potential treatments for covid-19, especially early in the disease course. We know HCQ failed; and that Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody treatments appear effective but are hard to access, costly and untested against delta; and that remdesivir only works a bit, and dexamethasone a bit more, but only for the very ill. Whatever happened to colchicine, famotidine, inhaled steroids, quercetin, fluvoxamine, and all the other potential agents which had an appealing study or two but never a large, definitive RCT? Perhaps a small diversion of some of the billions spent on vaccines could have led to an actual, evidence-based recommendation for physicians like me after our patients have a Covid-19 exposure or positive test. We literally have no CDC/NIH-endorsed treatments to offer that do not involve a trip to the hospital.

Prevention is always better and way more cost effective than treatment.  Most people wont seek treatment unless it is severe, in which case hospitalization may be required - increasing the already overwhelming burden on hospitals and adversely affecting health care costs.  Most treatments need to be taken very early in infection, because most people wait until it becomes severe before they seek treatment, it thus becomes a terrible idea to invest in treatment over prevention. 

43 minutes ago, rongo said:

12) "And, finally, let’s stop pretending that vaccines alone will bring an end to Covid-19."

  Seems like a strawman, but ok.

I don't think anyone thinks that vaccines alone will do the trick, nor do I think many think that there will be an end to Covid. 

P.S.

How are your school numbers looking so far as compared to last year?

Edited August 23, 2021 by pogi

[rongo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

* Prior infection shouldn't be a factor.  We know that prior infection does not give adequate protection from Delta.

How are your school numbers looking so far as compared to last year?

We are beginning our third week (no mask requirement, no restrictions). Our enrollment and class sizes are way up, largely from families fleeing districts who are requiring masks. Almost nobody wears them at our school. I had posted an article previously about the Combs School District, which is our surrounding neighborhood. They are running around with their hair on fire about Covid numbers, quarantines, shifting to online, etc. Our students are in the same neighborhoods, but our attendance has been good. Our population is more inclined to just come to school if sick, like pre-Covid, and I haven't noticed any mass absences or waves of sickness. Honestly, I expect many public districts to go through this whole "mitigation protocols" process every single school year from here on out, while others (like us or nearby Queen Creek Unified) have simply gone on with life. I'm confident that we won't end up having more sickness or death than the "out of an abundance of caution" districts will have. 

My family continues to benefit from prior infection, despite living and working in a "high alert" area. Maybe we're just lucky and haven't run into Delta, but I suspect that we have and that our antibodies from December and May are still good. Plus, if we're "asymptomatic," then we already have Delta antibodies, anyway. 

I agree with this doctor in Hawaii that prior infection is probably a very big factor, a factor that has been studiously ignored by the CDC as if it didn't exist. I think the contribution of natural immunity to the overall herd immunity is probably much larger than many think it is. It's a broader range of immune response than only the spike coat. 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

We are beginning our third week (no mask requirement, no restrictions). Our enrollment and class sizes are way up, largely from families fleeing districts who are requiring masks. Almost nobody wears them at our school. I had posted an article previously about the Combs School District, which is our surrounding neighborhood. They are running around with their hair on fire about Covid numbers, quarantines, shifting to online, etc. Our students are in the same neighborhoods, but our attendance has been good. Our population is more inclined to just come to school if sick, like pre-Covid, and I haven't noticed any mass absences or waves of sickness. Honestly, I expect many public districts to go through this whole "mitigation protocols" process every single school year from here on out, while others (like us or nearby Queen Creek Unified) have simply gone on with life. I'm confident that we won't end up having more sickness or death than the "out of an abundance of caution" districts will have. 

My family continues to benefit from prior infection, despite living and working in a "high alert" area. Maybe we're just lucky and haven't run into Delta, but I suspect that we have and that our antibodies from December and May are still good. Plus, if we're "asymptomatic," then we already have Delta antibodies, anyway. 

I agree with this doctor in Hawaii that prior infection is probably a very big factor, a factor that has been studiously ignored by the CDC as if it didn't exist. I think the contribution of natural immunity to the overall herd immunity is probably much larger than many think it is. It's a broader range of immune response than only the spike coat. 

If going without a mask was not bad enough, I think there are certainly some serious ethical issues with sending children to school sick in a pandemic, especially when local hospitals are beyond capacity.   That is inexcusable. 

Is there any site that tracks infection numbers in your school district?  Are school nurses not enforcing isolation and quarantine measures?  I don't know where your "confidence" comes from, but again, it seems all too pollyanna and not based in reality. 

The issue of previous infection has not been "studiously ignored" by the CDC.  That is not fair.  When vaccines first came out, and before Delta, the CDC recommended that people who had recently been infected should wait to be vaccinated because they have natural immunity.  Delta, and further data, changed things.  

Quote

 In fact, a study published by the CDC on August 6 compared reinfection rates of people who had previously had COVID-19 and found that unvaccinated individuals were more than twice as likely to be reinfected than fully vaccinated individuals.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

It seems that they have "studiously" addressed the issue which you, and others, seem to "studiously ignore".  

Edited August 23, 2021 by pogi

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

If going without a mask was not bad enough, I think there are certainly some serious ethical issues with sending children to school sick in a pandemic, especially when local hospitals are beyond capacity.   That is inexcusable. 

That's how it's been forever. If people/kids are sick enough, they stay home. If it's a matter of a sore throat, slight fever, malaise, etc., many people do (and always have) come to school.

The "mandatory quarantines" most districts imposed last year resulted in students constantly having to stay home for weeks because they were near someone on a seating chart who tested positive. It was insanity. 

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is there any site that tracks infection numbers in your school district?  Are school nurses not enforcing isolation and quarantine measures?  I don't know where your "confidence" comes from, but again, it seems all too pollyanna and not based in reality.

https://www.alaschools.org/departments/health-wellness/ala-health-advisory

This relies on self-reporting positive tests, so I would expect it to be higher in reality. My site (Ironwood 7-12) includes the junior high. 

Our policy is that quarantining is a family determination. If your child is sick, keep them home. If they feel well enough to go back, send them back. If you feel they should be quarantined, quarantine them (those would be the reported positive tests). If a student sitting hear your child tested positive, it is the parents' call whether they want to quarantine their child or not (most at our school would just shrug). 

Where does my confidence come from? The first couple of years teaching, 20 years ago, I was sick a lot. I was exposed to everything, and I had pneumonia a couple of times. I had very mild Covid at the end of May (flu aches, slight cough for a couple of days, loss of taste and smell for a week), but other than that I can't remember the last time I was sick. My immune system has been toughened up over the years through teaching school. 

February 2020 (right before Covid hit) was spectacular. That was the highest amount of severe sickness and absenteeism I have ever seen (a different high school. from where I'm at now). My son and my daughter (and a lot of other students) were really sick. They had "tech week" (dress rehearsals and live test runs stretching until 10 PM) for "Newsies," and had big parts, and couldn't miss. A lot of people think they had Covid then, but I think it was a bad flu. Many parts of the country got hit really hard back in February 2020, but we didn't obsess over Johns Hopkins dashboards back then. I'm sure there were deaths and upticks in hospitalizations then, too. 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's how it's been forever. If people/kids are sick enough, they stay home. If it's a matter of a sore throat, slight fever, malaise, etc., many people do (and always have) come to school.

The "mandatory quarantines" most districts imposed last year resulted in students constantly having to stay home for weeks because they were near someone on a seating chart who tested positive. It was insanity. 

https://www.alaschools.org/departments/health-wellness/ala-health-advisory

This relies on self-reporting positive tests, so I would expect it to be higher in reality. My site (Ironwood 7-12) includes the junior high. 

Our policy is that quarantining is a family determination. If your child is sick, keep them home. If they feel well enough to go back, send them back. If you feel they should be quarantined, quarantine them (those would be the reported positive tests). If a student sitting hear your child tested positive, it is the parents' call whether they want to quarantine their child or not (most at our school would just shrug). 

Where does my confidence come from? The first couple of years teaching, 20 years ago, I was sick a lot. I was exposed to everything, and I had pneumonia a couple of times. I had very mild Covid at the end of May (flu aches, slight cough for a couple of days, loss of taste and smell for a week), but other than that I can't remember the last time I was sick. My immune system has been toughened up over the years through teaching school. 

February 2020 (right before Covid hit) was spectacular. That was the highest amount of severe sickness and absenteeism I have ever seen (a different high school. from where I'm at now). My son and my daughter (and a lot of other students) were really sick. They had "tech week" (dress rehearsals and live test runs stretching until 10 PM) for "Newsies," and had big parts, and couldn't miss. A lot of people think they had Covid then, but I think it was a bad flu. Many parts of the country got hit really hard back in February 2020, but we didn't obsess over Johns Hopkins dashboards back then. I'm sure there were deaths and upticks in hospitalizations then, too. 

You're at ALA.  That explains a great deal.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

That's how it's been forever. If people/kids are sick enough, they stay home. If it's a matter of a sore throat, slight fever, malaise, etc., many people do (and always have) come to school.

That doesn't make it right.  The hospital/pandemic situation only exacerbates the severity of the ethical violation.  A sore throat and slight fever for one can be transmitted and become hospitalization, long-term disability, or death for another.  

1 hour ago, rongo said:

The "mandatory quarantines" most districts imposed last year resulted in students constantly having to stay home for weeks because they were near someone on a seating chart who tested positive. It was insanity. 

This is mandated by the health department.  If schools knowingly allow students to attend class who by law should be on quarantine or isolation, then that is another ethical violation, and puts them at risk for liability issues and law suits.  Not the brightest idea.  Here in Utah, the health department has school liaisons assigned to specific schools to assist in isolation/quarantine measures as positive cases are identified via testing.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Our policy is that quarantining is a family determination. If your child is sick, keep them home. If they feel well enough to go back, send them back. If you feel they should be quarantined, quarantine them (those would be the reported positive tests). If a student sitting hear your child tested positive, it is the parents' call whether they want to quarantine their child or not (most at our school would just shrug). 

 No, it is not a family determination.  It is required by law, and is not determined by "if they feel well enough to go back, send them back".  

How is a parent supposed to know if their child was sitting next to a positive case?  Does the school notify them, or is that left up to the health department?   Just shrugging and going to school despite mandated quarantine is inexcusable. 

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Where does my confidence come from? The first couple of years teaching, 20 years ago, I was sick a lot. I was exposed to everything, and I had pneumonia a couple of times. I had very mild Covid at the end of May (flu aches, slight cough for a couple of days, loss of taste and smell for a week), but other than that I can't remember the last time I was sick. My immune system has been toughened up over the years through teaching school. 

 I am not talking about your confidence in your own health/immunity, I am talking about confidence that numbers are going to be the same.   If your area doesn't test (which it sounds like is the case) then maybe reported numbers wont be higher, but actual infections will certainly be higher this year. You can count on that.   Just because you can't personally see the effects, doesn't mean that your laxed school district is not causing significant effects on community health and strain on hospitals. 

Quote

PHOENIX - A top doctor with the state's largest hospital network said the facilities could begin to impose capacity restrictions at the rate COVID-19 is multiplying in Arizona.
In a wide-ranging news conference Tuesday, Banner Health's Chief Clinical Officer Dr. Marjorie Bessel said the 71 children admitted with the virus last month is double the figure from a month before.

It isn't just Banner dealing with a new spike of cases.
The state Department of Health Services on Tuesday reported 1,470 in-patient beds statewide occupied by COVID patients, the highest since Feb. 25, before the vaccine was available to most Arizonans.
There is a similar spike in COVID patients in intensive-care units.
What makes that significant is that Bessel said the typical COVID ICU patient ends up staying in the unit for more than a week. And that's just part of the problem.
"They will be in our hospitals for quite a bit of time as they both receive intensive care as well as then recover before they go and be discharged,'' she said.
The health department also reported another 2,582 cases on Tuesday, making it a full week of new illnesses over the 2,000 threshold. In fact, the agency, filling in data as reports come in, said the figure actually hit 3,117 last week.
There also were an additional 12 deaths reported Tuesday, bringing the statewide total to 18,400.
All that goes to concerns about what the future looks like.
"At this time we are operating without capacity constraints,'' Bessel said. "But I will say with the surge that we're beginning to experience and we're reporting out here through the media we are concerned if that trajectory continues.''Last year, as cases first spiked, the governor issued an executive order to limit elective surgeries to ensure there is sufficient space for not just COVID patients but others who need more immediate care.
That, in turn, created some financial problems for hospitals who depend on those procedures, like knee and hip replacements. In fact, the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association reported losses of 30% to 40% a month.

Bessell also stressed that any child getting in-person instruction should definitely be masked...

https://www.yourvalley.net/stories/banner-health-hospitals-might-have-to-impose-capacity-restrictions-due-to-covid-19-surge,251782

But of course, your school district is having no impact on this whatsoever, as they close their eyes to the outside world. 

It doesn't appear that they are tracking, or at least reporting, total cases over time - only active cases.  

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by pogi