Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Great Barrington: washer, home, school)

[redplum33]

jay, I simply ask that you use better judgment when responding.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by redplum33

jay, I simply ask that you use better judgment when responding.

I would ask the same of you. If the threshold for stuff you agree with is zero and the threshold for stuff you disagree with is basically insurmountable, you are never going to have your mind changed. I posted the most up-to-date available information I can find. If you have better information, you are absolutely free to post it yourself. If you the best you can do is question the evidence that is available, I'm going to object, especially if you don't apply that standard uniformly.

[msRB311]

Kids tend to be the super spreaders of many illnesses. We don't need to be a scientist to figure that one out. Look at daycares. I will say I think masks are helping stop the spread of many illnesses which has been discussed ad nauseam. Seems to be a wondrous thing to not have those runny noses exposed, less access to put hands to face/nose, masks also protect when they cough and sneeze.

So maybe kids arent the super spreaders of covid at this point? I really dont have the hard facts. Most adults are not sitting in a room with 15-20 other people for 8 hours right? Clearly covid is still out there...who is spreading it I don't know. I would have assumed kids but who knows. College students? People in their 20's who dont care anymore?

[timberline742]

It doesn't really matter. You can't close the schools. Kids already lost at least a full year with no academic/social progress. Another year would have all but tanked a generation outside of the super privileged, and heck, knowing some of them even their kids really didn't make much progress, if any. Never mind the opportunity costs to the parent(s) lost.

[msRB311]

I dont think anyone was suggesting to close the schools. I think those days are done unless there's a huge amount of people at one school affected. It feels like this is more of an endemic now and will be with us for a while.

[bostongymjunkie]

Insightful opinion piece: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...ion/ar-AAQbFiu

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I posted the most up-to-date available information I can find.

And you irresponsibly made a definitive statement based on that.

I really don't know if kids are superspreaders, but I'm not going to rely on old info that was based on the original strain because that's the most up-to-date available information you could find. And no, jay, old info isn't better than no info.

We are talking about the spread of the virus - which has very much changed since the time your articles were written. With the original strain, it was believed that covid was typically contracted when someone was within 6 feet of an infected person for 15 minutes. With the delta variant, the 15 minutes changed to 5 or 6 seconds.

We are also talking about kids. It is believed that the delta variant affects kids differently than the original strain. They get sicker and spread it more easily. 25% of new cases are kids.

I don't know if the differences with the delta variant change anything with regard to kids being superspreaders. I'm not an expert, and frankly I'm burned out with covid research, but I won't hesitate to say something when I see someone posting recklessly.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

Is July recent enough for you?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01826-x



Do you want peer-reviewed studies on a school year that is two months old? Predictions of an in-person school 'catastrophe' have not materialized (the trends are all still slowly trending down).

Another, more relevant question is: "Why can someone make a completely unfounded claim, i.e. 'kids are super spreaders' and present absolutely no evidence in support of that claim and it's just crickets, but when someone points to peer-reviewed evidence that kids aren't, it's quickly questioned as being 'too old'?"

Old evidence is better than no evidence. Old sources are better than no sources. Do you have any evidence that kids are superspreaders of Delta? Or is it the old playbook of fear, uncertainty, and doubt?

Originally Posted by redplum33

And you irresponsibly made a definitive statement based on that.

I really don't know if kids are superspreaders, but I'm not going to rely on old info that was based on the original strain because that's the most up-to-date available information you could find. And no, jay, old info isn't better than no info.

We are talking about the spread of the virus - which has very much changed since the time your articles were written. With the original strain, it was believed that covid was typically contracted when someone was within 6 feet of an infected person for 15 minutes. With the delta variant, the 15 minutes changed to 5 or 6 seconds.

We are also talking about kids. It is believed that the delta variant affects kids differently than the original strain. They get sicker and spread it more easily. 25% of new cases are kids.

I don't know if the differences with the delta variant change anything with regard to kids being superspreaders. I'm not an expert, and frankly I'm burned out with covid research, but I won't hesitate to say something when I see someone posting recklessly.

If the editors of Nature think it's acceptable to publish a statement that

It has been perpetuated in the American media that COVID is dangerous and kids are superspreaders and schools are super-spreader places,” Høeg says. “And none of that has been validated in the scientific literature.”

I think it's an acceptable statement at the level of a lightly-moderated internet bulletin board. I am standing by my earlier statement. Your standard for what you consider responsible statements is unreasonable and highly suspect. You make the burden of proof for anyone who disagrees with you impossibly high and you require no burden of proof for things that you already agree with. I've posted three external articles backing my assertion, you have called me out for being "irresponsible" and have failed to produce a single shred of evidence in support of any of your assertions.

And now exactly, I'm curious to understand, is the idea that kids aren't superspreaders "irresponsible". I'm not saying aren't spreaders, or that no precautions should be taken with kids, or that kids shouldn't be vaccinated. I'm only opposed to this idea that kids above everyone else should bear the burden of responsibility for containing COVID is wrong-headed and not in any way based on science. Of all the things that should be cancelled, public schools are the absolute last thing. Restaurants and concerts and in-person shopping are all fine things, but public schools are way more important, especially for younger children with few educational resources at home.

I consider this idea that, despite all the available evidence suggesting that it's not the case, we should consider that kids could be superspreaders "because Delta" is willfully heading down the wrong path. It's the same kind of "important if true" caveat that leads people to question if vaccines are "really safe". People mistakenly believe that doing something is the choice and that it's better to wait and see. Not doing something is also a choice. Waiting for more evidence is also a choice. The available evidence suggests kids aren't superspreaders, kids should be in school, and that almost everyone should get the COVID vaccine.

If you believe otherwise SAY SO and present evidence to support your ideas. I'm open to being wrong and I'm happy to learn something that I didn't know before. Otherwise, it's just fear, uncertainty, and doubt, the go-to method when facts aren't on your side. It's impossible to prove anything outside of mathematics. It is possible that the sun may not be there tomorrow morning. Any reasonable person understands that a statement like "the sun will rise tomorrow" means that all the available evidence suggests that the sun will rise tomorrow.

If you want to add "all the available evidence suggests" to any statement I make, especially ones followed by "all the available evidence" you should feel free to do that. I was taught in 9th grade that weasel words make for weak writing and that any reasonable person should understand that those qualifiers should be applied to anyone who isn't a literal deity.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I've posted three external articles backing my assertion, you have called me out for being "irresponsible"

The three external articles backing your assertion that kids aren't super spreaders...


Article #1:

• dated August 2020
• based on the original strain
• pre-Delta
• pre-vaccines
• kids weren't even back in school yet

Article #2:

• dated March 2021
• based on the original strain
• pre-Delta in the US
• vaccines were very limited and only available to high risk adults

Article #3:

• dated July 2021
• nothing substantive
• quote: “It has been perpetuated in the American media that COVID is dangerous and kids are superspreaders and schools are super-spreader places,” Høeg says. “And none of that has been validated in the scientific literature.”
• Tracy Høeg suggests that covid isn't dangerous. Zero credibility.

jay, respectfully, "irresponsible" was kind.

[brk330]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Insightful opinion piece: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...ion/ar-AAQbFiu

by the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration
Newsweek has gone way downhill.