Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A fantastic new test has just been given Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA. While there are many tests already out there, they all still leave something to be desired. Deficits include cost, complexity, cycle-time, accuracy, and availability of reagents and other consumables. A new test that was developed at Yale and sponsored by the NBA (you read that right :-)).
It's a live virus/PCR test that checks for current illness, not past exposure. It does have a slight drop in accuracy from the best tests, but not much, and, it's going to be significantly faster and cheaper and the simpler protocol reduces reliance on lab supplies that have often been in short supply during this pandemic. The sample is just saliva – a simpler and better experience for the patient, and no special nasal swabs needed, and it reduces the need for trained staff to do sample collection. In the lab, no nucleic acid extraction step is needed prior to rt-PCR amplification. This could be a big deal…
While the biggest advantage of the above tests is no doubt that the greater awareness of who is sick and who isn't will help the nation to rein in the pandemic; on a local note, I will point out that currently, travel restrictions in place in MA and ME for example, require travelers from other states (or returning residents) to either quarantine for two weeks on arrival, OR, present negative tests from a live-virus test sampled within 72hrs of arrival… but, the cycle time for PCR testing is normally more than 72hrs, often more like a week! So in practice, these safeguards are more like brick walls right now. Hopefully in a few months, this new Yale/NBA test is available pretty widely, and we can move more freely between states.
But not all camps are outdoors? My kids have been in multiple camps that are indoor-only and those camps have had zero issues all summer.
I agree that most camp counselors skew younger, so exposure is less of a concern. But many of the camp directors are older and take pride in the fact that they've run the camps for many years. I've talked with several camp directors who are 55+ years old and are mingling with the kids all day.
In terms of air returns, I know our school will be using outdoor air even when it's cold outside--I think most schools have a plan to not recycle the indoor air.
I don't think HVAC alterations are in the budget for most school districts unless it just means keeping the windows open and cranking up the heat.
But not all camps are outdoors? My kids have been in multiple camps that are indoor-only and those camps have had zero issues all summer.
I agree that most camp counselors skew younger, so exposure is less of a concern. But many of the camp directors are older and take pride in the fact that they've run the camps for many years. I've talked with several camp directors who are 55+ years old and are mingling with the kids all day.
In terms of air returns, I know our school will be using outdoor air even when it's cold outside--I think most schools have a plan to not recycle the indoor air.
Pure conjecture on my part, but the camp’s facilities, as well as selective admittance, may allow them to more easily distance/sanitize. Add child compliance to the list ... a group of children from 10 percentile income households are likely to comply much better than a group of children from Main south Worcester.
There are some districts which, from a density and facilities standpoint, are going to be challenged provide adequate distancing.
Last edited by Shrewsburried; 08-17-2020 at 11:58 AM..
While the biggest advantage of the above tests is no doubt that the greater awareness of who is sick and who isn't will help the nation to rein in the pandemic; on a local note, I will point out that currently, travel restrictions in place in MA and ME for example, require travelers from other states (or returning residents) to either quarantine for two weeks on arrival, OR, present negative tests from a live-virus test sampled within 72hrs of arrival… but, the cycle time for PCR testing is normally more than 72hrs, often more like a week! So in practice, these safeguards are more like brick walls right now. Hopefully in a few months, this new Yale/NBA test is available pretty widely, and we can move more freely between states.
We just went through this because we were vacationing out of state a couple of weeks ago. When I called the urgent care clinic where we were vacationing, they said that we should be prepared to wait 7 - 10 days for results, but realistically most were coming back in 2 days. We tested 48 hours before we left and got our results on our way home.
But it all feels a little silly. We stopped at a deli shop in MA on our way home and I feel we were just as likely to pick something up there as we did the day before when we were in a different state. Whether we are here or somewhere else, we're still following the same protocols...
travel restrictions in place in MA and ME for example, require travelers from other states (or returning residents) to either quarantine for two weeks on arrival, OR, present negative tests from a live-virus test sampled within 72hrs of arrival… but, the cycle time for PCR testing is normally more than 72hrs, often more like a week!
But those restrictions are without teeth. ME is leaving it up to the short-term rental industry to enforce requiring a neg test to stay anywhere. Yes, there might be fines attached to violating the rules, but, it seems that very little has changed especially in more rural areas of ME.
I just returned from ME on Sun, and have to say that it seemed every other plate up in that region was from MA. Mini-golf places, ice cream shops, etc. all with MA license plates in the parking lots. Tons of MA-plated SUV/truck pulling campers and RV's. Other than the single sign on I-95 once you cross the border, very little to tell you that you should be quarantining or have tested neg.
We went the quarantine route since we were going to an empty, private residence. Brought all our food/supplies from home, and didn't leave the house for the 3-4 days we were there. Then came straight back. Didn't interact with a single person outside of MA.
But those restrictions are without teeth. ME is leaving it up to the short-term rental industry to enforce requiring a neg test to stay anywhere. Yes, there might be fines attached to violating the rules, but, it seems that very little has changed especially in more rural areas of ME.
I just returned from ME on Sun, and have to say that it seemed every other plate up in that region was from MA. Mini-golf places, ice cream shops, etc. all with MA license plates in the parking lots. Tons of MA-plated SUV/truck pulling campers and RV's. Other than the single sign on I-95 once you cross the border, very little to tell you that you should be quarantining or have tested neg.
We went the quarantine route since we were going to an empty, private residence. Brought all our food/supplies from home, and didn't leave the house for the 3-4 days we were there. Then came straight back. Didn't interact with a single person outside of MA.
Sounds like you did the conscientious thing, but I am *deeply* skeptical that all those other Mass residents sharing public spaces up there had PCR test results meeting the requirements or had already quarantined >= 14 days. It's frustrating - first, the state should provide guidelines to reduce risks that a conscientious person can practically comply with, but also, lay people shouldn't just say "screw the regs, I am doing what I want to!".
The Mass regulations for visiting or returning to Mass are virtually identical, fortunately, a number or nearby states are exempt, more than are exempt in Maine.
Just responding to the bold. It seems inevitable, doesn't it? Whether they need to take those precautions or not, they will. Classes or grades or entire schools will be quarantined. That's why I think full remote will provide the best consistency and establish the best routine. A herky-jerky year of in-class and remote learning would be even more difficult for all involved.
Full remote might work once kids have (really) learned to read and interact through computers, but it is utterly ineffective for the youngest kids. I know that was true of my Kindergartner last year, and from the discussions I've had with other parents generally true.
My wife and I arranged our schedules so one of us could be actively teaching her the syllabus provided by our district, but 3 months of a 3:30AM-9PM day had me almost wishing to be laid off (almost, I didn't just quit). And, it should come as no big surprise, I'm not as good at elementary education as someone with a Masters degree in education and years of experience teaching young children. Another parent pointed out that, as a parent, you have limited coercive capital with your kids. I know much of my daughter's learning was from her peers and she would do her work because that's what her friends were doing. My forcing her to read or write or whatever isn't as effective.
I agree that opening schools is a risk, but keeping them closed is also a risk. I'm well-educated and stably employed and even my daughter is struggling to learn. I'm sure those with less flexible schedules or fewer resources are in an even tougher position.
What makes the least sense to me is that, of all the things that have reopened, schools are not the top priority. Gyms have reopened. Bars have reopened. Casinos have reopened. These are all great things, but in the grand scheme not nearly as important as primary education.
I'm very lucky that my town recognizes the importance of early childhood education and has made Herculean efforts to comply with social distancing guidelines and allow for four-day-a-week in person schooling for Kindergarten and first grade (basically inventing classrooms and teachers for twice as many of those classes). I know that in-person schooling comes with risk, by statistics not so much for my kids but more for me, so I will gladly keep on doing all the other social-distancing things I can do (not going to gyms, or bars, or casinos, staying away from other people, only really doing stuff outside) and spend my risk tolerance there.
I am *deeply* skeptical that all those other Mass residents sharing public spaces up there had PCR test results meeting the requirements or had already quarantined >= 14 days.
Most definitely have not from what I’ve seen. I think people have deluded themselves, friends saying they quarantined 14 days before going to X state on vacation, and I know that they have not. Yet, cases have not seen appreciable rise, whether it be in ME, VT, NH, or on in MA with an influx of people from all over behaving badly. I have friends who are year round residents in the Hamptons. While they are extremely frustrated and fearful of the young and old having house parties, they cautiously admit that they’ve not heard of a single Covid case recently.
What this means is anyone’s guess. There are certainly still a steady number of cases being reported in MA. As was the case 2-3 months ago, it would be great to have more insight as to how and where people are being infected other than nursing homes and long term care facilities. Yes, we all know about the infamous Chatham house party and Weymouth football camp. but those account for a very small number of cases.
It does seem like there is something to the virus hitting a ceiling in certain locations, at least for the time being, otherwise we would have seen a rise in cases. People can pat themselves on the back all they want, but most have not been doing the right thing despite what we claim. It’s all clear as mud, still.
Full remote might work once kids have (really) learned to read and interact through computers, but it is utterly ineffective for the youngest kids. I know that was true of my Kindergartner last year, and from the discussions I've had with other parents generally true.
My wife and I arranged our schedules so one of us could be actively teaching her the syllabus provided by our district, but 3 months of a 3:30AM-9PM day had me almost wishing to be laid off (almost, I didn't just quit). And, it should come as no big surprise, I'm not as good at elementary education as someone with a Masters degree in education and years of experience teaching young children. Another parent pointed out that, as a parent, you have limited coercive capital with your kids. I know much of my daughter's learning was from her peers and she would do her work because that's what her friends were doing. My forcing her to read or write or whatever isn't as effective.
I agree that opening schools is a risk, but keeping them closed is also a risk. I'm well-educated and stably employed and even my daughter is struggling to learn. I'm sure those with less flexible schedules or fewer resources are in an even tougher position.
What makes the least sense to me is that, of all the things that have reopened, schools are not the top priority. Gyms have reopened. Bars have reopened. Casinos have reopened. These are all great things, but in the grand scheme not nearly as important as primary education.
I'm very lucky that my town recognizes the importance of early childhood education and has made Herculean efforts to comply with social distancing guidelines and allow for four-day-a-week in person schooling for Kindergarten and first grade (basically inventing classrooms and teachers for twice as many of those classes). I know that in-person schooling comes with risk, by statistics not so much for my kids but more for me, so I will gladly keep on doing all the other social-distancing things I can do (not going to gyms, or bars, or casinos, staying away from other people, only really doing stuff outside) and spend my risk tolerance there.
I'm with you 100%, and I'm in the same boat, though not with your schooling options. Last year, we had pre-K, K, and 2nd grade, so I share your challenges. There's nothing I can do about it, though, because our teachers' association refused to agree to anything but remote learning. I guess I'm looking for a silver lining in consistency, because as soon as there's a case, anywhere, that school will have to adapt on the fly.
I'm frustrated there wasn't some state-level universal agreement and policy on this. We have much better COVID numbers than other Massachusetts towns that are returning to in-class education, and that sends inequitable ripples throughout the community at all levels. And if our barrier to resuming in-class education is such that we can't open up when we're surely at our safest point over the coming months, we'll never get there. That's our reality this year.
Regarding bars and gyms and other stuff: they aren't unionized. It doesn't matter what the parents would prefer. Our hands are tied.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
