Jump to content

Menu

"Schools aren't Superspreaders" What am I missing?


Recommended Posts

Brown economist Emily Oster is in the Atlantic with this article this week saying that the risks of school openings have been overblown https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/schools-arent-superspreaders/616669/. Here's the heart of her argument:

Our data on almost 200,000 kids in 47 states from the last two weeks of September revealed an infection rate of 0.13 percent among students and 0.24 percent among staff. That’s about 1.3 infections over two weeks in a school of 1,000 kids, or 2.2 infections over two weeks in a group of 1,000 staff. Even in high-risk areas of the country, the student rates were well under half a percent.

Okay, so, first of all, an infection rate of .13 percent in students and .24 in staff equals 130 and 240/100,000 respectively, which is....not good. I don't know anywhere that classifies anything over 100/100,000 as anything other than a high level of community transmission. But then if you dig into the data, it gets much worse: https://statsiq.co1.qualtrics.com/public-dashboard/v0/dashboard/5f62eaee4451ae001535c839#/dashboard/5f62eaee4451ae001535c839?pageId=Page_1ac6a6bc-92b6-423e-9f7a-259a18648318

I don't know where she's coming up with .13 percent for students, because the graph lists it at .15 for 9/13-9/27, for a rate of 150/100,000. More troubling: the rate DOUBLED compared to the previous two week period. And MORE troubling, if you look at confirmed and suspected cases instead of just confirmed, you get a rate for students of 740/100K. I don't know why the numbers are so much higher for suspected and confirmed except that it's my understanding that parents are under no obligation to report testing results to schools (or to have their kids with symptoms tested in the first place, of course). 

So for real--am I missing something? I believe I've said before that my formal training in statistics consists of a single college class more than 20 years ago. Because it looks to me like this data that's supposed to reassure everyone that school openings are going FINE actually show that schools are some of the most dangerous places in the country to be right now. I guess if you want to argue, "it could be worse!" these numbers work....but if you want to argue that kids in schools are less likely to have and spread covid, it seems to show just the opposite. 

Edited to correct link to data.

 

Edited by kokotg
Link to post
Share on other sites

DH was telling me just last night about another school teacher in his 40's who died not far from us.  I feel like it's like the analogy of that kid throwing star fish back.  Statistically and economically that teacher's life didn't matter, but he mattered to his family.

Last week I heard a story of a doctor in her mid 20's dying too.  She mattered to her family.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware that she's approaching things from a particular perspective, but I'm still surprised that she'd use that data to claim something it does not appear to say at all. She seems to just be counting on people to read it and think, "well, those numbers SOUND pretty small." I expected that my main quibble would be with how self-reported school data is really unreliable and non-standardized so it's hard to draw conclusions from it; I was taken aback that her data actually made me feel like school reopenings are going worse than I thought they were. I would genuinely like to understand why she (and presumably other people, since The Atlantic published this) think these numbers are reassuring. And I'd like to hear more about the "suspected" cases, since including them vs. not is the difference between "well, schools aren't all THAT much worse than other places right now" and "holy crap; schools overall have numbers as bad as the very worst hot spots in the country! We'd be better off vacationing in Wisconsin than going to a high school."

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

And they didn't track what's happening with students passing Covid to parents, grand-parents, other caregivers, or members of the community.

A major failing of this "study." Not to mention inadequate testing.

Look what's happened with infection rates where schools have opened.

Bill

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

And they didn't track what's happening with students passing Covid to parents, grand-parents, other caregivers, or members of the community.

A major failing of this "study." Not to mention inadequate testing.

Look what's happened with infection rates where schools have opened.

Bill

She claims that community spread is not increasing as a result of schools opening, either, but her argument for that seems to be entirely anecdotal (basically, "numbers aren't going up yet in Florida or Georgia.") She says, "I’ve read many stories about outbreaks at universities, and vanishingly few about outbreaks at the K–12 level." ....which is not a particularly rigorous argument. I mean--doing that kind of granular analysis would be really difficult--there are a whole lot of schools, each with a different reopening plan and taking different precautions, each with different initial levels of community spread and different factors that might be affecting spread after schools reopened. But...

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure it depends on how the school (and students!) are handling things.

the UW keeps making the news because of how much greek row is a hotspot.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our school district has been open, in person since Sept 3rd (virtual for 3 weeks before that).  Our weekly average numbers have been pretty steady with a slight trend downward.   We have had 2 seperate cases at our school, no one that has been quarintined due to "close contact" at our school has yet to test positive.  District is 60,000 students.  10,000 staff.  A large # of the staff that has tested positive has been at the district office where there aren't any students. Masks are worn all the time, except lunch, which is assigned seating to help with contract tracing. 

Edited by Plateau Mama
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kokotg said:

She claims that community spread is not increasing as a result of schools opening, either, but her argument for that seems to be entirely anecdotal (basically, "numbers aren't going up yet in Florida or Georgia.") She says, "I’ve read many stories about outbreaks at universities, and vanishingly few about outbreaks at the K–12 level." ....which is not a particularly rigorous argument. I mean--doing that kind of granular analysis would be really difficult--there are a whole lot of schools, each with a different reopening plan and taking different precautions, each with different initial levels of community spread and different factors that might be affecting spread after schools reopened. But...

Correct. She did not track what's happening to parents, grandparents, etc in this "study." That's a major fail.

Covid rates have skyrocketed as schools have opened. Bad "studies" are dangerous.

Bill

Edited by Spy Car
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see some studies comparing districts that enforce masking versus districts that don't. Both of my sons attend programs that have been in person for at least a couple of months now and neither has had any spread from one positive case each. That gives my some confidence that schools can be open if masking is enforced, but it's just anecdotes not data. I suppose schools haven't been in session long enough to do a solid study yet, but maybe by Christmas break we'll know what works.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

I'd like to see some studies comparing districts that enforce masking versus districts that don't. Both of my sons attend programs that have been in person for at least a couple of months now and neither has had any spread from one positive case each. That gives my some confidence that schools can be open if masking is enforced, but it's just anecdotes not data. I suppose schools haven't been in session long enough to do a solid study yet, but maybe by Christmas break we'll know what works.

I'd like to see good studies, period. I'm getting most of my data from other countries, because they have sufficiently thorough contact tracing that they know where most infections are from. Here in the US, we barely know anything at all. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kokotg said:

She claims that community spread is not increasing as a result of schools opening, either, but her argument for that seems to be entirely anecdotal (basically, "numbers aren't going up yet in Florida or Georgia.") She says, "I’ve read many stories about outbreaks at universities, and vanishingly few about outbreaks at the K–12 level." ....which is not a particularly rigorous argument. I mean--doing that kind of granular analysis would be really difficult--there are a whole lot of schools, each with a different reopening plan and taking different precautions, each with different initial levels of community spread and different factors that might be affecting spread after schools reopened. But...

And it's really meaningless, because with invasive nose probes the only real testing option, people are NOT having their kids tested. Period. 

My sister, who has been tested herself multiple times, isn't having my niece tested, even though a close contact/classmate tested positive. They have to do the quarantine anyway, so unless she gets sick, she won't be tested. Most parents feel the same way. So yeah...without actual testing, we have no idea. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

And it's really meaningless, because with invasive nose probes the only real testing option, people are NOT having their kids tested. Period. 

My sister, who has been tested herself multiple times, isn't having my niece tested, even though a close contact/classmate tested positive. They have to do the quarantine anyway, so unless she gets sick, she won't be tested. Most parents feel the same way. So yeah...without actual testing, we have no idea. 

Exactly this. I really thought they would have less invasive testing widely available before schools reopened. In my mind, students would be tested weekly. We really are flying blind and it will be awhile before we know if deaths increase with opening schools.

I am hopeful that masking works. So far there haven’t been outbreaks at schools here-that we know of. But, without testing, it is possible that Asymptotic kids/kids with mild symptoms are spreading it in the community.

The children’s hospital here is only testing patients (in and out patient). The only option for testing kids I know of is drive through. My ds7 had a fever for 6 days at the beginning of September, so the pediatrician thought I should get him tested. I took him to the drive through place and he completely freaked out and didn’t cooperate at all. I won’t have him tested unless it is absolutely necessary now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kokotg said:

Brown economist Emily Oster is in the Atlantic with this article this week saying that the risks of school openings have been overblown https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/schools-arent-superspreaders/616669/. Here's the heart of her argument:

Our data on almost 200,000 kids in 47 states from the last two weeks of September revealed an infection rate of 0.13 percent among students and 0.24 percent among staff. That’s about 1.3 infections over two weeks in a school of 1,000 kids, or 2.2 infections over two weeks in a group of 1,000 staff. Even in high-risk areas of the country, the student rates were well under half a percent.

Okay, so, first of all, an infection rate of .13 percent in students and .24 in staff equals 130 and 240/100,000 respectively, which is....not good. I don't know anywhere that classifies anything over 100/100,000 as anything other than a high level of community transmission. But then if you dig into the data, it gets much worse: https://statsiq.co1.qualtrics.com/public-dashboard/v0/dashboard/5f62eaee4451ae001535c839#/dashboard/5f62eaee4451ae001535c839?pageId=Page_1ac6a6bc-92b6-423e-9f7a-259a18648318

I don't know where she's coming up with .13 percent for students, because the graph lists it at .15 for 9/13-9/27, for a rate of 150/100,000. More troubling: the rate DOUBLED compared to the previous two week period. And MORE troubling, if you look at confirmed and suspected cases instead of just confirmed, you get a rate for students of 740/100K. I don't know why the numbers are so much higher for suspected and confirmed except that it's my understanding that parents are under no obligation to report testing results to schools (or to have their kids with symptoms tested in the first place, of course). 

So for real--am I missing something? I believe I've said before that my formal training in statistics consists of a single college class more than 20 years ago. Because it looks to me like this data that's supposed to reassure everyone that school openings are going FINE actually show that schools are some of the most dangerous places in the country to be right now. I guess if you want to argue, "it could be worse!" these numbers work....but if you want to argue that kids in schools are less likely to have and spread covid, it seems to show just the opposite. 

Edited to correct link to data.

 

Looking quickly, I think the .13 is the average over TWO weeks, where the .15 is the rate the second week.  I think that the .13 is not a weighted average of the two weeks because more students were in session the second week (some districts did not open until then), so the .13 is the percent positive of all tests over the two weeks 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ktgrok said:

And it's really meaningless, because with invasive nose probes the only real testing option, people are NOT having their kids tested. Period. 

My sister, who has been tested herself multiple times, isn't having my niece tested, even though a close contact/classmate tested positive. They have to do the quarantine anyway, so unless she gets sick, she won't be tested. Most parents feel the same way. So yeah...without actual testing, we have no idea. 

It is the same swab one of my kids had for whooping cough when he was 6.  It wasn't fun but I would get it done if my child were exposed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

You guys still only have the nose swabs? We have other choices for tests here that are less invasive.

CA has said that those K-12 schools which have been allowed to open are not to blame for spread that's going on, and usually once our crazy government sees a reason for spread the reason gets shut down post haste, so I don't think they'd lie about it.

Just nose swabs. I've heard about a saliva test being developed, but no idea if/when it will be available around here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think contract tracing is really a key to keeping spread down. Here's a good article about what the colleges here are doing. Every student was tested on arrival, and I think at the 7 and 14 day mark. VT has a .05 positive test rate since schools came back in August. Maine and NH are close to that as well. 

https://vtdigger.org/2020/10/09/one-month-into-reopenings-colleges-count-few-new-covid-cases/

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bootsie said:

Looking quickly, I think the .13 is the average over TWO weeks, where the .15 is the rate the second week.  I think that the .13 is not a weighted average of the two weeks because more students were in session the second week (some districts did not open until then), so the .13 is the percent positive of all tests over the two weeks 

The chart says the .15 is for 9/14-9/27, so two weeks. I mean, it's a minor quibble--either way it's a high rate, much higher than the previous 2 week period, and gets much higher still when you add in "suspected" cases

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kokotg said:

The chart says the .15 is for 9/14-9/27, so two weeks. I mean, it's a minor quibble--either way it's a high rate, much higher than the previous 2 week period, and gets much higher still when you add in "suspected" cases

You are right.  I was looking quickly and saw two data points and a discussion of two weeks and didn't realize each data point was a two-week period.  I wonder if the difference is the data is that some schools reported their numbers after the article was written and the dashboard is updated.  

I don't know what the numbers look like for children who are not in school, so it is hard to tell how much school is contributing to cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

I don't know what the numbers look like for children who are not in school, so it is hard to tell how much school is contributing to cases.

I don’t even know what the numbers actually look like for kids in school, given the bad data!! 

If school exposes you to more people, it’s likely to cause spread. In places where school is set up to make superspreading events, even more so. And that’s going to be all we know, given the quality of our data. Not very satisfying, it’s true.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

You are right.  I was looking quickly and saw two data points and a discussion of two weeks and didn't realize each data point was a two-week period.  I wonder if the difference is the data is that some schools reported their numbers after the article was written and the dashboard is updated.  

I don't know what the numbers look like for children who are not in school, so it is hard to tell how much school is contributing to cases.

I don't know what the numbers for kids in particular look like nationwide, but that 740/100,000 number is as high as overall numbers just about anywhere in the country right now. Like if you look at the very reddest of the red in the NYT map of hotspots (mostly Wisconsin and other places in the midwest right now), they have incidence rates similar to that. Pre-school openings, at least, kids were overall much less likely to have covid than adults, so I'd be very surprised if kids who aren't in school have a higher overall incidence rate than the worst places in the midwest right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kokotg said:

I don't know what the numbers for kids in particular look like nationwide, but that 740/100,000 number is as high as overall numbers just about anywhere in the country right now. Like if you look at the very reddest of the red in the NYT map of hotspots (mostly Wisconsin and other places in the midwest right now), they have incidence rates similar to that. Pre-school openings, at least, kids were overall much less likely to have covid than adults, so I'd be very surprised if kids who aren't in school have a higher overall incidence rate than the worst places in the midwest right now.

Are the incidence rates you are comparing to in the Midwest confirmed cases or confirmed and suspected cases?  

If there are about 48,000 people in diagnosed each day, with a population of 331,547,490, that is .20% of the population over a two week period.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Are the incidence rates you are comparing to in the Midwest confirmed cases or confirmed and suspected cases?  

If there are about 48,000 people in diagnosed each day, with a population of 331,547,490, that is .20% of the population over a two week period.  

Wow--that's sobering--I hadn't done that math lately, and apparently I had a rosier view of things based on my own area's improving-until-recently numbers. It's confirmed (my midwest numbers). That's why I'd like to see more information about what a "suspected" case is when it comes to school numbers. I can't imagine any reason why a school self-reporting data would "suspect" a covid case unless it was probably a covid case. So I'm assuming it's because parents don't have to report tests (whereas health departments DO get all the data on test results). But I don't know, because she doesn't say. And that 48,000 figure is from now, yes? When numbers have been rising rapidly overall over the past few weeks. It was lower just a few weeks ago when she was collecting the data she reports (and her numbers for confirmed cases are worse for just high schools, incidentally: .207 for students and .39 for staff). So AT BEST she can say that reopening schools has meant that kids now have about an average risk of infection compared to the rest of the US population with its current really terrible numbers, (though one argument for reopening was that kids have a much LOWER risk), that high school teachers "only" have about twice the risk, and that you're pretty sure that even though numbers started going back up after schools reopened,  that isn't WHY numbers are going up, although you really don't have any data to support that. If you assume the suspected cases are actual cases, things look way worse than that. And this is with tons of precautions in place in most schools (more than 90% of the schools that reported had mask mandates for staff and students, for example, and most were hybrid rather than full time). I mean, to be fair, the title isn't "you aren't more likely to be exposed to covid in a school than in other places" (it seems that you are, based on her data) it's "schools aren't superspreaders." And I will agree that the worst case scenario where there are a lot of classrooms or schools where half the kids get covid does not seem to be happening, and that's a relief. 

Edited by kokotg
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Wow--that's sobering--I hadn't done that math lately, and apparently I had a rosier view of things based on my own area's improving-until-recently numbers. It's confirmed (my midwest numbers). That's why I'd like to see more information about what a "suspected" case is when it comes to school numbers. I can't imagine any reason why a school self-reporting data would "suspect" a covid case unless it was probably a covid case. So I'm assuming it's because parents don't have to report tests (whereas health departments DO get all the data on test results). But I don't know, because she doesn't say. And that 48,000 figure is from now, yes? When numbers have been rising rapidly overall over the past few weeks. It was lower just a few weeks ago when she was collecting the data she reports (and her numbers for confirmed cases are worse for just high schools, incidentally: .207 for students and .39 for staff). So AT BEST she can say that reopening schools has meant that kids now have about an average risk of infection compared to the rest of the US population with its current really terrible numbers, (though one argument for reopening was that kids have a much LOWER risk), that teachers "only" have about twice the risk, and that you're pretty sure that even though numbers started going back up after schools reopened,  that isn't WHY numbers are going up, although you really don't have any data to support that. If you assume the suspected cases are actual cases, things look way worse than that. And this is with tons of precautions in place in most schools (more than 90% of the schools that reported had mask mandates for staff and students, for example, and most were hybrid rather than full time). I mean, to be fair, the title isn't "you aren't more likely to be exposed to covid in a school than in other places" (it seems that you are, based on her data) it's "schools aren't superspreaders." And I will agree that the worst case scenario where there are a lot of classrooms or schools where half the kids get covid does not seem to be happening, and that's a relief. 

Yes, much of the data is messy and is reported inconsistently.

The 48,000 is about what the 7-day average of new cases on Worldometer for the US has been recently.  If school aged children make up approximately 20% of the US population, that cohort greatly influences the overall average daily infection rate.  So, if the average in the US is 0.2% average two weeks (or about 1% of the US population every two-and-a-half months), but children have a lower infection rate, then the infection rate of the remaining population would have to be greater than 0.2% every two weeks.

I don't know that you can draw any conclusions from two data points.  I am not sure that the two observations are statitstically significantly different, especially since the sample sizes are not the same.  In addition, the short-run data is extremely messy, especially when it comes from different sources.  If there is a delay from symptoms, to testing, to results, short-run data is extremely sensitive to whether cases are reported as of day of symptoms, testing, or results--especially when results come much later in some cases.

The term "superspreader" seems to be used differently in different scenarios--one is whether a lot of cases are attributed to a certain type of event.  But, looking at the dispersion of infection rates, the term superspreader refers to the tendency for one PERSON to be related to spreading a lot of cases, which is hidden by looking at averages.  So, looking over large data sets and average infection rates really doesn't tell you anything about superspreading in that sense.  For example, there have been large outbreaks at churches, but if you looked at the average infection rate at churches it would be low and the superspreading church situations wouldn't really be a blip in the averages.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

 

The term "superspreader" seems to be used differently in different scenarios--one is whether a lot of cases are attributed to a certain type of event.  But, looking at the dispersion of infection rates, the term superspreader refers to the tendency for one PERSON to be related to spreading a lot of cases, which is hidden by looking at averages.  So, looking over large data sets and average infection rates really doesn't tell you anything about superspreading in that sense.  For example, there have been large outbreaks at churches, but if you looked at the average infection rate at churches it would be low and the superspreading church situations wouldn't really be a blip in the averages.  

It's true--her evidence for schools not being superspreaders seems to be entirely that  "I haven't heard many stories about big outbreaks like in colleges." I haven't either, really, but I'm not ready to run to the Atlantic with my findings. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

For example, there have been large outbreaks at churches, but if you looked at the average infection rate at churches it would be low and the superspreading church situations wouldn't really be a blip in the averages.  

What are you averaging over, though? All churches over all time? I’d assume that most of the time, they don’t contain a spreader, so yes, low infection rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, chiguirre said:

I'd like to see some studies comparing districts that enforce masking versus districts that don't. Both of my sons attend programs that have been in person for at least a couple of months now and neither has had any spread from one positive case each. That gives my some confidence that schools can be open if masking is enforced, but it's just anecdotes not data. I suppose schools haven't been in session long enough to do a solid study yet, but maybe by Christmas break we'll know what works.

Agreed.  I personally know teachers who are teaching at private schools that are currently in-person.  I was talking with one yesterday who said they have had zero cases affect their school so far.  Their students mask, are socially distanced, and the families are taking extra care by keeping anyone who might not be feeling the best at home as a precaution. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lady Marmalade said:

Agreed.  I personally know teachers who are teaching at private schools that are currently in-person.  I was talking with one yesterday who said they have had zero cases affect their school so far.  Their students mask, are socially distanced, and the families are taking extra care by keeping anyone who might not be feeling the best at home as a precaution. 

In the data the article cites, more than 90% of the schools have mask mandates for students and teachers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, kokotg said:

In the data the article cites, more than 90% of the schools have mask mandates for students and teachers. 

There's a BIG difference between having a mandate and actually enforcing the mandate.   I realize my info is purely anecdotal, but something is working right in the local private schools that have been able to stay open while every other school has gone 100% virtual.  What actually IS the difference?  I would bet on both enforcement and willing compliance with masking and distancing.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, kokotg said:

This post from a local facebook group about a high school near me might give some insight into suspected vs. confirmed cases. And into a lot of things, really.

 

Screen Shot 2020-10-13 at 11.48.30 AM.png

Keep your kid home when sick is good advice.  But if they have symptoms that could be Covid then test and/or keep home for at least 14 days and inform the authorities.  But is certain people claim to be safe 5 days after a positive test people are going to be confused at best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2020 at 10:18 PM, chiguirre said:

I'd like to see some studies comparing districts that enforce masking versus districts that don't. Both of my sons attend programs that have been in person for at least a couple of months now and neither has had any spread from one positive case each. That gives my some confidence that schools can be open if masking is enforced, but it's just anecdotes not data. I suppose schools haven't been in session long enough to do a solid study yet, but maybe by Christmas break we'll know what works.

Anecdotally - My daughter has been back in person for four months in a school of 500 students.  They get screened on arrival, mask all day, sanitize and maintain social distancing.  There have been no students or teachers infected.  They have had parents getting ill and then the family has had to isolate (but no children diagnosed positive in those cases either).

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hannah said:

Anecdotally - My daughter has been back in person for four months in a school of 500 students.  They get screened on arrival, mask all day, sanitize and maintain social distancing.  There have been no students or teachers infected.  They have had parents getting ill and then the family has had to isolate (but no children diagnosed positive in those cases either).

The problem is that this anecdote isn't super useful 😞 . If there haven't been ANY students who infect others at school, then you don't know how many would be infected if one did show up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

The problem is that this anecdote isn't super useful 😞 . If there haven't been ANY students who infect others at school, then you don't know how many would be infected if one did show up. 

That's true, but our experience and for the other schools in the area, it seems to indicate that if protocols are followed, they are effective.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Our state just issued new guidelines on who needs to quarantine after exposure.  Basically, anyone who had at least 15min in close proximity to a positive patient or a person who has lost their smell and taste.  I am glad that they are finally moving to identifying people by that rather easy metric, rather than the much less reliable metric of fever.

It is obviously in our schools because team after team of high school football teams have to forfeit games because of COVID>

Link to post
Share on other sites

The school district near me has a saliva Covid test available to all students and teachers free of charge for the first quarter of the year.  My district is getting ready to open up the saliva Covid test lab within the next few weeks.  I think this will be helpful for those who want to participate in testing.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

 Our state just issued new guidelines on who needs to quarantine after exposure.  Basically, anyone who had at least 15min in close proximity to a positive patient or a person who has lost their smell and taste.  I am glad that they are finally moving to identifying people by that rather easy metric, rather than the much less reliable metric of fever.

It is obviously in our schools because team after team of high school football teams have to forfeit games because of COVID>

The problem is that it is easier for an outsider to observe a fever, even though it is less reliable.  It is harder to know if someone else has lost their sense of taste or smell.  I was someplace recently and there was suddenly an odor of something on fire.  I know as looked around to see where the scent was coming from I was also looking around to see if anyone near me did NOT react to the scent.  Do we got to having randomly generated scents to see if people react?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

You mean the parents isolating? 

That, and also temperature and health screening of each child at the door every morning (they have staggered start times from 7am to 9am), sanitising hands when entering a classroom, wearing of masks all day and social distancing of 1.5m.   The kids are spaced outside in the playground when they want to eat their packed lunches - we have freezing nights during winter, but the days warm up, so it was doable.

I do believe these actions have contributed to having no teachers or children testing positive in our school in the four months they have been open during mid-winter and our Covid peak.  

 

  

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...