CDC mask announcement (a new thread)

[pinball]

2 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

And I'm sorry for the 586,000 dead Americans and those who have lost loved ones around the world.

And I know where to point the finger of blame at those who recklessly spread this disease without regard for others, you?

Bill

Stop changing the subject and go apologize to Plum.

 

[Spy Car]

10 minutes ago, pinball said:

Stop changing the subject and go apologize to Plum.

 

I'm not responsible for Plum's husband's illness.

People like you are the ones who owe America an apology.

When will that be forthcoming?

Bill

 

 

[pinball]

1 minute ago, Spy Car said:

I'm not responsible for Plum's husband's illness.

People like you are the ones who owe America an apology.

When will that be forthcoming?

Bill

 

 

You’re responsible for YOUR heartless and mealymouthed dismissal of Plum’s situation.

You know nothing about me, so peddle your self-righteous garbage somewhere else.

[Spy Car]

Just now, Plum said:

That’s just what I want to hear, someone telling me where my anger should be placed. 👍

As much as I want to be your whipping boy, I imagine.

How you are angry with me and not with those willfully spreading Covid is beyond me.

Bill

[Spy Car]

14 minutes ago, pinball said:

You’re responsible for YOUR heartless and mealymouthed dismissal of Plum’s situation.

You know nothing about me, so peddle your self-righteous garbage somewhere else.

I'm not heartless at all. People who willfully spread Covid and willfully spread lies like Covid is no worse than a cold are the "heartless" ones.

I didn't dismiss Plum's situation. Why lie?

Bill

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Spy Car

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Plum said:

Thanks. I understand how the whole sick people wearing masks thing works. I probably lead a much more sheltered life than you. My kids aren’t yet vaccinated (though they are scheduled) and they aren’t going out places where they would be exposed. We live on the outskirts of the city where cases and population is much lower than other zip codes. If I had young children that weren’t vaccinated, I’d be making different decisions based on my area and our lifestyle. In certain circumstances it still makes sense for all of us to mask. We never masked when going to the park. We were outside, walking, not playing on the playground or with other kids  and so there was no reason to. 

I don't think you're leading a much more sheltered life than me currently. But I was hoping to finally see other people more this summer and this announcement has thrown me for a loop 😕 . 

[Spy Car]

Just now, Plum said:

My whole point is there’s a lot of people out there who are doing the best they can to inform themselves and make decisions based on their own circumstances. That doesn’t make them evil, ignorant or willingly spreading disease. You  are assuming people are purposely spreading it because they are ignorant assholes when really most cases are probably family members spreading it during the holidays and birthday parties. Dh got it at work. We don’t blame anyone nor do we sit at home stressing about what other people are doing. We are responsible for ourselves and I don’t expect to be able to control what anyone else does.  

Being ugly to people is not how to win them over. I’d much prefer the CDC treat everyone like adults and just be straight with us. I don’t think that is asking too much. 

There is a whole range of people spreading Covid, from those who heroically worked on the front lines--putting themselves and their families at risk to save others and keep critical supplies flowing--to people who have taken reasonable precautions, but been unlucky, to those who just did not give a damn and who recklessly acted against everything that was known about how to mitigate the spread of this disease.

It is the latter who have acted unethically and immorally. Those people deserve the anger that's due to their bad behavior and the ramifications that have flowed for their recklessness. They knew what they were doing and just didn't care.

Bill

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

9 minutes ago, Plum said:

Being ugly to people is not how to win them over. I’d much prefer the CDC treat everyone like adults and just be straight with us. I don’t think that is asking too much. 

I'm not being ugly to anyone 😕 . I'm just worried about my kids and worried about people deciding to unmask due to this guidance... I've already seen people say they'd let their kids go unmasked because of this on this board. 

You can be straight with people and still emphasize a sense of community responsibility. I wish they had done that, that's all. 

[AmandaVT]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I'm not being ugly to anyone 😕 . I'm just worried about my kids and worried about people deciding to unmask due to this guidance... I've already seen people say they'd let their kids go unmasked because of this on this board. 

You can be straight with people and still emphasize a sense of community responsibility. I wish they had done that, that's all. 

Our school district has been firm in that our guidance on masks (yes, all the time even if vaccinated) will not be changing through the end of the school year. Today, first day after CDC announcement, we had more mask refusals than I can count. More kids went to the office today then I've seen there in the past few months. "The CDC says I don't have to".  It's not fun to spend the day being mask enforcers instead of teaching.

[Spy Car]

I'm also in favor of personable responsibility. But feel quite let down that some of our fellow citizens who don't seem to understand what the concept means.

Bill

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, AmandaVT said:

Our school district has been firm in that our guidance on masks (yes, all the time even if vaccinated) will not be changing through the end of the school year. Today, first day after CDC announcement, we had more mask refusals than I can count. More kids went to the office today then I've seen there in the past few months. "The CDC says I don't have to".  It's not fun to spend the day being mask enforcers instead of teaching.

We went to a playground for the FIRST TIME IN A YEAR when we were in NYC for a week to say goodbye to our friends. It was definitely a relief that most people were masked up. Now I don't know what it's going to look like when we go back 😭.

[HeartString]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

We went to a playground for the FIRST TIME IN A YEAR when we were in NYC for a week to say goodbye to our friends. It was definitely a relief that most people were masked up. Now I don't know what it's going to look like when we go back 😭.

Do you still feel the need to mask outside?  I thought the recommendations and science were pretty clear that outdoors transmission was almost nil?  That’s been my whole social life during this whole thing. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by HeartString

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Plum said:

Your posts read like you lump everyone who doesn’t fall in line with what you think is an ignorant asshole who doesn’t care one whit about other people’s lives. You are even saying this about the CDC. You may not like or agree with their recent decision but that does not mean they are purposely trying to kill little children.
Everyone needs to make their own risk assessment. 

Obviously. But this announcement changes my risk assessment and bums me out! 

[AmandaVT]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

We went to a playground for the FIRST TIME IN A YEAR when we were in NYC for a week to say goodbye to our friends. It was definitely a relief that most people were masked up. Now I don't know what it's going to look like when we go back 😭.

We're in a very high compliance area, although on the edge of a lot of "covid is a hoax" people. I was surprised today - it was not just the usual suspects refusing to mask up.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, HeartString said:

Do you still feel the need to mask outside?  I thought the recommendations and science were pretty clear that outdoors transmission was almost nil?  

I would guess that's true for short-term interactions. I'm not convinced about little kids who are hanging out for hours and are in each other's faces and suck their thumbs. 

[HeartString]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

I would guess that's true for short-term interactions. I'm not convinced about little kids who are hanging out for hours and are in each other's faces and suck their thumbs. 

Hm.  I’ve been operating with the idea that outside=safe and hanging out at the playground for hours. 

[Spy Car]

6 minutes ago, Plum said:

Your posts read like you lump everyone who doesn’t fall in line with what you think is an ignorant asshole who doesn’t care one whit about other people’s lives. You are even saying this about the CDC. You may not like or agree with their recent decision but that does not mean they are purposely trying to kill little children.
Everyone needs to make their own risk assessment. 

No they don't. Read my last post. What you are suggesting is the precise opposite of the truth.

If you don't think there are assholes out there who don't give a damn about who they make sick and who have engaged in reckless behaviors, then we will need to agree to disagree.

Bill

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Spy Car

[Arcadia]

8 minutes ago, AmandaVT said:

Our school district has been firm in that our guidance on masks (yes, all the time even if vaccinated) will not be changing through the end of the school year. Today, first day after CDC announcement, we had more mask refusals than I can count. More kids went to the office today then I've seen there in the past few months. "The CDC says I don't have to".  It's not fun to spend the day being mask enforcers instead of teaching.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/operation-strategy.html
“

• CDC recommends schools continue to use the current COVID-19 prevention strategies for the 2020-2021 school year.

---

View Previous Updates

Key Points

1. Evidence suggests that many K-12 schools that have strictly implemented prevention strategies have been able to safely open for in-person instruction and remain open.
2. CDC’s K-12 operational strategy presents a pathway for schools to provide in-person instruction safely through consistent use of prevention strategies, including universal and correct use of masks and physical distancing.
3. All schools should implement and layer prevention strategies and should prioritize universal and correct use of masks and physical distancing.
4. Testing to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination for teachers and staff provide additional layers of COVID-19 protection in schools.”

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Plum said:

But it’s not forever. There is a light somewhere around September. In the meantime, there’s the fresh air outside in the summer daylight.
What exactly changes for you with these new recommendations? And what were you planning to do when your state lifted the mask mandate completely? 

I just feel more worried if people will have their kids unmask. I don't know what precisely will change for us -- it depends on how people behave. 

 

Just now, Plum said:

My state was planning on fully opening with the mask mandate in place but set to expire in June. So no masks anywhere. This moved up the timeline but didn’t change a whole lot on my end. 

I don't know what NY is planning to do. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, HeartString said:

Hm.  I’ve been operating with the idea that outside=safe and hanging out at the playground for hours. 

I think outside is much safer. But kids sneeze in each other's faces, lol. 

[HeartString]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

I think outside is much safer. But kids sneeze in each other's faces, lol. 

Up until just recently everyone has been super cautious about keeping sick kids home.  Now that adults are vaccinated I’ve seen that slip though, which drives me CRAZY.  We’ll be avoiding one particular friend for a couple of weeks because of it. 

[kokotg]

4 minutes ago, HeartString said:

Hm.  I’ve been operating with the idea that outside=safe and hanging out at the playground for hours. 

Speaking of poor communication from the CDC...

I've been operating somewhat with the idea that outside=safe for the past year; basically no masks with people we know well and know to be pretty cautious (it's a small group), no asks when walking in uncrowded areas, masks in crowded public spaces. My kid wears a mask on the playground, but it's because he's more comfortable doing that; I'd be fine with him taking it off. We nervously let him play baseball this spring, even though we figured he'd be the only kid on the team wearing a mask (we were right). (And then, of course, after we agonized over the decision, one of his coaches got covid a couple of weeks in. But no one else seems to have gotten it from him). I was more cautious back in the winter when numbers were terrible; less so as they've gone down lately. 

SO...all of that is preface to how not reassuring I found it when the CDC started easing guidelines on outside masking a couple of weeks ago by assuring everyone that less than 10% of transmissions happen outside. I always understood that figure to be WAY, WAY less than 10%. 10% is still like 60,000 deaths in the US, so...NOT GREAT.

But then it appears that the CDC's messaging was again confusing, and the actual number is, in fact, likely much lower and much closer to what I assumed when I made decisions over the past year:

That benchmark “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” as Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said. In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/briefing/outdoor-covid-transmission-cdc-number.html

(Of course, that doesn't necessarily suggest unmasked at the playground is fine, since that can certainly involve crowds and close conversation).

All of this to say that I don't think it's that the CDC has gotten WAY BETTER at messaging in the past two weeks just because their latest guidelines seem to veer so drastically in the other direction. I think they're still bad at messaging, but they're bad in a bunch of different ways. Whatever you think of the new guidelines, they've certainly caught everyone off guard and left a whole lot of people/businesses/organizations/etc. scrambling to figure out what to do with them. 

 

[Spy Car]

10 minutes ago, Plum said:

I’m sure there are but I don’t think there are nearly the number of people like this that you think there are. Most people are middle of the road, maybe watch the news, might not even have social media and you never hear from them. I’m sorry you have such an awful vision of humanity. That has not been my experience at all. 

Among those actively spreading Covid, I bet the percentages of willfully indifferent folks is pretty durn high.

Big outbreaks followed massive super-spreader events as regularly as clockwork.

I'm sorry that a certain segment of our society doesn't seem to know how to act responsibly and is willing to put other people's lives at risk. That's heartbreaking.

Bill

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, kokotg said:

Speaking of poor communication from the CDC...

I've been operating somewhat with the idea that outside=safe for the past year; basically no masks with people we know well and know to be pretty cautious (it's a small group), no asks when walking in uncrowded areas, masks in crowded public spaces. My kid wears a mask on the playground, but it's because he's more comfortable doing that; I'd be fine with him taking it off. We nervously let him play baseball this spring, even though we figured he'd be the only kid on the team wearing a mask (we were right). (And then, of course, after we agonized over the decision, one of his coaches got covid a couple of weeks in. But no one else seems to have gotten it from him). I was more cautious back in the winter when numbers were terrible; less so as they've gone down lately. 

SO...all of that is preface to how not reassuring I found it when the CDC started easing guidelines on outside masking a couple of weeks ago by assuring everyone that less than 10% of transmissions happen outside. I always understood that figure to be WAY, WAY less than 10%. 10% is still like 60,000 deaths in the US, so...NOT GREAT.

But then it appears that the CDC's messaging was again confusing, and the actual number is, in fact, likely much lower and much closer to what I assumed when I made decisions over the past year:

That benchmark “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” as Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said. In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/briefing/outdoor-covid-transmission-cdc-number.html

(Of course, that doesn't necessarily suggest unmasked at the playground is fine, since that can certainly involve crowds and close conversation).

All of this to say that I don't think it's that the CDC has gotten WAY BETTER at messaging in the past two weeks just because their latest guidelines seem to veer so drastically in the other direction. I think they're still bad at messaging, but they're bad in a bunch of different ways. Whatever you think of the new guidelines, they've certainly caught everyone off guard and left a whole lot of people/businesses/organizations/etc. scrambling to figure out what to do with them. 

 

I'm a little skeptical about the "less than 1%" figure. Like... do we really know that well? I'll buy "under 10%" but I don't think we know the chains of transmissions nearly well enough to estimate it that well. 

[kokotg]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

 

I'm a little skeptical about the "less than 1%" figure. Like... do we really know that well? I'll buy "under 10%" but I don't think we know the chains of transmissions nearly well enough to estimate it that well. 

They cite a few different studies in the full article. This one found 95 out of 10,925 outside transmissions worldwide, and all 95 were from Singapore construction sites: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32656368/. I remember reading about studies very early on out of China that showed virtually no outdoor transmission. A study from Ireland showed .1%. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/outdoor-transmission-accounts-for-0-1-of-state-s-covid-19-cases-1.4529036?_ga=2.24768063.440780849.1618007143-575568946.1618007143 There MAY be more outdoor transmission, but I haven't seen any studies that show this to be case, and I've seen quite a few that show it to be extremely low. 

[kokotg]

This is the one I remember from China last spring, showing only 2 cases out of 1245 outside: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058v1

 

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, Plum said:

It also followed holidays like clockwork.
There’s also an element of unpredictability to this virus coming in waves that has epidemiologists stumped. 

True. And people who declined to follow CDC warnings not to gather indoors in  large groups (and unmasked) are blameworthy in my estimation.

It's not as if the warnings were not very public. Right?

Bill

 

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, kokotg said:

They cite a few different studies in the full article. This one found 95 out of 10,925 outside transmissions worldwide, and all 95 were from Singapore construction sites: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32656368/. I remember reading about studies very early on out of China that showed virtually no outdoor transmission. A study from Ireland showed .1%. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/outdoor-transmission-accounts-for-0-1-of-state-s-covid-19-cases-1.4529036?_ga=2.24768063.440780849.1618007143-575568946.1618007143 There MAY be more outdoor transmission, but I haven't seen any studies that show this to be case, and I've seen quite a few that show it to be extremely low. 

Except that kids are getting such limited testing, and I'm much more worried about this with kids than with adults... 

Plus, I'd be curious what fraction of transmissions are actually contact traced? 

[HeartString]

26 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Speaking of poor communication from the CDC...

I've been operating somewhat with the idea that outside=safe for the past year; basically no masks with people we know well and know to be pretty cautious (it's a small group), no asks when walking in uncrowded areas, masks in crowded public spaces. My kid wears a mask on the playground, but it's because he's more comfortable doing that; I'd be fine with him taking it off. We nervously let him play baseball this spring, even though we figured he'd be the only kid on the team wearing a mask (we were right). (And then, of course, after we agonized over the decision, one of his coaches got covid a couple of weeks in. But no one else seems to have gotten it from him). I was more cautious back in the winter when numbers were terrible; less so as they've gone down lately. 

SO...all of that is preface to how not reassuring I found it when the CDC started easing guidelines on outside masking a couple of weeks ago by assuring everyone that less than 10% of transmissions happen outside. I always understood that figure to be WAY, WAY less than 10%. 10% is still like 60,000 deaths in the US, so...NOT GREAT.

But then it appears that the CDC's messaging was again confusing, and the actual number is, in fact, likely much lower and much closer to what I assumed when I made decisions over the past year:

That benchmark “seems to be a huge exaggeration,” as Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, said. In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me. The rare outdoor transmission that has happened almost all seems to have involved crowded places or close conversation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/briefing/outdoor-covid-transmission-cdc-number.html

(Of course, that doesn't necessarily suggest unmasked at the playground is fine, since that can certainly involve crowds and close conversation).

All of this to say that I don't think it's that the CDC has gotten WAY BETTER at messaging in the past two weeks just because their latest guidelines seem to veer so drastically in the other direction. I think they're still bad at messaging, but they're bad in a bunch of different ways. Whatever you think of the new guidelines, they've certainly caught everyone off guard and left a whole lot of people/businesses/organizations/etc. scrambling to figure out what to do with them. 

 

I remember that.   I think a HUGE part of the problem is science people at the CDC doing interviews.  They need to hire a freaking PR team and shut the scientists up already!  They keep talking “off the cuff”.   The less than 10% thing wasn’t an official announcement, it was just a mention. But it gets reported around and you have to dig to find the whole truth there.   It’s been 15 months, HOW are these super smart people so slow to realize they need good Communications experts!  
 

I’m pretty comfortable with a 1% or lower chance of an outdoor transmission if it gives us an outlet. We’re avoiding outdoor crowds, but sparse playground feel ok. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by HeartString

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, Plum said:

Not wise, but not intentionally malicious either. 

Irresponsible.

Bill

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Plum said:

Not wise, but not intentionally malicious either. 

I think this is a tricky one, though. I know one cares about intention, but to what extent? Do people have to be intentionally malicious to be behaving very badly? I am pretty sure that many people who support all sorts of appalling behavior aren't intentionally malicious. 

[kokotg]

2 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I remember that.   I think a HUGE part of the problem is science people at the CDC doing interviews.  They need to hire a freaking PR team and shut the scientists up already!  They keep talking “off the cuff”.   The less than 10% thing wasn’t an official announcement, it was just a mention. But it gets reported around and you have to dig to find the whole truth there.   It’s been 15 months, HOW are these super smart people so slow to realize they need good Communications experts!  

One thing I've learned during this pandemic is that a whole lot of organizations were NOT PREPARED to suddenly need to be doing so much public relations work. Apparently there's an enormous shortage of effective spokespeople out there. 

[HeartString]

2 minutes ago, kokotg said:

One thing I've learned during this pandemic is that a whole lot of organizations were NOT PREPARED to suddenly need to be doing so much public relations work. Apparently there's an enormous shortage of effective spokespeople out there. 

It’s so FRUSTRATING that they haven’t figured it out. I’m sure there are companies that handle that sort of thing.  

Edited May 17, 2021 by HeartString

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think this is a tricky one, though. I know one cares about intention, but to what extent? Do people have to be intentionally malicious to be behaving very badly? I am pretty sure that many people who support all sorts of appalling behavior aren't intentionally malicious. 

Openly flouting public health directives during a deadly pandemic counts as "intentionally malicious" to me.

People were warned and asked not to engage in such behaviors and did so anyway, with intent.

Bill

 

[Not_a_Number]

Am I the only one totally uncomfortable with that 1% figure, lol?? I believe that for adults on construction sites, because they aren't close together. But I don't believe we're actually testing enough kids to speak for kids. And how would we know whether kids transmitted it outside or inside?? 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Spy Car said:

Openly flouting public health directives during a deadly pandemic counts as "intentionally malicious" to me.

People were warned and asked not to engage in such behaviors and did so anyway, with intent.

Bill

Eh, I guess I tend to think that people that aren't doing things to hurt people on purpose aren't being "malicious." But I don't know if that absolves them of blame... 

[Spy Car]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Eh, I guess I tend to think that people that aren't doing things to hurt people on purpose aren't being "malicious." But I don't know if that absolves them of blame... 

No, deliberately flouting public health guidelines and spreading a potentially deadly virus makes people fully blameworthy. 100%.

Bill

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Plum said:

For me, it's spitting in someone's face or yelling at the retail employee.

It's not bad decisions from someone who just wants to get together with family and tries to do all of the right things. People are people and they aren't perfect especially when given half-accurate  messaging. 

What about people going to work with colds and not getting tested? Or people who are talking about how masking is living in fear? 

[Spy Car]

6 minutes ago, Plum said:

For me, it's spitting in someone's face or yelling at the retail employee.

It's not bad decisions from someone who just wants to get together with family and tries to do all of the right things. People are people and they aren't perfect especially when given half-accurate  messaging. 

You just blew up your argument in favor of leaving things only to "personal responsibility," as these are examples of the personal irresponsibility that directly fueled the pandemic.

Bill

[kokotg]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Am I the only one totally uncomfortable with that 1% figure, lol?? I believe that for adults on construction sites, because they aren't close together. But I don't believe we're actually testing enough kids to speak for kids. And how would we know whether kids transmitted it outside or inside?? 

The point the NYT is making with the Singapore construction site stuff (I know the paywall makes it really hard to talk about NYT articles) is that those 95 cases are probably not even real cases of outside transmission, because they classified construction workers working inside unfinished buildings as outside transmission (and it's really hot in Singapore, so it's likely  workers would have sought out indoor spaces whenever possible).

I haven't seen any studies specifically looking at kids. I find the China study maybe the most compelling because it was early on and I imagine contact tracing was pretty robust at the time. So, yeah, it's certainly possible we'll see things differently in retrospect, find out the numbers are different for kids, whatever, but so far I really haven't seen anything that suggests outdoor transmission is anything other than extremely rare. And it does seem to be something that a good deal of research has gone into. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Plum said:

Talking about something is just words. People can say whatever they want. Masks are just pieces of cloth, they aren't political... or at least they shouldn't be.

We agree there, but I think you'll find plenty of people on this board who'll tell you that they are. 

 

Just now, Plum said:

People going to work with colds or worse attending birthday parties with colds has always been a pet peeve of mine. I have teacher friends that have an extremely different tolerance level than I have. 

I can be not happy with their decisions but also not think they are the worst humans ever. This pandemic has been very hard on some people. I can't bring myself to blame them for needing some relief from the solitude. Compassion is needed in these cases, not accusation. 

I don't think people who are getting some human connection are the worst humans ever. We've had a pod ourselves, and we were lucky we could do that... 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, kokotg said:

So, yeah, it's certainly possible we'll see things differently in retrospect, find out the numbers are different for kids, whatever, but so far I really haven't seen anything that suggests outdoor transmission is anything other than extremely rare. And it does seem to be something that a good deal of research has gone into. 

Here's the question: how would we actually trace outdoor transmissions at playgrounds and schools? It's quite easy to trace indoor transmissions, because they are mostly between people who are choosing to spend time together in the same space for a prolonged time. Grocery stores are generally VERY short interactions and don't really count. 

But would we even be able to trace outdoor transmissions well most of the time? How often are people spending time together outdoors but not indoors?

[Not_a_Number]

@Plum: off-topic, but how's your husband doing? I remember you posted about the vaccine reaction... 

[HeartString]

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

Here's the question: how would we actually trace outdoor transmissions at playgrounds and schools? It's quite easy to trace indoor transmissions, because they are mostly between people who are choosing to spend time together in the same space for a prolonged time. Grocery stores are generally VERY short interactions and don't really count. 

But would we even be able to trace outdoor transmissions well most of the time? How often are people spending time together outdoors but not indoors?

And things that are outside often have an indoor component, known as the bathroom.  I try to avoid needing the bathroom at the park and will use the farther away less crowded one if it a little girl emergency.  

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, HeartString said:

And things that are outside often have an indoor component, known as the bathroom.  I try to avoid needing the bathroom at the park and will use the farther away less crowded one if it a little girl emergency.  

I have to admit I'm not that worried about the bathroom, either, since it's SO short term. 

But I am a little skeptical that little kids who are in each other's faces all the time aren't transmitting COVID at all if unmasked. Mostly because it doesn't seem logical to me, and because I don't see that we're measuring anything that bears on it. 

[freesia]

13 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Am I the only one totally uncomfortable with that 1% figure, lol?? I believe that for adults on construction sites, because they aren't close together. But I don't believe we're actually testing enough kids to speak for kids. And how would we know whether kids transmitted it outside or inside?? 

I'm comfortable with it. I've never believed there was much outdoor spread.  That said, I've always had my dd who plays with her friends outdoors wear a mask until last Friday.  Her close friend's father is high risk, so I wanted negligible risk.  But numbers are tanking so much and he (and the adults in our house) are all vaccinated now so I told her that she could go without now.

I have gotten together outside and socially distanced with a couple of friends the whole pandemic. 

There aren't a lot of tests on kids, but I would think if they traced the kids who got it they may have gotten some indication of where it was contracted.  I know many adults who've gotten covid (most of them health workers tbh) but no children and children around me have been playing outside masked since last summer.

Dd is playing soccer masked now.  After the first practice, the coach tested positive (I don't know about her dd).  We took a weekend off but no one else got covid. I've heard lots of stories like that and haven't seen any studies or evidence that refutes it.  I think that's why soccer started again this spring.

Your children are 4 and 8, right?  I am not sure even at that ages I would worry about masked outdoor play even with unmasked children right now. You like probability--wouldn't you say the probability of outside masked play plus the small chance a young child gets a symptomatic case plus the even smaller chance of long covid is vanishingly small?

Of course, you absolutely can come to a different conclusion based on your kids and your life.  I respect that.  I just wanted to tell you my thoughts bc you asked.

🙂

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, freesia said:

Your children are 4 and 8, right?  I am not sure even at that ages I would worry about masked outdoor play even with unmasked children right now. You like probability--wouldn't you say the probability of outside masked play plus the small chance a young child gets a symptomatic case plus the even smaller chance of long covid is vanishingly small?

5 and 8 now, but yes 🙂 . And you may be right about that. 

I'll say that I think playgrounds are MUCH more interactive than sports. I wouldn't be surprised if sports weren't causing cases but playgrounds were. 

[Arcadia]

22 minutes ago, kokotg said:

The point the NYT is making with the Singapore construction site stuff (I know the paywall makes it really hard to talk about NYT articles) is that those 95 cases are probably not even real cases of outside transmission, because they classified construction workers working inside unfinished buildings as outside transmission (and it's really hot in Singapore, so it's likely  workers would have sought out indoor spaces whenever possible).

Thought the construction clusters last year were dorm related.

April 22, 2021 https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/singapore-probing-covid-19-re-infections-after-cases-workers-dormitory-2021-04-22/

”Singapore said on Thursday it is quarantining about 1,200 migrant workers after finding COVID-19 cases in their dormitory including among men who had recovered from the virus, raising concerns about re-infections.

Authorities are conducting COVID-19 tests for all residents of Westlite Woodlands dormitory after one worker was found positive on Tuesday during routine testing. The worker had received a second vaccination dose a week earlier and his roommate also tested positive.

So far, ongoing testing in the dormitory shows 17 recovered workers are positive for COVID-19”

@Not_a_Number

May 16th, 2021 https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/singapore-warns-children-susceptible-virus-variants-shuts-schools-2021-05-17/

“Singapore warned on Sunday that the new coronavirus variants, such as the one first detected in India, were affecting more children, as the city-state prepares to shut most schools from this week and draws up plans to vaccinate youngsters.

All primary, secondary and junior colleges will shift to full home-based learning from Wednesday until the end of the school term on May 28.

"Some of these (virus) mutations are much more virulent, and they seem to attack the younger children," said Education Minister Chan Chun Sing.

None of the children who have contracted the virus are seriously ill and a few have mild symptoms, he added.

…

The B1617 strain appeared to affect children more, said Health Minister Ong Ye Kung, citing the ministry's director of medical services Kenneth Mak. It was not clear how many children had contracted the strain.“

[kokotg]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

5 and 8 now, but yes 🙂 . And you may be right about that. 

I'll say that I think playgrounds are MUCH more interactive than sports. I wouldn't be surprised if sports weren't causing cases but playgrounds were. 

Maybe I'd worry more if my kid weren't such a little misanthrope 😉 Sort of kidding. Anecdotal of course, but I've heard of no outbreaks whatsoever associated with outdoor kid sports (and I looked pretty hard and asked a lot of people), and that informed our spring baseball decision. I think the coach getting covid early on was probably good for my anxiety in the long term (and he's okay!)...I had to remind myself that we didn't let him play because we didn't think there was any chance he'd be exposed to covid, but because we figured the risk of him getting it playing baseball was very low even he was.

[Moonhawk]

[this thread is moving too fast for long replies, lol, but I simply can't do these pithy things y'all are!]

26 minutes ago, Plum said:

Not wise, but not intentionally malicious either. 

23 minutes ago, Plum said:

It's also the non-scientific media attempting to relay scientific information to a mostly scientifically illiterate audience. It's a really bad version of telephone. 

I'm sorry, but I do think my parents are a good representation of a substantial part of the society who simply were not and are not concerned about precautions. They are more informed than I am, or you are, because they know it is a hoax and blown out of proportion (ah, the sweet smell of "did their own research"). You're right that they aren't being intentionally malicious but they are being obstinately obtuse and when it comes to others' lives I don't feel like there is a fig leaf to hide behind anymore on this subject.

You don't need to read 40 research abstracts and follow daily news to know that masks help, social distancing helps, and we were asked to stop large gatherings because it helps. The messaging may not be clear on some details (new CDC recs a good example), but these broad strokes were definitely clear well before fall and holidays and are still clear today, so yeah, the fig leaf is too small.

18 minutes ago, Plum said:

It's not bad decisions from someone who just wants to get together with family and tries to do all of the right things. People are people and they aren't perfect especially when given half-accurate  messaging. 

"I just want to see my family" is an understandable emotion. It is not a reasonable excuse to ignore reasonable precautions and prolong a worldwide pandemic that led (and continues to lead) to the death of millions of people. A lot of people did NOT "just see their family and do all the right things", so many people did NONE of the right things and not because they didn't KNOW about them, but because they didn't WANT to.

I think a lot of people on the board think there aren't really people like this, or they are a vanishingly small amount, and so are feeling the need to defend vilified-others with the cry of #notallpeople (or #notallpeoplewhoarenthermits). And I do agree with you, it's really not everyone;  I know a lot of people just want to live their lives and take reasonable precautions to not pass along Covid to others. Wanting to live and see loved ones is not a crime.

But the point is #toomanypeople. This is a large number of people, no, they are not trying to do anything and sometimes actively try to sabotage measures, and no, they are not just ignorant or too tired at the end of the day to keep up with the news, they have actively decided to be this way even knowing that information.

These are the people being called out, and rightfully so. By continuously giving this section of the population excuses and leniency, we aren't helping anyone and are making the situation worse for the actual people that are "trying to do all the right things" even if imperfectly.