A modest case for school reopening at the margin

That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column.  Here is one excerpt:

First and most important, there is a distinction between children spreading the virus and children spreading the virus through school activities. The case against a physical reopening rests on the public health dangers, but the relevant question is relative.

Even if the schools do not physically reopen, children will still hang out together. This is especially true for teenagers, and they are also a group that, in a South Korean study, can readily spread the virus to others. Not many parents are going to quarantine their 15-year-olds at home for many months, much less their 17-year-olds. Recall that Romeo and Juliet were teenagers and came together as lovers against extreme parental opposition and during a time of plague.

It is possible that these children will spread the virus less if they were at school than if they were spending time together on their own. At least at school there would be teachers and other staff to enforce some measure of social distancing and proper hygiene practices, such as regular hand-washing…

To be sure, it’s by no means certain that schools will be safer places for children; whether they are will depend on the region. Still, the mere citation of public health dangers isn’t quite as decisive an argument against physical reopening as it may seem.

I believe I was first prompted to consider this argument by some tweets by Amihai Glazer.

Comments

Open the economy now. No masks, no nothing. Let's pretend nothing happened since Feb 20.

Or lets talk about something more important, like the rise of progressive illibrealism.

When is Tyler going to get invovled in these debates?

Start with the premise that this is a highly infectious disease and regardless of masks, social distancing and shutdowns people will continue to become infected until we reach herd immunity. Everything else is wishful thinking.

>Recall that Romeo and Juliet were teenagers and....

Does Tyler know this was fiction? It's hard to tell with him.

It reminds me, though -- we should recall that during the War of the Worlds, the aliens were killed by an Earthly virus. Something to consider.

Actually laughed out loud

OK! I say we give it a try. No K-12 school this year and ALL school taxes returned to the taxpayers. Just try it for one year. No schools, no school employees and no school taxes. Who knows the voters may decide to make it permanent.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

He's trying to persuade English teachers who don't want schools open there.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

'no nothing'

Naked people. Just imagine that 56 year old that weighs 200 lbs naked. So much for the fantasy

Professional wrestling will need to be revised.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Largely-peaceful arsonists, looters, muggers, shooters, vandals, Maoist insurgents, Marxist BLM warriors, and other essential workers have been at it all along.

Teachers need to pull on their big-boy/big-girl pants.

Outdoor activities have been much less likely to spread the disease than enclosed, indoor ones... especially when persons are confined in rooms together for many hours.

Gallows humor, Wally.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Kids mostly hang out online when not at school these days.

Probably not so for the cool kids.

+1, definitely not.

Respond

Add Comment

Online is cool now. It’s pretty rare to see kids walking around the streets, malls, etc. these days compared to how it was 20 years ago.

As a parent of teens, I can say there is less physical interaction than when I was a teen, but still plenty enough to support Tyler’s point.

I concur. Teenagers spend less time roaming around in groups than they did when I was their age 40 years ago. However, I have spent a lot of my free time walking to, from, and around my local park for the past few months. I can assure everyone that there are still plenty of teens in San Diego spending plenty of time in groups without adult supervision. And, they are definitely not observing any of the standard precautions. I don't mean that some of them are not observing any precautions. I literally mean I have yet to see a teen in a group of their peers without adult supervision either social distancing or wearing a mask. So, I think Tyler's point is well taken. I don't really have a horse in this race, as I don't have children of my own. However, I suppose my life would be better if I had the streets and park to myself more often. That being said, I wouldn't agree with this purely out of selfishness.

They are in isolated pods.

Formerly called cliques, gangs, posses, packs

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

All the cool kids makes Tik-Toks, the others use Twitter

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

My 8th grader will be at a school that has more than twice as many students than it was built to accommodate. The hallways are packed to the brim between classes. They each have 10 different classes and rarely have the same kids in each class. At home during the pandemic, we let him go on bike rides with two friends and he’s played games outside with three others every week or so. In which scenario is he less likely to get the virus and spread it around?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"No one likes to admit it, but one of the most important arguments for much of K-12 education is simply that it provides day care services for parents. "

Our school system was looking into a combination of 3 options. The First was Virtual school, this is what we chose.

The other two options were traditional school and a hybrid option with half the students attending on Monday/Tuesday and half on Thursday/Friday. The board decided to go with the traditional option. However due to safety concerns the school system, this weekend, changed to the hybrid option.

Parents are very upset because the kids will only be in school 2 days a week.

Same here, but the daycare the school district runs is open 5 days a week.

Thereby defeating the entire purpose of keeping the kids out of school.

For whom?

Uncharitably teachers and admins will get paid full time for doing little to no actual work.

More charitably this is the method to keep vulnerable teachers at home with a full paycheck.

Either way it seems like the best outcome as far as the union is concerned. The fact that kids will end up together at the school in daycare anyways is irrelevant.

"Uncharitably teachers and admins will get paid full time for doing little to no actual work."

Not necessarily. My state isn't re-signing teacher contracts unless the teachers have a teaching load. Teachers are being signed up for both in school and virtual work. But if all the virtual slots are full and a teacher refuses to be on premise at the school, then I think they are expected to go on unemployment.

Interesting, thanks.

There will surely be variation state to state.

Respond

Add Comment

Can you get unemployment if you refuse to work?

Do you think the state will contest it?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

This is definitely the pre-K daycare run by a school that would be open 5 days, not the K-8 "daycare" run by a school.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

It’s an interesting clash of incentives. Parents vs teacher’s union. The most interesting part being the unusual situation in which costs, instead of being diluted over the public in normal Public Choice situations, is still concentrated among each set of parents.

My 60% confidence guess is that generally speaking it will fall along partisan lines since the NEA and AFT have more pull than the constituents.

Respond

Add Comment

Tyler thinks kids hang out at the mall.

Respond

Add Comment

"Recall that Romeo and Juliet were teenagers and came together as lovers against extreme parental opposition and during a time of plague."

A pundit is gonna pundit. Research takes too much time. Got a column to put out.

Argument from fictional evidence.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I just opened a word document and wrote a couple of short stories about teenagers sneaking out during a plague. I am now even more convinced we must open schools.

Respond

Add Comment

Does someone need to observe that Romeo and Juliet ended up dead?

It wasn't the plague that killed them. Rather it was their response to the idiocy of the supposed adults around them that did them in.

There might be a reason people keep reading that guy' stuff...

It was for the greater good, surely?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Sweden kept all schools until 9th grade open.
Parents of children in 9th grade are almost always less than 50 years of age.
In Sweden, as of July 24, out of 5,687 Coronavirus deaths 71, 1.2%, were younger than 50 years.
Conclusion: Keep schools open, keep older teachers at home and have grandparents refrain from hugging their grandchildren.
Disseminating data on COVID-19 without discriminating by age, is in essence misinformation.

Respond

Add Comment

Furlough the employees over 60 and the employees over 50 with a BMI > 30. Open the schools. Require PPE.

Lol. Zero percent chance of that happening anywhere in the US

Respond

Add Comment

That's a direct violation of the law. Employees over 40 are a protected class.

You can discriminate on the basis of a protected class if you have a compelling reason

You can, but most businesses aren't going to risk the inevitable lawsuits without some kind of authorization from the Federal government. Nor would HR or the corporate legal department sign off on these type of actions without significant legal cover.

> lawsuits

Qualified immunity to the rescue

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Given the events of the last four years, your complaint is twee.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

This is exactly what Cornell cited as their reasoning behind on-campus instruction. Kids hanging out on campus with testing is safer than kids hanging out in their hometowns with no testing, spreading the virus to their older, riskier parents.

And I have no doubt that if every elementary school could even come close to Cornell's testing regimen, it'd be the right idea. They also will have sensible safeguards that send people home.

But if you are say, dealing with a high school in St Louis, where there are hundreds of new cases a day, the school has no testing regimen set up at all, and if you go get a test for yourself, you can expect the results of said test in 6 business days, then the math is very different.

Talking about whether schools should be open or not without considering the disease's prevalence in the community at the time, the contact tracing capabilities, or the frequency and quality of the testing is useless, and Tyler doesn't even bother.

The parents in your example also get exposed if they keep their high school kids home. Those kids won't be locked in a tower. The parents are hosed either way, so why not get some education and work done?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

There are always these convincing, abstract arguments, then a bunch of people get sick (see Major League Baseball, for instance).
Reality will have it's own course. If you open the schools in some particular district and 500 kids get sick, that will have an effect. Somewhere else, perhaps that doesn't happen.

"If you open the schools in some particular district and 500 kids get sick": that could happen in three ways.

(i) Genuine cases, and (ii) by hysteria, and (iii) by children conspiring to avoid school.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Two of the most interesting and least talked about impacts of COVID will be the persistence and/or growth of heterodox models for elementary education and the divergence in test scores that will inevitably correlate with socioeconomic status and family structure . I have read private schools are getting a lot of interest as many are staying at least partially open (can't recall link). On social media, I am seeing a lot of parents creating study groups, unofficial rec sports leagues, etc. that is very reminiscent of how modern home schooling works. It's hard to imagine liberal major metro areas voting for lower property taxes, but I can envision a shift in suburban areas. I imagine democrats will call for even more federal funds for public schools, etc, etc.

It will get very interesting if whites and Asians who couldn't buy into the best school districts sustain their 'learning pods' simply for the purpose of avoiding undesirable classmates.

Respond

Add Comment

Now would be a good time to push hard for more school choice, but Republicans in their usual incompetence have allowed yet another crisis to go to waste.

https://www.amazon.com/Charter-Schools-Enemies-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1541675134

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Huge Icelandic study: "Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents."

They even sequenced the genes of the virus to compare it to the virus the parents had, if infected.
https://www.decode.com/iceland-provides-a-picture-of-the-early-spread-of-covid-19-in-a-population-with-a-cohesive-public-health-response/

Respond

Add Comment

The original Imperial College paper in March modeled this. I believe it was something like closing schools increased community and household by something like 25-50%, and they said that was an assumption taken from social mixing surveys and previous influenza data.

Yes, there was a lot we didn't know back in March.

Now we know kids are unlikely to get it. If they get it they are unlikely to sick. And, in any case, they are very unlikely to pass it on to adults.

Teachers giving it to each other is your biggest risk.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

If educators want virtual school can I pay my property tax with virtual dollars?

AKA Bitcoin?

I was thinking more of some new denomination I could have printed up at Staples or the local Ink Splotch. When I decide which deceased former president or other luminary to put on the bill

Maybe Secretariat

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

It’s hardly either/or, as in either kids socialize in school or they socialize outside of school. They’re socializing outside of school now - don’t be naive. Adding another social contact via school doesn’t mean kids will stop socializing out of school, it just means you are exposing teachers, admin, and support staff as well.

Medical professionals have been going to work since March. Policeman and fireman have been going to work since March. The trash has been getting picked up. A priori, I don't see why teachers and their administration should get special treatment. A posteriori, the evidence says send them back--no brainier. Of course we cant make rational policy decisions, we have to listen to teacher's "lived experiences" and fears.

Most of the private sector as well: grocery store workers, et al.

And it's not teachers, it's public school teachers and administrators. The private and charter schools in my area are preparing for business as usual, simply because they're accountable to the parents.

Yet the public systems not only refuse to do the work for which they're paid, they prevent other working parents from going to their jobs, or forcing them to arrange for childcare on top of the exorbitant taxes they pay for public school.

Why are we funding this again? Oh right, vouchers are evil.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Enforcing proper hygiene practices sounds straightforward, but historically enforcement of hand washing has been an issue even in our US hospitals. In the The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety reported in 2015 that compliance with hand washing in US hospitals was below 50 percent. What would be realistic to expect from our schools and teachers to reopen safely?

Respond

Add Comment

An Orange County school thought of an interesting option: in school, but with only 3-4 classes at a time to reduce daily interactions.

It was met with immediate protest, of course:

https://www.ocregister.com/2020/07/27/corona-del-mar-high-families-teachers-protest-newport-mesa-unified-for-change-in-curriculum-plan/

Personally I think OC is "hot" enough that it should be online.

That schedule is actually pretty common in the High Schools in my neck of the woods. The advantage is you can double up during a year on a subject. For instance my daughter took 7 years worth of science classes in 4 years of High School.

If a school wanted to go really radical, they could go to 1 class at a time. My High School would offer some classes during the summer that way. It was fairly common for students to take the required History class in the summer to make room for a foreign language elective during the year.

I am surprised more schools aren't suggesting AM/PM splits or every other week type splits. The MT/ThF split seems to be the norm.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I think I'm mostly bothered by the school closure arguments that conclude the only acceptable risk is zero. If that's your criterion, then schools can never reopen. Vaccines are expected to be more like flu vaccines that reduce transmission and intensity of illness rather than fully eliminating transmission. We send kids to school during flu season and we know that's actually very risky for children (I ended up in the emergency room on two occasions as a kid from flu). The whole thing is an argument for teaching statistics in high school.

Technically, it's an argument against teaching statistics in high school. In-person, anyway.

But seriously, this isn't an issue of statistics, it's an issue of basic common sense.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Just let the parents decide what to do. I suspect 50+% won't actually end up sending their kids to school even if they fully reopen.

Yes, let the parents decide not politicians and bureaucrats defending their power and salaries. If parents decide not to send their children, then they should be allowed to rejoin and be placed at their old grade levels only if they approve of physical, psychological, and course exams (otherwise, they must repeat the incomplete grade level).

Respond

Add Comment

If 50% have daycare options sure.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

This argument sounds absurd. What am I missing?

Surely the kids that are currently hanging out are not hanging out with rotating groups of dozens their peers in small, enclosed spaces. If they've parents who enforce social distancing, they're not even hanging out at home—so maybe restaurants and cars but also outdoors. Certainly the risk of transmission is lower.

Respond

Add Comment

Defund all closed schools and universities. Defund all public services which are not being provided. Stop stealing people for services not provided.

If politicians and their bureaucrats insist in being paid for services not provided, start a tax rebellion!

Private sources of income were disrupted or directly destroyed by politicians and bureaucrats, and the damage was compounded by forcing them to continue paying taxes for public services no provided.

And remember that virtual services are not the same as in-person services. If a public school or university or a government agency wants to provide virtual services, they should be partly defunded. Social justice for all!

Respond

Add Comment

At the margin, discouraging indoor interaction leads to fewer indoor interactions. At the margin, fewer indoor interactions lead to fewer transmission events. No need to play intellectual jujitsu in order to rationalize some sort of 12 dimensional "well actually" type argument here. But hot takes do have to be served hot.

Respond

Add Comment

What is clear is that the parents that care are working in groups, hiring teachers, providing healthy snacks. The kids in these pods (as the NYT calls them) are thriving. They are posting 1 year of attainment gains for every 6 months in school. Reading, math, you name it.

For the kids with parents that don't care, they aren't even logging in. I've heard from some working in LA that 40% of their class isn't logging even once in a week. And those kids are still hanging out with friends 24x7. They are falling far behind.

So, we have one group that is benefiting enormously from the virus from an education standpoint. And we have another group that is suffering mightily. And the politicians don't care. Their #1 goal is to make it hell on earth for November. And if poor kids get hammered, then, well, you gotta crack a few eggs to make an omlette, amiright?

The best proposals to date involve putting all kids back in school, having 20 year old college education majors "proctor" the class rooms. And the teachers appears as a floating head on a screen doing the actual teaching.

This lets parents go back to using school as daycare. And parents that want to opt out and keep the kids home can. And teachers don't have to worry about covid.

PS. In CA, most aren't aware that the classes aren't held anymore. I was under the impression that at 10:05, Miss Johnsons's math class all met on zoom or skype for class. Nope. All the work is self paced. And if the end of the quarter comes and you haven't gotten the work done, CA made sure last spring that you'd not be penalized.

If/when these differences in parent investment create gaps in achievement in upcoming years, we'll be told it's because of racism.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Until the past few weeks, my part of the country had been spared. But our good fortune is over. Every day I learn of another person I know who is infected. I just talked to one and she is suffering. In my work I am now dealing daily with how to respond to an infected employee in the businesses and health care practices I represent. Much of the country may believe we are on the downward slope, but down here it's becoming a major crisis. There's no lock-down, but simply following CDC guidelines is forcing many of my clients to either shut down or significantly cut back on operations. Reopening schools will not make matters better, and could make matters far worse.

For those who don't know, the Republican version of the covid relief bill conditions school relief on re-opening. Playing politics with children's lives?

"Playing politics with children's lives?" By necessity that's what a public school system does.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Good news: "The United States saw a decrease in new COVID-19 cases on Sunday and Florida reported its lowest single-day tally in almost three weeks.

Florida heath officials on Monday reported the Sunday figure at just under 8,900 -- the lowest number since July 7 -- which pushed the statewide total past 432,000. The state also reported 77 more deaths, almost half as many that were reported Saturday."

If there a peak here, maybe Florida comes in at 20% of New York's casualties.

Bad news - American deaths/7 day rolling average
July 24 1141/918, July 25 908/931, July 25 451/947, July 26 596/948, July 27 596/964, July 28 1245/973

The case count peaked 10 days ago, the deaths won't decline for another week.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Interesting that many teachers and their union bosses don't want to work. But they will expect doctors and nurses to be ready to treat them when they are sick.

Well, doctors and nurses mostly have acceptable levels of PPE and even so they die. Noone has the budget to provide teachers with PPE.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

""The United States saw a decrease in new COVID-19 cases on Sunday "

Sunday and Monday are the lowest posted days every week because a lot of the reporting gets delayed due to the weekend. The rolling 7 day average is still climbing (though it's nowhere near the April or May numbers),

Florida, on the other hand, is probably past the peak. There Case counts have clearly been dropping. The 7 day average peaked 11 days ago. However, deaths usually lag by 14-17 days, so it's quite possible they haven't peaked yet. (Technically the rolling average dipped, but just by a small amount),

The number of new cases for the last several weeks of July are nowhere near the seven day average of April or May - they are twice as high.

The discussion was about deaths per day. It's pretty clear by the number of relative deaths that the Covid19 cases from April/May in the US were seriously under reported. There wasn't adequate testing and many more people had it than were ever listed as confirmed cases.

The current deaths per day is less than half the April peak.

Scratch that, I apologize, because the discussion was about New Cases and deaths per day.

And you are correct that the "Confirmed" case count is twice as high as the April or May numbers.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I have to wonder. How many kids in high school would get a better education from online learning. They can skip getting bused to wherever, they can skip recess and lunch break, they can avoid endless disruptions to learning from anti-social classmates, they can avoid sexual and racial harassment, they can avoid bullying, they avoid substitute teachers, they can avoid PE, they can avoid spending a hour walking from class to class, they can avoid the time for taking roll.

Sad to say, if we tracked the time from when a kid walks out his front door to the time he walks back in his front door, most of the time is wasted, unproductive, and not spent learning.

I think many teens could learn more in half the time, with more comfort, more safety, and less anxiety by learning at home.

The function of even high school is day care, in which working parents don't trust the teens to be well behaved at home.

I think this type of optimism about better education is not realistic. Agree on bullying, less commute time, and inefficient class activity, but distractions at home are also significant. Being in person at school restricts unproductive technology use on laptops, tablets, or phones. While there can be some level of supervision at home, I would expect a number of students to spend more time not working on school. Another aspect of online classes I have experienced myself is an increase in students wanting to share answers or quickly searching the internet to complete something as fast as possible. In person classes and lectures demand more attention and have more supervision throughout the course of the school day. There may be a sizable group that do learn better online, but I'd expect overall that to not be the case.

Respond

Add Comment

Approximately done, my fairly good student HS son has had a really difficult time with HS and HS summer school since it went online. you have no idea how much harder it is just to keep track of stuff without the social interaction of school. Online school is terrible k-12. It would be better to have nothing than just play pretend.

Respond

Add Comment

I've heard home-schoolers make a similar point. A full educational day only requires about 3-4 hours.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Florida’s coronavirus death toll hit a single-day record high Tuesday, with 191 deaths bringing the statewide total to 6,240. It's a small price to pay to get children back in school so their mothers can go back to work and we can get the economy moving again.

This is not true, you have to go by day of death, in which case the peak was 2 weeks ago:
https://twitter.com/Prof_JTaylor/status/1287768168635797504/photo/1

Respond

Add Comment

+1

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I don't know how
Anyone can claim
A
Proposal is Modest
If one is unfamiliar
With the specifics of each situation.

Instead of modesty,
It sounds like
Hubris.

Respond

Add Comment

Why is the developmental well-being of children always absent from these discussions? Are today's adults really such selfish narcissists that they just don't care? Or are today's adults so monumentally stupid that the very real harm this whole fiasco is doing to our children, who face virtually no risk from Kung Flu? The completely dysfunctional response to this relatively mild disease is so depressing, and has blown every last shred of credibility our "expert" class might have had left.

It's my since hope that Gen Z is paying attention to all of this, and when they reach adulthood that they rain down furious vengeance on their elders as repayment for our callous disregard for their well-being as children.

Respond

Add Comment

The primary stakeholders/decision-makers in public education are the teachers unions, local government apparatus, and homeowners.

Will it lower teacher compensation or benefits?
Will it affect administrator compensation or benefits?
Will it affect the value of homes in the area?

If the answer is no to all three, it's not a matter of concern to the real stakeholders. 2020 is a great lesson in Public Choice.

Parents probably care a bit, too.

And we’re about to run the experiment to see if their priorities are even relevant to the discussion.

As I said, it will be along partisan lines for major municipalities. Politicians need the teachers union much more than parents

Regardless of who today’s politicians choose to listen to, it is my sincere hope (and I will remind them) that today’s children extract vengeance on tomorrow’s senior citizens for the selfish destruction they’ve caused. Unfortunately the Boomers won’t be around to punish by then. This is the final, grandly selfish act of the “Me” generation. Stealing years of life from the young for themselves.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

MLB with their best laid plans, resources and moolah could not prevent a rapid spread of the infection. It would be a dream to expect the outome will be any different if schools reopen in person, unless the intent is to achieve herd immunity sooner at the risk of expending innocent lives of their parents, teachers, grandparents and a few of their own friends.

You may think you are an armchair academic but by spreading such misinformation you are really showing how heartless you really are and are responsible for some fraction of the innocent people who have died and will die because of your pseudoscientific babble. But you have a column to sell and clicks to capture and interviews to give.

Are MLB players under 14? That should have been news.

Respond

Add Comment

MLB with their best laid plans, resources and moolah could not prevent a rapid spread of the infection.

They're all under 40; the infection isn't going to be lethal. It's a reasonable inference the infections spreads among them because they're noncompliant with protocols.

No tagging? First basemen at least six feet way from base runner. Catcher must stay six feet from batter? Wait until you see the new football rules.

Respond

Add Comment

Those under 40 can still die, it's just less likely than older people. And surviving with lung damage isn't so great for a career athlete.

And if adults are non compliant with protocols than how likely is it that teenagers and 5, 6 7 year olds are going to be.

Respond

Add Comment

" It's a reasonable inference the infections spreads among them because they're noncompliant with protocols."

The League cancelled the season to protect their employees who went out and partied anyway. It would make sense to just have the season without populating the stadiums.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Another argument in favor of opening is schools is that it decreases the risk for parents and for businesses that kids frequent and increases the risk for teachers, whom loyal MR readers hate.

Turing test fail

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Marginal schools?

Respond

Add Comment

There are many studies that show that children under 10 are less susceptible and transmit less. They're under-represented in the RT-PCR tests or serological aB tests.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20095190v1

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-evidence-on-kids-and-covid-11590017095?emailToken=9d1ca02f65992cd3f705592d2706111eJL4hqaatbDFGqr6ZiIS1x23/yfC1HYB7dEIT4CMdcMUsr5ALdyYqOFNWfXbIJxxcD95OIeMyzWlO2Tnumn43hQ%3D%3D&reflink=article_copyURL_share

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1481.full

Kids in high school spread just as well as adults.

Also, don't cite a May 20 WSJ article when there is more current information.

Also, you apparently hoped someone would not read your last article, which says:

" On the other hand, when removing all contacts in the school setting, we do not consider potential trickle-down effects on the mixing patterns of other age groups; for instance, parents may need to leave work to take care of school-age children. Our modeling approach indicates that limiting contact patterns to those observed during vacations would interrupt transmission for baseline R0 up to 1.5 (Fig. 3, A and C). Removing all school contacts would do the same for baseline R0 up to 1.2. If we apply these interventions to a COVID-19 scenario, assuming a baseline R0 of 2 to 3.5, we can achieve a noticeable decrease in infection attack rate and peak incidence and a delay in the epidemic, but transmission is not interrupted (Fig. 3, B and D). For instance, for a baseline R0 of 2.5 and assuming a vacation mixing pattern, the mean peak daily incidence is reduced by about 64%. In the corresponding scenario where school contacts are removed, we estimate a reduction of about 42%. Overall, school-based closure policies are not sufficient to entirely prevent a COVID-19 outbreak, but they can affect disease dynamics and hence hospital surge capacity. It is important to stress that individuals aged 5 to 19 years in Shanghai represent 9.5% of the population (19), markedly lower than the mean in China [16.8% (19)] and other countries [including Western countries; e.g., 19.7% in the United States (20)]."

I call it misinformation.

By calling it misinformation, I am calling, Cat, your statement misinformation, not the Science article, which does not say what you claim it does.

You are not reading this correctly The article says:
“We found that susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection increased with age. Young individuals (aged 0 to 14 years) had a lower risk of infection than individuals aged 15 to 64 years {OR = 0.34 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.24 to 0.49], p < 0.0001}. By contrast, older individuals aged 65 years and older had a higher risk of infection than adults aged 15 to 64 years [OR = 1.47 (95% CI: 1.12 to 1.92), p = 0.005].”

Young individuals (aged 0 to 14 years) had a lower risk of infection than individuals aged 15 to 64 years !
Susceptibility to infection Increased with age !!

There are many other papers that claim this and also all the serological studies from Iceland , Vo Italy, and Spain.
In Vo no infection in 234 children under 10 , a proportion of which lived in infected households
In the Lancet Spain Study ( June 25)
“Additionally, our results indicate that children and adolescents have lower seroprevalence than adults and seroprevalence does not vary by sex”
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(20)30177-2/fulltext
I don’t think you want to be convinced , so nothing will convince you !

You chose not to read the part that shows the transmission effect to adult populations; Do you understand Rnaught and how to read it? Go back and look at the text that I posted from the article. Evidently, you choose not to read, again from what was posted: " Removing all school contacts would do the same for baseline R0 up to 1.2. If we apply these interventions to a COVID-19 scenario, assuming a baseline R0 of 2 to 3.5, we can achieve a noticeable decrease in infection attack rate and peak incidence and a delay in the epidemic, but transmission is not interrupted (Fig. 3, B and D). For instance, for a baseline R0 of 2.5 and assuming a vacation mixing pattern, the mean peak daily incidence is reduced by about 64%."

You are right: I will not be convinced by rhetoric that does not match the facts, or what the paper said.

Also, Cat, I don't think you understand the concept of social mixing, which is the point of part of this paper. So, let's say that a single kid has a low chance of acquiring the disease. Now, let's social mix that kid with kids from 300-400 other households, that the kid had not otherwise mixed with but for school, and add to that mix population also a population of adults who serve those children..janitors, bus drivers, teachers, etc.

Evidently you do not understand the difference between an individual and a composite or a social mix. Read the paper again because that is what the quotes that I post refer to in a social mix.

You say this : "Kids in high school spread just as well as adult"
I had said this :
"There are many studies that show that children under 10 are less susceptible and transmit less. They're under-represented in the RT-PCR tests or serological aB tests. "
I said children under 10 " not high school but you just went off with high school.
That's what I am claiming and it's supported by much evidence.
you chose to bring in social mixing in a paper that's still claiming children are less susceptible to infection.
That's all I have claimed but you still keep arguing about some " unrelated modeling" part of one paper when I have posted several and you have posted none.

Cat, For kids under ten, the modeling involved "social mixing"; you looked at the infection rate for one class, but did not account for social mixing, which the report account for. In your reply here, you again do not account for social mixing, nor do you refute the words of the study which did and found that there would be a marked reduction (I believe 42%) from school closures.

Next time when you cite a study, please read it.

"For instance, for a baseline R0 of 2.5 and assuming a vacation mixing pattern, the mean peak daily incidence is reduced by about 64%. In the corresponding scenario where school contacts are removed, we estimate a reduction of about 42%. Overall, school-based closure policies are not sufficient to entirely prevent a COVID-19 outbreak, but they can affect disease dynamics and hence hospital surge capacity. It is important to stress that individuals aged 5 to 19 years in Shanghai represent 9.5% of the population (19), markedly lower than the mean in China [16.8% (19)] and other countries [including Western countries; e.g., 19.7% in the United States (20)]."

Read the original post of mine.
1- I never talked outbreaks, you did
2- I never talked about social mixing you did
I only claimed that the under 10 are less susceptible and less infectious which is supported by many papers but that's not what you want to talk about.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

-85, Bill first strawmans the argument and then calls Catinthehat a liar based upon Bill's strawman position.

Cat's argument: "There are many studies that show that children under 10 are less susceptible and transmit less."

Bill's response: "Kids in high school spread just as well as adults. ... I am calling, Cat, your statement misinformation"

That's without a doubt a strawman position. And Bill double's down on his trolling by calling Cat's statement misinformation.

Watt, You cannot read both the paper and what I said. Cat is looking at the infection rate for kids, and I am looking at social mixing.

If you have access to a computer and a network analytics model, put in the probability of a node receiving an inbound infection and list the nodes that it connects to and the nodes that the other nodes it connects to connect to.

You will understand why, as the paper did explain but neither you nor Cat read, that the infection rate would increase from social mixing.

I cannot help you if you cannot read. I try to help you understand, but that seems like you are determined to argue but not reason.

Removing all school contacts would do the same for baseline R0 up to 1.2. If we apply these interventions to a COVID-19 scenario, assuming a baseline R0 of 2 to 3.5, we can achieve a noticeable decrease in infection attack rate and peak incidence and a delay in the epidemic, but transmission is not interrupted (Fig. 3, B and D). For instance, for a baseline R0 of 2.5 and assuming a vacation mixing pattern, the mean peak daily incidence is reduced by about 64%. In the corresponding scenario where school contacts are removed, we estimate a reduction of about 42%. Overall, school-based closure policies are not sufficient to entirely prevent a COVID-19 outbreak, but they can affect disease dynamics and hence hospital surge capacity. It is important to stress that individuals aged 5 to 19 years in Shanghai represent 9.5% of the population (19), markedly lower than the mean in China [16.8% (19)] and other countries [including Western countries; e.g., 19.7% in the United States (20)]."

No Bill. Catinthehat made a specific claim.

Cat - "There are many studies that show that children under 10 are less susceptible and transmit less." He cited his source.

You straw manned his position with this: Bill - "Kids in high school spread just as well as adults."
Then You insulted him with this: Bill -" I am calling, Cat, your statement misinformation"

Bill - " Cat is looking at the infection rate for kids, and I am looking at social mixing."

Precisely! Cat made a claim about infection rates for children under 10. Now you are trying to move the goal posts by bringing in social mixing, which does not in any way refute his statement.

Cat said this: "I don’t think you want to be convinced , so nothing will convince you !"

I agree. There's no point in talking to you about this any longer, because you clearly aren't arguing in good faith.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Mask wearing of teenagers can also be enforced more in school.

Respond

Add Comment

How many kids are in a typical high school classroom, two dozen, three dozen? How many classrooms does each kid go to in a typical day? How many kids are typically hanging out on a street corner? Probably zero in the suburbs, but odds are the number is small, at least compared to the typical class size.

We've seen how well school opening worked in Israel. I guess we'll do the same thing. The pro-life states will copy Israel and close the schools down. The anti-life states will keep the schools running even as the kids and teachers get sick. Good luck finding substitute teachers, too.

(Look at how well it all worked out for baseball, and those guys have money, unlike our schools.)

Respond

Add Comment

I agree. It is a pretty modest case.

Respond

Add Comment

In Australia it wasn't clear if shutting schools was a good idea or not as children might end up spending more time with grandparents and other elderly care givers who are at most risk from the virus. So it was left to the states. Here in South Australia it was -- take your kids out of school if you can, but you can send them if you wish. Not a problem now of course, since there's no more SARS-CoV-2 here.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment