Schools closed until February? (part 3)

Lillyfae

Boggles wrote: »

I wouldn't call that hair splitting, that's a hefty "misinterpretation" of pretty pertinent details.

15 is a lot > 6

Statistically.

The hair splitting referred to data/ statistics, neither of which you are able to interpret. I have admitted my mis-recollection re numbers of staff, and corrected. 15 self isolating means that 9 more have been tested, so they could be positive. In any case, it's quite clear that this was an outbreak that occurred only amongst the staff, so there's something very wrong with that school's strategy.

meeeeh

Boggles wrote: »

I wouldn't call that hair splitting, that's a hefty "misinterpretation" of pretty pertinent details.

15 is a lot > 6

Statistically.

What is statistically impressive is that no students tested positive. Which would imply in that school teachers were safer in the class than outside with their colleagues.

Pretty good news I would say.

Stormyteacup

meeeeh wrote: »

What is statistically impressive is that no students tested positive. Which would imply in that school teachers were safer in the class than outside with their colleagues.

Pretty good news I would say.

Behind a paywall but did all the students in the school test negative then?

meeeeh

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Behind a paywall but did all the students in the school test negative then?

This is from the article:

The school has not been notified of any student cases. However, as a precaution, all transition year students and a “small” number of students from other year groups have been identified as close contacts and have been asked to self-isolate.

JimmyVik

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there evidence they haven't been? Any that has been presented would be too flimsy for even Rudy Guiliani

How many cases were there in primary schools since September?
How many cases were there in secondary schools since September?

Boggles

meeeeh wrote: »

What is statistically impressive is that no students tested positive. .

Nail on the head. Brilliant example, fair play to you.

That is statistically very impressive.

But if no students were tested, less so. Correct? Doesn't make the statistic false, as it is in a sense a true interruption of the data.

Stormyteacup

meeeeh wrote: »

This is from the article:

Well you could conclude that the outbreak was amongst staff only I suppose, but equally in the absence of any testing at all on students it’s a leap to conclude all were negative.

khalessi

Lillyfae wrote: »

The hair splitting referred to data/ statistics, neither of which you are able to interpret. I have admitted my mis-recollection re numbers of staff, and corrected. 15 self isolating means that 9 more have been tested, so they could be positive. In any case, it's quite clear that this was an outbreak that occurred only amongst the staff, so there's something very wrong with that school's strategy.

There are a few reasons why staff can be infected.
They share accomodation.
They touch something that has been infected unknowingly, afterall there was the case in Germany where someone was infected passing a salt sellar and in Japan where 75 people were infected touching lift buttons.
They were infected by asymptomatic children.
They were advised to have lunch in a classroom and took off mask to eat, just to name a few. Afterall the DES never updated information to say that this is not a droplet infection but aerosol spread.

It is not necessarily down to the school's stategy. Did they test the students?

JimmyVik

"The school has not been notified of any student cases. However, as a precaution, all transition year students and a “small” number of students from other year groups have been identified as close contacts and have been asked to self-isolate. "

Do they go on to give any other info, such as
Were they tested?
If they were, how many were tested?
If they were, how long after the other positive tests were the students tested?

Lillyfae

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Well you could conclude that the outbreak was amongst staff only I suppose, but equally in the absence of any testing at all on students it’s a leap to conclude all were negative.

True, and I don't want to assume, but aren't those identified as close contacts tested? Students have been identified as close contacts and are self isolating.

meeeeh

Boggles wrote: »

Nail on the head. Brilliant example, fair play to you.

That is statistically very impressive.

But if no students were tested, less so. Correct? Doesn't make the statistic false, as it is in a sense a true interruption of the data.

Where does it say no students were tested? Considering a significant number of them were self isolating as close contacts one would assume they were tested or did I miss where testing procedures changed.

Are you implying the close contacts were intentionally not tested? I would like to see where you are getting your information.

khalessi

meeeeh wrote: »

Where does it say no students were tested? Considering a significant number of them were self isolating as close contacts one would assume they were tested or did I miss where testing procedures changed.

Are you implying the close contacts were intentionally not tested? I would like to see where you are getting your information.

Regarding close contacts, there has been articles in the papers Irish Times if I recall about close contacts not being tested. The who of who gets tested is arbitrary.

Lillyfae

khalessi wrote: »

Regarding close contacts, there has been articles in the papers Irish Times if I recall about close contacts not being tested. The who of who gets tested is arbitrary.

Link please?

Boggles

meeeeh wrote: »

one would assume they were tested or did I miss where testing procedures changed.

What do they say about Ass-u-me?

meeeeh

khalessi wrote: »

Regarding close contacts, there has been articles in the papers Irish Times if I recall about close contacts not being tested. The who of who gets tested is arbitrary.

OK but do you have any information for that school that kids were not tested? Or are we just implying this because some don't like the fact the Covid spread firstly among staff (I'm saying firstly because kids could develop symptoms later).

khalessi

meeeeh wrote: »

OK but do you have any information for that school that kids were not tested? Or are we just implying this because some don't like the fact the Covid spread firstly among staff (I'm saying firstly because kids could develop symptoms later).

Do you not like facts? Thanks for letting me know as I presume the "we" is yourself and others. CHeers

meeeeh

Boggles wrote: »

What do they say about Ass-u-me?

Show me your link where it says kids were not tested.

Or are you afforded double standards where you can claim anything without actually providing any proof for your claims. The article states school was not informed of any cases among students so please provide me the link where it says that was because none were tested as you claim.

I would like to see for once that your claims are actually based on facts and not just insinuation you invented in your head.

Lillyfae

khalessi wrote: »

Do you not like facts?

The fact is that 6 teachers have tested positive. Since those defined as close contacts are tested, then I think it's safe to assume that these students were tested. I thought your argument before was that the definition of a close contact was different for schools so they didn't have to be tested.

Which is it? The definition of close contact in a school is different, or they're not testing all those who are defined as a close contact in schools?

meeeeh

khalessi wrote: »

Do you not like facts? Thanks for letting me know as I presume the "we" is yourself and others. CHeers

Oh no, I mean you and Boggles primarily. You claim you have scientific background yet you again ignore what was stated and imply what was not. The fact is at the time of article school was not informed about cases among students but was informed about cases among staff. Your conclusion is that students were not tested. Which is fine but I'm that as a woman of science you will appreciate some information should be provided how you came to that conclusion.

khalessi

Lillyfae wrote: »

The fact is that 6 teachers have tested positive. Since those defined as close contacts are tested, then I think it's safe to assume that these students were tested. I thought your argument before was that the definition of a close contact was different for schools so they didn't have to be tested.

Which is it? The definition of close contact in a school is different, or they're not testing all those who are defined as a close contact in schools?

It can be both you know or does that not suit you. It depends on the situation but sure dont worry about it.

ALl I can tell you is that it isnt my argument, it is Dr Abigail Collins PUblic Health Consultant who said that the identification of a close contact is deliberatiely conservative.

Take it up with her.

Boggles

meeeeh wrote: »

Show me your link where it says kids were not tested.

Or are you afforded double standards where you can claim anything without actually providing any proof for your claims. The article states school was not informed of any cases among students so please provide me the link where it says that was because none were tested as you claim.

I would like to see for once that your claims are actually based on facts and not just insinuation you invented in your head.

That is exactly what you are doing here.

You have zero, proof, data, evidence that any student was tested at the time of publication of that article.

But you did use "stats" to make it appear they were.

You illustrated my point perfectly and again I thank you.

meeeeh

Oh and I will take the link to the article where it says close contacts are not tested.

Lillyfae

khalessi wrote: »

It can be both you know or does that not suit you. It depends on the situation but sure dont worry about it.

ALl I can tell you is that it isnt my argument, it is Dr Abigail Collins PUblic Health Consultant who said that the identification of a close contact is deliberatiely conservative.

Take it up with her.

But it's not both. A close contact being conservative does not mean they are not tested. There was obviously nothing conservative about close contacts in the Limerick secondary school, or evidently nothing conservative about the number of close contacts.

Stormyteacup

meeeeh wrote: »

OK but do you have any information for that school that kids were not tested? Or are we just implying this because some don't like the fact the Covid spread firstly among staff (I'm saying firstly because kids could develop symptoms later).

There’s just no way to assume either way from the information given. It’s a big omission to say a small number of students were identified as close contacts and are self isolating, but specifically not mention if they were tested, especially as they are clear about the staff being tested.

And public health team can decide to not send the children for testing even if they are close contacts.

In the absence of symptoms/tests in students there’s no way to know if students transmitted virus first, or contracted it from staff afterward, or didn’t/won’t contract at all.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Nail on the head. Brilliant example, fair play to you.

That is statistically very impressive.

But if no students were tested, less so. Correct? Doesn't make the statistic false, as it is in a sense a true interruption of the data.

Thats why the statistics and the data need to be assessed to make a judgement. The statistic in this case is 0% student transmission. Without looking at the data it may present a false picture. There is a big difference between 0% of 1 and 0% of 100.

Just like with the rate of cases among school children as presented earlier in the thread. The statistic tell us schoolkids are the 2nd more likely group to get cases. The data tells us the are by far and away the single largest group in the country, and further analysis reveals the statistic that proportionally they get the virus less often than the average, despite being a group that is in school 5 days a week.

Lillyfae

Stormyteacup wrote: »

There’s just no way to assume either way from the information given. It’s a big omission to say a small number of students were identified as close contacts and are self isolating, but specifically not mention if they were tested, especially as they are clear about the staff being tested.

And public health team can decide to not send the children for testing even if they are close contacts.

In the absence of symptoms/tests in students there’s no way to know if students transmitted virus first, or contracted it from staff afterward, or didn’t/won’t contract at all.

Agree wholeheartedly with the bit in bold, but if public health don't want to test the children they wouldn't be identified as close contacts, they would be identified as casual contacts. There would be no point to those classifications otherwise.

khalessi

Lillyfae wrote: »

But it's not both. A close contact being conservative does not mean they are not tested. There was obviously nothing conservative about close contacts in the Limerick secondary school, or evidently nothing conservative about the number of close contacts.

They said they were deliberately not testing children and another PUblich Health consultant went on to say that it was because if the child had to self isolate who would mind them if the parents were working.

So a conclusion could be drawn that for them, it is safer having covid positive kids in schools rather then affect the workforce. As I said Public Health said this not me take it up with them.

Lillyfae

khalessi wrote: »

They said they were deliberately not testing children and another PUblich Health consultant went on to say that it was because if the child had to self isolate who would mind them if the parents were working.

So a conclusion could be drawn that for them, it is safer having covid positive kids in schools rather then affect the workforce. As I said Public Health said this not me take it up with them.

You need to provide some kind of a source Khalessi. As I remember the above was from before the definition of close contact was changed, about 2 months ago. If I am wrong, please provide the reference.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats why the statistics and the data need to be assessed to make a judgement. The statistic in this case is 0% student transmission. Without looking at the data it may present a false picture. There is a big difference between 0% of 1 and 0% of 100.

Just like with the rate of cases among school children as presented earlier in the thread. The statistic tell us schoolkids are the 2nd more likely group to get cases. The data tells us the are by far and away the single largest group in the country, and further analysis reveals the statistic that proportionally they get the virus less often than the average, despite being a group that is in school 5 days a week.

Again though, you are comparing one cohort with another without factoring in wholly different criteria has to be met in order to get a test.

So I test a 100 adults and 6 come back positive.

I test 50 children and 4 come back positive.

If I don't mention the volume of testing I get my happy "stats".

Common sense and reality can do one.

meeeeh

Boggles wrote: »

That is exactly what you are doing here.

You have zero, proof, data, evidence that any student was tested at the time of publication of that article.

But you did use "stats" to make it appear they were.

You illustrated my point perfectly and again I thank you.

Boggles wrote: »

But if no students were tested, less so. Correct? Doesn't make the statistic false, as it is in a sense a true interruption of the data.

So what is it insinuation or fact?

I'm pretty sure it will be avoidance and insinuation and 0 facts. Anything else would be surprising.