Schools closed until February? (part 3)

Boggles

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.

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.

Identified as close contacts means test is required. They haven't stated how many are negative as yet as 14 days have not elapsed

khalessi

Lillyfae wrote: »

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.

Thank you for your advice on sources, check their press conferences its all there, hse conference on a thursday and was reported by the Independent and I previously provided the sources so go look through my previous posts, it is all there.

meeeeh

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.

But in that case kids are self isolating so where is the article you claim states they are not tested?

khalessi

meeeeh wrote: »

But in that case kids are self isolating so where is the article you claim states they are not tested?

I wasnt referring to Limerick I was referring to a previous case also quoted in previous posts of mine, the OCtober ones.

meeeeh

khalessi wrote: »

I wasnt referring to Limerick I was referring to a previous case also quoted in revisou posts of mine, the OCtober ones.

So stating that lose contacts in Limerick were not tested is still just a wishful thinking on the part of you and Boggles?

khalessi

meeeeh wrote: »

But in that case kids are self isolating so where is the article you claim states they are not tested?

In that case they are secondary. I presume she meant primary but sure I didnt get to ask her as she was on the tv saying this and reported on by Indo

wirelessdude01

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.

She really let the cat out of the bag during that NPHET presser. She had it said and then realised what she had said.

meeeeh

khalessi wrote: »

In that case they are secondary. I presume she meant primary but sure I didnt get to ask her as she was on the tv saying this and reported on by Indo

That's irrelevant because we are talking about kids who were already classified as close contacts. It's already done.

I (nobody else) never claimed those who are not close contacts are or were tested.

khalessi

meeeeh wrote: »

So stating that lose contacts in Limerick were not tested is still just a wishful thinking on the part of you and Boggles?

No, I never said I was referring to Limerick, you making assumptions, just makes an ass out of you. I however am going on previous form why should they change.

It amazes me that depsite the fact that the Public Health said parents and teachers are right regarding their claims on testing that yourself and other s are fanactical in ignoring it.

Articles I mentioned I have quoted in previous posts go have a look

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Identified as close contacts means test is required.

Indeed. That doesn't mean a test had been carried out at the time of publication, correct?

#stats

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

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.

Interestingly per the last report 35.8% of all tests are completed on under 20s. In the same time period 34% of cases were in under 24's. Not helpful that age groupings don't align but it doesn't appear we are under testing does it

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/newsfeatures/covid19-updates/covid-19-testing-and-tracing-update-25-november-2020.pdf
https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/covid-1914-dayepidemiologyreports/november2020/COVID-19%2014%20day%20epidemiology%20report_20201122_website.pdf

Stormyteacup

Lillyfae wrote: »

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.

Is there any way to find out if public health will send all those students for testing? I’m thinking of the small school in Cork that closed and it was reported that it was the parents who arranged testing privately as they weren’t happy their children were not automatically referred for a test even though they were close contacts.

I can’t find a link now but the public health consultant definitely implied that close contacts in schools could be sent home and asked to restrict their movements but wouldn’t necessarily be sent for a test.

meeeeh

khalessi wrote: »

It amazes me that depsite the fact that the Public Health said parents and teachers are right regarding their claims on testing that yourself and other s are fanactical in ignoring it.

What are you on about now?

The doctor who said they are less strict with definition about close contacts among kids because they would have to close whole classes despite positivity rate among them being less than in general population. I agree with that position. You weigh up the probabilities and decide how to act to disrupt as little learning as possible among not at risk population. If that's what are you on about I agree with their position and I think it's perfectly reasonable.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Indeed. That doesn't mean a test had been carried out at the time of publication, correct?

#stats

Doesn't mean it hasn't either

#data

khalessi

meeeeh wrote: »

What are you on about now?

The doctor who said they are less strict with definition about close contacts among kids because they would have to close whole classes despite positivity rate among them being less than in general population. I agree with that position. You weigh up the probabilities and decide how to act to disrupt as little learning as possible among not at risk population. If that's what are you on about I agree with their position and I think it's perfectly reasonable.

Don't be rude meh it is so unbecoming.

Indeed it is safer not to test kids and have positive cases in the classroom in case some one has to take a day off work to mind them. So you are ok with covid in the classroom good to know so.

Sure read this for a laugh as I know you will dismiss it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/is-covid-19-testing-and-tracing-system-for-schools-fit-for-purpose-1.4403817?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Feducation%2Fis-covid-19-testing-and-tracing-system-for-schools-fit-for-purpose-1.4403817

Lillyfae

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Is there any way to find out if public health will send all those students for testing? I’m thinking of the small school in Cork that closed and it was reported that it was the parents who arranged testing privately as they weren’t happy their children were not automatically referred for a test even though they were close contacts.

I can’t find a link now but the public health consultant definitely implied that close contacts in schools could be sent home and asked to restrict their movements but wouldn’t necessarily be sent for a test.

I think in that case the students weren't defined as close contacts. That was definitely a clusterf*ck (pun intended) of a situation and public health should be explaining exactly what happened. Accountability is very important imo.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Doesn't mean it hasn't either

#data

Exactly, but I like this new side of you.

Assumptions now are evidence.

The evolution is near complete.

khalessi

Lillyfae wrote: »

I think in that case the students weren't defined as close contacts. That was definitely a clusterf*ck (pun intended) of a situation and public health should be explaining exactly what happened. Accountability is very important imo.

THere are a lot of those it seems

wirelessdude01

Stormyteacup wrote: »

Is there any way to find out if public health will send all those students for testing? I’m thinking of the small school in Cork that closed and it was reported that it was the parents who arranged testing privately as they weren’t happy their children were not automatically referred for a test even though they were close contacts.

I can’t find a link now but the public health consultant definitely implied that close contacts in schools could be sent home and asked to restrict their movements but wouldn’t necessarily be sent for a test.

Last I heard that school was up at 47 positive cases, both within the school and parents.

meeeeh

khalessi wrote: »

Don't be rude meh it is so unbecoming.

Indeed it is safer not to test kids and have positive cases in the classroom in case some one has to take a day off work to mind them. So you are ok with covid in the classroom good to know so.

Sure read this for a laugh as I know you will dismiss it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/is-covid-19-testing-and-tracing-system-for-schools-fit-for-purpose-1.4403817?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Feducation%2Fis-covid-19-testing-and-tracing-system-for-schools-fit-for-purpose-1.4403817

I'm not saying every situation is dealt perfectly but yeah I'm perfectly happy how schools are run and how testing is done. You are nor but don't imply I'm ignoring things because I don't agree with you.

Btw the article you linked talks about casess that were not deemed close contacts it doesn't mention cases that were deemed close contacts ad not sent for testing. (I still haven't seen an article that states close contacts are not sent for testing.)

Oh and btw I was not being rude, I was genuinely confused whether your still going on about that close contact explanation which I explained numerous times I agree with. It's hard to claim I'm ignoring something when I said I agree with the public health doctor.

Lillyfae

khalessi wrote: »

THere are a lot of those it seems

Going off your definition, perhaps, but your definition isn't informing policy. In reality there haven't been a lot.

meeeeh

Boggles wrote: »

Exactly, but I like this new side of you.

Assumptions now are evidence.

The evolution is near complete.

where is that source you are so reluctant to produce?

khalessi

Lillyfae wrote: »

Going off your definition, perhaps, but your definition isn't informing policy. In reality there haven't been a lot.

Well of course you would know Im sure being on the department list of those to be informed.

However maybe, and I going out on a limb here, those who have had to get their children tested independently because they were not advised to do so and maybe teachers who see this stuff happening daily might have a better idea and then having public health agree is funny too. I mean there was the case of the teacher insisting on having a whole class tested after the HSE didnt id any close contact and them finding 7 more asymptomatic kids.

meeeeh

khalessi wrote: »

Well of course you would know Im sure being on the department list of those to be informed.

However maybe, and I going out on a limb here, those who have had to get their children tested independently because they were not advised to do so and maybe teachers who see this stuff happening daily might have a better idea and then having public health agree is funny too. I mean there was the case of the teacher insisting on having a whole class tested after the HSE didnt id any close contact and them finding 7 more asymptomatic kids.

Don't lie. The teacher insisted that the whole class should be classified as close contact and tested. So the HSE did class them as close contacts but only after conversation with the teacher. If you are continually repeat the same case at least do it truthfully. (A much as that is possible because the source as far as I remember was a colleague on twitter so health warning with that).

Lillyfae

khalessi wrote: »

Well of course you would know Im sure being on the department list of those to be informed.

However maybe, and I going out on a limb here, those who have had to get their children tested independently because they were not advised to do so and maybe teachers who see this stuff happening daily might have a better idea and then having public health agree is funny too. I mean there was the case of the teacher insisting on having a whole class tested after the HSE didnt id any close contact and them finding 7 more asymptomatic kids.

The teacher insisting wouldn't do much good unless there was a reason to have the students reclassified as close contact.

Also I would note for posters reading this for this first time- there are two separate cases being referred to above. In one, students were reclassified and tested, in the other, students were tested because their parents took them to their GPs.

khalessi

Lillyfae wrote: »

The teacher insisting wouldn't do much good unless there was a reason to have the students reclassified as close contact.

Also I would note for posters reading this for this first time- there are two separate cases being referred to above. In one, students were reclassified and tested, in the other, students were tested because their parents took them to their GPs.

You acknowledge though you have actuallyno clue that there havent been a lot of cluster****s as you put it. That is an assumption if it isnt link please.

Boggles

meeeeh wrote: »

where is that source you are so reluctant to produce?

Source for what?

I peddled no facts nor presented any data erroneously.

You on the other hand. Tut. Tut.

But I will not waste the threads time asking for proof of your assertions.

Necro

Mod:

Folks I think we need to dial back a bit in our posts here, I understand things can get heated but it needs to be done in a civil manner.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Exactly, but I like this new side of you.

Assumptions now are evidence.

The evolution is near complete.

You will note I did not assume zero positives meant no cases, or no testing for that matter, just that the identification of close contacts indicates testing should have been completed.

We should get back to the same side of the argument on the restrictions thread Boggles. Last week was a welcome relief

frank8211

Boggles wrote: »

Nope.

In the same way 50,000 words is not a book unless they are arranged as such.

But tell me about 15 teachers that tested positive in a school in Limerick.

I can't find anything about it.

Its being covered up. HSE tells schools not to talk to media or parents. GDPR, ya know!