Schools closed until February? (part 3)

the kelt · 08-12-2020 10:28AM

meeeeh wrote: »

As much as many other statistics floating around like when increase of infections in kids is being flagged after September without looking at different testing criteria and different circumstances.

You can make it about anything you want but the actual number of infections among teachers does suggest they are relatively safe (especially since it doesn't include most at risk age groups). As long as infection rates in society are relatively low schools seem to be safe enough.

So literally no proof that teachers have a lower infection rate.

Cool thanks for that.

meeeeh · 08-12-2020 10:35AM

the kelt wrote: »

So literally no proof that teachers have a lower infection rate.

Cool thanks for that.

If the point scoring is the only thing you are interested in it might be beneficial to argue with someone who claimed that (I never did) or someone who knows more about testing than me. Otherwise you just come across as silly and pretty.

the kelt · 08-12-2020 10:37AM

meeeeh wrote: »

If the point scoring is the only thing you are interested in it might be beneficial to argue with someone who claimed that (I never did) or someone who knows more about testing than me. Otherwise you just come across as silly and pretty.

I never said you did, im just thanking you for clearing that up because it seemed the bogus stat was being run with as proof on the thread.

Again thanks for that.

Thats me · 08-12-2020 10:37AM

meeeeh wrote: »

It's actually hard to compare because teachers were not in work first 6 months of pandemic. Some definitely got it at home but better info would be the percentages for last three months.

This is very good idea, but where the data can be found? Even "School mass-testing reports" seem not considering teachers, not to say they should be missing a lot of cases by reasons discussed above..

May be unions could collect this stats by doing anonymous polls in schools to ensure are teachers likely to have more cases than national average or not.

meeeeh · 08-12-2020 10:40AM

the kelt wrote: »

I never said you did, im just thanking you for clearing that up because it seemed the bogus stat was being run with as proof on the thread.

Again thanks for that.

Well I'm flattered but I'm hardly an authority on the issue and while you can take my opinion in account you can hardly take it for anything more than opinion.

As for stats on this thread this one is probably at least accurate as percentage of population which is huge improvement on some other nonsense posted on this thread.

Marty Bird · 08-12-2020 10:41AM

hesaidshesaid wrote: »

Just to clarify the debate re. whether close contacts in schools are being tested. Here is a case where they are not. Primary school, no masks on children. All staff wearing masks, all windows open, staff-room off limits.

Symptoms were identified and a child was sent for a test last Wednesday. Results were received Friday evening. Child tested positive.

Numerous attempts were made by the school to contact Public Health over the weekend. No answer on any phone line. As an aside, principals are expected to be contactable on their personal mobiles by Public Health at any time.

Finally got through this morning. Risk assessment was carried out by Public Health and a class, its teacher and relevant SNAs sent home as they were 'close contacts' - Public Health's term. They have all been told to 'restrict their movements'.

No-one has been sent for a test. Not one.

If any of the other parents decide to contact their GP and request a test for their child, and they test positive, they will now be classified as 'private home transmission'. If any of the parents test positive, it will have the same outcome.

None of the siblings in other classes were told by Public Health to stay at home. So if any of the kids are asymptomatic and pass it on to siblings, the sibling may well bring it back into the school.

This is the experience of one school. It is unlikely to be the only one.

My son was deemed a close contact of positive case in his class whole class and teacher and SNAs all tested within 24hrs thankfully no more positives.

eagle eye · 08-12-2020 11:16AM

Not many cases in the home linked to schools which seems very odd. I know two families who got the virus and are adamant it had to have come from the school but told no even though kids in the class had it before anybody in their family.
Princeton Environmental institute, John's Hopkins University and the University of California Berkeley conducted the largest study of coronavirus and said that kids and young people formed a large part of what they called the super spreader group. They found that 8% of infected people are responsible for 60% of transmission. They said kids are far more likely to contract the virus from people of a similar age, there's a 2.6% chance of them spreading it to a close contact in the community but a 9% chance of them passing it on in the home. Nobody has challenged this study to the best of my knowledge. It was carried out using data from India but they don't see it as being any different anywhere else.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6517/691
Our government and HSE won't get away with what they've been doing for much longer as in blaming everybody but schools for transmission in homes. It won't cost them much though unless there's long term consequences to contracting this virus.

meeeeh · 08-12-2020 11:30AM

eagle eye wrote: »

Not many cases in the home linked to schools which seems very odd. I know two families who got the virus and are adamant it had to have come from the school but told no even though kids in the class had it before anybody in their family.
Princeton Environmental institute, John's Hopkins University and the University of California Berkeley conducted the largest study of coronavirus and said that kids and young people formed a large part of what they called the super spreader group. They found that 8% of infected people are responsible for 60% of transmission. They said kids are far more likely to contract the virus from people of a similar age, there's a 2.6% chance of them spreading it to a close contact in the community but a 9% chance of them passing it on in the home. Nobody has challenged this study to the best of my knowledge. It was carried out using data from India but they don't see it as being any different anywhere else.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6517/691
Our government and HSE won't get away with what they've been doing for much longer as in blaming everybody but schools for transmission in homes. It won't cost them much though unless there's long term consequences to contracting this virus.

This study was mentioned before on numerous times. Authors themselves suggest they were looking at infection in low and middle income countries. Maybe it would be beneficial first to find a study in a country with comparable income and other demographics. Not to find a study that fits your narrative without being in any way comparable.

Although most cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have occurred in low-resource countries, little is known about the epidemiology of the disease in such contexts. Data from the Indian states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh provide a detailed view into severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission pathways and mortality in a high-incidence setting. Reported cases and deaths have been concentrated in younger cohorts than would be expected from observations in higher-income countries, even after accounting for demographic differences across settings.

eagle eye · 08-12-2020 11:41AM

meeeeh wrote:

This study was mentioned before on numerous times. Authors themselves suggest they were looking at infection in low and middle income countries. Maybe it would be beneficial first to find a study in a country with comparable income and other demographics. Not to find a study that fits your narrative without being in any way comparable.

Please give the medical reasons it's not comparable.

Lillyfae · 08-12-2020 11:47AM

eagle eye wrote: »

Please give the medical reasons it's not comparable.

Because they were specifically looking at:

Our findings, based on comprehensive surveillance and contact-tracing data from the Indian states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, provide insight into the epidemiology of COVID-19 in resource-limited populations.

Thats me · 08-12-2020 12:15PM

Lillyfae wrote: »

Because they were specifically looking at:

So you mean in "in resource-limited populations" children are different and getting and spreading covid easier than irish pupil? Can you refer any investigation to support your opinion?

meeeeh · 08-12-2020 12:23PM

Thats me wrote: »

So you mean in "in resource-limited populations" children are different and getting and spreading covid easier than irish pupil? Can you refer any investigation to support your opinion?

I think in resource limited populations people live differently. That's like claiming research into Cholera in South Sudan could imply situation in Ireland.

All you need to know is that authors themselves framed it as a research in LMIC countries and pointed out there are differences so maybe you should complain to them why they didn't do a study that would apply to Ireland or other high income countries.

Thats me · 08-12-2020 12:41PM

meeeeh wrote: »

I think in resource limited populations people live differently.

What of this depends on life style: "kids are far more likely to contract the virus from people of a similar age, there's a 2.6% chance of them spreading it to a close contact in the community but a 9% chance of them passing it on in the home." ?

Geographically closer exaple: re-opening of schools adds 24% to R (also discussed earlier)

American life style is also not good for children: "the body of evidence is growing that children of all ages are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection and contrary to early reports might play a role in transmission.” (also discussed earlier)

Human children are similar around the Globe. May be Irish children completely different, but nobody found difference yet.

Lillyfae · 08-12-2020 12:54PM

lulublue22 wrote: »

and totally ignores that head lice and scabies are notifiable conditions in a school yet in the midst of a global pandemic covid 19 is not. You couldn’t make this crap up.

Unless the principal is reporting everything back to him every single day, which seems unlikely, he knows little more than gossip. He doesn't know what things are like "on the ground", because he hasn't actually been there during all this.

Some here seem to think there is some grand scheme to wipe out teachers with Covid-19. There's no end to the fear mongering, all punctuated with "Where did I say that I want the schools to close?". Recycling studies from 6 months ago, from third world countries rife with malnutrition and limited access to potable water in order to prove some kind of point that children are harbingers of virus- to what result?

If the number of teachers who have contracted this since September is 666 that is a very low number. If that number actually goes back to March, that is outstanding. I'm delighted that your risk has been minimized by your own hard work.

Boggles · 08-12-2020 01:11PM

Lillyfae wrote: »

which seems unlikely, he knows little more than gossip. He doesn't know what things are like "on the ground", because he hasn't actually been there during all this.

So what you are saying is, you know more about his personal experience than he does? And all from Holland too.

Seems legit.

Lillyfae · 08-12-2020 01:17PM

Boggles wrote: »

So what you are saying is, you know more about his personal experience than he does? And all from Holland too.

Seems legit.

I'm looking at numbers Boggles. As you can see, we have the internet here too.

You'd hope that someone having a meltdown about all of the conspiracy theories being pushed would be comforted somewhat by a discussion about what the numbers actually mean. Rather than someone telling them that they should be ignored because they're being manipulated by the nasty government who want the children "minded" by the poor teachers being pushed into work at gunpoint.

Boggles · 08-12-2020 01:28PM

Lillyfae wrote: »

I'm looking at numbers Boggles. As you can see, we have the internet here too.

Nope, you are clearly commenting on something you couldn't possibly know anything about.

Someones personal experience and you are telling them they are wrong.

That is very strange.

meeeeh · 08-12-2020 01:29PM

Thats me wrote: »

What of this depends on life style: "kids are far more likely to contract the virus from people of a similar age, there's a 2.6% chance of them spreading it to a close contact in the community but a 9% chance of them passing it on in the home." ?

Human children are similar around the Globe. May be Irish children completely different, but nobody found difference yet.

OK this is getting stupid. Do you claim that regardless of class size, population density, family size, house size, other distancing measures, regardless of looking at all that and more we can conclude kids will spread virus at 2.6% chance in community and 9% chance to spread it at home.

If you agree with that then I'm afraid any other discussion is pointless, we can just cancel any type of research and do science through facebook groups and twitter. BEcause sure we are all human, what's the difference.

As for your other links I don't know what I'm supposed to comment. CDC say that kids might spread virus (well dUh) and the comparative study says school r was 0.24 but it doesn't take into account different social distancing measures in different areas.

Thats me · 08-12-2020 01:34PM

Lillyfae wrote: »

I'm looking at numbers Boggles.

If you write word "numbers" this way it will look even more convincing

JDD · 08-12-2020 01:35PM

65,000 teachers. 666 positive cases - approx 1%

5 million people, 75,000 positive cases - approx 1.5%

Teachers are actually less likely to test positive then the national average.

As Lilyfae says, that's due to the efforts of teachers within the schools to minimise their chances of infection. And probably because of efforts they have made outside of school hours too, sticking to the restriction rules. A massive achievement when you think of the increased risk they are exposed to when dealing with lots of unmasked children each day.

At least we can look forward to the impact of that increased risk reducing as more and more of their vulnerable relatives are vaccinated in the new year.

Lillyfae · 08-12-2020 01:35PM

Boggles wrote: »

Nope, you are clearly commenting on something you couldn't possibly know anything about.

Someones personal experience and you are telling them they are wrong.

That is very strange.

If they are claiming to have personal experience as a teacher during the pandemic, when they haven't been teaching, then they have as much personal experience as I do.

But I don't think that's what's happened here to be fair, I just pointed out that an anecdote from their colleague is their colleague's anecdote, and that it isn't evidence of anything at all.

Thats me · 08-12-2020 01:47PM

JDD wrote: »

65,000 teachers. 666 positive cases - approx 1%

...

As Lilyfae says...

I afraid number 666 exists only in Lilyfae's Internet...

Boggles · 08-12-2020 01:48PM

JDD wrote: »

65,000 teachers. 666 positive cases - approx 1%

5 million people, 75,000 positive cases - approx 1.5%

Teachers are actually less likely to test positive then the national average.

It's a nonsense stat that tells us noting.

Plumbers are .25% the national average.

Teachers are 4 times more likely than plumbers to contract Covid.

That's nonsense as well by the way.

Boggles · 08-12-2020 01:49PM

Lillyfae wrote: »

If they are claiming to have personal experience as a teacher during the pandemic, when they haven't been teaching, then they have as much personal experience as I do.

Nope.

You are getting weirder with your claims.

meeeeh · 08-12-2020 01:50PM

Boggles wrote: »

It's a nonsense stat that tells us noting.

Plumbers are .25% the national average.

Teachers are 4 times more likely than plumbers to contract Covid.

That's nonsense as well by the way.

That's not comparable.

Thats me · 08-12-2020 01:52PM

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm afraid any other discussion is pointless.

Agree. There is no point in further discussion. You have objected data from indian study, i have provided examples from other parts of world. You still objecting but not providing evidence of opposite. So you right, no point in prolonging this discussion.

khalessi · 08-12-2020 01:53PM

Lillyfae wrote: »

If they are claiming to have personal experience as a teacher during the pandemic, when they haven't been teaching, then they have as much personal experience as I do.

But I don't think that's what's happened here to be fair, I just pointed out that an anecdote from their colleague is their colleague's anecdote, and that it isn't evidence of anything at all.

Gas the way you dismiss the principal as a colleague with an ancedotes. Regards to experience, they were discussing knowledge they had of their school which you claim to have the same as. Don't be silly.

Their colleague was the principal according to the quote and ya know back in the old country we do be havin d'internet in dem schools so dem teachers can attend meetings on ZOOM where dem things are discussed. The parents are the ones to inform the school of tests or do you think they shouldn't? Tis mad really d technology. Imagine staying informed about what happens in work, you would almost think teachers were interested in their jobs. Perish the thought. We have a couple of teachers wfh due to vhr and attend them ZOOM meetings. So listen Im having a zoom meeting in school willl you tell me what is said cos you're in d loop like?

Boggles · 08-12-2020 01:55PM

meeeeh wrote: »

That's not comparable.

Of course it is, far more comparable than the narrative.

At least I'm comparing with another profession.

Do you think comparing a single profession with everything, new born babies to 100 year humans and everything in between is a comparable set of data?.

It's 2 widely different sets of variables, with 2 different time scales?

Apples and Onions.

Only 0.02% of insurance salesmen have been infected, but 1.5% of men have. Ergo if you are male and sell insurance you are incredibly less likely to contract covid.

Discuss.

meeeeh · 08-12-2020 01:55PM

Thats me wrote: »

Agree. There is no point in further discussion. You have objected data from indian study, i have provided examples from other parts of world. You still objecting but not providing evidence of opposite. So you right, no point in prolonging this discussion.

You are comparing peaches with apples with shoes and you want me to provide numbers proving houses. I'm sorry I'm not playing.

meeeeh · 08-12-2020 01:59PM

Boggles wrote: »

Of course it is, far more comparable than the narrative.

At least I'm comparing with another profession.

Do you think comparing a single profession with everything, new born babies to 100 year humans and everything in between is a comparable set of data?.

It's 2 widely different sets of variables, with 2 different time scales?

Apples and Onions.

Only 0.02% of insurance salesmen have been infected, but 1.5% of men have. Ergo if you are male and sell insurance you incredibly less likely to contract covid.

Discuss.

Why are they different time scales? The only source I saw was twitter and I don't think it says anything about when or where teachers were infected.

As I said I wouldn't read to much into the stat but you are seeing things that are not there too.

Schools closed until February? (part 3)

Comments