Don't reopen schools? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Don't reopen schools? (/thread-19585.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Don't reopen schools? (/thread-19585.html)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Don't reopen schools? - oregontim - 05-01-2020
Is it worth mentioning that the online schooling options seem to be going better than expected? That's just my anecdotal data, gathered from 8 grandkids and their parents in New York City and Eugene OR, ages 9-16. Three different families. In all cases the parents and kids are pleasantly surprised. The online classes, in all cases through public schools, are giving them structure for their day and a learning experience that includes the teachers they already know, homework, evaluations, etc.
I've followed online learning since the late 1970s and it's always seemed like six months away from solving real problems and disrupting education for the better. But that's a rolling six months, six months away in 1979 and still six months away before the pandemic.
As with remote work, with online structure, maybe what we learn during the lockdowns will make some things better over the long term.
RE: Don't reopen schools? - M T - 05-01-2020
(05-01-2020, 11:50 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I think the evidence is that the dominant mode of transmission is via droplets. While I don't think we can exclude aerosols entirely (and it has been established that in certain procedures, like intubation, aerosols are generated), it doesn't seem to be the dominant form of transmission.
If the infections were spreading by aerosols, how would the CDC distinguish that from spreading by droplets? Since we haven't had time for formal studies, the evidence is from what we've experienced in the real world (and, in particular, China). "Oh, you live in the same house? You must have gotten it from droplets." "Oh, we don't know how you got it... We'll call that community transmission, presumably from someone that got within 6' of you and coughed without you noticing." It takes unusual circumstances to show that transmission could only have been by aerosol.
It may be that most people killed by guns are shot at directly, but I wouldn't want to be in a room where someone started firing a gun at a brick wall, especially if there were thousands of bullets.
Results show that cough-generated aerosol particles spread rapidly throughout the room, and that within 5 min, a worker anywhere in the [exam] room would be exposed to potentially hazardous aerosols.
(I will note that being exposed to potentially hazardous aerosols does not necessarily mean the worker would suffer the hazard.)
The recent measuring of air currents followed by simulation of the Wuhan restaurant described the spreading as by aerosols (but without specifying the minimum/maximum size of the droplets/aerosols that contributed to the spread in their simulation). It does appear they had video of the time of the spread. There was no mention of coughing. The measurements involved air flow consistent with breathing & speech.
The studies I quoted earlier indicated there were far more aerosol-sized droplet nuclei generated in a cough than those larger than aerosol-sized, Of course the viral load is higher in the larger droplets/nuclei
I suppose some day there will be animal studies that figure out how many of various sized droplet nuclei are required for infection. By then, the question may be only of historical interest.
RE: Don't reopen schools? - dabigv13 - 05-01-2020
I'm not aware of studies the CDC or WHO are using to make the determination that droplets are the main form of spread. I think they are inferring that its droplets mainly because aerosol would be even more infective than the disease has been so far. A cynical take is that they are saying its mainly droplets because otherwise everyone needs n95 masks and we don't have nearly enough of those.
RE: Don't reopen schools? - Snorlax94 - 05-01-2020
(05-01-2020, 12:57 PM)oregontim Wrote: Is it worth mentioning that the online schooling options seem to be going better than expected? That's just my anecdotal data, gathered from 8 grandkids and their parents in New York City and Eugene OR, ages 9-16. Three different families. In all cases the parents and kids are pleasantly surprised. The online classes, in all cases through public schools, are giving them structure for their day and a learning experience that includes the teachers they already know, homework, evaluations...I wish I could say I have found this to be the case. I do think distance learning works better the closer you are to being a college student, but
1) this is greatly increasing the gap between the haves and have-nots. If my child has problems setting up the computer, I can offer tech support. We already had extra laptops and gigabit fiber running to our home. But what happens in households without a good Internet connection? What happens in households where the parents don’t supervise the kids? What happens to households where the parents aren’t fluent in English?
2) i really hate the distance learning for my younger child. Kids in kindergarten or younger should not be on electronic devices all day. We made all these efforts to get our child to stop being an electronics junkie (non-stop want for electronics, tantrums, the harm of decreasing human interaction) and now it’s electronics all day. I am urging our school to go back to paper-based teaching for younger children, and to reduce the use of apps (versus just maybe reading to kids using Zoom and having a virtual circle time each day)
RE: Don't reopen schools? - BostonCard - 05-01-2020
Here's a good recap on the droplet versus aerosols debate:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00974-w
I don't think it comes to a conclusive view either way, and my original issue was with the poster who stated definitively "The virus spreads by aerosols". I certainly would not rule out aerosol spread, and as the article I linked notes, it will take years to settle the debate definitively. It is entirely reasonable to say "the virus may spread by aerosols, and in a (relatively) small room like a classroom, that could become a big problem".
I still stand by my assertion that the droplets are likely the dominant mode of transmission, based on the fact that most of the contact tracing has found that close contact (<2 meters, >30 min) is required to have efficient transmission. Were aerosols the dominant mode of transmission you would see a spread pattern that is a lot more like measles, which is spread by aerosols. Still, I would not be surprised if there is at least some aerosol transmission, and certainly if someone wanted to make the case that in the face of possible aerosol transmission that stronger restrictions on schools are warranted, I don't think I would necessarily disagree. But I nonetheless don't want people to get the idea that aerosol transmission has been established.
BC
RE: Don't reopen schools? - burger - 05-01-2020
(05-01-2020, 03:52 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Here's a good recap on the droplet versus aerosols debate:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00974-w
I don't think it comes to a conclusive view either way, and my original issue was with the poster who stated definitively "The virus spreads by aerosols". I certainly would not rule out aerosol spread, and as the article I linked notes, it will take years to settle the debate definitively. It is entirely reasonable to say "the virus may spread by aerosols, and in a (relatively) small room like a classroom, that could become a big problem".
I still stand by my assertion that the droplets are likely the dominant mode of transmission, based on the fact that most of the contact tracing has found that close contact (<2 meters, >30 min) is required to have efficient transmission. Were aerosols the dominant mode of transmission you would see a spread pattern that is a lot more like measles, which is spread by aerosols. Still, I would not be surprised if there is at least some aerosol transmission, and certainly if someone wanted to make the case that in the face of possible aerosol transmission that stronger restrictions on schools are warranted, I don't think I would necessarily disagree. But I nonetheless don't want people to get the idea that aerosol transmission has been established.
BC
I didn't actually mean to use aerosol in my original post--I just meant "through the air"...not necessarily aerosol as opposed to droplets.
But I think the medical authorities are being far too cautious here in waiting for proof of aerosol transmission. That Korean call center example certainly implies something besides droplets, right? All of the employees were using the same bathroom, but nearly all the sick ones had desks on the same side of the office . And the Chinese restaurant had a similar pattern, with people getting sick a few meters away from the original infected person.
Reopening schools as if aerosol transmission is not happening would be a brobdingnagian mistake. Far better to assume the worst and plan for it than to get caught with another outbreak because we decided that desks 6' apart were some sort of magic barrier against the virus.
RE: Don't reopen schools? - oregontim - 05-01-2020
(05-01-2020, 02:02 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:(05-01-2020, 12:57 PM)oregontim Wrote: Is it worth mentioning that the online schooling options seem to be going better than expected? That's just my anecdotal data, gathered from 8 grandkids and their parents in New York City and Eugene OR, ages 9-16. Three different families. In all cases the parents and kids are pleasantly surprised. The online classes, in all cases through public schools, are giving them structure for their day and a learning experience that includes the teachers they already know, homework, evaluations...I wish I could say I have found this to be the case. I do think distance learning works better the closer you are to being a college student, but
1) this is greatly increasing the gap between the haves and have-nots. If my child has problems setting up the computer, I can offer tech support. We already had extra laptops and gigabit fiber running to our home. But what happens in households without a good Internet connection? What happens in households where the parents don’t supervise the kids? What happens to households where the parents aren’t fluent in English?
2) i really hate the distance learning for my younger child. Kids in kindergarten or younger should not be on electronic devices all day. We made all these efforts to get our child to stop being an electronics junkie (non-stop want for electronics, tantrums, the harm of decreasing human interaction) and now it’s electronics all day. I am urging our school to go back to paper-based teaching for younger children, and to reduce the use of apps (versus just maybe reading to kids using Zoom and having a virtual circle time each day)
Both good points. it's hardly a panacea. But it's another tool in the shed, useful when used right, and a great help during this pandemic.
RE: Don't reopen schools? - Snorlax94 - 05-05-2020
Maybe not surprising news but some bad news relating to re-opening schools... (I think the second study was already mentioned here)
“In one study, published last week in the journal Science, a team analyzed data from two cities in China — Wuhan, where the virus first emerged, and Shanghai — and found that children were about a third as susceptible to coronavirus infection as adults were. But when schools were open, they found, children had about three times as many contacts as adults, and three times as many opportunities to become infected, essentially evening out their risk.
Based on their data, the researchers estimated that closing schools is not enough on its own to stop an outbreak, but it can reduce the surge by about 40 to 60 percent and slow the epidemic’s course.
The second study, by a group of German researchers, was more straightforward. The team tested children and adults and found that children who test positive harbor just as much virus as adults do — sometimes more — and so, presumably, are just as infectious...
They also estimated that closing schools can lower the reproduction number — again, the estimate of the number of infections tied to a single case — by about 0.3; an epidemic starts to grow exponentially once this metric tops 1...
A new study by the National Institutes of Health may help provide more information to guide decisions in the United States. The project, called Heros, will follow 6,000 people from 2,000 families and collect information on which children get infected with the virus and whether they pass it on to other family members.“
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/health/coronavirus-children-transmission-school.html?referringSource=articleShare