The Science Is Very Clear: Schools Should Reopen This Fall

Woko Haram said:
I would think most parents favor going back to work, unless the feds just decide to keep printing checks for everyone.
Click to expand...
With Trump's tax scam, the feds can't afford that much new debt. Trump's overloading us with debt as it is.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Hawkeye10 said:
You get it.....I have been saying for nearly a decade that justice demands both parties die for their multiple crimes of treason.
Click to expand...
The GOP is a lot closer to actual treason than the Democrats. But neither party puts the country first. Both put party ahead of country.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I get how lost you are generally, as as well your seemingly iron willed drive to be a Dick.
Click to expand...
Your knowledge of even simple English seems limited. You would think that being focused on truth makes one a Dick.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Grajonca said:
Sorry I just don't buy that, children have gone back to school in many countries now without any problems. Meanwhile poor kids are going to get no education and probably end up as the next generation of morons.
Click to expand...

It boils down to this: in the absence of compelling data or evidence that COVID poses a significant risk to kids—they go back to school.

Pretty simple, actually. Teachers will have to deal with it just like the rest of the essential workers have been doing since March. Obviously, exceptions can be made for those who are in the high risk categories but otherwise they get back to work. Kids get back in school and us adults do everything in our power to make their lives as normal as possible.
 
rjhenn said:
Popeye has very little connection with reality. His head is stuffed full of right-wing propaganda. He's got no room for facts.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Anytime you would like to debate something or show me your worldly "knowledge" about anything, give it a shot. Otherwise just keep lisping away.
 
Darth Omar said:
Well Mott, WHERE IS THE FUCKING CONSENSUS ON HALF OF WHAT WE’VE DONE?

The country is in the midst of trying to recover from a national lockdown that severely lacks any peer reviewed studies, control arms, double blind clinical trials or meta analysis or whatever.

But now we’re paralyzed on opening schools because we lack consensus? How does that work?

It’s a facile argument. Consensus in science—when it happens at all, happens after years if not decades of scientists going back and forth and *disagreeing* with one another. There’s no ‘consensus’ on climate change, for example. That’s a joke and a farce that’s only convincing to scientifically illiterate morons and mildly disturbed European teenagers.

How about ‘the science is sufficient’ on opening schools? Certainly seems sufficient enough on masks, lockdowns and the rest. And like with locking down, it’s something that can be done at any time.

It’s not like schools have never been shutdown AFTER a flu outbreak—breaks out.
Click to expand...

Not a convincing argument from a risk assessment standpoint. The scientific weakness in truly determining an accurate risk assessment based on transmission rates, as I’m sure you’re aware, is that It is impossible to set up objective control data due to ethical reasons. So the actual facts are that the transmission rates are unknown and not accurately quantifiable.

In risk assessment there are six processes you need to analyze, planning risk, identify risk, qualitatively analyze risk, quantitative analysis of risk, risk response and control risk.

The mistake you are making here in risk assessment is the quantitative assessment of risk, particularly when there is inadequate data and time to make such analyses. The more important risk assessment is the qualitative risk assessment.

In the qualitative analysis you take all the risk identified and calculate a probability of their occurring ( high, medium and low) and multiply that by its impact (high, medium, low). There are a variety of risk factors involved with COVID 19 among which are age, gender, ethnicity, population density, existing health conditions, etc, of which two of the most important risk factors are transmission rates (doubling weekly if no action taken) and severity of symptoms (Approximately 20% of those infected). Both of these risk have high probabilities and high impacts. In fact most of the risk factors have high impacts. Which is what makes COVID-19 so troubling with it being a novel virus with little immunity in the general population (another risk factor with high probability and high impact).

So what we know in risk assessment of COVID 19 is the qualitative risk assessment (the more important assessment) is high and the quantitative risk is not clearly understood. This calculates as a high risk qualitative score. Because the quantitative risk is not clearly known it makes risk planning responses and therefore the ability to control risk extremely difficult to do.

So now put yourself in a position of a public official when the known qualitative risk factors are high and the risk impacts are high but the ability to plan responses and control risk are low. That’s the reality that public officials responsible for public health are currently in and given that situation of high risk you’d be a damned fool not to be risk adverse.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Not a convincing argument from a risk assessment standpoint. The scientific weakness in truly determining an accurate risk assessment based on transmission rates, as I’m sure you’re aware, is that It is impossible to set up objective control data due to ethical reasons. So the actual facts are that the transmission rates are unknown and not accurately quantifiable.

In risk assessment there are six processes you need to analyze, planning risk, identify risk, qualitatively analyze risk, quantitative analysis of risk, risk response and control risk.

The mistake you are making here in risk assessment is the quantitative assessment of risk, particularly when there is inadequate data and time to make such analyses. The more important risk assessment is the qualitative risk assessment.

In the qualitative analysis you take all the risk identified and calculate a probability of their occurring ( high, medium and low) and multiply that by its impact (high, medium, low). There are a variety of risk factors involved with COVID 19 among which are age, gender, ethnicity, population density, existing health conditions, etc, of which two of the most important risk factors are transmission rates (doubling weekly if no action taken) and severity of symptoms (Approximately 20% of those infected). Both of these risk have high probabilities and high impacts. In fact most of the risk factors have high impacts. Which is what makes COVID-19 so troubling with it being a novel virus with little immunity in the general population (another risk factor with high probability and high impact).

So what we know in risk assessment of COVID 19 is the qualitative risk assessment (the more important assessment) is high and the quantitative risk is not clearly understood. This calculates as a high risk qualitative score. Because the quantitative risk is not clearly known it makes risk planning responses and therefore the ability to control risk extremely difficult to do.

So now put yourself in a position of a public official when the known qualitative risk factors are high and the risk impacts are high but the ability to plan responses and control risk are low. That’s the reality that public officials responsible for public health are currently in and given that situation of high risk you’d be a damned fool not to be risk adverse.
Click to expand...

Give a rest Mott, if we all took your approach then schools would be shut for five years. Holy shit you'd want a peer reviewed study and risk analysis for the D-Day landings. You'd probably abolish camouflage and get the military to wear high viz tabards to prevent friendly fire!
 
Grajonca said:
Give a rest Mott, if we all took your approach then schools would be shut for five years. Holy shit you'd want a peer reviewed study and risk analysis for the D-Day landings. You'd probably abolish camouflage and get the military to wear high viz tabards to prevent friendly fire!
Click to expand...

I call bullshit. A risk assessment, in a case like this, is not a static measure, as the types of risk change and, more importantly, when the impact of those risk change, that is the impact decreases, then the assessment is reanalyzed and risk planning and risk controls can be modified to account for those changes when risk factors have acceptably lowered.

We sure as hell shouldn’t be making public health decisions based on the ignorant prattling of a demogogue politician who doesn’t have the first clue what he’s doing or partisan tribal politics. That is beyond stupid and down right irresponsible. Mother fuckers who do that shit are always the first ones to throw others under the bus when their mistakes go south.
 
Darth Omar said:
It boils down to this: in the absence of compelling data or evidence that COVID poses a significant risk to kids—they go back to school.

Pretty simple, actually. Teachers will have to deal with it just like the rest of the essential workers have been doing since March. Obviously, exceptions can be made for those who are in the high risk categories but otherwise they get back to work. Kids get back in school and us adults do everything in our power to make their lives as normal as possible.
Click to expand...

We’re only a few months into this new virus and you’re demanding compelling evidence? What a fucking moron.

We know very little about this disease. Long term effects on everyone, from survivors to asymptomatics. Any immunity or lack thereof. Whether it can re-emerge in a person. New strains. On and on.

And you’re willing to risk children. Obviously, stupid fuck, OTHER’S children.

Moron
 
floridafan said:
You got another losing position, bubba. Parents favor keeping their kids home, rather than exposing them to the virus. Its no wonder trump is losing by double digits, he takes the wrong position on everything.
Click to expand...

You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you.
 
Sailor said:
More than half that article is science. I do not see any union bashing, I see calling out unions for what they are. Thieves.
Click to expand...

Many unions are exactly that. They are also thugs. The teachers unions are no exception.

Indeed, they are illegal. Government unions are illegal, since they are funded by taxes.
 
archives said:
Wait a minute, has it not been the last two Democrat Administration that had to come in and had to bail out the Republican Administration they followed, and did so admirably, and second, it wasn’t GOP leadership that led to the majority of American cities earning the worldwide recognition they receive today
Click to expand...

Lie. No Democrat ever bailed out anything. The only worldwide recognition Democrat run cities receive is how fucked up they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top