TX School scorecard: masking vs virtual classes?

I only read the title and your posts .

A while back, I was wondering how do you even run a double-blinded trial for a universal mask vs some mask vs no-mask. I think it's impossible, but maybe some smart alex can figure out a way to do it. I think the best we can do is with basic science, a large data set (which isn't very good for many reasons), and pattern recognition. The basic science (and common sense) said masks help reduce the transmission of viruses that are airborne.

Probably true on the social/facial cues, but I think that is likely for babies and toddlers, who might be in daycare but not likely in school. More for preschool child care. I can read people's facial cues pretty well even with mask on, so it's not all lost, but still, it's probably is a real risk for babies.

 

I think it's worth reading the article. It covers the scientific studies that have been done on the topic.

 

The implication of the article seems to be that if you can't prove masks are effective, you shouldn't require them. I'm skeptical of that attitude.

I'll admit I didn't have the patience to get that far down. However, all we have there is a quote from an anonymous person in AAP about children under 6.

You need to make your own decision on it and I don't really mean to sound judgmental. I'm saying I literally don't understand it.

There is a phenomenon we're now seeing uncovered, I think, of a sort of drug aversion. I have food aversions that sometimes can make going out to eat with friends socially awkward. The idea of putting the flesh of a fish into my mouth, for example, is so revolting that I'd sooner pass on a date than risk being asked to do so. When people ask me to explain, I say I can't explain it, it's a phobia, it's irrational. I'm not afraid of having the thing in my body (if a fish was to be injected into my stomach, I'd have no objection), I'm not afraid of food poisoning (I'd sooner eat some sketchy chicken than a fresh fish), and I'm not afraid of non-foods (pills or paper or whatever). Some people, like my wife, will eat anything and delight in it, and they do not understand this food aversion at all.

And I suspect there is a similar aversion out there with drugs and vaccines that I don't understand. Because rationally we can see the vaccine is safe. Millions of people have taken it and very few have suffered for it. It's similar to other vaccines we've been doing for years. But the aversion exists. Bolsonaro is afraid it'll turn you into an alligator. My cousin-in-law says they're using CRISPR to turn people into vampires. Q says it has microchips. More sanely, people just worry that maybe it can do something we don't know about yet. But I don't understand it. I think it's irrational, a phobia. Because even if later it does something bad to you, the probabilities all seem to point to that being the lesser of the risks we're facing. The greater risk is covid, which can kill you, or make you suffer, or leave you disabled and we don't even know what the longer-term consequences are. And at least you can sue for a bad vaccine, but there's no one to sue for Covid. The safer bet is rationally the vaccine. But still this aversion exists and people come up with all kinds of rationalizations for why -- probabilities be damned -- it might make sense for them to not take it.

So anyway, apologies from me because I pivoted from our shared experience as parents of eleven year olds to musings on our disparate reactions. Obviously, you need to make your own choices and I might be off-base thinking there is a visceral aversion. But that's what's been on my mind today.

 

I don't understand this thinking in risk assessment. A disease that has 99% survival rate, especially one that's as contagious as covid, is really really bad.

Would you say the polio vaccine is not necessary because the survival rate is so high? Only 0.1-0.5% of polio cases suffers from paralytic poliomyelitis and out of that 0.1-0.5%, only 2-5% of children and 15-30% of adults die. So the survival rate of polio for an adult is around 99.92% and 99.99% for children.

In the worst recorded epidemic year, there were only only 3,145 polio deaths. Do you think push for eradication of polio through vaccine was unnecessary?

 

The WHO doesn't recommend it. Most other "liberal" countries are not requiring it. I think that is itself sufficient reason to reconsider whether this is really necessary. I think it's one of those things where there are good reasons for and against. The frustrating thing is this wouldn't need to be an issue if vaccination rates were much higher.

 

4 days into the year, 100 kids in quarantine at a school a friend works at. Small PRIVATE school. Good luck.

 

Ok, I read it. I'm proud to say it's exactly what I thought it was Maybe full on confirmation bias in the work.

Overall, there is very little evidence that said masking doesn't work and there is good evidence that said masking works. There is no control group because, well, it's not easy to do and no one bother wasting time or energy or risk doing it. Just mask up until everyone can vaccinate is where I am. And I do agree that it's doesn't make so much sense to mask under 5. How many of them can even mask.

 

No, haven't taken one since high school (1999).

1.5% death rate of Covid

of the 1.5%, 94% of those had an avg of 2.4 comorbidities, Obesity being the leading cause of death in Covid patients (per CDC)

So here's the real # everyone is scared of.... 0.07%.

Also per CDC - 655k yearly deaths from Heart Disease in the US

Why no mandates for everyone to hit the gym?
Why no bans on processed foods and fast food joints?
Ban smoking/alcohol?

The answer: Docs and Big Pharma cant make money off healthy people. Follow the money.

 

Wrong. Heart disease isn't communicable other than genetics.
You eating fast food won't make me have heart disease. You not wearing a mask could spread the disease to me.

 

You're more than welcome to stay home, wear a mask, get all the boosters your heart desires. Nobody's stopping you.

 

That's not how it works. In our society the people who engage in unsafe behavior are welcome to stay home. People who want to drink are welcome to drink at home. But they aren't allowed to drive because that is dangerous to others.

It isn't okay to suggest those that are worried about drunk drivers are free to stay home, though they certainly could.

Restaurant workers are required to wash their hands after using the restroom and preparing food. Nobody is required to go to restaurants. But it isn't the rational we use to allow unsafe public contamination in restaurants.

People who put others at risk are the ones who are free to stay home if they don't want wear masks or get their vaccines. Let the others who take the safety and community in mind and take steps to help our economy recover proceed.

 

0.07% - that's what you're scared of?

 

Does your number come from table 3 of this CDC report?

If so, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this report. It lists 94% of the deaths as having other contributing conditions with Covid19 being the primary cause of death. Someone who has covid19 which caused pneumonia would be listed with covid19 as primary cause of death with pnemonia as a contributing conditions, even though this person would've been very very unlikely to have pneumonia without covid19 infection. Even though this person might've died from respiratory failure, it's still a covid19 death because the failure was caused by Covid19.

Someone who has AIDS due to HIV that eventually died of influenza would have influenza listed as a contributing condition. Would you not consider this person to have died from HIV because they technically died from influenza?

People live with hypertension, obesity, and diabetes for decades without dying. Would they probably have had a better covid19 outcome if they didn't have these chronic conditions? Probably, but certainly the vast majority of them would've lived through 2020/2021 if Covid19 wasn't a thing.

That 6% number of people who didn't have any contributing condition is actually extremely terrifying if it's actually true. That means the doctor cannot wrong with the person when they died. The person didn't have any lung issues, heart issues, or any other issues that the doctor could find. The person must've been perfectly healthy, and just ploped over and died. What's more likely is that the doctor is just not very thorough or didn't have time to figure out exactly what went the the patient died.

 

I'm actually not even scared of the dying. It's the reduced lung capacity, permanent damage, that kind of thing. That's horrible. I'm also scared for the drain on resources that could be used for other emergencies and medical needs. I'm worried about the health care workers who are necessarily put in harms way because of others who chose to not get vaxed and wear their masks.

But the hundreds of thousands of deaths from Covid is also worthy of concern.

Then, I am also worried about the damage to the economy done because safety demands more restrictions. Imagine how awesome it would be to not have to be so restrictive and allow more businesses to get up and running again.

For all of those reasons, getting the vaccines and wearing masks would be a great idea.

 

Yes, the anti-mask, anti-vax crowd often misunderstands this point.

 

I think this is the closest thing we've got so far to a somewhat controlled experiment:

"Many of America’s peer nations around the world — including the U.K., Ireland, all of Scandinavia, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Italy — have exempted kids, with varying age cutoffs, from wearing masks in classrooms. Conspicuously, there’s no evidence of more outbreaks in schools in those countries relative to schools in the U.S., where the solid majority of kids wore masks for an entire academic year and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. These countries, along with the World Health Organization, whose child-masking guidance differs substantially from the CDC’s recommendations, have explicitly recognized that the decision to mask students carries with it potential academic and social harms for children and may lack a clear benefit. To date, the highly transmissible Delta variant has not led them to change this calculus. (Many experts I spoke with told me that while the Delta variant represents a major and concerning new development in the Covid pandemic, it probably shouldn’t change our thinking on a mask requirement for schools.)"

To be transparent, I personally *want* it to be true that masks aren't important for kids. My daughter just started kindergarten and while she begins her day with a mask it always comes off at some point. So I might be guilty of reading into this what I want to see. That said, I think it's worthwhile to note that there is not yet strong evidence for mandating masks for little kids in schools; that it's not a no-brainer.

 

Don't apologize. I agree with most if not all of everything you wrote. It is mostly irrational and I know it. I try to be healthy and have an aversion to drugs. But I will take something in general. I would rather exercise and eat mostly healthy than start taking beta-blockers, blood pressure meds if possible is an example.

Another example is my newfound knowledge that melatonin is not good for you. Learning about phthalates and what they are doing to people's little swimmers. There are examples throughout history where the public learns about the harmful effects of a multitude of things. Dupont, tobacco, thalidomide etc etc etc.

 

Yes, but I think it's way to complex with so many variable that it's not very useful. I can't remember all the details, but UK for example requires all school staff to wear masks, do not require masking for < 17 in school but require masking for > 11 in all other environment (shop, public transportation...). I do not know if <12 chooses to wear masks anyway at school but it's very possible some do. I think UK also perform regular rapid covid testing for both kids and staff to catch asymptomatic cases. All these variables make it very hard to compare.

 

School districts are already starting to buckle from the strain of sick teachers, and we’re seeing mask edicts for teachers.

No mask mandate is idiocy at its highest point. It’s a shame Abbot isn’t feeling the potential physical effects of contracting Covid, because some people, including most GOP, have to learn the hard way.