Coronavirus (Orange, August: home, schools, live in)

[DriveNotCommute]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

It hasn't been bad at my grandson's school, and everything I've read say that the majority of positive tests are being found in junior high and high schools. Here's what a UC Davis pediatrician had to say about it:

"Medical experts, such as UC Davis Children’s Hospital chief of pediatric infectious disease Dr. Dean Blumberg, said the vast majority of children are not getting COVID-19 from child-to-child transmission but from adult-to-child transmission at home"

Is that statement (and others about children being less susceptible to Covid) still true after the spike in delta-variant related cases?

With the current delta-led spike in cases, children make up about a quarter of that group as I understand it? That timing coincides with schools reopening. Sure correlation isn't causation but how would someone correctly rule it out as a contributor?

Originally Posted by joosoon

So if strict mask use isn't cutting down cases in schools, I don't think it's going to slow flu spread either. It's highly likely schools aren't the source of transmission (something I said a year and a half ago), but rather all the outside activities where the protocols don't exist. Again, all the more reason to assume flu numbers will be normal this season.

There are new studies suggesting that school mask mandates do help:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...utbreaks-3-5x/

Originally Posted by sav858

So why is that ok now? They're already doing those things.

Just seems like a bit of a double standard some people and the media flip out about voter ID laws because how they supposedly affect blacks but its okay now with vaccine mandates. Where is the outreach to get people ID's?

One is not like the other.

The population you are talking about regards voter ID laws as efforts to hamper voting rights. Why would they take an action that legitimizes it, when the evidence that they looked at questions the effectiveness, need, and even motives for them?

At the same time, that population generally sees vaccines being safe and effective, given the science and now the real-world evidence backing that up. Why wouldn't they want to provide increased access to vaccines?

Originally Posted by sav858

It wouldn't really make a difference anyways because I doubt you'll find an urban city in a blue state with overflowing hospitals. People like yourself usually have to go the red state/low vax area extreme to try and make a point. Plus I just compared it to NYC...

Well, there are some self-evident reasons why so many of those red states/low vax are now "extreme" cases.

[tikkasf]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

That doesn't make much sense, you walk into a restaurant or bar with a mask on, when you are seated you take it off - what the heck is so awful about that? My guess is that the biggest problem with their business is the number of people who are still working from home.

That would be my guess too

[sav858]

Originally Posted by tikkasf

I read articles from multiple sources and all are not on one side of the political spectrum. If I recall correctly, earlier on in the pandemic, there were some states that lean blue that had over flowing hospitals....and not all that long ago, MI was not looking good.

Then I’m not sure why you have an issue with the Wash Examiner. Yeah that was before vaccines were widely available.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

That doesn't make much sense, you walk into a restaurant or bar with a mask on, when you are seated you take it off - what the heck is so awful about that? My guess is that the biggest problem with their business is the number of people who are still working from home.

The problem is the lack of office workers because companies aren’t bringing their employees back into the office while the mandate is in effect. People don’t want to sit at their desk all day with a mask on. It says that pretty clearly in the article.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

One is not like the other.

The population you are talking about regards voter ID laws as efforts to hamper voting rights. Why would they take an action that legitimizes it, when the evidence that they looked at questions the effectiveness, need, and even motives for them?

At the same time, that population generally sees vaccines being safe and effective, given the science and now the real-world evidence backing that up. Why wouldn't they want to provide increased access to vaccines?

Well, there are some self-evident reasons why so many of those red states/low vax are now "extreme" cases.

Intent is debatable but it's besides the point, you're still enacting a mandate the disproportionately affects POC, especially blacks.

Clearly a fair amount POC don't see them that way. Access isn't the issue, a fair amount of people simply don't want to take it, at least for now.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by sav858

The problem is the lack of office workers because companies aren’t bringing their employees back into the office while the mandate is in effect. People don’t want to sit at their desk all day with a mask on. It says that pretty clearly in the article.

I'm dubious about your claim that employers are allowing employees to work from home because they would get upset if they had to wear a mask in the office. My guess is that they are still working from home because the employees will quit if forced to return to the office (mask or no mask), or working from home is advantageous to the employer.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I'm dubious about your claim that employers are allowing employees to work from home because they would get upset if they had to wear a mask in the office. My guess is that they are still working from home because the employees will quit if forced to return to the office (mask or no mask), or working from home is advantageous to the employer.

It literally says it in the article, the health department even acknowledged it.

the San Francisco Department of Public Health acknowledged to SFGATE two weeks ago that officials are aware that many offices are waiting for the mandate to be lifted before resuming in-person work.

[tikkasf]

There are those for whatever reason are against vaccines or just mandates. There are some going as far to spread misinformation about the vaccines. I recall on another forum, a poster practically bragging about having talked 5 individuals out of taking the vaccine. I read on another forum a poster referencing a website that claimed the vaccine/s were full of graphene oxide.......the poster stated "good luck with that", for those who had been vaccinated. This is just one example of misinformation floating around. I would also submit that perhaps a greater reluctance by POC color to take the vaccine, is being used those against vaccine mandates as tool to further their cause......What is needed in my opinion is a improved effort/campaign to dispel these rumors, distrust and misinformation in the POC community.........

The more people that are vaccinated, the better for all. It is currently the best tool to fight the virus and to reduce the odds of another variant showing up like Delta or even a bit worse. I will add one other consideration.....the financial cost involved for those who are not vaccinated and end up in the hospital or worse, in the hospital ICU......


https://www.city-data.com/forum/seat...leite-not.html

[CA4Now]

We should thank our lucky stars that we live in California.

In Florida, the new surgeon general, who will pull in $500 K per year, is against masks and vaccine mandates. Florida has a COVID-19 death rate per 100 K for the past 14 days of 23.5 (California's rate is 4.3).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...LBO?li=BBnbfcL

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

There are new studies suggesting that school mask mandates do help:

With flu (that was the gist of that post)? I'm on the fence with that one. Maybe.



But with respect to covid, the reason for keeping mask protocols in schools here revolves around how close contacts are defined, not particularly to combat outbreaks. The actual language is from the CDC, but it's reinforced and adopted by state guidance and the local one written by the UCSD team that our district has been following. It's phrased as an 'exception' to their close contact definition: In the K–12 indoor classroom setting or a structured outdoor setting where mask use can be observed (i.e., holding class outdoors with educator supervision), the close contact definition excludes students who were between 3 to 6 feet of an infected student (laboratory-confirmed or a clinical diagnosis) if both the infected student and the exposed student(s) correctly and consistently wore well-fitting masks the entire time.


In other words, schools don't have to send home pockets of children from classrooms where another student tests positive if both/all were wearing masks. That's a departure from last April's rules.