Search by Author (Last month only)
Public forum posts since 28 Feb '24 .
Enter the exact name of the post author
  1. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    28 Mar '24 03:452 edits
    @no1marauder said
    No, I obviously don't agree that reopening schools for in-person learning in areas with existing high levels of COVID19 in the general population would have had no effect on transmission rates. It's quite obviously counterintuitive and the evidence (limited as it is as most local leaders weren't willing to adopt such a murderous, insane policy) is to the contrary. Even the studies you referenced don't make such an outlandish claim.
    Without data, you're just another person with an opinion...

    Nature Medicine: "SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates were not statistically different in counties with in-person learning versus remote school modes in most regions of the United States."

    PNAS: "...keeping lower-secondary schools open had minor consequences for the overall transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in society."

    BMJ: "Most studies of school reopening reported that school reopening, with extensive infection prevention and control measures in place and when the community infection levels were low, did not increase community transmission of SARS-CoV-2."

    You take what experts in the field have written and flip it to the negative and and add qualifiers, then say you disagree? This is why these debates never go anywhere, you read all these scientific studies and conclude the opposite because it's "counterintuitive" to you. You continue to cling to dogma, and downvote posts you are arguing with like a child.
  2. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    25 Mar '24 20:34
    @averagejoe1 said
    I wish uo libs could debte things you know about. Why, you may teach us guys on the other side of the fence. Speculating 'who knew what' is quite boring.
    Here is an idea… Tell us something that you think that we should know that you know about, not in a political sense, since we disagree there, but something that you do that you think we should do. I don't mean to b ...[text shortened]... e for you to tell us how you do that, again I am serious, we are curious. Respectfully yours, AvJoe
    I'm not speculating, because either way is bad for trump. If he did know that he was in charge of running the DHHS, and he thought they were not executing congresses wishes, then he really could have made some changes there to prevent this.

    If he didn't know, well, then, he's an idiot.
  3. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    25 Mar '24 17:101 edit
    @no1marauder said
    Misquoting actually.

    Saying you can do Policy A without Adverse Consequence B IF Condition C (among others) is met, implies you shouldn't do Policy A IF Condition C is not met or you will get Adverse Consequence B. Here:

    Policy A is reopening schools for in-person learning

    Adverse Consequence B is an increased amount of a deadly, contagious cisease ...[text shortened]... oid a significant Adverse Consequence B IF Condition C is met. You keep ignoring that caveat.
    Not misquoting. You seem to prefer alternate conclusions than what authors provide, and I admit i take their word for it when they write that learning mode was not an important variable determining community transmission rates.

    Schools remained closed after those conditions you mentioned were met. It made no difference in transmission rates, as I think we agree. The benefit of remote learning on COVID transmission in these areas was non-existent (or if you squint while looking at the graph, maybe made a tiny difference). In places where conditions were not met, the reason why conditions were not met had nothing to do with schools.

    This was very bad public policy. We have not even started discussing the cost.
  4. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    25 Mar '24 16:38
    Dd trump even know that DHHS was an executive branch enforcement agency? And if so, did he steal an election from himself?
  5. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    25 Mar '24 05:14
    @wajoma said
    Agreed wildgrass, the only thing Trump did wrong during the wuflu drama was bend to the so called power tripping experts. History has totally vindicated the anti-lock downers.

    Never again, people need resist more next time, a lot more.

    "Next time?" you ask. That's right, the next time they pull this stunt you better grow a pair.

    ' "Emergencies" have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have eroded' Hayek
    bend to the so called power tripping experts

    This is the sign, maybe the only sign, of a very bad leader.
  6. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    25 Mar '24 05:08
    @no1marauder said
    No one said that schools being open for in-school learning was a primary factor in the overall COVID incidence rate in the at-large population, so you're goalpost moving. What has been said is that, contrary to your assertions, doing so in areas with anything but a low COVID incidence rate in the at-large population would have worsened that rate. That seems to be the con ...[text shortened]... lizations and God knows how much more sickness, their policy choice appears to have been a wise one.
    No one said that schools being open for in-school learning was a primary factor in the overall COVID incidence rate in the at-large population, so you're goalpost moving.

    I used no such terminology. Just quoting the science.
  7. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    25 Mar '24 05:06
    @zahlanzi said
    "Ummm. You're using the same anti-vax "they're only trying to control you" conspiracy theory talking point here saying COVID is no different from the flu? Did wajoma steal your login information?"
    i never realized you're this obtuse. it's shocking.

    i am saying the opposite. it's worse.

    "I'm here to tell you that COVID is different from the flu. 2020 was not every yea ...[text shortened]... to protect themselves. And if they got something, they got the thing that there was an epidemic of.
    Sorry I guess I misinterpreted your comment? You seemed to be making an argument that COVID was spread through schools just like other viruses.
    almost like there was an epidemic going on and people were taking steps to protect themselves.

    Um yea, I agree. Given all these added layers of protection, the mode of learning at school as public policy had no effect on community transmission rates.
  8. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    25 Mar '24 05:02
    @no1marauder said
    Jesus H Christ.

    Your stubbornness is noted, but all your studies indicate is, at best, in places with low COVID incidence to begin with that reopening schools for in-person learning did not substantially increase transmission.

    That says absolutely nothing about what would have happened IF the same thing had been done in places with high rates of COVID incidence, th ...[text shortened]... VID prevalence in the community might not have caused significant increases in disease transmission"
    You kept writing that in person school was too costly or "not worth the cost" which is what prompted the pushback.

    All the studies we've been discussing have shown that learning mode was not an important variable for community transmission rates. It was all the other stuff happening or not happening in the community.

    Don't punish students or blame in-person schooling just because no one wants to wear a mask or quarantine after a positive test. Keeping schools closed was pointless public policy, as these studies suggest.
  9. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    24 Mar '24 21:381 edit
    @averagejoe1 said
    You refer to 'they' in previous post, being under oath. Is that the committee, or Bobolinski, or whom? So, you are saying that they, who are under oath, change their stories when they are interviewed on Breitbart. I don't get it.
    Yes they are obviously changing the story because if you see the hearings they admit they have nothing on Biden. Why else would they do that?

    Trust what they say under oath.
  10. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    24 Mar '24 03:371 edit
    @no1marauder said
    The data suggests no such thing as a general rule; it says, at most, that transmission wouldn't significantly increase only if two conditions were met: 1) COVID incidence in the population at large is low; AND 2) Aggressive mandatory mitigation measures like required masking are in effect.

    1 was certainly not met in the majority of schools that did not resume in-school ...[text shortened]... outh after a policy was done which you claim would not result in "any change to transmission rates."
    I am really glad to see we are making progress in this conversation. Your point 1 was not met in some places. Why? It wasn't because of schools. Your point 2 was not met in some areas either. Why? It wasn't schools.

    School closures were unnecessary if other mitigation efforts were in place. Unfortunately our society prioritized things other than education.
  11. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    24 Mar '24 02:56
    @averagejoe1 said
    Breitbart are conservative pundits. You have a slew of your kind on different platforms, one is a condescending person named Michaelangelo, I kid you not. So what is your problem? And there 'discussions', they come from both our guys and michaelllllaaaaaaaannnngggelo, speaking there minds**.

    Sp, please tell Sueperson and me what you mean about official capacity ...[text shortened]... peak about freedom and liberty, Michaelllaaaaanngelo speaks about getting the stuff of other people.
    I mean of course that if you're under legal obligation to tell the truth, and you say something different than what you said on Breitbart, which version of the story should you believe?
  12. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    24 Mar '24 02:421 edit
    @no1marauder said
    Here's a study of 1.4 million individuals regarding children spreading the disease:

    " Our findings suggest that children play an important role in within-household viral transmissions. Consistent with demonstrated patterns among other viral illnesses, pediatric-driven transmission was higher when school was in session. During the COVID-19 pandemic, inferred household t ...[text shortened]... with decreased spread.26-28"

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2805468
    Right, but in the other studies when you control for whether or not those schools and communities used other efforts to mitigate spread, the question of whether or not the school was in person or remote is no longer relevant.

    Data is observational, of course, but suggests the schools could have been open the whole time without any change to transmission rates.
  13. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    24 Mar '24 02:32
    @sh76 said
    Very informal metric, I know, but illuminating nonetheless.

    After noticing some of these groups on my Facebook feed (yes, I'm old, sue me), I did a little counting:

    Facebook groups that are called some variation of "I love USA": 12 groups of at least 100,000 members, including 8 of 230k or more, 5 of 300k or more and 2 of 500k or more.

    "I love Europe" One group over 100 ...[text shortened]... ny people still consider it the shining city on the hill?

    I have a theory, but I'll listen first.
    Isn't it just where Facebook users are from?
  14. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    24 Mar '24 00:39
    @no1marauder said
    What part of "when community infection rates were low" didn't you understand?

    They certainly weren't "low" in the areas that declined to reopen in-school learning in late 2020. Almost a half a million Americans died of COVID during the 2020-21 school year when you are claiming it was a mistake to not fully reopen for in-school learning every single school in the country. That it is an unsupportable position.
    What part of " did not increase community transmission" do you not understand?
  15. Joined
    20 Oct '06
    Moves
    9544
    23 Mar '24 19:39
    @sonhouse said
    @wildgrass
    Nah, could that be? All BS? Everyone knows that Russian spy is really a double spy?
    Hopefully when they write a documentary they'll include the part of impeachment inquiry hearing when a Republican lawmaker said that Hunter Biden had "no balls" because he didn't want to do a private deposition (while he was sitting right in front of her and agreed to answer her questions). Then not 20 minutes later, another Republican lawmaker submitted a photo of Hunter Biden's genitalia (balls and all) to the whole group.
Back to Top

Search Site Content

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree