@no1marauder said
I've already sufficiently responded to a single journal article that claims parts of the country had double the number of COVID cases when schools were re-opened for in-school instruction as far as your claim that such a result didn't exist. The study itself makes no claims like the ones you do, has incredibly improbable and contradictory results and offers no logical ex ...[text shortened]... of that reality, hard to measure) - well good luck. You're following in MB's and Wajoma's footsteps.

You falsely stated multiple times that not opening schools reduced transmission. Authors in your SINGLE mega article said they had low confidence in the results.

This nature medicine article is rigorous and well cited. They point in the discussion to numerous other studies corroborating their result, and numerous articles have since cited this article with corroborating results.

You then cling to regional data from the south, the only region in the country where there is data that supports your predetermined premise. And even in this region where cases went up (likely due to the absence of mask mandates in schools that opened), there was no change in mortality.

You minimize again, saying this is observational but what the heck else could it be? This is solid well controlled data and you won't find a better study out there.

You minimize again saying there are regional differences but of course. Other stuff was happening! Authors address this directly by mentioning all the other mitigation strategies that were or were not being enforced in these regions at the same time they shuttered school, humidity and weather, and baseline rates of transmission prior to opening schools. The south opened schools without distancing or masking requirements, the auothes mentioned.

Then, ignoring the data you say it's common sense. Really? Scientists disagree. Studies with the lowest risk of statistical bias have repeatedly found no substantial impact of school mode on incidence rates.

It clearly wasn't the schools. You keep writing false things. Why? Are you covering for something? Youre the one acting like wajoma here.

@wildgrass said
And even in this region where cases went up (likely due to the absence of mask mandates in schools that opened), there was no change in mortality.

Masks on adults did more harm than good, it was even worse on kids. There are some very strict protocols for mask standards (forget any kind of cloth mask with gaping holes around the outside) and mask handling (wear it once then discard in a safe manner, perform a fit test to ensure a proper seal) 99.9% of adults did not follow them. kev bamboozle is a mask fanatic and after much arm twisting admitted to using an out of date ineffective mask, in fact his mask which featured a one way valve on it i.e. filtered his inhale but freely emitted his exhale, which had the effect of accelerating his unfiltered exhale through a small outlet thus causing it to travel further.

For kids it did nothing to protect but rather was psychological torment, a form of child abuse.

We went over and over this until a certain wuflu maximiser went blue in the face. The most important lesson was on the use of tables/polls and surveys. The poster, let's call him Number Two's posted a survey to show the incidence of wuflu went down after the intro of mask mandates, but it was just as easy to post surveys of wuflu going up after mask mandates. Or in other words, an excellent practical example of 'How to Lie with Statistics'.

@wildgrass said
Fuggoutahere. You know I'm not an anti vaxxer or any of that other BS. Quit the name calling.

Respond to the data from major medical journals. Those articles say the schools who stayed closed did not help the COVID response in a meaningful way.

Clutch your pearls. I know it's hard to admit you're wrong. If all US schools opened full time in person in fall 2020, the da ...[text shortened]... er stuff we did wrong. Let dad go to the football game but junior can't go to school ? Fn backwards.

" If all US schools opened full time in person in fall 2020, the data suggests it'd have very little impact"
Da fuk you talking about? What data?

"I know it's hard to admit you're wrong."
Did you consider you're wrong?

"Mostly this is because of all the other stuff we did wrong. Let dad go to the football game but junior can't go to school ? "
So your point is if someone pisses on your shoes, you might as well piss on them too? Is this your great argument?

Wtf is wrong with you? Is this really a hill you want to die on? Every parent in the world has gotten sick from something the little cesspools of joy brought home (and i am talking simple colds) and you are saying it wouldn't have made a difference?

Yes, some idiots still went to the beach. Some idiots went to some games. Some of those idiots were even parents.

The ones responsible weren't among those idiots. For them, it wasn't a matter of "all the other stuff we did wrong". They stayed away from public places, they wore masks they disinfected . Now imagine they were forced to send their children into the covid infested outdoors.


If you're gonna respond with "nobody forced them to do anything", missing the point avgjoe style, i am gonna get pissy. Hope you won't .

@wildgrass said
You falsely stated multiple times that not opening schools reduced transmission. Authors in your SINGLE mega article said they had low confidence in the results.

This nature medicine article is rigorous and well cited. They point in the discussion to numerous other studies corroborating their result, and numerous articles have since cited this article with corroborating ...[text shortened]... ep writing false things. Why? Are you covering for something? Youre the one acting like wajoma here.

"This nature medicine article is rigorous and well cited."
You are flat out wrong.
It had one paragraph that dealt with school closures from a transmission point of view and it cited one expert, one, with a one sentence quote that screams it was most likely taken out of context.

Children died of Covid, do you ignore that? Everybody goes on and on that "children were less likely to contract covid" and the morons get from that that children were somehow magical teflon, that covid just didn't stick to them.


We all get sick during flu season. We go outside and we get sick. Then we take that to our families and infect others. We do it because it's not that big of a deal if we do. During covid it WAS that big of a deal. We had to stay the fuk home because getting sick meant that you might not have a hospital bed to stay in. That there might not be a doctor to see you of it there was, you would make another doctor roll the dice to treat your dumb ass. Doctors died of Covid, do you ignore that?


So one simple measure, keeping children at home, with inconveniences so minor it's not worth mentioning. And now you stay in the middle of the town square screaming it wasn't worth it and all you have is one NY times opinion piece that dedicated one paragraph to this issue.

How the fuk are you different than the anti-vaxxers who "have done their research"?

@zahlanzi said
"This nature medicine article is rigorous and well cited."
You are flat out wrong.
It had one paragraph that dealt with school closures from a transmission point of view and it cited one expert, one, with a one sentence quote that screams it was most likely taken out of context.

Children died of Covid, do you ignore that? Everybody goes on and on that "children were l ...[text shortened]... o this issue.

How the fuk are you different than the anti-vaxxers who "have done their research"?

You're right zahlooney bamboozle more kids die on their trip to and from school than they did wuflu, therefore by bamboozle logic it's safer to do away with schools altogether.

@zahlanzi said
"This nature medicine article is rigorous and well cited."
You are flat out wrong.
It had one paragraph that dealt with school closures from a transmission point of view and it cited one expert, one, with a one sentence quote that screams it was most likely taken out of context.

Children died of Covid, do you ignore that? Everybody goes on and on that "children were l ...[text shortened]... o this issue.

How the fuk are you different than the anti-vaxxers who "have done their research"?

It had one paragraph that dealt with school closures from a transmission point of view and it cited one expert, one, with a one sentence quote that screams it was most likely taken out of context.

Sorry but stay in your lane. You don't even know what I was referring to in your quote of my post or what you're talking about on this issue.

@wildgrass said

It had one paragraph that dealt with school closures from a transmission point of view and it cited one expert, one, with a one sentence quote that screams it was most likely taken out of context.

Sorry but stay in your lane. You don't even know what I was referring to in your quote of my post or what you're talking about on this issue.

😂

@zahlanzi said
" If all US schools opened full time in person in fall 2020, the data suggests it'd have very little impact"
Da fuk you talking about? What data?

"I know it's hard to admit you're wrong."
Did you consider you're wrong?

"Mostly this is because of all the other stuff we did wrong. Let dad go to the football game but junior can't go to school ? "
So your point is if so ...[text shortened]... forced them to do anything", missing the point avgjoe style, i am gonna get pissy. Hope you won't .

Zalzani - get real. School reopenings in fall 2020 had little if any effect on community COVID exposure. There were regional differences related to other mitigation strategies. This is not a one-off it's real epidemiological data. The data has been posted multiple times on this thread.

@wildgrass said

It had one paragraph that dealt with school closures from a transmission point of view and it cited one expert, one, with a one sentence quote that screams it was most likely taken out of context.

Sorry but stay in your lane. You don't even know what I was referring to in your quote of my post or what you're talking about on this issue.

you claimed over and over the ny times article was "well cited and rigorous"

rather than get snippy because i didn't know you went off topic and you now have another "well cited and rigorous" article you could just fukin explain.

You stubbornly cling to one piece of data and you have no idea how to interpret it.

or you know what, don't

@wildgrass said
Zalzani - get real. School reopenings in fall 2020 had little if any effect on community COVID exposure. There were regional differences related to other mitigation strategies. This is not a one-off it's real epidemiological data. The data has been posted multiple times on this thread.

"School reopenings in fall 2020 had little if any effect on community COVID exposure. "
who says it had little effect? compared to what?
do you understand

"There were regional differences related to other mitigation strategies."
This is the rehash of your previous argument "school reopenings didn't increase covid cases, the increases in covid cases after school reopenings are explained by everything except school reopenings. Because the expert i cite says so and the experts that say differently are bad"

@zahlanzi said
"School reopenings in fall 2020 had little if any effect on community COVID exposure. "
who says it had little effect? compared to what?
do you understand

"There were regional differences related to other mitigation strategies."
This is the rehash of your previous argument "school reopenings didn't increase covid cases, the increases in covid cases after school reope ...[text shortened]... school reopenings. Because the expert i cite says so and the experts that say differently are bad"

Zahlooney Bamboozle pleadingly:

"...compared to what"

Compared to the number of children that die on the journey to, or from school.

@zahlanzi said
you claimed over and over the ny times article was "well cited and rigorous"

rather than get snippy because i didn't know you went off topic and you now have another "well cited and rigorous" article you could just fukin explain.

You stubbornly cling to one piece of data and you have no idea how to interpret it.

or you know what, don't

ok, you seem lost, I can catch you up. Much of this has already been covered in this thread. It's not off topic at all.

The NYT article cited one of the seminal research papers on the subject. Addressing the criticism that "it's only one study" it is notable that this paper has been cited more than 2,000 times in follow up studies, mostly corroborating the findings.

No1 and I were then discussing one of those follow up studies, published in Nature Medicine (a very respected, high impact journal) that made the following conclusion:

"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."

This study is transparent, rigorous, and well-controlled. It is readable for a non-scientist, and I think it does a good job breaking down the school reopening question based on geographic region, where other mitigation strategies (or lack therof) could have muddied the data. Even in regions where higher incidence were detected in counties with open schools, there was no statistical link to any additional deaths. Figure 2 is what convinced me that school reopening had no impact on COVID incidence rates. In their discussion, they cite at least 5 other medical articles that have come to similar conclusions, and provide explanations for contradictory results in other studies. This paper was published in 2021 and has been cited over 80 times by other research papers that have parsed the data in different ways and come to similar conclusions.

No1 posted a quote fragment from an article that he thought proved his point, in which the authors looked at a ton of data and found "low confidence" in a conclusion that schools remaining closed had a marginal benefit to incidence rates. Back to the Nature Medicine article, they explain this result may have been due to the inclusion of low quality studies and bad statistics.

If you would rather read non-science articles, the Atlantic and New Yorker have done some great reporting about how ridiculous it was that schools were closed while NFL stadiums were open (in the same community), albeit mostly focused on the downside of closures for mental health etc.

The public policy issues remain a complex question, but I think the data supporting the null hypothesis is clear. No impact. If you caught me on a good day, I might say that schools should be closed during global pandemics as a mitigation strategy only if all other parts of society are also closed. Schools and hospitals should close last, they're too important.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01563-8

@zahlanzi said
"School reopenings in fall 2020 had little if any effect on community COVID exposure. "
who says it had little effect? compared to what?
do you understand

"There were regional differences related to other mitigation strategies."
This is the rehash of your previous argument "school reopenings didn't increase covid cases, the increases in covid cases after school reope ...[text shortened]... school reopenings. Because the expert i cite says so and the experts that say differently are bad"

It is not that schools remaining closed would not have a theoretical benefit in a vacuum when all series of ideal conditions are met, but that in practical terms the execution of the plan to keep schools closed as a mitigation strategy did not work.

@mott-the-hoople said
😂

🤡

@wildgrass said
You falsely stated multiple times that not opening schools reduced transmission. Authors in your SINGLE mega article said they had low confidence in the results.

This nature medicine article is rigorous and well cited. They point in the discussion to numerous other studies corroborating their result, and numerous articles have since cited this article with corroborating ...[text shortened]... ep writing false things. Why? Are you covering for something? Youre the one acting like wajoma here.

I'll waste some time and demolish this.

Here's the data from the article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01563-8/figures/1

There quite simply isn't enough data at all from either the Pacific or Northeast region regarding schools reopening with traditional learning to make ANY type of judgment: only two out of 64 counties reporting in the Pacific even did so and only 11 out of 103 in the Northeast did and every single one of those counties was in low population rural areas. This is hardly surprising; the study only included data from July 2020 to September 2020, when virtually no counties with significant populations went back to "traditional" learning as the article calls it in areas with semi-competent leadership.

How about the others? From the article:

After adjustment, a traditional school mode was associated with increases in the number of SARS-CoV-2 cases compared to a fully remote mode from week 4 (effect = 13.8 cases per 100,000 residents, 95% CI = 1.1–26.4) to week 6 (effect = 11.2, 95% CI = 0.1–22.3) in the Midwest. In the South, a traditional in-person mode was associated with increases in the number of SARS-CoV-2 cases during the period from week 2 after school opening (effect = 10.7 cases per 100,000 residents, 95% CI = 3.6–17.8) to week 12 after opening, (effect = 10.0, 95% CI = 3.1–16.8)."

Quite simply, the data in the article shows the exact opposite of your claims though there is some misleading commentary masking the results.

EDIT: The article itself does not make the extravagant claims you do. It says:

"Schools can reopen for in-person learning during the pandemic without substantially increasing community case rates of SARS-CoV-2; however, the impacts on community transmission are variable. Additional studies are needed to elucidate the reasons for the regional differences identified in our analysis more fully." (Italics and bolding added).

Here's what we do know about the "regional differences"; the data from the Pacific and Northeast was pathetically insufficient due to the small number of counties in those areas who fully turned back to in-person learning by September 2020 and the fact that the few that did were in low population areas.