NY Times: Pandemic School Closures were Harmful and Useless

@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.

You sure about that, 'died of' or 'died with' because the NZ goobermint were fluffing out the scary numbers with 'died with', and it all came to a head when the police shot a guy and it was recorded as a wuflu death lol.

@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?

@wildgrass said
What part of " did not increase community transmission" do you not understand?

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, the policy you are retroactively endorsing.

Read this quote one more time: " "School reopenings, in areas of low transmission and with appropriate mitigation measures, were generally not accompanied by increasing community transmission."

EDIT: I'll offer to agree with this statement again:

""well, moving back to in-person learning in school districts with low population density and other protective measures like mandatory masking in areas with below average incidence of COVID prevalence in the community might not have caused significant increases in disease transmission"

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 transmissions increased from the fourth pandemic period (March 7 to July 14, 2021) to the Omicron BA.1/BA.2 wave. More than 70% of household transmissions in households with adults and children were from a pediatric index case, but this percentage fluctuated weekly. Once US schools reopened in fall 2020,23-25 children contributed more to inferred within-household transmission when they were in school, and less during summer and winter breaks, a pattern consistent for 2 consecutive school years."

" However, these transmissions decreased during summer and winter school breaks, which is consistent with prior studies showing school attendance associated with increased respiratory viral spread, and school holidays with decreased spread.26-28"

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2805468

@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.

@wildgrass said
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.

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 learning in Fall 2020 and whether 2 was in effect is unclear in the parts of the country referenced in the study you keep citing, which found a greater than doubling of cases in the South after a policy was done which you claim would not result in "any change to transmission rates."

@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.

@wildgrass said
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.

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 conclusion in even the studies you have presented, though it's more in the data than in the stated conclusions.

What mitigation measures were adopted in the schools was obviously a factor in transmission as the recommendations in the studies makes clear. Unfortunately, the areas that decided to resume in-school learning early in the pandemic often did so for political reasons and shared a general stance of COVID minimizers often with mask skepticism and other unfounded hostility to such measures. That is surely a factor in the data you presented esp. in the South.

Our society, at least the competent local decision makers did, prioritized the health and safety of the residents in their areas. Given the low negative effect on test scores presented in the article cited in the OP versus the likely result of thousands of additional deaths, tens of thousands of more hospitalizations and God knows how much more sickness, their policy choice appears to have been a wise one.

@wildgrass 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'm here to tell you that COVID is different from the flu. 2020 was not every year. Almost no one got the flu. Positivity rates fell way below 1% and stayed that way for more than a year after COVID hit, long after schools reopened.

"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 year. Almost no one got the flu. "
almost like there was an epidemic going on and people were taking steps to protect themselves. And if they got something, they got the thing that there was an epidemic of.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@wildgrass 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.

I used no such terminology. Just quoting the science.

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 in the general population.

Condition C is a pre-existing low incidence of that disease in the local population.

Virtually every study you have cited has said Policy A can avoid a significant Adverse Consequence B IF Condition C is met. You keep ignoring that caveat.

@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.

Condition D. You're scared of bogeyman flu, you stay home.