So, I don't get it... the CDC is right when it aligns with what people want to believe, but they are horribly misinformed when it goes against? ... or are we saying that we can't trust the CDC because their guidance is politically motivated?
The best available evidence indicates that COVID-19 poses relatively low risks to school-aged children. Children appear to be at lower risk for contracting COVID-19 compared to adults. To put this in perspective, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of July 17, 2020, the United States reported that children and adolescents under 18 years old account for under 7 percent of COVID-19 cases and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19-related deaths.[5] Although relatively rare, flu-related deaths in children occur every year. From 2004-2005 to 2018-2019, flu-related deaths in children reported to CDC during regular flu seasons ranged from 37 to 187 deaths. During the H1N1pandemic (April 15, 2009 to October 2, 2010), 358 pediatric deaths were reported to CDC. So far in this pandemic, deaths of children are less than in each of the last five flu seasons, with only 64.† Additionally, some children with certain underlying medical conditions, however, are at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19.*
Scientific studies suggest that COVID-19 transmission among children in schools may be low. International studies that have assessed how readily COVID-19 spreads in schools also reveal low rates of transmission when community transmission is low. Based on current data, the rate of infection among younger school children, and from students to teachers, has been low, especially if proper precautions are followed. There have also been few reports of children being the primary source of COVID-19 transmission among family members.[6],[7],[8] This is consistent with data from both virus and antibody testing, suggesting that children are not the primary drivers of COVID-19 spread in schools or in the community.[9],[10],[11] No studies are conclusive, but the available evidence provides reason to believe that in-person schooling is in the best interest of students, particularly in the context of appropriate mitigation measures similar to those implemented at essential workplaces.
Unfortunately there is no way (for me at least) to explain how I translate CDC info and how that has changed over time without getting political.
However I will give a couple of points.
1. This blurb discussed fatalities, but not long term health issues. In countries doing a much better job of tracing cases, evidence is starting to emerge that folks with mild cases can sometimes unexpectedly show evidence of serious damage, like lung scarring and reduced kidney function even if their mild symptoms didn't even hint at the damage. It is simply too early to tell whether this kind of silent damage is possible in minors as well.
2. It's kind of hard to gloss over this really important qualifier in the 2nd paragraph of the CDC statement: "when community transmission is low". Other countries' data may very well show low numbers because they had already largely controlled community transmission. This is objectively not the case in the US.
Yes, it would be foolish to ignore that in many of the areas where school re-opening is being encouraged, community transmission isn't low. Children would be going back in the context of medium or even high community transmission.
We are all in the Red. While a couple school systems are starting out of the gate online only, many are still insisting they are doing hybrid or even full. The problem with just going online here is low-income families. We also have pretty high poverty in this area, with lots of the folks essential workers that don't get paid well or time off or can't work from home and don't have anyone to watch their children. In addition, many either cannot afford internet or a computer, or there is literally no internet run to their neck of the woods or mtn. Schools locally are scrambling to order enough Chromebooks to give to students in those counties who are doing online or hybrid, but with schools across the nation all doing so, there aren't enough available now. They are asking students who actually already have a computer to not take a laptop to save it for someone who doesn't have one at all. And there's still the internet issue. Our schools need to establish a wi-fi hotspot in school parking lots. One local county has done so. But my county hasn't. I get the feeling that my county has spent all summer believing that this is a hoax and nothing would change and are now running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
The Governor is signing an executive order so we have contact sports. Football and soccer. Regular season.
So to recap, all surrounding counties except one are well in the Red for community transmission but some are actually still doing full or hybrid. And they've got their football, a full contact sport. In a section of the state that half doesn't believe in COVID and half just thinks it's the flu so everywhere else than Walmart they won't wear masks, and even there their noses are all hanging out, if they even agree to wear one at all.
This will go so well./s
Tennessee...winning.
I'm in Arkansas. Our Governor just announced yesterday a $10M grant (from one of the Covid relief packages, Govorner's discretion spending of some kind) to issue point of use Wifi spots across the states. It's mobile hotspot type devices, no data caps, available to students who do not have access to the internet. They will be good for 2 years. The providers (I believe, Verizon, T-moble, and AT&T, but I just saw the slide) have also agreed to sell more than the $10m to the schools at the same agreed-upon price if they need more out of their budgets.
I hope this helps with the internet access situation in our state. Maybe other states will follow suit, or find some other way that works for them to solve this issue for students.
Our schools really need this. But they don't care about the rural folk here, other than to gather their votes. Instead of getting laptops for students and doing wifi hot spots at schools, they've decided to print out paperwork packets for the rural kids affected. That's what they tried to do in March and blew up their copier. It was a mess. This county's county schools are about the worst in the state I'm pretty sure, that's why hubby and I decided to homeschool. Some of these kids are going to be even more behind. Can I blame the County School Board? There's no leadership here apparently. I bet there is funding, but did our Governor tell them that? Nope. What garbage! Governor Lee, come on!
Google recently announced their employees will be working from home until at least June of 2021. Obviously they are in a far better position to do that than most, but I think it's telling. A company that is lucky enough to be able to take an objective, long term view of the situation in the US is strapped in for the long haul.
I work for a media company, and their policy right now is open ended. Basically they are telling local stations that they should allow anyone who can satisfactorily do their work at home to do so for the foreseeable future, taking into consideration local statistics and mandates. My GM seems very open to keeping as few people in the building as possible to make it safer for those who must be there, I feel very fortunate to be where I am right now.
Is anyone else as tired of hearing “in these uncertain times”, “in these trying times”, etc. as I am. When was life ever certain? My life is more certain now than it ever has been. I am more in control of my own fate than I ever have been. Divorced, kids grown, parents and siblings deceased, retired. Things are written in stone more than ever before in my life. I am certain. Trying times? Let me tell you about trying times! No, you don’t really want to know. But trust me, these aren’t trying times. I’ve seen trying times, and I know some of you have, too.
Rant over. Deep breaths. It’s all good.
While I am quite sick of hearing these phrases that have become advertising buzzwords...
Many people are not as lucky as you are to have such certainty and control right now. My husband is out of work, I'm in danger of being furloughed, and unemployment benefits were just slashed. I have no idea when we'll be able to go back to work. My father is in cancer treatment, and I'm worried about everyone I know who is in a high-risk category.
So, yeah, I'm sorry, but for many/most people these are "trying times".
Well said. We just had one of the worst economic quarters in US history. Those people who haven't been impacted or don't know anyone impacted are in the MINORITY right now. My mom is facing risk every day in her hospital job. My brother has no idea when he'll be able to resume his career. Multiple industries are facing decimation. In my previously thriving neighborhood, businesses have been closing their doors for good and others are hustling just to stay afloat.
If these aren't trying times for someone, that's great! It's not like I WANT people to suffer. But for many people, this is a big deal even before we factor in the thousands and thousands of dead people.
My large multinational corporation just said we are delaying our planned start of return to the office from 9/1 to no earlier than 10/1.
My large corporation told us not to expect anything earlier than January.
I have a neighbor who works for my company and his manager told them off the record we won't see the office until 2021 but "official" word is assess at 10/1.
I was heartened when I ran to the store this a.m., needing a few things we're out of. A sign on their door read something to the affect that if you're not wearing a mask, you cannot enter the store. THAT made me happy. But then I go in and there are still 5 out of maybe 25 people NOT wearing a mask. WTH? Back up your signage and make them go home to get their mask or have disposables on hand to offer them! Otherwise, you lose all sense of credibility. And why bother posting a sign at all??
My sister and I went to a book store yesterday that posted a sign on their door, 'Please wear a mask covering nose and mouth at all times'. My sister had a mask and we'd just entered but she forgot to pull it up. The worker came right over and politely asked her to cover her nose; my sister apologized and the lady was very polite.
What a difference in how store policies are being handled.
My large multinational corporation just said we are delaying our planned start of return to the office from 9/1 to no earlier than 10/1.
My large corporation told us not to expect anything earlier than January.
When I read things like this, I wonder how we can even think about sending 'our' children back to schools in good conscience. Am I the only one who feels that's incredibly hypocritical??
I was heartened when I ran to the store this a.m., needing a few things we're out of. A sign on their door read something to the affect that if you're not wearing a mask, you cannot enter the store. THAT made me happy. But then I go in and there are still 5 out of maybe 25 people NOT wearing a mask. WTH? Back up your signage and make them go home to get their mask or have disposables on hand to offer them! Otherwise, you lose all sense of credibility. And why bother posting a sign at all??
My sister and I went to a book store yesterday that posted a sign on their door, 'Please wear a mask covering nose and mouth at all times'. My sister had a mask and we'd just entered but she forgot to pull it up. The worker came right over and politely asked her to cover her nose; my sister apologized and the lady was very polite.
What a difference in how store policies are being handled.
Given that there have been multiple reports of people being assaulted or even killed for trying to enforce mask policies, I don't at all blame store employees for not saying something. What do we expect them to do if someone says "no"? What do we expect them to do if the person hits them or brandishes a weapon or makes a false claim about the ADA exempting them? This is expecting too much of retail employees.
My large multinational corporation just said we are delaying our planned start of return to the office from 9/1 to no earlier than 10/1.
My large corporation told us not to expect anything earlier than January.
When I read things like this, I wonder how we can even think about sending 'our' children back to schools in good conscience. Am I the only one who feels that's incredibly hypocritical??
Grown-ups working from home is relatively easy for a lot of positions (depends on the job duties and technology), but children home for virtual learning is totally different. They will need supervision, assistance with technology, etc.. If the government wants to help working parents by job protection / some wage protection then I'm all for virtual learning, but right now that is not the case.
One of my relatives has the 'Rona. Running 103 degree temps for over 10 days now. They traveled all over the country exposing all of the relatives as they tooled along before and after the 4th. Choosing to forgive is tough business. I flew over the cuckoo's nest before they arrived and went into hiding. There are no more words now.
An area where I used to live has tripled their all-time cases now in the last 10 days. Even yet, some people still suggest nothing should close down again and schools should return as usual. I'm currently in a discussion with someone on social media (I don't know why I even try) with someone who tested positive recently and argues that gyms should stay open and they are safe because "healthy people kick covid." After I pointed out several cases of healthy marathon runners who became very ill or died due to Covid, the response was that distance runners are unhealthy. After she turned it into a sprinting vs. distance running debate, she explained that she sanitizes equipment as she is going to the gym so it isn't possible that she spread it to anyone while she was there (after testing positive, even though she really should just stay home, right?). Ugh... this is why the cases are increasing so fast.
Ummm, ugh. Reading this made me really happy to live in a country where appointed contagious disease doctors can order people to quarantine as an enforceable official ruling. I don’t know if anybody has tried to defy them, but from what I’ve understood you could be put under surveillance if you aren’t following the order at home.
On the upside for people put in official quarantine, there’s an extra form of social security you get paid during official quarantine if you can’t work from home. The amount matches what you would get paid as salary, so there’s no argument about income either.
State law already exists to require positivecases to stay home, but county sherriff has said he won't enforce it and county supervisors (governing county board) has said they won't do anything either. They say they want the county health dept. (underfunded and understaffed without any authority to regulate criminal law) to decide if they will do something and to actually do it. But with no authority...
I was heartened when I ran to the store this a.m., needing a few things we're out of. A sign on their door read something to the affect that if you're not wearing a mask, you cannot enter the store. THAT made me happy. But then I go in and there are still 5 out of maybe 25 people NOT wearing a mask. WTH? Back up your signage and make them go home to get their mask or have disposables on hand to offer them! Otherwise, you lose all sense of credibility. And why bother posting a sign at all??
My sister and I went to a book store yesterday that posted a sign on their door, 'Please wear a mask covering nose and mouth at all times'. My sister had a mask and we'd just entered but she forgot to pull it up. The worker came right over and politely asked her to cover her nose; my sister apologized and the lady was very polite.
What a difference in how store policies are being handled.
Given that there have been multiple reports of people being assaulted or even killed for trying to enforce mask policies, I don't at all blame store employees for not saying something. What do we expect them to do if someone says "no"? What do we expect them to do if the person hits them or brandishes a weapon or makes a false claim about the ADA exempting them? This is expecting too much of retail employees.
Yep if I'm working retail for $10-$15 and hour and not carrying I'm sure not going to argue if someone's not willing to wear a mask.
I was heartened when I ran to the store this a.m., needing a few things we're out of. A sign on their door read something to the affect that if you're not wearing a mask, you cannot enter the store. THAT made me happy. But then I go in and there are still 5 out of maybe 25 people NOT wearing a mask. WTH? Back up your signage and make them go home to get their mask or have disposables on hand to offer them! Otherwise, you lose all sense of credibility. And why bother posting a sign at all??
My sister and I went to a book store yesterday that posted a sign on their door, 'Please wear a mask covering nose and mouth at all times'. My sister had a mask and we'd just entered but she forgot to pull it up. The worker came right over and politely asked her to cover her nose; my sister apologized and the lady was very polite.
What a difference in how store policies are being handled.
Others have mentioned the shooting/stabbing (which happened around here).
I suspect that in addition to differences in store policy or employee assertiveness, there may be differences in the nature of the average shopper in particular kinds of stores, that comes into play. Obviously, any kind of person may go anywhere, but there's a reason bars frequently have bouncers, and bookstores rarely do.
Grocery stores get everyone in them, though different chains may appeal to different sub-markets. Bookstores, though there's variation of course, may on average have a narrower range of probable habitues.
My large multinational corporation just said we are delaying our planned start of return to the office from 9/1 to no earlier than 10/1.
My large corporation told us not to expect anything earlier than January.
When I read things like this, I wonder how we can even think about sending 'our' children back to schools in good conscience. Am I the only one who feels that's incredibly hypocritical??
Grown-ups working from home is relatively easy for a lot of positions (depends on the job duties and technology), but children home for virtual learning is totally different. They will need supervision, assistance with technology, etc.. If the government wants to help working parents by job protection / some wage protection then I'm all for virtual learning, but right now that is not the case.
While I agree with ReenieH's sentiment that there are lots of factors suggesting in person school is a bad idea in some areas, I do not necessarily think it's hypocritical for businesses to keep workers remote if they are able. There is a principle that people who can stay home doing so lowers the risk for those who cannot, making the community safer for everyone. This logic suggests that companies extending remote work makes it safer (maybe even makes it possible) to open school in person. While I'm constantly disheartened about how low a priority "common good" seems to be for individuals, companies & even policy makers in the US, there is a legitimate common good angle to keeping workers remote.
There is, of course, a self interested angle. The following are expensive: workers getting sick or dying, their dependents getting sick or dying, and even just the administrative shuffle of flip-flopping work protocols in different places at different times (and ensuing confusion). Schools opening and re-closing (which you know will happen in some places) is going to take a toll on worker productivity, too. Having a predictable plan for keeping workers working (even sub-optimally) is less costly than constant churn and chaos. This way if areas get slapped with successive shelter in place orders, companies are prepared with minimal impact. It's a decent business continuity plan.
My large multinational corporation just said we are delaying our planned start of return to the office from 9/1 to no earlier than 10/1.
My large corporation told us not to expect anything earlier than January.
When I read things like this, I wonder how we can even think about sending 'our' children back to schools in good conscience. Am I the only one who feels that's incredibly hypocritical??
Grown-ups working from home is relatively easy for a lot of positions (depends on the job duties and technology), but children home for virtual learning is totally different. They will need supervision, assistance with technology, etc.. If the government wants to help working parents by job protection / some wage protection then I'm all for virtual learning, but right now that is not the case.
While I agree with ReenieH's sentiment that there are lots of factors suggesting in person school is a bad idea in some areas, I do not necessarily think it's hypocritical for businesses to keep workers remote if they are able. There is a principle that people who can stay home doing so lowers the risk for those who cannot, making the community safer for everyone. This logic suggests that companies extending remote work makes it safer (maybe even makes it possible) to open school in person. While I'm constantly disheartened about how low a priority "common good" seems to be for individuals, companies & even policy makers in the US, there is a legitimate common good angle to keeping workers remote.
There is, of course, a self interested angle. The following are expensive: workers getting sick or dying, their dependents getting sick or dying, and even just the administrative shuffle of flip-flopping work protocols in different places at different times (and ensuing confusion). Schools opening and re-closing (which you know will happen in some places) is going to take a toll on worker productivity, too. Having a predictable plan for keeping workers working (even sub-optimally) is less costly than constant churn and chaos. This way if areas get slapped with successive shelter in place orders, companies are prepared with minimal impact. It's a decent business continuity plan.
I'm not sure why my company doesn't let some of us keep WFH. I've proven most of my job can be done from home. Employees in the factory wouldn't be able to WFH, but I could get all my on-site stuff done in 1/2 day per week and stay home the rest of the time... why not?!
Anyway, we have some production shut down due to absenteeism from employees who got infected. I feel like sending office employees like me home could maybe help a little bit to prevent spread and with no down-side for the company. We proved we could WFH for a almost 3 months already. Now that production is running, I have some on-site work, but not enough to come in every day.
Replies
Our schools really need this. But they don't care about the rural folk here, other than to gather their votes. Instead of getting laptops for students and doing wifi hot spots at schools, they've decided to print out paperwork packets for the rural kids affected. That's what they tried to do in March and blew up their copier. It was a mess. This county's county schools are about the worst in the state I'm pretty sure, that's why hubby and I decided to homeschool. Some of these kids are going to be even more behind. Can I blame the County School Board? There's no leadership here apparently. I bet there is funding, but did our Governor tell them that? Nope. What garbage! Governor Lee, come on!
I work for a media company, and their policy right now is open ended. Basically they are telling local stations that they should allow anyone who can satisfactorily do their work at home to do so for the foreseeable future, taking into consideration local statistics and mandates. My GM seems very open to keeping as few people in the building as possible to make it safer for those who must be there, I feel very fortunate to be where I am right now.
Well said. We just had one of the worst economic quarters in US history. Those people who haven't been impacted or don't know anyone impacted are in the MINORITY right now. My mom is facing risk every day in her hospital job. My brother has no idea when he'll be able to resume his career. Multiple industries are facing decimation. In my previously thriving neighborhood, businesses have been closing their doors for good and others are hustling just to stay afloat.
If these aren't trying times for someone, that's great! It's not like I WANT people to suffer. But for many people, this is a big deal even before we factor in the thousands and thousands of dead people.
My large corporation told us not to expect anything earlier than January.
I have a neighbor who works for my company and his manager told them off the record we won't see the office until 2021 but "official" word is assess at 10/1.
My sister and I went to a book store yesterday that posted a sign on their door, 'Please wear a mask covering nose and mouth at all times'. My sister had a mask and we'd just entered but she forgot to pull it up. The worker came right over and politely asked her to cover her nose; my sister apologized and the lady was very polite.
What a difference in how store policies are being handled.
When I read things like this, I wonder how we can even think about sending 'our' children back to schools in good conscience. Am I the only one who feels that's incredibly hypocritical??
Given that there have been multiple reports of people being assaulted or even killed for trying to enforce mask policies, I don't at all blame store employees for not saying something. What do we expect them to do if someone says "no"? What do we expect them to do if the person hits them or brandishes a weapon or makes a false claim about the ADA exempting them? This is expecting too much of retail employees.
Grown-ups working from home is relatively easy for a lot of positions (depends on the job duties and technology), but children home for virtual learning is totally different. They will need supervision, assistance with technology, etc.. If the government wants to help working parents by job protection / some wage protection then I'm all for virtual learning, but right now that is not the case.
"mmm, Juicy Fruit..." My favorite from the movie with the possible exception of Nicholson broadcasting the ballgame on the TV that was turned off.
Wow, a hug! This feels x-rated.
State law already exists to require positivecases to stay home, but county sherriff has said he won't enforce it and county supervisors (governing county board) has said they won't do anything either. They say they want the county health dept. (underfunded and understaffed without any authority to regulate criminal law) to decide if they will do something and to actually do it. But with no authority...
Yep if I'm working retail for $10-$15 and hour and not carrying I'm sure not going to argue if someone's not willing to wear a mask.
Others have mentioned the shooting/stabbing (which happened around here).
I suspect that in addition to differences in store policy or employee assertiveness, there may be differences in the nature of the average shopper in particular kinds of stores, that comes into play. Obviously, any kind of person may go anywhere, but there's a reason bars frequently have bouncers, and bookstores rarely do.
Grocery stores get everyone in them, though different chains may appeal to different sub-markets. Bookstores, though there's variation of course, may on average have a narrower range of probable habitues.
While I agree with ReenieH's sentiment that there are lots of factors suggesting in person school is a bad idea in some areas, I do not necessarily think it's hypocritical for businesses to keep workers remote if they are able. There is a principle that people who can stay home doing so lowers the risk for those who cannot, making the community safer for everyone. This logic suggests that companies extending remote work makes it safer (maybe even makes it possible) to open school in person. While I'm constantly disheartened about how low a priority "common good" seems to be for individuals, companies & even policy makers in the US, there is a legitimate common good angle to keeping workers remote.
There is, of course, a self interested angle. The following are expensive: workers getting sick or dying, their dependents getting sick or dying, and even just the administrative shuffle of flip-flopping work protocols in different places at different times (and ensuing confusion). Schools opening and re-closing (which you know will happen in some places) is going to take a toll on worker productivity, too. Having a predictable plan for keeping workers working (even sub-optimally) is less costly than constant churn and chaos. This way if areas get slapped with successive shelter in place orders, companies are prepared with minimal impact. It's a decent business continuity plan.
I'm not sure why my company doesn't let some of us keep WFH. I've proven most of my job can be done from home. Employees in the factory wouldn't be able to WFH, but I could get all my on-site stuff done in 1/2 day per week and stay home the rest of the time... why not?!
Anyway, we have some production shut down due to absenteeism from employees who got infected. I feel like sending office employees like me home could maybe help a little bit to prevent spread and with no down-side for the company. We proved we could WFH for a almost 3 months already. Now that production is running, I have some on-site work, but not enough to come in every day.