COVID-19

[ulukinatme]

http://ftp.iza.org/dp13670.pdf. Here is a study linking 250,000 new cases with Sturgis.

266,000 cases didn't happen as a result of Sturgis, and they never will. The LA Times reported that the Health Department had received less than 25 confirmed cases as of August 21st, and since then there was another article from the Hill that said 260 confirmed cases were found. Even if they're accounting for potential patients getting infected by those returning from Sturgis, there's no way they've hit 250,000 from the event. Since Sturgis ended 17 days ago there have been about 700,000 new COVID cases total across the entire country. There's no way more than 1/3 of those cases came from Sturgis, and their claim that it cost us $12 billion is just as ridiculous since most COVID cases don't require hospitalization. $46,000 spent on each positive case of COVID? System would be bankrupt. That would mean we've spent $291+ trillion on the 6.33 million positive COVID cases to date. These values are completely off.

 

[notredomer23]

At this point, the U.S. CFR is 3%. I've been seeing that another factor is that we're getting better at treatment

https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid

Well, this would assume everyone's been tested, which we all know is far from the case. I think it's safe to say the COVID levels in the US are lower now than they were February-April, but obviously case numbers don't show that. Most estimates show actual case numbers are 7 to 13 times higher than the cases reported. So meeting in the middle at 10 times higher, we are talking a 0.3% CFR. And to be clear, a 0.3% CFR is still really bad and way worse than most flus, so not minimizing it.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

266,000 cases didn't happen as a result of Sturgis, and they never will. The LA Times reported that the Health Department had received less than 25 confirmed cases as of August 21st, and since then there was another article from the Hill that said 260 confirmed cases were found. Even if they're accounting for potential patients getting infected by those returning from Sturgis, there's no way they've hit 250,000 from the event. Since Sturgis ended 17 days ago there have been about 700,000 new COVID cases total across the entire country. There's no way more than 1/3 of those cases came from Sturgis, and their claim that it cost us $12 billion is just as ridiculous since most COVID cases don't require hospitalization. $46,000 spent on each positive case of COVID? System would be bankrupt. That would mean we've spent $291+ trillion on the 6.33 million positive COVID cases to date. These values are completely off.

It was a 10 day event. It clearly says the data used occurred at least a month after the onset of the Rally. I think it would be more beneficial if you would specify the specific errors in their analysis rather than just claiming it’s wrong and arguing from incredulity.

A week hospital stay and treatments could easily reach $46k. I had a ct scan and blood work due to a panic attack overnight and it cost me $7k. Lol. Earlier I mentioned my aunt had caught it and had to go to the hospital. She was there several days but was released as she responded to her treatments. I spoke with her the other day and asked about her hospital bills. All in all $57k billed. She said she was still figuring out how much insurance would cover and such

 

[ulukinatme]

It was a 10 day event. It clearly says the data used occurred at least a month after the onset of the Rally. I think it would be better if you would specify the specific errors in their analysis rather than just claiming it’s wrong and arguing from incredulity.

A week hospital stay and treatments could easily reach $46k. I had a ct scan and blood work due to a panic attack overnight and it cost me $7k. Lol. Earlier I mentioned my aunt had caught it and had to go to the hospital. She was there several days but was released as she responded to her treatments. I spoke with her the other day and asked about her hospital bills. All in all $57k billed. She said she was still figuring out how much insurance would cover and such

I mean, I kind of did specify the errors in the analysis. I pointed out that we've had about 700,000 new COVID cases across the entire country since Sturgis finished, meaning Sturgis was responsible for more than 1/3 of all new cases which is rather unlikely. Considering the Hill article mentioned they've only confirmed a couple hundred cases of COVID from Sturgis it's a little silly to guess that the true number is 1,330 times greater than that.

Along with that the $46,000 per positive COVID case is overblown. As I said, if that number was true, we'd be bankrupt already because we would have spent $291+ trillion against the 6 million COVID cases we've had to date. I'm not saying a hospital visit can't run $46,000, it most certainly can and more. Considering most people with COVID either show no symptoms or don't require hospitalization, $46,000 per positive case is ridiculous.

 

[Legacy]

So what’s the final conclusion? Are you debunking the article in the journal published by Cambridge University Press that says that testimony to House Oversight Committee in 3/20 mixed up CFR & IFR (a major error if true) b/c a Russian media outlet picked it up & posted it on Twitter? Did Fauci or someone else simply make a mathematical error in regards to IFR & CFR? Looks like mostly folks from the UK & Scotland are tweeting about it so I have no idea of the veracity of it but if you read the tweet thread, it’s pretty detailed.

No. I like to see the primary source and thanked you for posting it. I don't trust RT.

Well, this would assume everyone's been tested, which we all know is far from the case. I think it's safe to say the COVID levels in the US are lower now than they were February-April, but obviously case numbers don't show that. Most estimates show actual case numbers are 7 to 13 times higher than the cases reported. So meeting in the middle at 10 times higher, we are talking a 0.3% CFR. And to be clear, a 0.3% CFR is still really bad and way worse than most flus, so not minimizing it.

If I recall, the USS Roosevelt at sea was a good study especially for asymptomatic numbers in young, fit population. If I recall, about 25% of sailors (1250) tested positive out of 5000 with one death. I'd like to see a model that weights Americans including those in high risk categories.

Nice study:
SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Serologic Responses from a Sample of U.S. Navy Service Members — USS Theodore Roosevelt, April 2020
(CDC)

 

[Irish YJ]

266,000 cases didn't happen as a result of Sturgis, and they never will. The LA Times reported that the Health Department had received less than 25 confirmed cases as of August 21st, and since then there was another article from the Hill that said 260 confirmed cases were found. Even if they're accounting for potential patients getting infected by those returning from Sturgis, there's no way they've hit 250,000 from the event. Since Sturgis ended 17 days ago there have been about 700,000 new COVID cases total across the entire country. There's no way more than 1/3 of those cases came from Sturgis, and their claim that it cost us $12 billion is just as ridiculous since most COVID cases don't require hospitalization. $46,000 spent on each positive case of COVID? System would be bankrupt. That would mean we've spent $291+ trillion on the 6.33 million positive COVID cases to date. These values are completely off.

I love the studies who tag XXX to places like Sturgis, and the ridiculous studies suggesting riots and protests aren't an impact. The detachment from reality is off the charts these days.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I mean, I kind of did specify the errors in the analysis. I pointed out that we've had about 700,000 new COVID cases across the entire country since Sturgis finished, meaning Sturgis was responsible for more than 1/3 of all new cases which is rather unlikely. Considering the Hill article mentioned they've only confirmed a couple hundred cases of COVID from Sturgis it's a little silly to guess that the true number is 1,330 times greater than that.

Along with that the $46,000 per positive COVID case is overblown. As I said, if that number was true, we'd be bankrupt already because we would have spent $291+ trillion against the 6 million COVID cases we've had to date. I'm not saying a hospital visit can't run $46,000, it most certainly can and more. Considering most people with COVID either show no symptoms or don't require hospitalization, $46,000 per positive case is ridiculous.

I mean they give you their methodology in the paper lol. You are really just inserting your own analysis instead of critiquing theirs. Haha. This whole post is all just an argument of incredulity.

 

[yankeehater]

AstraZeneca phase 3 vaccine trial put on hold due to safety concerns. The report does not specify if they chose to stop it or if told to stop the trial.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/astrazeneca-puts-covid-19-vaccine-215143688.html

 

[Valpodoc85]

Jamain Stevens Jr a senior and defensive tackle at California University of Pennsylvania reportedly died this evening as a result of covid complications. He was 20. The University had suspended all sports operations for the fall so this is not as a result of football

 

[Irishize]

AstraZeneca phase 3 vaccine trial put on hold due to safety concerns. The report does not specify if they chose to stop it or if told to stop the trial.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/astrazeneca-puts-covid-19-vaccine-215143688.html

I’ve read where the patient is recovering and that this is common procedure in any clinical trial. These companies are screwed either way. If they take their time and due diligence to ensure safety & efficacy, every pause or setback will garner a “sky is falling” response. If everything is moving smooth & efficient w/ no hiccups, “they must be rushing it for the almighty dollar”.

Personally, I’d rather see what AZ did as reassurance that they’re following protocols & taking this as serious as any other clinical trial. Probably more serious b/c no pharma company wants egg on their face or...more importantly....fines & restrictions & drop in share price b/c they didn’t adhere to protocols.

EDIT: here’s the press release from AstraZeneca

Statement on AstraZeneca Oxford SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, AZD1222, COVID-19 vaccine trials temporary pause
(Ref: AstraZeneca)
September 9th, 2020
Tags: Press Release AZD1222 AstraZeneca Vaccitech COVID-19 Immunisation Clinical Research (R&D)

Share

Email
Print
As part of the ongoing randomised, controlled clinical trials of the AstraZeneca Oxford coronavirus vaccine, AZD1222, a standard review process has been triggered, leading to the voluntary pause of vaccination across all trials to allow an independent committee to review the safety data of a single event of an unexplained illness that occurred in the UK Phase III trial.
This is a routine action which has to happen whenever there is a potentially unexplained illness in one of the trials, while it is investigated, ensuring we maintain the integrity of the trials.

In large clinical trials, illnesses will happen by chance and must be independently reviewed. AstraZeneca is working to expedite the review of the single event to minimise any potential impact on the trial timeline. We are committed to the safety of our participants and the highest standards of conduct in our trials.

Pascal Soriot, Chief Executive Officer, said: "At AstraZeneca we put science, safety and the interests of society at the heart of our work. This temporary pause is living proof that we follow those principles while a single event at one of our trial sites is assessed by a committee of independent experts. We will be guided by this committee as to when the trials could restart, so that we can continue our work at the earliest opportunity to provide this vaccine broadly, equitably and at no profit during this pandemic."

AZD1222

AZD1222 was co-invented by the University of Oxford and its spin-out company, Vaccitech. It uses a replication-deficient chimpanzee viral vector based on a weakened version of a common cold virus (adenovirus) that causes infections in chimpanzees and contains the genetic material of the SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein. After vaccination, the surface spike protein is produced, priming the immune system to attack the SARS-CoV-2 virus if it later infects the body.

AstraZeneca

AstraZeneca (LSE/STO/NYSE: AZN) is a global, science-led biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the discovery, development and commercialisation of prescription medicines, primarily for the treatment of diseases in three therapy areas - Oncology, Cardiovascular, Renal & Metabolism, and Respiratory & Immunology. Based in Cambridge, UK, AstraZeneca operates in over 100 countries and its innovative medicines are used by millions of patients worldwide. Please visit astrazeneca.com and follow the Company on Twitter @AstraZeneca.

 

[Irishize]

No. I like to see the primary source and thanked you for posting it. I don't trust RT.

Your realize that the primary source is Cambridge University Press? They are the oldest publisher in the world. I assume your views align very well with theirs but that’s neither here nor there as it pertains to the data that was testified to Congress.

The only reason I posted the RT article was b/c it parsed the Cambridge Univ article for folks who didn’t want to read the entire unparsed thread whether it be time constraints or laziness.

New article in journal published by Cambridge Univ Press says that testimony to House Oversight Committee in March 2020 mixed up case fatality rate (CFR) and infection fatality rate (IFR) for influenza, resulting in major error. (I report this w/o parsing)

If you were acknowledging this I apologize for misunderstanding your response. I suspected you dismissed it b/c you saw RT Media and didn’t bother to look at the actual Cambridge article.

 

[SonofOahu]

Bro, we knew about the potential for asymptomatic transmission since January. When I say "we" I don't mean some rhetorical collective, I mean my hospital's COVID team. Maybe we've paid closer attention since Hawaii has such a large connection to China, but our State apparatus put out its first official memo on 21 January. Our IP specialist has been tracking the research and rumors since word started buzzing in late December.

You're not an American, so I wouldn't expect you to know what FEMA, much less NIMS, is. This is how it's supposed to work:

https://training.fema.gov/nims/

This is more or less how it's functioning at a state level, but command from the top is missing. There has been no centralized planning, logistics, communication, etc. It's been a cluster-fuck. I believe you French Canadians would say Le Cluster Fuch.

When I sit here bitching about how bad it's been, I'm not doing it from the lens of Dem voter, or whatever. I'm bringing my insight as someone who's been watching this develop, from the inside, for the better part of this year. I've watched how states have been played against each other like as if this were the "Hunger Games". My friend co-founded Operation Masks to procure PPE -- I heard, first hand, how the US was commandeering shipments on Chinese tarmacs and redirecting them to where the Trump Admin wanted them to go, even shipments purchased by States themselves.

The messaging to the public was messy, there's no denying that. Make no mistake, the US medical community knew since February that CoV was airborne/droplet. We had physicians take part in the Diamond Princess response, and they were reporting back the hybrid airborne/droplet precautions.

I've said it a few times: the reason why the general public was told not to grab medical-type PPE was to mitigate panic-buying and shortages. It didn't work, of course, but that was when people started making cloth masks.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/bob-woodward-rage-book-trump-coronavirus/index.html

In a January 28 top secret intelligence briefing, national security adviser Robert O'Brien gave Trump a "jarring" warning about the virus, telling the President it would be the "biggest national security threat" of his presidency. Trump's head "popped up," Woodward writes.

O'Brien's deputy, Matt Pottinger, concurred, telling Trump it could be as bad as the influenza pandemic of 1918, which killed an estimated 50 million people worldwide, including 675,000 Americans. Pottinger warned Trump that asymptomatic spread was occurring in China: He had been told 50% of those infected showed no symptoms.

At that time, there were fewer than a dozen reported coronavirus cases in the US.
Three days later, Trump announced restrictions on travel from China, a move suggested by his national security team -- despite Trump's later claims that he alone backed the travel limitations.

Nevertheless, Trump continued to publicly downplay the danger of the virus. February was a lost month. Woodward views this as a damning missed opportunity for Trump to reset "the leadership clock" after he was told this was a "once-in-a-lifetime health emergency."

I told you so.

 

[SonofOahu]

Oahu, what's your take on the Plasma treatments? My friends in AZ have been doing this with their patients since April. Makes sense to use it (albeit to a person with a grade 11 biology understanding)

I'm ambivalent regarding plasma. It's not a magic bullet, nothing is. If you look at the research on these treatments, Remdesivir shows "significant" results on a five-day course, but no difference from placebo on a ten-day course (outcomes measured at day 11.) Plasma should be pretty safe, but I'm not sure how effective it really is. I think the steroids are probably the most effective part of that trio, because it works to mitigate the cytokine storm.

The new hot theory is a bradykinin response: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/09/08/bradykinin-and-the-coronavirus

Not looking to argue really but the twitter thread cites all the sources. I clicked a couple of them and each included zero hospitalizations from edu websites.

I get it, but what I'm saying is the colleges can't tell you (general public with no real right to know) if the person was hospitalized, due to FERPA regs: https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/resource_document/file/FERPA%20and%20Coronavirus%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions_0.pdf

From a compliance perspective, it's just safer not to publicly report that and let your local health department take care of it. Statistically, it's not possible that there would be no hospitalizations with that many positive cases.

 

[SonofOahu]

Why isn’t this being reported? I can’t vouch for the owner of the tweet...never heard of him. But what about the info he is providing?

There’s a UK article that parses this data for those who don’t want to read through this tweet thread. I’ll try to find it & post as well.


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">New article in journal published by Cambridge Univ Press says that testimony to House Oversight Committee in March 2020 mixed up case fatality rate (CFR) and infection fatality rate (IFR) for influenza, resulting in major error. (I report this w/o parsing)<a href="https://t.co/3Dpmc7kCPN">https://t.co/3Dpmc7kCPN</a> <a href="https://t.co/FQ8XGCRjjY">pic.twitter.com/FQ8XGCRjjY</a></p>— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) <a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1303024247510503424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 7, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

We're about to hit 200,000 Americans dead. What's your point?

 

[SonofOahu]

http://ftp.iza.org/dp13670.pdf. Here is a study linking 250,000 new cases with Sturgis.

266,000 cases didn't happen as a result of Sturgis, and they never will. The LA Times reported that the Health Department had received less than 25 confirmed cases as of August 21st, and since then there was another article from the Hill that said 260 confirmed cases were found. Even if they're accounting for potential patients getting infected by those returning from Sturgis, there's no way they've hit 250,000 from the event. Since Sturgis ended 17 days ago there have been about 700,000 new COVID cases total across the entire country. There's no way more than 1/3 of those cases came from Sturgis, and their claim that it cost us $12 billion is just as ridiculous since most COVID cases don't require hospitalization. $46,000 spent on each positive case of COVID? System would be bankrupt. That would mean we've spent $291+ trillion on the 6.33 million positive COVID cases to date. These values are completely off.

These numbers seem high. I think Sturgis definitely created a super-spreader event, but I have a hard time believing it caused 250K positive and $12B in services.

 

[Legacy]

Your realize that the primary source is Cambridge University Press? They are the oldest publisher in the world. I assume your views align very well with theirs but that’s neither here nor there as it pertains to the data that was testified to Congress.

Yes. I know Cambridge Press. Even a branch in Cape Town

The only reason I posted the RT article was b/c it parsed the Cambridge Univ article for folks who didn’t want to read the entire unparsed thread whether it be time constraints or laziness.

I looked for the Cambridge article and the Congressional testimony. Sometimes things are taken out of context. Just me, I guess. If you trust RT not to slant it or to create disagreements, your choice.

If you were acknowledging this I apologize for misunderstanding your response. I suspected you dismissed it b/c you saw RT Media and didn’t bother to look at the actual Cambridge article.

See above. I didn't dismiss it. Assume that if you wish. Wanted to read to the original source for the substance. Know that this is my habit before responding.

 

[Legacy]

I'm ambivalent regarding plasma. It's not a magic bullet, nothing is. If you look at the research on these treatments, Remdesivir shows "significant" results on a five-day course, but no difference from placebo on a ten-day course (outcomes measured at day 11.) Plasma should be pretty safe, but I'm not sure how effective it really is. I think the steroids are probably the most effective part of that trio, because it works to mitigate the cytokine storm.

The new hot theory is a bradykinin response: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/09/08/bradykinin-and-the-coronavirus



I get it, but what I'm saying is the colleges can't tell you (general public with no real right to know) if the person was hospitalized, due to FERPA regs: https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/resource_document/file/FERPA%20and%20Coronavirus%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions_0.pdf

From a compliance perspective, it's just safer not to publicly report that and let your local health department take care of it. Statistically, it's not possible that there would be no hospitalizations with that many positive cases.

I suppose that current prevailing treatment of Covid that requires hospitalization is if someone is on ACE inhibitors of ARBs s to continue that dosage if well-controlled. Do you increase the dosage in spite of that for the increased bradykinin suppressive effect?

Good article.

To that point, a very good feature of this work is that it immediately suggests several interventions with FDA-approved drugs. Not all of these are actionable (for example, androgenic steroids decrease bradykinin production, but do a hell of a lot of other things besides!) But icatibant (brand name Firazyr) is an antagonist of bradykinin B2 receptors, and ecallantide (brand name Kalbitor) is an inhibitor of kallikrein, a key enzyme in bradykinin production. Both of those would seem to be directly targeting the proposed mechanisms. Hymecromone is a small molecule that’s known to inhibit the synthesis of hyaluronic acid. And thymosin beta-4 is a protein that could tie into the connection between bradykinin activity and coagulopathies; a version of this protein has been in human trials as Timbetasin. As mentioned above, vitamin D supplementation might also be beneficial – its receptor has connections with vascular permeability and with the renin/angiotensin system, and its deficiency has already been noted as a rsk factor in the current pandemic.

Larger trials will confirm this:
‘It’s something I have never seen’: How the Covid-19 virus hijacks cells

 

[Legacy]

Cost-Sharing Waivers and Premium Relief by Private Plans in Response to COVID-19

While federal protections prevent most people from paying out-of-pocket for COVID-19 testing, patients may face substantial costs if hospitalized for treatment because there are no provisions that require private insurance plans to waive cost-sharing for COVID-19 treatment. A previous KFF analysis estimated that average out-of-pocket costs associated with an inpatient admission for COVID-19 treatment for patients with large employer coverage could exceed $1,300, though the amounts could be much higher for patients who are severely ill or use out-of-network services. People insured through the individual and small group markets also may face even higher levels of cost-sharing because these plans tend to have higher deductibles than employer-based plans.

Many private insurers have taken steps in recent months to mitigate out-of-pocket costs during the pandemic. For example, an earlier KFF brief looked at how many people were impacted by insurers waiving cost-sharing for telemedicine. Insurers have experienced lower-than-expected claims costs during the pandemic, as enrollees have delayed or forgone elective and less-urgent care. This has left insurers relatively profitable, which means they may owe very large rebates to consumers next year, under the Affordable Care Act’s Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rule. By offering cost-sharing waivers insurers can essentially increase their claims costs relative to their premiums and make it more likely that they meet the MLR threshold. However, given their current financial trajectory and recent years of high profits, insurers may still owe large rebates next year even if they do take measures to lower their MLR now.

In this brief, we estimate the number of enrollees whose insurer has waived cost-sharing – out-of-pocket costs including coinsurance, copayments, and deductibles – for COVID-19 treatment. We also estimate the number of enrollees whose insurer is offering various forms of premium payment relief. To do so, we reviewed a summary of private insurers’ responses to the pandemic compiled by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). We systematically collected data from this summary and merged it onto enrollment data from Mark Farrah Associates TM in order to estimate how many individual and fully-insured group market enrollees are in plans that have waived cost-sharing for COVID-19 treatment or are offering some form of premium relief.

Importantly, our estimates do not include the substantial portion (61%) of the group market enrolled in self-insured plans through their employers. These plans are established and funded by an employer and are not always subject to federal regulation. As such, the benefit designs of these plans, including the services that they opt to cover and any associated cost-sharing, are left to the discretion of the employer. There is no source of comprehensive data on the prevalence of these policies and, therefore, they are not included in this analysis.(cont)

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

https://apnews.com/4ee025ba6c4c19c024ce384503f23ef3

Local SC story. Not much in details. Diagnosed on Friday. Died Monday. 28 years old.

ETA. Sounds like she was so close or showing symptoms before but the test results didn’t get reported till Friday.

 

[NDohio]

https://apnews.com/4ee025ba6c4c19c024ce384503f23ef3

Local SC story. Not much in details. Diagnosed on Friday. Died Monday. 28 years old.

Came to post this very story. So glad my wife retired early and isn't in the classroom for this mess.

 

[Valpodoc85]

I have a daughter teaching 2nd graders. She is really worried. The school system has not been terribly supportive and would still like to insist the risk is minimal

 

[Irishize]

See above. I didn't dismiss it. Assume that if you wish. Wanted to read to the original source for the substance. Know that this is my habit before responding.

The original text link is in the testimony. They are the original source. I don’t assume that, you just seemed to be focused on an irrelevant fact that has zero to do w/ the actual paper. It’s like circle talk when all I wanted to know was if the paper published by Cambridge Univ Press had been debunked since being testified to in Congress.

 

[ulukinatme]

https://apnews.com/4ee025ba6c4c19c024ce384503f23ef3

Local SC story. Not much in details. Diagnosed on Friday. Died Monday. 28 years old.

ETA. Sounds like she was so close or showing symptoms before but the test results didn’t get reported till Friday.

Two others have died as well, all of them were high risk for COVID.

Demetria “Demi” Bannister was the one listed from SC and was morbidly obese. She may have also had diabetes. AshLee DeMarinis was also morbidly obese and had asthma. Thomas Slade was also obese and in his mid 50s. Not fat shaming these people, got a weight issue myself, but we need to seriously consider keeping high risk teachers out of classrooms.

 

[SonofOahu]

Not fat shaming these people, got a weight issue myself, but we need to seriously consider keeping high risk teachers out of classrooms.

With a nationwide teacher shortage already a problem, I don't think that would be possible.

 

[pkt77242]

http://https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/04/key-coronavirus-forecast-predicts-over-410000-total-us-deaths-by-jan-1.html

The current prediction is that by the end of the year almost as many Americans will have died of COVID as died during WW2. Let that sink in.

 

[ulukinatme]

With a nationwide teacher shortage already a problem, I don't think that would be possible.

Our school district is doing remote learning only at this time. I know some are doing split, with options for both remote learning and limited numbers in person. I'm sure some kind of compromise can be achieved there for high risk teachers. Have them all be remote staff and any of their students that require "in person" learning to sit in classroom with a different teacher.

Really wish our district had the normal attendance option. They were going to offer it at the start of the year, but backed out. My son in Kindergarten requires all of our attention as a remote learner, it's not been great for my career.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Our school district is doing remote learning only at this time. I know some are doing split, with options for both remote learning and limited numbers in person. I'm sure some kind of compromise can be achieved there for high risk teachers. Have them all be remote staff and any of their students that require "in person" learning to sit in classroom with a different teacher.

Really wish our district had the normal attendance option. They were going to offer it at the start of the year, but backed out. My son in Kindergarten requires all of our attention as a remote learner, it's not been great for my career.

Our district gave us two options.
1. Virtual learning all year. No choice to rejoin population.
2. In school learning. This was confusing becasue if you chose this option, the schools were authorized by our medical advisors to only allow 25% occupancy which meant that 75% of those who chose to go back to school had to start off virtual. IF they can bring back all of these students from virtual why cant those who chose option 1 go back?. This makes no sense to me. But that is what the school district is sticking to.

I say this because when my wife and I were trying to figure out how to do this we had to figure out how to keep our child online, in his seat, and active in learning while both of us worked from the office. My office was a bit lenient becasue I can do my work from anywhere but i still couldnt go to 100% at home work. My wife was told by her work that if we were to choose virtual (meaning he would have to stay at home all year) then she would have to use FMLA then vacation/sick time and then after that likely lose her job.

So we HAD to chose option 2 and yet he is still at home and we are still having to figure out how to do this. So now I have a 13 yo at home by himself and hope that he is doing what he is supposed to do.

 

[irishff1014]

Our district gave us two options.
1. Virtual learning all year. No choice to rejoin population.
2. In school learning. This was confusing becasue if you chose this option, the schools were authorized by our medical advisors to only allow 25% occupancy which meant that 75% of those who chose to go back to school had to start off virtual. IF they can bring back all of these students from virtual why cant those who chose option 1 go back?. This makes no sense to me. But that is what the school district is sticking to.

I say this because when my wife and I were trying to figure out how to do this we had to figure out how to keep our child online, in his seat, and active in learning while both of us worked from the office. My office was a bit lenient becasue I can do my work from anywhere but i still couldnt go to 100% at home work. My wife was told by her work that if we were to choose virtual (meaning he would have to stay at home all year) then she would have to use FMLA then vacation/sick time and then after that likely lose her job.

So we HAD to chose option 2 and yet he is still at home and we are still having to figure out how to do this. So now I have a 13 yo at home by himself and hope that he is doing what he is supposed to do.

The Teacher's unions don't care who they screw over.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

The Teacher's unions don't care who they screw over.

Well considering my state is a "right to work" state and as conservative pro Trump as you can get,....there aren't any unions here. And teachers had nothing to do with these decisions. I have three teachers in my immediate family and they were not consulted at all about any of this. They were only told what was going to happen and they had to react. There certainly wasn't any decisions to limit high risk teachers form the classroom as ulk was saying should have occurred.

 

[NDRock]

Well considering my state is a "right to work" state and as conservative pro Trump as you can get,....there aren't any unions here. And teachers had nothing to do with these decisions. I have three teachers in my immediate family and they were not consulted at all about any of this. They were only told what was going to happen and they had to react. There certainly wasn't any decisions to limit high risk teachers form the classroom as ulk was saying should have occurred.

Same here in Tennessee. People can’t let facts get in the way of their agendas.