Scioly.org

• As of this afternoon, Washington has 366 reported presumptive positive cases of COVID-19 across 12 counties with 29 deaths. Many of the first deaths were from a longterm care facility, and at this time at least 9 new longterm care facilities have positive COVID-19 tests.

• Last week, the University of Washington moved to online classes and exams for the remainder of the quarter. Many Washington state school districts have canceled school trips for the remainder of the month or school year, and several are closing through the end of March.

• A University of Washington lab has developed its own test for COVID-19 and is able to process tests for 700-800 people a day. The State Public Health Lab is able to process tests for 200 people a day.

• This morning, Governor Inslee announced a ban on all "large gatherings and events of 250 people or more in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties for the rest of March." Before this ban, many large Seattle-area conventions had already announced cancellations.

MTV<=>Operator wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 5:12 pm I don't know if this is the case for anyone else, but the measures that are being taken to prevent the spread are inconsistent. In my school, parent-teacher conferences got canceled and career day was postponed indefinitely. Are they worried about parents spreading the virus to teachers? If parents had the virus, their kids likely would as well, and would have spread it to other students already. It just seems as though many of the measures that are being taken are contradictory. If they are so concerned about a group of kids in a classroom with a career day presenter then should they not be equally as concerned about the normal school situation with students in a classroom with a teacher? Also, all SUNY and CUNY schools (New York State and NYC public colleges) switch to online classes starting next week. I do understand the resistance to closing schools though, because some students rely on going to school to be able to eat on a daily basis.

• Staying at home alone. Of course, some will do this, and this is probably the best outcome from the viewpoint of disease prevention. But I suspect there won't be quite so many students staying at home alone for prolonged stretches of time, especially younger students - after all, even at present many parents are apprehensive about even high school-age children staying at home alone. From the data I've seen, roughly 75% of households have both parents working.
• Going to some sort of daycare (especially younger kids). This is no better than staying at school - in fact it's likely to be worse for concentrated disease spreading than a school. Some households will probably hire at-home childcare.
• Elderly relatives taking care of schoolchildren while parents work. Obviously this would be a total disaster - schoolchildren, especially younger children, tend to spread disease easily, and the elderly are the primary at-risk population. I suspect we'll see situations where a lot of hospital cases arrive at around 1-2 weeks after a school closure.
• Some working parents may stay at home to take care of children. Even disregarding the significant economic impact of losing members of the workforce to this, many of these people will take away from medical capabilities (I think estimates are around 10-15% of the workforce in medical, I haven't checked the numbers recently). And no, hiring childcare of some sort doesn't take away from these economic impacts, under the same principle as the broken window fallacy.

Unome wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 6:30 pm

MTV<=>Operator wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 5:12 pm I don't know if this is the case for anyone else, but the measures that are being taken to prevent the spread are inconsistent. In my school, parent-teacher conferences got canceled and career day was postponed indefinitely. Are they worried about parents spreading the virus to teachers? If parents had the virus, their kids likely would as well, and would have spread it to other students already. It just seems as though many of the measures that are being taken are contradictory. If they are so concerned about a group of kids in a classroom with a career day presenter then should they not be equally as concerned about the normal school situation with students in a classroom with a teacher? Also, all SUNY and CUNY schools (New York State and NYC public colleges) switch to online classes starting next week. I do understand the resistance to closing schools though, because some students rely on going to school to be able to eat on a daily basis.

I think school closures are a very misguided policy that will likely make the pandemic more dangerous. Consider the possibilities for where all these students are going to go:

• Staying at home alone. Of course, some will do this, and this is probably the best outcome from the viewpoint of disease prevention. But I suspect there won't be quite so many students staying at home alone for prolonged stretches of time, especially younger students - after all, even at present many parents are apprehensive about even high school-age children staying at home alone. From the data I've seen, roughly 75% of households have both parents working.
• Going to some sort of daycare (especially younger kids). This is no better than staying at school - in fact it's likely to be worse for concentrated disease spreading than a school. Some households will probably hire at-home childcare.
• Elderly relatives taking care of schoolchildren while parents work. Obviously this would be a total disaster - schoolchildren, especially younger children, tend to spread disease easily, and the elderly are the primary at-risk population. I suspect we'll see situations where a lot of hospital cases arrive at around 1-2 weeks after a school closure.
• Some working parents may stay at home to take care of children. Even disregarding the significant economic impact of losing members of the workforce to this, many of these people will take away from medical capabilities (I think estimates are around 10-15% of the workforce in medical, I haven't checked the numbers recently). And no, hiring childcare of some sort doesn't take away from these economic impacts, under the same principle as the broken window fallacy.

There are likely already thousands of cases across the US, potentially well upwards of 10,000 by now. We are well past containment, and honestly we were probably never going to be successful in containment at all.

MTV<=>Operator wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 6:39 pm

Unome wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 6:30 pm

MTV<=>Operator wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 5:12 pm I don't know if this is the case for anyone else, but the measures that are being taken to prevent the spread are inconsistent. In my school, parent-teacher conferences got canceled and career day was postponed indefinitely. Are they worried about parents spreading the virus to teachers? If parents had the virus, their kids likely would as well, and would have spread it to other students already. It just seems as though many of the measures that are being taken are contradictory. If they are so concerned about a group of kids in a classroom with a career day presenter then should they not be equally as concerned about the normal school situation with students in a classroom with a teacher? Also, all SUNY and CUNY schools (New York State and NYC public colleges) switch to online classes starting next week. I do understand the resistance to closing schools though, because some students rely on going to school to be able to eat on a daily basis.

I think school closures are a very misguided policy that will likely make the pandemic more dangerous. Consider the possibilities for where all these students are going to go:

• Staying at home alone. Of course, some will do this, and this is probably the best outcome from the viewpoint of disease prevention. But I suspect there won't be quite so many students staying at home alone for prolonged stretches of time, especially younger students - after all, even at present many parents are apprehensive about even high school-age children staying at home alone. From the data I've seen, roughly 75% of households have both parents working.
• Going to some sort of daycare (especially younger kids). This is no better than staying at school - in fact it's likely to be worse for concentrated disease spreading than a school. Some households will probably hire at-home childcare.
• Elderly relatives taking care of schoolchildren while parents work. Obviously this would be a total disaster - schoolchildren, especially younger children, tend to spread disease easily, and the elderly are the primary at-risk population. I suspect we'll see situations where a lot of hospital cases arrive at around 1-2 weeks after a school closure.
• Some working parents may stay at home to take care of children. Even disregarding the significant economic impact of losing members of the workforce to this, many of these people will take away from medical capabilities (I think estimates are around 10-15% of the workforce in medical, I haven't checked the numbers recently). And no, hiring childcare of some sort doesn't take away from these economic impacts, under the same principle as the broken window fallacy.

There are likely already thousands of cases across the US, potentially well upwards of 10,000 by now. We are well past containment, and honestly we were probably never going to be successful in containment at all.

I completely understand, thank you for the clarification. I don't support the closure of schools myself, I am definitely worried about catching the virus myself, but I am more worried about passing it on to a relative with a weaker immune system. I was just confused in general as to why it seems like some preventative measures are being taken in some circumstances, but not in other ones that pose similar risk.

SilverBreeze wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 8:18 pm I'd like an opt-out system, where parents can pull their kids out of school but have some way of catching up on coursework(likely online), but families that can't or choose not to can keep their kids in school. I feel this would flatten the curve at least a bit without causing as many disruptions. Of course, tensions will rise immediately between the two, but I believe, aside from logistics issues, this would be at least a reasonable compromise. I'm seeing inconsistency with prevention as well, but districts seem to be taking the approach of cancelling whatever is easiest to cancel rather than considering what would have the greatest impact(although it's not an entirely unreasonable strategy).