6 ms·

what the hell did we think we were doing between August and November? Starting the new school year, for one thing. For many of us that was critical to letting

what the hell did we think we were doing between August and November? Starting the new school year, for one thing. For many of us that was critical to letting us keep working (and mass home-schooling and online teaching for young kids was not working).

DerDangDerDang 6y ago
Fair point, and you're right something had to give on that score. Classroom pods for young kids seem to work fairly well overall, it just ups the risk for visiting the grandparents. The university side didn't seem to work out as well - possibly partly because uni staff are (understandably) less willing to work crunch hours to meet duty of care than primary school staff.
- sgt101 6y ago
  I think it's quite simple, there is good evidence that younger children (U14s) get covid less than adults, and spread it less when they do have it. So schools - especially primary schools are not the issue. Reopening universities was - students do get it, and they all live together in shared accommodation so as soon as one got it lots of them did.
  - iainmerrick 6y ago
    Yes, agreed on all points with both of you! During the summer, when they talked about opening schools and claimed that young children weren’t major vectors for the virus, I was very skeptical and assumed it was mostly just an excuse -- but it does actually seem to have worked out! If primary school children were spreading the virus en masse, the current spike would be vastly bigger. (It’s very unfortunate in the US that school opening has been so strongly politicized.) Opening the universities is another matter entirely. That definitely shouldn’t have been done. I was going to say “in hindsight” but in fact that was pretty obvious right away.
  - socialdemocrat 6y ago
    Pretty sure the latest research showed there was no difference. It only looked like they spread it less because they get less symptoms.
    - sgt101 6y ago
      I read this : https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02973-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02973-3 "Young children transmit less Researchers suspect that one reason schools have not become COVID-19 hot spots is that children — especially those under the age of 12–14 — are less susceptible to infection than adults, according to a meta-analysis4 of prevalence studies. And once they are infected, young children, including those aged 0–5 years, are less likely to pass the virus on to others, says Haas. In an analysis5 of German schools, Haas’s team found that infections were less common in children aged 6–10 years than in older children and adults working at the schools. “The potential to transmit increases” with age, and adolescents are just as likely to transmit the virus as adults, he says. Teenagers and teachers should be the focus of mitigation measures, such as wearing masks or a return to online lessons when community transmission is high, says Haas."
lostlogin 6y ago
> Starting the new school year, for one thing. For many of us that was critical to letting us keep working Is this not why the situation persists? Lockdown hard then go back to pretty-much-normal seems vastly preferable. I say this from NZ. The hit has been hard, but it seems that partial lockdowns and half measures actually lead to worse outcomes. The death toll is certainly on another scale when you don’t lock down. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.rnz.co.nz/article/ba935329-1f58-4ae8-a752-8c41920c269f https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.rnz.co.nz/article/ba935329-...
- crispyporkbites 6y ago
  NZ peaked at 150 cases/day, the UK didn’t start its first lockdown till 5000 cases/day. And that’s 5000 tested cases. It was too late (even though Italy was bad and a good canary, UK politicians did nothing). Even if the country remains in permanent lockdown the virus will still spread now for months/years.
  - postingawayonhn 6y ago
    I don't think the NZ strategy was ever viable for Europe and the US. They have very integrated economies that rely on massive amounts of travel and freight movement, at the same time they have very fractured political systems.
    - vkou 6y ago
      NZ relies on an incredible amount of international trade to survive. It's a tiny island nation that is in no way economically independent from its trading partners. And yet, they've figured out how to stop both community spread, and travel-related spread.
      - bb123 6y ago
        I mentioned this in a comment above but the U.K. and New Zealand are on Different scales when it comes internationalism. The U.K. ranks 4th worldwide for international travellers per capita, and New Zealand 38th. Looking at the numbers for international trade as a percentage of GDP, NZ quite below the global average, whereas the UK way above it. NZ has the advantage of size and geography too. It’s largest city is 1/10th size of London and it’s overall far, far less densely populated - the UK has pop density of 279/km2 vs 19/km2 for NZ. So while what they have been able to achieve is admirable, if there was one country that should be able to do it, it was New Zealand. Tiny, wealthy and isolated. Expecting other countries to be able to do the same doesn’t make sense.

DerDangDerDang 6y ago

Fair point, and you're right something had to give on that score. Classroom pods for young kids seem to work fairly well overall, it just ups the risk for visiting the grandparents. The university side didn't seem to work out as well - possibly partly because uni staff are (understandably) less willing to work crunch hours to meet duty of care than primary school staff.

sgt101 6y ago
I think it's quite simple, there is good evidence that younger children (U14s) get covid less than adults, and spread it less when they do have it. So schools - especially primary schools are not the issue. Reopening universities was - students do get it, and they all live together in shared accommodation so as soon as one got it lots of them did.
- iainmerrick 6y ago
  Yes, agreed on all points with both of you! During the summer, when they talked about opening schools and claimed that young children weren’t major vectors for the virus, I was very skeptical and assumed it was mostly just an excuse -- but it does actually seem to have worked out! If primary school children were spreading the virus en masse, the current spike would be vastly bigger. (It’s very unfortunate in the US that school opening has been so strongly politicized.) Opening the universities is another matter entirely. That definitely shouldn’t have been done. I was going to say “in hindsight” but in fact that was pretty obvious right away.
- socialdemocrat 6y ago
  Pretty sure the latest research showed there was no difference. It only looked like they spread it less because they get less symptoms.
  - sgt101 6y ago
    I read this : https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02973-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02973-3 "Young children transmit less Researchers suspect that one reason schools have not become COVID-19 hot spots is that children — especially those under the age of 12–14 — are less susceptible to infection than adults, according to a meta-analysis4 of prevalence studies. And once they are infected, young children, including those aged 0–5 years, are less likely to pass the virus on to others, says Haas. In an analysis5 of German schools, Haas’s team found that infections were less common in children aged 6–10 years than in older children and adults working at the schools. “The potential to transmit increases” with age, and adolescents are just as likely to transmit the virus as adults, he says. Teenagers and teachers should be the focus of mitigation measures, such as wearing masks or a return to online lessons when community transmission is high, says Haas."

lostlogin 6y ago

> Starting the new school year, for one thing. For many of us that was critical to letting us keep working Is this not why the situation persists? Lockdown hard then go back to pretty-much-normal seems vastly preferable. I say this from NZ. The hit has been hard, but it seems that partial lockdowns and half measures actually lead to worse outcomes. The death toll is certainly on another scale when you don’t lock down. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.rnz.co.nz/article/ba935329-1f58-4ae8-a752-8c41920c269f https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.rnz.co.nz/article/ba935329-...

crispyporkbites 6y ago
NZ peaked at 150 cases/day, the UK didn’t start its first lockdown till 5000 cases/day. And that’s 5000 tested cases. It was too late (even though Italy was bad and a good canary, UK politicians did nothing). Even if the country remains in permanent lockdown the virus will still spread now for months/years.
- postingawayonhn 6y ago
  I don't think the NZ strategy was ever viable for Europe and the US. They have very integrated economies that rely on massive amounts of travel and freight movement, at the same time they have very fractured political systems.
  - vkou 6y ago
    NZ relies on an incredible amount of international trade to survive. It's a tiny island nation that is in no way economically independent from its trading partners. And yet, they've figured out how to stop both community spread, and travel-related spread.
    - bb123 6y ago
      I mentioned this in a comment above but the U.K. and New Zealand are on Different scales when it comes internationalism. The U.K. ranks 4th worldwide for international travellers per capita, and New Zealand 38th. Looking at the numbers for international trade as a percentage of GDP, NZ quite below the global average, whereas the UK way above it. NZ has the advantage of size and geography too. It’s largest city is 1/10th size of London and it’s overall far, far less densely populated - the UK has pop density of 279/km2 vs 19/km2 for NZ. So while what they have been able to achieve is admirable, if there was one country that should be able to do it, it was New Zealand. Tiny, wealthy and isolated. Expecting other countries to be able to do the same doesn’t make sense.