Anything COVID related

This was previously posted on another thread. I’m bringing it here to further discuss. Please feel free to chime in. 

The way this virus is mutating, the vaccine is NOT enough. It’s really baffling how people really sit and believe that if the whole world gets vaccinated that this will somehow end the pandemic. It WON’T. It’s worse than it was when it started and yet we’re opening up and forcing the kids back into the schools. The elementary school is an example of what is going on in the world today. If the percentage of people vaccinated need to be higher than those that are not then why in the HELL are we sending 400 or so elementary school kids unvaccinated into a school with maybe 100 vaccinated adults?! It simply won’t help them as they outnumber the vaccinated. Am I missing something? If so PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME


chiming in...

normally the way one further discusses something is to respond to the post in that thread. Otherwise, we'd start a new thread for every post.


Oh ok thank you as I had no idea how to further discuss something on this thread ..

drummerboy said:

chiming in...

normally the way one further discusses something is to respond to the post in that thread. Otherwise, we'd start a new thread for every post.

 


Tall_Mocha said:

This was previously posted on another thread. I’m bringing it here to further discuss. Please feel free to chime in. 

The way this virus is mutating, the vaccine is NOT enough. It’s really baffling how people really sit and believe that if the whole world gets vaccinated that this will somehow end the pandemic. It WON’T. It’s worse than it was when it started and yet we’re opening up and forcing the kids back into the schools. The elementary school is an example of what is going on in the world today. If the percentage of people vaccinated need to be higher than those that are not then why in the HELL are we sending 400 or so elementary school kids unvaccinated into a school with maybe 100 vaccinated adults?! It simply won’t help them as they outnumber the vaccinated. Am I missing something? If so PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME

 I believe the thinking is that, given the fact that vaccines exist for adults, this changes the tradeoff weighting vs last year.

Kids in schools is definitely a risk. Remote learning, though, also has the effect of being much less effective for many children, both educationally and socially. Last year we mostly decided that the risk from covid to the children and the the broader community outweighed the downsides from remote learning. I personally agree with that.

Now we have the vaccines, so we have to ask if we still weigh everything as we did last year. Children do not seem to be at a very high risk of getting seriously ill, though as I noted in the other thread I worry that this is only a virus mutation away from changing. Adults can get vaccinated, and we're seeing more local, state (and now even federal) measures that should hopefully really push up vaccination rates, so the risk of serious illness among adults is now far less than last year (at least in areas with high vaccination rates). Given that, do the downsides from remote learning now outweigh the risks from covid? It looks like our state has said yes. I can see arguments both ways. I wish we knew more in a few areas, for instance the odds of long covid for people who are vaccinated but get a breakthrough infection, and how likely is it that a virus mutation can make kids more susceptible. Like so much of this pandemic, though, we're stuck with having to make difficult decisions on trade offs with limited information.


PVW said:

 I believe the thinking is that, given the fact that vaccines exist for adults, this changes the tradeoff weighting vs last year.

Kids in schools is definitely a risk. Remote learning, though, also has the effect of being much less effective for many children, both educationally and socially. Last year we mostly decided that the risk from covid to the children and the the broader community outweighed the downsides from remote learning. I personally agree with that.

Now we have the vaccines, so we have to ask if we still weigh everything as we did last year. Children do not seem to be at a very high risk of getting seriously ill, though as I noted in the other thread I worry that this is only a virus mutation away from changing. Adults can get vaccinated, and we're seeing more local, state (and now even federal) measures that should hopefully really push up vaccination rates, so the risk of serious illness among adults is now far less than last year (at least in areas with high vaccination rates). Given that, do the downsides from remote learning now outweigh the risks from covid? It looks like our state has said yes. I can see arguments both ways. I wish we knew more in a few areas, for instance the odds of long covid for people who are vaccinated but get a breakthrough infection, and how likely is it that a virus mutation can make kids more susceptible. Like so much of this pandemic, though, we're stuck with having to make difficult decisions on trade offs with limited information.

 I feel like the media sometimes skew the numbers depending on which way they want something to go. From the parents that I know as well as healthcare workers, a lot of kids are getting sick and are dying. I just feel like no one should have to take a gamble with their young child in the name of  politics. When it began and the schools were closed, the children were safe. I can agree virtual had its share of issues BUT if giving the chance I’d still prefer it


You have always had the option of home schooling if you feel so strongly about keeping your child[ren] home this year.  


joan_crystal said:

You have always had the option of home schooling if you feel so strongly about keeping your child[ren] home this year.  

 I’m fully aware, and while the option works for myself it does not work for others. Everyone knows homeschool exist but not everyone can do that, SO for those people, it’s sad they don’t have anyone to advocate on their behalf. But let’s keep this same energy when The Delta rips through the school system. 


Tall_Mocha said:

 I’m fully aware, and while the option works for myself it does not work for others. Everyone knows homeschool exist but not everyone can do that, SO for those people, it’s sad they don’t have anyone to advocate on their behalf. But let’s keep this same energy when The Delta rips through the school system. 

 If "The Delta rips through the school system," I have faith that the district will adjust.


FWIW: A large proportion of Covid clusters in kids appear to be tied to sports.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/09/us/north-carolina-covid-school-sports/index.html 


Virtual instruction should be part of a menu of options, and not just for dealing with Covid or future pandemics (and there WILL be more ... we were well overdue before Covid came.)  Some children do better virtually for a variety of reasons.  Some have individual illnesses or other obstacles that make in-person learning difficult or impossible.  We (society) should be figuring out how to incorporate this, along with other approaches - traditional or new - into our educational system.  And we are far from done with Covid.  There will be outbreaks and quarantine needs and children should not be barred from learning as a result.  I don't expect that to happen here (hope I'm right!) but in some places remote learning has been banned by law, along with the mask/vaccine mandates, for political reasons and that is just not right!  Even for children who do not do well with virtual learning, it is probably better than NO learning in most cases.  But there are too many who would "throw the baby out with the bathwater" on this issue.


I agree that virtual should be an option, however if families were to opt in, they should expect that the entire class is virtual and is taught by a virtual-dedicated teacher.

Having a teacher and students in a classroom, all staring at their screens so as to accommodate the opt-outs should be a non-starter.


jimmurphy said:

I agree that virtual should be an option, however if families were to opt in, they should expect that the entire class is virtual and is taught by a virtual-dedicated teacher.

Having a teacher and students in a classroom, all staring at their screens so as to accommodate the opt-outs should be a non-starter.

I think that's likely the best approach for a long-term opt-in/opt-out situation, but perhaps not as feasible for quarantines or other short-term or contingency situations.  

But, my point is that we need to have it "on the list" and then figure out how best to do it and in what situations and under what conditions.  


sac said:

I think that's likely the best approach for a long-term opt-in/opt-out situation, but perhaps not as feasible for quarantines or other short-term or contingency situations.  

But, my point is that we need to have it "on the list" and then figure out how best to do it and in what situations and under what conditions.  

 They will be sitting in the classrooms staring at a computer screen regardless


Tall_Mocha said:

sac said:

I think that's likely the best approach for a long-term opt-in/opt-out situation, but perhaps not as feasible for quarantines or other short-term or contingency situations.  

But, my point is that we need to have it "on the list" and then figure out how best to do it and in what situations and under what conditions.  

 They will be sitting in the classrooms staring at a computer screen regardless

 @Tall_Mocha,

I think what sac may have been leaning towards was a more long-term solution for opting out of in-person classes. Perhaps something run by the county or the state, instead of by individual districts. That way, it's not hybrid by district... it's in-person (as much as possible) in the district, and a full-time remote option would be a separate "school".


Low dose of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is safe and effective in children ages 5 to 11, companies’ study finds

(WaPo, free to access)

A lower dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine — one-third the amount given to adults and teens — is safe and triggered a robust immune response in children as young as 5 years old, the drug companies announced in a news release Monday.

The finding, eagerly anticipated by many parents and pediatricians, is a crucial step toward the two-shot coronavirus vaccine regimen becoming available for younger school-aged children, perhaps close to Halloween.

The companies still must prepare and submit the data to the Food and Drug Administration, a process they expect to complete by the end of September. Then, the full data — which is not yet published or peer reviewed — will be scrutinized by regulators to ascertain that the vaccine is safe and effective. That could take weeks, or up to a month.

Sharon Nachman, a pediatric infectious-disease specialist at Stony Brook Medicine in New York, said a vaccine for children would be a “huge, huge step forward” and that she is “cautiously optimistic” about Monday’s announcement.

“As most physicians are, I’m very cautious when it comes to the health of children,” Nachman said. “I think it will be critical to have the data presented to a group of experts who are unbiased and have no conflicts of interest to take a look at it.”

Regulators have made clear they are working as fast as possible, but also need to ensure the vaccine meets the highest standards — especially because a rare but concerning vaccine side effect of heart muscle inflammation has been identified, most frequently in the younger males eligible for the vaccines. An FDA analysis estimated that among 16- to 17- year old males, the risk was close to 1 in 5,000.

“You need to do these kind of studies, and it’s going to be important to vaccinate children,” said Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He called the results — that the vaccine triggered a robust immune response in children — somewhat predictable, but important.

With the school year in full swing and cases soaring among children, pediatricians have been inundated with requests to bend the rules and give children a shot now. The new data seems likely to intensify the pressure, even though the existing vaccine is triple the dose tested in the trial. Younger children’s immune systems are not the same as adults, and the companies tested and found a much smaller dose was safe and effective.


PVW said:

 Hoping this is approved. It would give much peace of mind to parents and likely to teachers. 


do we know if Essex County will be giving covid vaccine to teens and perhaps soon to younger children?  




In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.