Mormad said:
Packchem91 said:
Wayland said:
Packchem91 said:
So re: school masking....Union County was one of few local to go no masking. Two weeks in, 375 students with Covid, but due to no masking and the corresponding quarantining process....over 5k students (out of 41k system wide) are out of school on quarantine.
Whatever your views on masking, whatever your views on quarantining based on positive cases, it can't be "healthy" to have 12% of the student pop out -- probably mostly completely healthy, with no arrangement this year for remote learning?
School board is meeting tonight. Will be interesting to see the path they take.
Have said it over and over.... and even reposted the video from summer of 2020. Over a year ago, it was a good strategy and discussed even here on this forum.
We need to 'test to stay', use paper antigen tests if exposed... and treat the result as 'good enough' so long as no symptoms when using the farce contact tracing.
Quarantining healthy people is simple minded and bad policy.
Right. I think the quarantining policy makes zero sense. So change that...I have no issue with it. Or wear masks. Or test. But You can't say no masks AND have an aggressive quarantining policy just so you can avoid having masks. But its stupid to have 12% of your students sitting out of school. And unlikely to get any better for a month or more.....(without policy change)
I was thinking about this and was reminded of a close friend's personal actions in her home and relating it to policy decisions.
Her husband visited a sick family member in the hospital in Indiana who was thought to have "pneumonia." Visited for 30 minutes Saturday, an hour Sunday. He was masked, the patient was not. Patient retested positive Monday. When he got back to Texas Monday and learned of the probable exposure, his wife (both are vaxxed) made him quarantine in the bedroom. He can come out when she's gone and has to go back in when she's 15 min out. He's asymptomatic obviously and waiting to test himself. Probably wouldn't be too accurate to test himself before 3-5 days, but who knows with Delta? It's hitting a little quicker. She has plans to visit their son at okie st this weekend, and that's extremely important to her and wants to avoid exposure to herself as well as potentially her son when she gets there should the hubby all of a sudden become positive.
He's pissed about being quarantined in his room when he's vaxxed and asymptomatic. I get it. I would be too. But i get her desire to keep him distanced also. This trip to see her son is really important to her, and she doesn't want to take any chance with that looming. I get it. His risk, being vaxxed, isn't that great. Her risk, being vaxxed, is even less. But her current situation is calling for NO risk to meet her primary goal. And i don't in any way find that decision making to quarantine an asymptomatic exposure to be simple minded or poor. It's a calculated decision based on her own assessment of personal risk that is reasonably nuanced. Isn't that all we're asking of each other in this time? Assess your risk, choose your actions, and stay home/go home if you're sick? Sure it's another "whatabout," but isn't that what all of our lives consist of when determining nuanced personal risk assessments?
I know there's a difference between personal decisions and policy, but thinking about my friends' dilemma and their choices made me appreciate the sheer gravity and responsibility of the policy makers' decisions. And like with any policy decision, you're simply gonna piss off half the people. I certainly don't have all the answers despite what i think is reasonable experience and a working knowledge of human disease, and I'm thankful I'm not sitting in that elected chair. Tough gig.
And what if she goes outside and gets broadsided by a truck on the way to the airport?
The problem is the last year of public health policy and MSM have thrown risk assessment completely out of whack. Now, I don't give two damns if she makes her husband live in the garage for the week, that is between them. Now, the fact that 'when she is out' (provided he is actually positive) he is breathing his aerosolized virus
ALL OVER THE HOUSE for her to breathe in when she comes home. Their managed risk plan is whack. If her current plan is really 'NO RISK' then she has a **** plan. If the plan is 'NO RISK', the husband shouldn't be even in the building sharing the same airspace as his wife. But whatever makes them feel better, from my critical view, their plan is a bad 'NO RISK' plan and they are victims of oversimplification.
Their plan isn't 'NO RISK', it is 'LESS RISK'.
The sheer gravity of the continued disruption to schooling outweighs the relative risk for the virus in schools. Again, study after study show that school transmission is lower than community transmission. And in this case, as the virus poses VERY little risk to children... 'test to stay' is a reasonable compromise to the YES SIMPLE MINDED quarantining of healthy people.
And other counties like Denmark are going into only sending COVID positive kids home and not relying on contact tracing.
I think 'test to stay' is a fair compromise to the ludicrous practice of amateur contract tracing and quarantining healthy students. We need to keep kids in classrooms and policies that prevent that are damaging.
I really am not picking and I apologize for letting my frustrations come out, but I only do so because I understand that you are a completely reasonable individual. I am forced to stomp up and down like a toddler because policy makers can't find a middle ground.
