Crenshaw has been putting out a nice daily update for Texas COVID. There are multiple slides to swipe through.
https://instagr.am/p/CCuCovNJavD
https://instagr.am/p/CCuCovNJavD
Tine Coronavirus thread
2,644,175 Views |
20959 Replies |
Last: 11 mo ago by Ciboag96
schmendeler said:do you consider any "response and data presentation" that doesn't position the virus as overblown and a nothing burger to be "creating economic panic and distress?"CreakinDeacon said:schmendeler said:
herp derp, the virus is a hoax to get trump!
The virus isn't a hoax. But anyone that believes the response and data presentation that is creating economic panic and distress isn't being used as a political weapon is wearing blinders.
is acting as if everything is completely fine, and carrying on as totally normal, good sense, and not political at all?
For some it may be political, but it's definitely good sense. Continuing restrictions that are not guaranteed to actually save any lives is nonsensical given the damaged they have already caused. The reality is that the impact from the deaths is minimal on the macro level. The impact from massive unemployment, lower wages, and forced isolation isn't.
Full disclosure: I have no kids and the decision of how to proceed with the school year does not affect me
That being said, I think it is in the best interest of the students for them to resume school as normally as possible. Kids are basically immune from Covid so the risk to the students is incredibly low. I'm pretty sure the risk to the students was higher during the swine flu and we didn't shut down school for that.
The only argument I can see for not starting normally is from teachers who are scared and administrators who have a procedural nightmare on their hands.
The students need structure, hands on learning, and their households need them to go back so mom/dad can go to work without worrying about childcare.
That being said, I think it is in the best interest of the students for them to resume school as normally as possible. Kids are basically immune from Covid so the risk to the students is incredibly low. I'm pretty sure the risk to the students was higher during the swine flu and we didn't shut down school for that.
The only argument I can see for not starting normally is from teachers who are scared and administrators who have a procedural nightmare on their hands.
The students need structure, hands on learning, and their households need them to go back so mom/dad can go to work without worrying about childcare.
ChemAg15 said:
Full disclosure: I have no kids and the decision of how to proceed with the school year does not affect me
That being said, I think it is in the best interest of the students for them to resume school as normally as possible. Kids are basically immune from Covid so the risk to the students is incredibly low. I'm pretty sure the risk to the students was higher during the swine flu and we didn't shut down school for that.
The only argument I can see for not starting normally is from teachers who are scared and administrators who have a procedural nightmare on their hands.
The students need structure, hands on learning, and their households need them to go back so mom/dad can go to work without worrying about childcare.
The 2019-2020 flu season was more deadly for kids than this virus is.
At the very least, going back should be a choice - for parents and teachers.
I don't see why you can't open school with precautions for whoever wants to send their kids but also give the option to do online schooling for anyone who doesn't feel safe.
The schools are paid for by the parents of the children and not have the option to use them doesn't sit right to me.
But that would entail giving people a choice and that for some reason isn't an option anymore.
The schools are paid for by the parents of the children and not have the option to use them doesn't sit right to me.
But that would entail giving people a choice and that for some reason isn't an option anymore.
ChemAg15 said:
The students need structure, hands on learning, and their households need them to go back so mom/dad can go to work without worrying about childcare.
And mid day bedroom sessions for parents...
Ag_07 said:
I don't see why you can't open school with precautions for whoever wants to send their kids but also give the option to do online schooling for anyone who doesn't feel safe.
The schools are paid for by the parents of the children and not have the option to use them doesn't sit right to me.
But that would entail giving people a choice and that for some reason isn't an option anymore.
Outside of HISD, FBISD, and GCCISD, that's essentially what's the other area districts are doing.
But after the stunts pulled by the Austin and Dallas Public Health Authorities over the last couple of days, all districts in Harris County may be forced into an online only option.
Posted this on another thread ...
I've been thinking about the idea of schools continuing online and what the future would look like.
If schools move to online, why would a school district such as mine with 10+ High Schools, need 10+ HS Chemistry teachers?
The district could have 1 Chem teacher do the lesson plans for the year on video and supply them to all the Chemistry classes in the district. Then maybe have a few aids to help grade/answer questions. Lots of money could be saved over the traditional system.
You could even do this on a national level- districts could buy video lesson plans from one source and get the "cream of the crop" of teachers. Then schools across the country could actually have consistent learning regardless of socio-ecomic factors.
Personally, I want my children to have in person classes because they also need socialization. Just thinking out loud.
I've been thinking about the idea of schools continuing online and what the future would look like.
If schools move to online, why would a school district such as mine with 10+ High Schools, need 10+ HS Chemistry teachers?
The district could have 1 Chem teacher do the lesson plans for the year on video and supply them to all the Chemistry classes in the district. Then maybe have a few aids to help grade/answer questions. Lots of money could be saved over the traditional system.
You could even do this on a national level- districts could buy video lesson plans from one source and get the "cream of the crop" of teachers. Then schools across the country could actually have consistent learning regardless of socio-ecomic factors.
Personally, I want my children to have in person classes because they also need socialization. Just thinking out loud.
Bockaneer said:
Posted this on another thread ...
I've been thinking about the idea of schools continuing online and what the future would look like.
If schools move to online, why would a school district such as mine with 10+ High Schools, need 10+ HS Chemistry teachers?
The district could have 1 Chem teacher do the lesson plans for the year on video and supply them to all the Chemistry classes in the district. Then maybe have a few aids to help grade/answer questions. Lots of money could be saved over the traditional system.
You could even do this on a national level- districts could buy video lesson plans from one source and get the "cream of the crop" of teachers. Then schools across the country could actually have consistent learning regardless of socio-ecomic factors.
Personally, I want my children to have in person classes because they also need socialization. Just thinking out loud.
Online learning isn't going to work for underprivileged/low income families. There won't be the socio-economic equality that you are suggesting.
If anything, it will put the poor kids even further behind, and probably be detrimental to children in two-income middle-class families and single parent households.
Our school district is giving laptops and hot spots to those who need them.
But yes it would be hard for parents who work outside the home to monitor their kids.
Again I'm for in person classes but if we go the way of online I can see a huge reduction in teachers eventually which was my bigger point.
But yes it would be hard for parents who work outside the home to monitor their kids.
Again I'm for in person classes but if we go the way of online I can see a huge reduction in teachers eventually which was my bigger point.
Every time they report deaths they all have underlying health conditions. But yea, it can be deadly to anyone.
I'm pretty sure all districts in Fort Bend County will be forced to do the same.Quote:
But after the stunts pulled by the Austin and Dallas Public Health Authorities over the last couple of days, all districts in Harris County May be forced into an online only option.
Bockaneer said:
Our school district is giving laptops and hot spots to those who need them.
But yes it would be hard for parents who work outside the home to monitor their kids.
Again I'm for in person classes but if we go the way of online I can see a huge reduction in teachers eventually which was my bigger point.
I'm not going to say we will never go to online because I know better.
But school is SO much more than just teaching kids reading, writing, and arithmetic. It's where kids go to get fed, to get away from an abusive parent, to develop social skills, and a whole list of other things.
As a general rule, we haven't been a society that likes to tell people how to parent or even take children away from parents/caregivers, except for in some extreme circumstances. (I fully realize the irony of this statement given what's currently happening, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been, for the most part, true.)
Public school is how we, as a society, at least try to correct for the really sh/tty home and family circumstances that some kids are dealt.
I'm sure most of us here are very responsible, loving, wonderful parents. But the older I get, the more I realize that there are A LOT of dysfunctional families out there. Some are obviously dysfunctional, but there are a lot who are really good at hiding it.
School is how we give the kids who are stuck in those families hope that they don't have to grow up and live the same way. It doesn't always work, but it's the best chance those kids have.
1/3 of US adults have high blood pressure. 1/10 has diabetes. those are both an "underlying health condition".07fta07 said:
Every time they report deaths they all have underlying health conditions. But yea, it can be deadly to anyone.
schmendeler said:1/3 of US adults have high blood pressure. 1/10 has diabetes. those are both an "underlying health condition".07fta07 said:
Every time they report deaths they all have underlying health conditions. But yea, it can be deadly to anyone.
I knew a guy who used to say "Life is a pre-existing condition, and the only cure for it is death."
I'm not trying to make light of this virus, but Bad. Stuff. Happens. Every. Day.
Somehow, though, dying from this virus has become worse than dying from anything else. And a significant number of people have decided that we have the ability and obligation to prevent any/all deaths from this one particular cause.
It's absolutely illogical and maddening.
I completely agree. I want in person schools.
Again my post was really more about how online would eventually affect how many teachers would be needed, as school districts would discover they didn't need to employ as many teachers as in the traditional setting. Imo, so many teachers (and teachers unions) haven't looked at the long term consequences of wanting to stay online for the immediate future.
Again my post was really more about how online would eventually affect how many teachers would be needed, as school districts would discover they didn't need to employ as many teachers as in the traditional setting. Imo, so many teachers (and teachers unions) haven't looked at the long term consequences of wanting to stay online for the immediate future.
i think there is also a significant number of people that have decided that only people on death's door already get seriously ill and die from the virus.TXTransplant said:schmendeler said:1/3 of US adults have high blood pressure. 1/10 has diabetes. those are both an "underlying health condition".07fta07 said:
Every time they report deaths they all have underlying health conditions. But yea, it can be deadly to anyone.
I knew a guy who used to say "Life is a pre-existing condition, and the only cure for it is death."
I'm not trying to make light of this virus, but Bad. Stuff. Happens. Every. Day.
Somehow, though, dying from this virus has become worse than dying from anything else. And a significant number of people have decided that we have the ability and obligation to prevent any/all deaths from this one particular cause.
It's absolutely illogical and maddening.
i think some moderation of both views is what we need. hence my pointing out that "underlying health conditions" are incredibly common.
am i particularly concerned about getting and dying from the virus? not really. but i'm also not going to pretend that me or other people like me that i care about are immortal when it comes to catching a contagious and sometimes serious disease.
there's also plenty of evidence that shows that people who get it and get better still have lingering respiratory issues. i like to run. even if i get it and don't die, i'd still like to be able to do that. it's not a situation where you know that if you don't die from it, you're going to be back to 100%.
so i don't have a problem wearing a mask and staying away from prolonged close contact with people outside of a very small circle of family.
i don't think that's an unreasonable approach to take, and i don't think it's a political one, despite all the efforts to make it one.
I agree with you. Based on the numbers and my knowledge of my own health, I should be ok if I catch this. But, there are always exceptions, and I could be one of them. I'd prefer to not test my theory.
With that said, I'm probably being more cautious/careful than in the past, but I'm also still taking some calculated risks. I go to my small group fitness class almost every day. A couple weeks back, there were a few people who became infected from someone else they took class with. But I kept going to class. Since I am going to class, I am taking some extra measures to socially distance myself from others. At the very least, I'm honest with people in my close circle about where I've been and let them decide if they want to spend time with me.
This is my whole point with schools - the infection rate among kids is small, and the death rate is even smaller. We can't ever keep our kids 100% safe, but I personally think the risk that would cone with opening schools is worth it when you factor in all the negative affects of keeping them closed.
But not all parents will agree with me, which is why in person or online school should be a choice right now.
Teachers are more at risk, but if we can protect healthcare workers who are in constant contact with infected patients, I'm certain we can protect teachers. And teachers should be given the same choice as parents. No one should be forced to go to school right now any more than someone should be forced to stay home.
Unfortunately, our ability to make our own decisions has been taken away when it comes to this virus. That frustrates me because a lot of the decisions that are being made for us are being made based on emotions and feelings rather than data.
It doesn't help the situation that an equally significant number of people are pushing back, not with data and facts, but with accusations that this is all a hoax and we are being lied to as part of some big conspiracy. Heck, our own president has said that.
Emotions and feelings are ruling the day, no matter what side people are on.
With that said, I'm probably being more cautious/careful than in the past, but I'm also still taking some calculated risks. I go to my small group fitness class almost every day. A couple weeks back, there were a few people who became infected from someone else they took class with. But I kept going to class. Since I am going to class, I am taking some extra measures to socially distance myself from others. At the very least, I'm honest with people in my close circle about where I've been and let them decide if they want to spend time with me.
This is my whole point with schools - the infection rate among kids is small, and the death rate is even smaller. We can't ever keep our kids 100% safe, but I personally think the risk that would cone with opening schools is worth it when you factor in all the negative affects of keeping them closed.
But not all parents will agree with me, which is why in person or online school should be a choice right now.
Teachers are more at risk, but if we can protect healthcare workers who are in constant contact with infected patients, I'm certain we can protect teachers. And teachers should be given the same choice as parents. No one should be forced to go to school right now any more than someone should be forced to stay home.
Unfortunately, our ability to make our own decisions has been taken away when it comes to this virus. That frustrates me because a lot of the decisions that are being made for us are being made based on emotions and feelings rather than data.
It doesn't help the situation that an equally significant number of people are pushing back, not with data and facts, but with accusations that this is all a hoax and we are being lied to as part of some big conspiracy. Heck, our own president has said that.
Emotions and feelings are ruling the day, no matter what side people are on.
schmendeler said:i think there is also a significant number of people that have decided that only people on death's door already get seriously ill and die from the virus.TXTransplant said:schmendeler said:1/3 of US adults have high blood pressure. 1/10 has diabetes. those are both an "underlying health condition".07fta07 said:
Every time they report deaths they all have underlying health conditions. But yea, it can be deadly to anyone.
I knew a guy who used to say "Life is a pre-existing condition, and the only cure for it is death."
I'm not trying to make light of this virus, but Bad. Stuff. Happens. Every. Day.
Somehow, though, dying from this virus has become worse than dying from anything else. And a significant number of people have decided that we have the ability and obligation to prevent any/all deaths from this one particular cause.
It's absolutely illogical and maddening.
i think some moderation of both views is what we need. hence my pointing out that "underlying health conditions" are incredibly common.
am i particularly concerned about getting and dying from the virus? not really. but i'm also not going to pretend that me or other people like me that i care about are immortal when it comes to catching a contagious and sometimes serious disease.
there's also plenty of evidence that shows that people who get it and get better still have lingering respiratory issues. i like to run. even if i get it and don't die, i'd still like to be able to do that. it's not a situation where you know that if you don't die from it, you're going to be back to 100%.
so i don't have a problem wearing a mask and staying away from prolonged close contact with people outside of a very small circle of family.
i don't think that's an unreasonable approach to take, and i don't think it's a political one, despite all the efforts to make it one.
There have been literally millions of people that have recovered from covid already in this country. Any stories about lasting effects are primarily anecdotal. If serious lasting effects were common we'd likely know by now.
How long are you willing to make those sacrifices for?
It's really easy for people that live with family to comply with social distancing restrictions. It's unreasonable to except people that are single to self isolate for months or years.
schmendeler said:1/3 of US adults have high blood pressure. 1/10 has diabetes. those are both an "underlying health condition".07fta07 said:
Every time they report deaths they all have underlying health conditions. But yea, it can be deadly to anyone.
This is right and why I'd love to know what the actual underlying conditions are.
Governor Crenshaw? What does that even mean?
Anyway, apparently you missed the Chernobyl miniseries. You should check it out, it's really good.
Anyway, apparently you missed the Chernobyl miniseries. You should check it out, it's really good.
we wouldn't know lasting effects either way only 4 months out
what if it permanently impairs your immune system
what if it permanently impairs your immune system
cone said:
we wouldn't know lasting effects either way only 4 months out
what if it permanently impairs your immune system
What if it cures cancer?
Are serious lasting effects common with other coronaviruses? If not, they why should we expect this one to be different?
What if it gives super powers?
Despite what the media would have you believe, scientists already have a really solid grasp on coronaviruses. This is a specific, new strain, but it behaves like any other coronavirus. And the stories of lingering effects are pretty well limited to early cases when the doctors didn't understand the inflammation component and effective early treatments.cone said:
we wouldn't know lasting effects either way only 4 months out
what if it permanently impairs your immune system
cuz it was made in a lab
07fta07 said:
Every time they report deaths they all have underlying health conditions. But yea, it can be deadly to anyone.
Not a fun way to learn you have underlying issues.
Most people that have them don't know it
schmendeler said:
herp derp, the virus is a hoax to get trump!
Are you still glad you voted for that Beto guy? He was a real winner. What's he doing these days?
Yeah, that's not true
Today is the day!
SirLurksALot said:cone said:
we wouldn't know lasting effects either way only 4 months out
what if it permanently impairs your immune system
What if it cures cancer?
Are serious lasting effects common with other coronaviruses? If not, they why should we expect this one to be different?
Featured Stories
See All
Waiting since 1939: Texas A&M faithful's hope to someday win it all
by Olin Buchanan
Obaseki's massive MOment lifts A&M to a Quad 1A win at Ole Miss
by Olin Buchanan
5 Thoughts: No. 13 Texas A&M 63, No. 16 Ole Miss 62
by Luke Evangelist
21:05
4h ago
1.2k
El Mero Mero 14
Obaseki's massive MOment lifts A&M to a Quad 1A win at Ole Miss
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
69