Aggie MoneyWhip said:

---

Joe Exotic said:

---

UTExan said:

---

If we took the projected CV 19 deaths for Sweden by Aug. 4 (10,196-a relatively stable prediction over the past seven days) and extrapolated the same number of deaths per capital onto the US, we would be looking at 320,000 deaths rather than 100,000 to 150,000. I honestly don't think they have demonstrated a successful coping model thus far.

---

I would absolutely be okay with an extra 170,000 deaths (of mostly people who were on deaths doorstep anyway) to not have to completely shut down like we did. And so should anyone.

---

Including your parents/grandparents, right? They're ok with that?

---

Its possible that my parents will die this year, probably not, but possible. I've come to terms with that. It's going to suck but I cant shut down my life and my kid's life because of that possibility. That would be selfish of me.

P.U.T.U said:

---

Aggie MoneyWhip said:

---

Joe Exotic said:

---

UTExan said:

---

If we took the projected CV 19 deaths for Sweden by Aug. 4 (10,196-a relatively stable prediction over the past seven days) and extrapolated the same number of deaths per capital onto the US, we would be looking at 320,000 deaths rather than 100,000 to 150,000. I honestly don't think they have demonstrated a successful coping model thus far.

---

I would absolutely be okay with an extra 170,000 deaths (of mostly people who were on deaths doorstep anyway) to not have to completely shut down like we did. And so should anyone.

---

Including your parents/grandparents, right? They're ok with that?

---

But it wouldn't be, we know people over 60 with health conditions and in general people over 70 are at risk. Seeing that 40-50% of all deaths happen in nursing homes (Pennsylvania is at 68%) than we know they need to change policies to protect those individuals. AKA what a true quarantine actually is. We also have a better idea of how to fight COVID so the death rate will not be as steep as it was before.

The largest reason for so many deaths was our failure to protect the elderly in nursing homes. If you truly locked those places down from the beginning we would be looking at roughly 40,000-50,000 deaths at this time instead of 83,000. Sweden shows 50% of the deaths in nursing homes as well. This is a new disease and our old procedures were not ready for it. Even in states that have not been hit that hard yet like Texas we will not see the projected numbers if we quarantine those at risk like what should have been done from the start. We just didn't know how bad COVID would hit the elderly.

---

Here in Utah there have been 73 deaths as of yesterday. 35 from long term care facilities. That's 47.9%. I think the average age of those that have died is 72 with 76% of those having underlying conditions.

Don't know. Don't have the time personally to try to be digging into Sweden's economic numbers. But maybe some other poster will down the road once this plays out longer.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-daily-deaths-trajectory-per-million?zoomToSelection=true&country=SWE+USA

DadHammer said:

---

fig96 said:

---

I see we're again at the point of "people who are concerned about the economy want everyone to die" and "people who are worried about everyone's health don't care if others starve".

---

The problem with what your saying is that those who want to work are not forcing the scared or at risk to stop their self quarantine. Nobody is forcing anyone to go back to work.

But the Self quarantine group refuses to let those work who wish to work and live their lives.

That is the real problem. You don't have a real scenario.

---

Except that opening a business disqualifies people from their unemployment benefits, right? Not exactly forcing them to end their self-quarantine, but effectively doing it by making it a work or starve situation. Assuming I understand unemployment benefits correctly. I could be wrong.

It's more complicated than most people want to admit, but I'd rather we open. We have to choose between deaths from the virus and deaths from economic toll. With an open economy, there is at least some individual choice.

DadHammer said:

---

fig96 said:

---

I see we're again at the point of "people who are concerned about the economy want everyone to die" and "people who are worried about everyone's health don't care if others starve".

---

The problem with what your saying is that those who want to work are not forcing the scared or at risk to stop their self quarantine. Nobody is forcing anyone to go back to work.

But the Self quarantine group refuses to let those work who wish to work and live their lives.

That is the real problem. You don't have a real scenario.

---

The biggest issue in my mind is if the schools are closed people can't work. Schools and daycare need a path to opening. The focus on restaurants and masks is a needless and pointless distraction.

pants said:

---

DadHammer said:

---

fig96 said:

---

I see we're again at the point of "people who are concerned about the economy want everyone to die" and "people who are worried about everyone's health don't care if others starve".

---

The problem with what your saying is that those who want to work are not forcing the scared or at risk to stop their self quarantine. Nobody is forcing anyone to go back to work.

But the Self quarantine group refuses to let those work who wish to work and live their lives.

That is the real problem. You don't have a real scenario.

---

Except that opening a business disqualifies people from their unemployment benefits, right? Not exactly forcing them to end their self-quarantine, but effectively doing it by making it a work or starve situation. Assuming I understand unemployment benefits correctly. I could be wrong.

It's more complicated than most people want to admit, but I'd rather we open. We have to choose between deaths from the virus and deaths from economic toll. With an open economy, there is at least some individual choice.

---

There are a number of exceptions that they added just for coronavirus that are pretty broad. It would depend on the situation.

culdeus said:

---

DadHammer said:

---

fig96 said:

---

I see we're again at the point of "people who are concerned about the economy want everyone to die" and "people who are worried about everyone's health don't care if others starve".

---

The problem with what your saying is that those who want to work are not forcing the scared or at risk to stop their self quarantine. Nobody is forcing anyone to go back to work.

But the Self quarantine group refuses to let those work who wish to work and live their lives.

That is the real problem. You don't have a real scenario.

---

The biggest issue in my mind is if the schools are closed people can't work. Schools and daycare need a path to opening. The focus on restaurants and masks is a needless and pointless distraction.

---

Daycares are still open, aren't they? K-12 will be open as long there is no additional attendance waiver in Texas. The districts will find a way if they are faced with losing funds.

pants said:

---

DadHammer said:

---

fig96 said:

---

I see we're again at the point of "people who are concerned about the economy want everyone to die" and "people who are worried about everyone's health don't care if others starve".

---

The problem with what your saying is that those who want to work are not forcing the scared or at risk to stop their self quarantine. Nobody is forcing anyone to go back to work.

But the Self quarantine group refuses to let those work who wish to work and live their lives.

That is the real problem. You don't have a real scenario.

---

Except that opening a business disqualifies people from their unemployment benefits, right? Not exactly forcing them to end their self-quarantine, but effectively doing it by making it a work or starve situation. Assuming I understand unemployment benefits correctly. I could be wrong.

It's more complicated than most people want to admit, but I'd rather we open. We have to choose between deaths from the virus and deaths from economic toll. With an open economy, there is at least some individual choice.

---

I would say not choose between A or B but rather balance A and B.

And that is the phased opening plan generally. Keep the old people isolated (most likely to die from COVID, least likely to die from economic issues). Allow other who are less likely to die from COVID but perhaps more likely to die from economic issues to return to work.

Quote:

---

Daycares are still open, aren't they?

---

Not near us. Overnight and day camps have mostly been canceled already for the summer. I bet we'll see lots of latchkey kids floating around neighborhoods in the coming months. Not necessarily a bad thing socially but in terms keeping virus spread down, I'm not sure closing summer programs was the smartest move.

OldArmyBrent said:

---

culdeus said:

---

DadHammer said:

---

fig96 said:

---

I see we're again at the point of "people who are concerned about the economy want everyone to die" and "people who are worried about everyone's health don't care if others starve".

---

The problem with what your saying is that those who want to work are not forcing the scared or at risk to stop their self quarantine. Nobody is forcing anyone to go back to work.

But the Self quarantine group refuses to let those work who wish to work and live their lives.

That is the real problem. You don't have a real scenario.

---

The biggest issue in my mind is if the schools are closed people can't work. Schools and daycare need a path to opening. The focus on restaurants and masks is a needless and pointless distraction.

---

Daycares are still open, aren't they? K-12 will be open as long there is no additional attendance waiver in Texas. The districts will find a way if they are faced with losing funds.

---

Relative is a higher up at TEA. TEA at the commissioner level is advocating to waive those requirements for parents who don't feel comfortable. There are a ton of contingencies on the table to allow for possible second wave scenarios ranging from starting schools in July (district decision) to rotating attendance (m/w and t/th) to eliminating many electives to allow for core curriculum instruction in a more intensive manner.

long/short ISD's are independent so its largely a local decision but TEA is pushing as many flexible options as they can out from what I am seeing. None of them are perfect but rarely is there a perfect solution in something with this much nuance.

I saw a webinar for districts the other day led by TEA where a district in south Texas walked through the benefits that they have seen of starting July. It is not all positives, but the flexibility in that solution is powerful and I expect more than a few districts jump on board.

Everyone realizes how much of our society it tied to kids being school...be it educating for the future or providing child care during the work day 36 weeks out of the year.

Edit to add the other thing to look at is revenue pool for funding given the lost sales tax and other revenue streams for state coffers have to be taken into consideration.

Aston04 said:

---

Rotating attendance would not fix any problem and would create chaos for parents.

The regular flu is a far greater danger to kids- send them back to school. They need to learn. That's not happening by and large with e-learning.

---

It splits the student population in half. So you only get half the school sick at a time if you deep clean every night. Works better if you also split the teachers and staff, which is unlikely.

Allowing more social distancing in the classroom wouldn't matter if the kids all still sit next to each other at lunch.

Aren't there numerous studies showing that kids basically don't get or spread the virus?

ham98 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Aren't there numerous studies showing that kids basically don't get or spread the virus?

---

They get it. They just are able to beat it really easily compared to older adults. Sheltering kids is the wrong strategy overall. We need them to all get china virus during the summer so they can protect school district employees with their immunity in the fall.

---

With as quickly as thing supposedly spreads we could probably get immunity to damn near every kid in the US by the middle of March, if we really wanted to.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Aston04 said:

---

Rotating attendance would not fix any problem and would create chaos for parents.

The regular flu is a far greater danger to kids- send them back to school. They need to learn. That's not happening by and large with e-learning.

---

It splits the student population in half. So you only get half the school sick at a time if you deep clean every night. Works better if you also split the teachers and staff, which is unlikely.

Allowing more social distancing in the classroom wouldn't matter if the kids all still sit next to each other at lunch.

---

"deep clean" till the other kids are back the next day to reinfect the building anyway. Covid could near just as easily go through two groups of 750, meeting every other day, as one with 1500 each day. That's just crap done for show that would again be horrible for parents and bad for learning (half the instruction time).

Marcus Aurelius said:

---

No China must have done the best. Still at "83,000" cases. 1.5 billion population. LOL. Unreal.

---

Close to perfection. We should everything like them.*






* Sarcasm for those who missed it.

GAC06 said:

---

Aren't there numerous studies showing that kids basically don't get or spread the virus?

---

Kids can spread it according to the CDC.

Jim Rockford said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Aren't there numerous studies showing that kids basically don't get or spread the virus?

---

Kids can spread it according to the CDC.

---

Studies in Australia and elsewhere show otherwise.

If the CDC has done an actual study, please link it.

Quote:

---

18 people (9 students, 9 staff) at 15 different schools, which I guess means on average 1 case per school, and it also says 2 people caught it from those cases.

---

No, it says two people may have contracted it.

The findings:

Quote:

---

735 students and 128 staff were close contacts of these initial 18 cases.

No teacher or staff member contracted COVID-19 from any of the initial school cases.

One child from a primary school and one child from a high school may have contracted COVID-19 from the initial cases at their schools.

---

There was also this from Iceland:

https://www.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/blog/hunting-down-covid-19/

Quote:

---

Children under 10 are less likely to get infected than adults and if they get infected, they are less likely to get seriously ill. What is interesting is that even if children do get infected, they are less likely to transmit the disease to others than adults. We have not found a single instance of a child infecting parents.

---

Additionally, as mentioned multiple times on this thread, Sweden has kept K-8 schools open and has not seen adverse affects. If schools were revealed to be a high risk venture, the Swedes would have shut them down. It hasn't been necessary.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/children.html#:~:text=Children%20with%20COVID%2D19,serious%20underlying%20medical%20conditions.

"If children meet in groups, it can put everyone at risk. Children with COVID-19 may only have mild symptoms, but they can still pass this virus onto others who may be at higher risk..."

Not a study. I do not know the basis for their statement.

Nvm