https://youtu.be/x6cTDGqcUpA

I'd sooner see a video more reflective of real life in which someone with covid coughs at different distances at a masked dummy with the dummy's mouth and nose areas examined for the virus. I think an experiment well established that mask wear keeps your harmful bacteria from spreading. In other words, great for not spreading strep throat.

Landlord-leaning eviction courts are about to make the coronavirus housing crisis a lot worse (https://theconversation.com/landlord-leaning-eviction-courts-are-about-to-make-the-coronavirus-housing-crisis-a-lot-worse-142803)

"As a result, as many as 26 million people are believed to be at risk of losing their homes in the coming months."

26 million, over 7% of the population of the USA......................

It sure would be nice if we had a better handle on this before school starts back.

It’s going to be a cluster....

If masks really work. If the town has had required mask wear. If teachers and all other personnel are required to be tested negative. If everybody entering a school has to be masked with normal temps taken, then it shouldn't have to be that way.

Landlord-leaning eviction courts are about to make the coronavirus housing crisis a lot worse (https://theconversation.com/landlord-leaning-eviction-courts-are-about-to-make-the-coronavirus-housing-crisis-a-lot-worse-142803)

"As a result, as many as 26 million people are believed to be at risk of losing their homes in the coming months."

26 million, over 7% of the population of the USA......................

this is an area where the gov should absolutely step in. and i don't mean by just blocking evictions .....

Landlord-leaning eviction courts are about to make the coronavirus housing crisis a lot worse (https://theconversation.com/landlord-leaning-eviction-courts-are-about-to-make-the-coronavirus-housing-crisis-a-lot-worse-142803)

"As a result, as many as 26 million people are believed to be at risk of losing their homes in the coming months."

26 million, over 7% of the population of the USA......................

I’m going to show why I’m not in any kind of business for myself. Unemployed person can’t pay rent/mortgage. So you evict them and you have an empty apt/house that you’re still not making any income on either. At least if you don’t evict you’re making the same income but look like a really caring human being.

We've had 71 deaths in just the last 9 days.

Like I have said before. They were worried about Hospitalizations and Deaths. Both now are at pretty much all time highs and yet still no real action. What will be the next number they say we need to focus on to make them look good?

We've had 71 deaths in just the last 9 days.

I would use the term "71 reported deaths" instead of just saying "deaths.

for example today the DOK said there were 14 new reported deaths but none happened in the last 24hours. So yes these deaths could have happened in the last 9 days but they also could have happened in May but didnt report them until today.

i believe the DOK said the something for all the deaths reported yesterday as well.

Like I have said before. They were worried about Hospitalizations and Deaths. Both now are at pretty much all time highs and yet still no real action. What will be the next number they say we need to focus on to make them look good?

What are you talking about? Mask mandates are a pretty big deal in this part of the world. That is the definition of doing something.

If you want them to shut everything down again, it’s not going to happen.

I could see an argument for take out dining only and no groups bigger than 25, but let’s see if the mask mandates help. It will take another week or two to determine whether they will make an impact.

I would use the term "71 reported deaths" instead of just saying "deaths.

All the data is 'reported' -- cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

Everyone should understand that by now.


And it doesn't change the fact the death rate is trending strongly up, which is the key point.

What are you talking about? Mask mandates are a pretty big deal in this part of the world. That is the definition of doing something.

If you want them to shut everything down again, it’s not going to happen.

I could see an argument for take out dining only and no groups bigger than 25, but let’s see if the mask mandates help. It will take another week or two to determine whether they will make an impact.

Exactly! The mask mandates are a very good step if we can just convince folks to actually wear them.

https://www.okctalk.com/blob:https://www.okctalk.com/92baafab-c515-4f3b-b379-2564a54f0f7d

Not sure if this is overly political, but seems extremely relevant. And damning.

https://oklahoman.com/article/5667916/us-house-panel-says-stitt-ignored-white-house-guidance-to-stop-coronavirus-spread?fbclid=IwAR0dWPJr3MnLylbdQJAEu3mr05VjX3e97J a894c_9NrWQvQeGctIUCMwSCg

The lack of leadership in all regards in favor of groveling is stunning. Elect a clown, expect a circus, I guess.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeHkg46WoAI31N7?format=jpg&name=900x900
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeHlpLiXoAESYQT?format=jpg&name=900x900
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeHlpLtWAAEknNO?format=jpg&name=900x900
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeHlpMEXsAETcAd?format=jpg&name=900x900
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeHlpMUWsAE34lS?format=jpg&name=900x900

I haven't seen someone without a mask in Norman now for several weeks. Before the mandate there was always a few. Happy to see that.

Stop, just stop, stop, stop, stop this stupid sh*t:

Mike Pence Met With Group Behind Viral Coronavirus Misinformation Video (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pence-coronavirus-video-doctors-hydroxychloroquine_n_5f21d7c4c5b6b8cd63b15277)

Why doesn't Twitter and FB get a grip and ban/suspend people actively spreading verifiable mis/dis-information? It's criminal at this point to let some of this crap get disseminated. Ignoring the "But First Amendment, Rights, Free Country" replies that I'm sure will show up because they don't apply.

I haven't seen someone without a mask in Norman now for several weeks. Before the mandate there was always a few. Happy to see that.

Yeah, sure. Hopefully people who were afraid to leave their house because others were not wearing masks don't get sick now.

Anyways, if we follow the same curve as Sweden, we will be in significantly better shape in 2 months.

Sweden sucked at protecting their elderly early on, but so did Europe and Northeast US.

We still have a huge percentage of people not wearing masks.

And if we send kids back to school en masse this fall, that will another huge super-spreader.


I don't think some cities finally mandating masks is going to knock this down very quickly. The horse is long out of the barn.

We still have a huge percentage of people not wearing masks.

And we send kids back to school en masse this fall, that will another huge super-spreader.

There's little evidence that kids, especially elementary kids, serve as super-spreaders. If anything they spread it, and catch it, and are impacted by it, less than other age groups.

There's little evidence that kids, especially elementary kids, serve as super-spreaders. If anything they spread it, and catch it, and are impacted by it, less than other age groups.

"Less" is like saying only 2% of the people with the virus die.

When you are dealing with tens of millions, the numbers get huge fast even if the percentages are low.


And kids, BTW, have been far more protected than any other age group. They've been out of school since March and unlike older people, haven't been going to jobs and generally not going out to restaurants, bars and even churches.

Why doesn't Twitter and FB get a grip and ban/suspend people actively spreading verifiable mis/dis-information?

Mainly because that would contradict their fundamental algorithmic design.

FB and Twitter do not operate or exist to passively dispense information submitted to their platforms. Their goal is to use that content to maximize user interaction with their application. There is no virtuous or utilitarian motive built into anything they build. It is 100% about what you will engage in, and salacious conspiracy and manufactured controversy draws so much more engagement than a NOVA episode-like explanation of what's really happening.

They're misinformation drug dealers and we're a country of addicts.

"Less" is like saying only 2% of the people with the virus die.

When you are dealing with tens of millions, the numbers get huge fast even if the percentages are low.

Sure, but for the under-10 set the flu is literally more deadly than Covid (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/reopening-schools.html), and in Sweden, which kept schools open as they went for the dumb herd immunity strategy, there was no case of a student infecting a staff member, findings that mirror findings in France (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-23/school-children-don-t-spread-coronavirus-french-study-shows) or Iceland (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100).

So by "less" we really mean "almost never," not the hyperbolic 2%

We still have a huge percentage of people not wearing masks.

And if we send kids back to school en masse this fall, that will another huge super-spreader.


I don't think some cities finally mandating masks is going to knock this down very quickly. The horse is long out of the barn.Hopefully the mask mandates stay in place for long enough to work and more people get used to the fact that mask wearing by EVERYONE will eventually knock this virus out. Eventually being 3, 6, 9, ? months or until a working vaccine is universally available.

France and Sweden are very different cultures than the U.S.

Neither one of those countries had nearly the issues with the virus we have. Just today, about 1,300 people died in the U.S. due to Covid-19. You know how many in France? 15. Sweden? 9.

And both those places never had the out-of-control situation we are experiencing right now, and one that is getting worse every day.


One thing this pandemic keeps telling us over and over is that the way we keep choosing to handle this virus has been far less effective than absolutely everywhere else in the world.

So, of course, school (where we pack in way more kids per class than everywhere else, among other key disadvantages) will be the one exception, right?

Sweden had about the same number of casualties per million as we did and did *less* in terms of prevention than even we are doing. They average 19 kids per class, roughly the same as Oklahoma. So unless you’re suggesting that American kids are just epidemiologically more vulnerable that “different cultures” argument doesn’t really stand up to empirical scrutiny.

^ As we *DID*.

We are still ramping up and they are way, way past any real problem.

Sweden had less than 80,000 total cases. The U.S. currently has 4.5 MILLION and we are going to have a ton more before this is all over.

Even now -- well before we have even peaked here -- Sweden only had about half the per capita cases.


How do these things possibly compare?

Is the US testing wayyyy more than other countries, specifically per capita? If so, then it isn't fair to compare. How many asymptomatic people are walking around Germany now who don't get tested? I'm only curious, not taking a pro-anything side.

Is the US testing wayyyy more than other countries, specifically per capita? If so, then it isn't fair to compare. How many asymptomatic people are walking around Germany now who don't get tested? I'm only curious, not taking a pro-anything side.

We test more only because we have a virus raging out of control. All those other countries tested *more* but then backed off because people weren't showing symptoms, going to the hospital and dying like they are here. They got it under control; we did the exact opposite and therefore have tons of people still lining up to get tested.

All these things are completely correlated. Even though a good percentage of the cases are asymptomatic, the more people are infected, the more that show symptoms, get sick and die.

Mainly because that would contradict their fundamental algorithmic design.

FB and Twitter do not operate or exist to passively dispense information submitted to their platforms. Their goal is to use that content to maximize user interaction with their application. There is no virtuous or utilitarian motive built into anything they build. It is 100% about what you will engage in, and salacious conspiracy and manufactured controversy draws so much more engagement than a NOVA episode-like explanation of what's really happening.

They're misinformation drug dealers and we're a country of addicts.

Unfortunately, yeah, if it bleeds, it leads...

There's little evidence that kids, especially elementary kids, serve as super-spreaders. If anything they spread it, and catch it, and are impacted by it, less than other age groups.

impacted by it, sure... but there is also little evidence that they spread it any less than any other age group. and in a country where about 3% of those kids are being raised by Grandparents who are over age 55 and in the group that this is most deadly too... that is a problem. a huge problem.

It's really pretty simple: We have a raging pandemic getting worse every day and that's with kids being completely out of school for almost 6 months.

Having schools and college reopen can't help. How much it will help spread the disease remains to be seen but 100% that it will make things worse. That was my point.

Unfortunately, yeah, if it bleeds, it leads...
Yeah. The only thing I get on FB for anymore is a group of us old farts that went to Sequoyah Elem together and use FB to stay in touch. FB has become nothing but a platform for mis-information and ads for **** that otherwise you only see on really late night TV. And FB used to be a really good place to connect with people. It’s degraded just like sooooooo many things in our society.

impacted by it, sure... but there is also little evidence that they spread it any less than any other age group. and in a country where about 3% of those kids are being raised by Grandparents who are over age 55 and in the group that this is most deadly too... that is a problem. a huge problem.

This isn't true. I already linked to two studies that show that kids are hugely, significantly less likely to spread it into the home, and this pattern is borne out in other studies in other countries:

https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/children-and-covid-19 " Based on source and contact tracing from the beginning of the epidemic, we see the following: looking at 10 COVID-19 patients who were <18 years old, they had 43 close contacts, and none of them became ill, whereas 8.3% (55/566) of the close contacts of the 221 patients who were ≥18 years old became ill.

https://www.cebm.net/study/covid-19-cluster-of-covid-19-cases-in-the-french-alps-2020/
"Subsequent to identifying the index case in a French holiday chalet, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 11 additional people: 5 in France (including 1 child), 5 in England, 1 in Spain: overall attack rate in the chalet: 75%.

One paediatric case, with picornavirus and influenza A coinfection, visited 3 different schools while symptomatic. No resulting transmission was identified. "

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/146/1/e20200961
"Among the 74 pediatric case patients included in this study, 68 had a definite exposure history, and 65 (95.59%) were household contacts of adults whose symptoms developed earlier. There has been no evidence showing the virus was transmitted from children to others."

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2020/07/08/peds.2020-1576
"children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters6 and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission"

These are all peer-reviewed studies, and you can find similar outcomes from countries that stayed open and kept schools open.

Mainly because that would contradict their fundamental algorithmic design.

FB and Twitter do not operate or exist to passively dispense information submitted to their platforms. Their goal is to use that content to maximize user interaction with their application. There is no virtuous or utilitarian motive built into anything they build. It is 100% about what you will engage in, and salacious conspiracy and manufactured controversy draws so much more engagement than a NOVA episode-like explanation of what's really happening.

They're misinformation drug dealers and we're a country of addicts.

+1000

Social media platforms are biased toward profits, which tend to be determined by time on site and clicks. More extreme and outrageous content grabs attention. They are absolutely central to increases in polarization, misinformation, and extremism. They have helped spread health misinformation. They are central to US failures in many areas.

Unfortunately, yeah, if it bleeds, it leads...

Yeah, but unlike other media forms, these platforms are designed to not just share—but amplify—the type of garbage that wouldn’t have aired on TV or radio or newspaper (not letting these mediums off the hook, but they’re different).

It's really pretty simple: We have a raging pandemic getting worse every day and that's with kids being completely out of school for almost 6 months.

Having schools and college reopen can't help. How much it will help spread the disease remains to be seen but 100% that it will make things worse. That was my point. Agree 100%. If there were more than 100% I would agree at that level. I’ve read a couple pieces lately about parents saying it’s imperative that schools open because their kids are not not getting normal exposure to normal experiences and aren’t progressing as they should because of this. What part of this is a worldwide pandemic like we’ve never seen don’t they get? Kids in past generations have had to deal with adversity. Prove that you’re parenting is equal to the parents of days past and teach your kids to deal with adversity. The lack of motivation in so many people to deal with something as serious to society as this virus is truly terrifying!

BTW, I am not advocating that schools remain completely closed.

It's a very complicated issue.

I'm just saying things are going very badly and jamming thousands of people together in educational settings all across the country is going to make it worse. I just hope it doesn't make much, much worse.

I don’t have much doubt schools will close again. Just takes a few teachers getting ill and it is all over. There isn’t much teacher back ups or subs so this will go quickly. Colleges are the same way.

Instead of spending the summer coming up with ideas to teach our kids they just waited it out hoping it would go away and here we are.

Not only will this hurt kids but parents are in a place on where their kids will be while they work. There really is a no win situation happening this semester.

I don’t have much doubt schools will close again. Just takes a few teachers getting ill and it is all over. There isn’t much teacher back ups or subs so this will go quickly. Colleges are the same way.

Instead of spending the summer coming up with ideas to teach our kids they just waited it out hoping it would go away and here we are.

Not only will this hurt kids but parents are in a place on where their kids will be while they work. There really is a no win situation happening this semester.

Well we were told by POTUS that the virus would just disappear when it got warmer.
Governor Stitt showed zero leadership and zero contingency plan.
Ditto for the State Board of Education(excluding Hoffmeister).
That is why nobody planned for a problematic fall semester.

I’ve read a couple pieces lately about parents saying it’s imperative that schools open because their kids are not not getting normal exposure to normal experiences and aren’t progressing as they should because of this.

This is what I don't get. I'm receptive to the argument in general, but the pandemic (and our handling of it) has other plans. What is going to be normal and a fun socialization experience of wearing masks, having glass screens between you and everyone else, group activities canceled, etc? In-person instruction will probably be beneficial but I don't know why people are demanding schools reopen so their kids can have some sense of normalcy. That's not coming back for a long while....

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2769034

This is what I don't get. I'm receptive to the argument in general, but the pandemic (and our handling of it) has other plans. What is going to be normal and a fun socialization experience of wearing masks, having glass screens between you and everyone else, group activities canceled, etc? In-person instruction will probably be beneficial but I don't know why people are demanding schools reopen so their kids can have some sense of normalcy. That's not coming back for a long while....

Schools are often the main source of food and many social services for many kids. But instead of exposing every kid and their families to get those services the country needs to focus on improving access to these services. The packed lunches provided to kids throughout the spring were essential for many.

But we are looking at many areas where people are basically looking at Schrödingers Schools: useless waste of money which shouldn’t exist and we should have vouchers and support private schools, while at the same time arguing that the country will socially and economically collapse of we don’t open up these useless institutions.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2769034


This study has several limitations. First, many states enacted additional nonpharmaceutical interventions concurrently with or shortly after school closure, making it impossible to fully isolate potential effects of school closure. Some nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as increased handwashing, could not be included due to lack of available data.

Second, analyses were conducted at the state level. The analyses did not account for resident travel leading to viral spread between states. Even though the study modeled state-level policies, some states had more restrictive policies locally (ie, by county).

Third, inadequate testing has impeded COVID-19 diagnosis. Testing variability was accounted for with the use of state-level testing rates as a model covariate; however, testing rates do not fully capture a state’s testing capability, infrastructure, and strictness of testing guidelines.

In other words, this thing is really limited because, as I teach my statistical methods students on day 1, correllation=/= causation. Schools shut down, then offices shut down, then people stopped moving, then stay at home orders went out, all within a week of each other. This study itself admits that other, nonpharmaceutical factors may have played "a significant part" in their findings. Since no state kept their schools open, we couldn't really compare the results across the US. Also, as the itself study states, testing limitations and other issues further lesson the strength of the conclusions

Looking at CDC data for adults over 18 for the 2018-2019 flu season in Oklahoma, the vaccination rate was 49.8%. This is for a known entity with proven efficacy that helps prevent morbidity and mortality.
I find it hard to believe that anyone is this state will vaccinate themselves for Covid 19 at a rate higher than that of a coin toss, given our absymal flu vaccine rate.

This isn't true. I already linked to two studies that show that kids are hugely, significantly less likely to spread it into the home, and this pattern is borne out in other studies in other countries:

https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/children-and-covid-19 " Based on source and contact tracing from the beginning of the epidemic, we see the following: looking at 10 COVID-19 patients who were <18 years old, they had 43 close contacts, and none of them became ill, whereas 8.3% (55/566) of the close contacts of the 221 patients who were ≥18 years old became ill.


This isn't settled science by any means...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/29/dr-fauci-says-kids-over-9-years-old-can-transmit-the-coronavirus-as-well-as-adults-as-some-schools-reopen.html
"White House health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci warned parents sending kids back to school that children over 9 years old can spread the coronavirus as well as adults, saying that should be considered when deciding whether to reopen schools in the fall.

“It’s been shown that children from 10 to 19 can transmit the virus to adults as well as adults can,” Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during an interview Wednesday on MSNBC."



Here are some studies that disagree with you:
https://zoonosen.charite.de/fileadmin/user_upload/microsites/m_cc05/virologie-ccm/dateien_upload/Weitere_Dateien/analysis-of-SARS-CoV-2-viral-load-by-patient-age.pdf
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1481.full
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article



There's also this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/health/coronavirus-children-transmission-school.html
"Dr. Nuzzo also pointed to a study in the Netherlands, conducted by the Dutch government, which concluded that “patients under 20 years play a much smaller role in the spread than adults and the elderly.”

But other experts said that study was not well designed because it looked at household transmission. Unless the scientists deliberately tested everyone, they would have noticed and tested only more severe infections — which tend to be among adults, said Bill Hanage, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

“Assumptions that children are not involved in the epidemiology, because they do not have severe illness, are exactly the kind of assumption that you really, really need to question in the face of a pandemic,” Dr. Hanage said. “Because if it’s wrong, it has really pretty disastrous consequences.”"

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/29/dr-fauci-says-kids-over-9-years-old-can-transmit-the-coronavirus-as-well-as-adults-as-some-schools-reopen.html
"White House health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci warned parents sending kids back to school that children over 9 years old can spread the coronavirus as well as adults, saying that should be considered when deciding whether to reopen schools in the fall.

“It’s been shown that children from 10 to 19 can transmit the virus to adults as well as adults can,” Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said during an interview Wednesday on MSNBC."



Here are some studies that disagree with you:
https://zoonosen.charite.de/fileadmin/user_upload/microsites/m_cc05/virologie-ccm/dateien_upload/Weitere_Dateien/analysis-of-SARS-CoV-2-viral-load-by-patient-age.pdf
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1481.full
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article



There's also this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/05/health/coronavirus-children-transmission-school.html
"Dr. Nuzzo also pointed to a study in the Netherlands, conducted by the Dutch government, which concluded that “patients under 20 years play a much smaller role in the spread than adults and the elderly.”

But other experts said that study was not well designed because it looked at household transmission. Unless the scientists deliberately tested everyone, they would have noticed and tested only more severe infections — which tend to be among adults, said Bill Hanage, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

“Assumptions that children are not involved in the epidemiology, because they do not have severe illness, are exactly the kind of assumption that you really, really need to question in the face of a pandemic,” Dr. Hanage said. “Because if it’s wrong, it has really pretty disastrous consequences.”"

As I've said, these conclusions are generally true for elementary school aged kids, so I agree that 10 is a good cutoff for thinking significantly about reopening schools. As for the studies you quoted:

https://zoonosen.charite.de/fileadmin/user_upload/microsites/m_cc05/virologie-ccm/dateien_upload/Weitere_Dateien/analysis-of-SARS-CoV-2-viral-load-by-patient-age.pdf

This is a preprint, not yet peer-reviewed, so conclusions need to be couched with that fact. Second, as the study itself says:

There are many other factors that complicate the determination of infection rates in, and transmission rates from children. For instance, the age profile during the early phase of the outbreak in many European countries makes it difficult to derive transmission rates from household contact studies. Early transmission clusters were started by travellers of adult age, making children less likely to be index cases in households (4). Another circumstance making children less likely to carry the virus into households is that kindergartens and schools were closed early in the outbreak in Germany. These combined effects will cause children to be more likely to receive rather than spread infections in households for purely circumstantial reasons.

Also, that study never actually tests transmission - it just looks at viral loads. So that preprint doesn't really disprove the articles I linked. Let's move on.

This one https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1481.full doesn't use hard data, but rather employs a model based on data, from China, from February. Given that the studies we've seen since have actual empirical data as opposed to models from a time of spotty testing and less understanding of the virus than we have know, the conclusions in this one have been subsumed. And, again, here the authors admit that causation is difficult to tease out from the data:


It is likely that population-wide social distancing, case-based strategies, and decontamination efforts all contributed to achieve control in Wuhan and Shanghai, and their effect is difficult to separate out in retrospective observational studies.

Finally, as for the South Korea study, that thing is significantly flawed because of this issue in the methods:


Because we could not determine direction of transmission, we calculated the proportion of detected cases by the equation [number of detected cases/number of contacts traced] × 100, excluding the index patient; we also calculated 95% CIs. We compared the difference in detected cases between household and nonhousehold contacts across the stratified age groups.

Emphasis mine. The study could not determine the direction of transmission. In other words, it is as likely that kids got sick from their household than they infected it. Given the other studies out there. For example, this comparison of Finland (which locked down) and Sweden (which went for the stupid herd immunity strategy) shows that households with children that went to school were no more likely to get infected than households with no school-going kids: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/contentassets/c1b78bffbfde4a7899eb0d8ffdb57b09/covid-19-school-aged-children.pdf

It's not enough to just copy and paste links, but to evaluate them critically and make sure the conclusions they make actually back up your point.

It's not enough to just copy and paste links, but to evaluate them critically and make sure the conclusions they make actually back up your point.

My point was that there's significant uncertainty among the experts and we can't state theories as fact. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems like you feel very strongly about this and that's fine. Please be objective and use that same standard of comparison on the marginally supported studies you posted.

Johns Hopkins University says the US needs to reset its response to Covid-19:
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-07-29-20-intl/h_457209739bd5da56d3cf867d80cbc9ce

New Your Times this morning reports:

At least 14 new coronavirus deaths and 848 new cases were reported in Oklahoma on July 29. Over the past week, there have been an average of 1,043 cases per day, an increase of 48 percent from the average two weeks earlier.

As of Thursday morning, there have been at least 34,605 cases and 523 deaths in Oklahoma since the beginning of the pandemic, according to a New York Times database.


STAY SAFE WEAR MASKS

Yeah, but unlike other media forms, these platforms are designed to not just share—but amplify—the type of garbage that wouldn’t have aired on TV or radio or newspaper (not letting these mediums off the hook, but they’re different).

And that's one of the big reasons I'm not on FB or Twitter (although it seems Twitter is a bit, just a bit, more sane than FB).

And that's one of the big reasons I'm not on FB or Twitter (although it seems Twitter is a bit, just a bit, more sane than FB).

If this is more sane than facebook, I'm certainly glad I don't do facebook....

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5E serp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor



STAY SAFE WEAR MASKS

And that's one of the big reasons I'm not on FB or Twitter (although it seems Twitter is a bit, just a bit, more sane than FB).

Hrm... Twitter I can't seem to curate as well. Facebook at least I can control my circle, and I don't have that many crazy or trash people on my friends' list. Twitter just seems like unrestrained crazy some times.

If this is more sane than facebook, I'm certainly glad I don't do facebook....

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5E serp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor



STAY SAFE WEAR MASKS

Can't see it 'cos work blocks Twitter, but I assume it's Agent Orange's feed - c'mon, you know what I mean about being saner, that word *always* excludes him, no matter what form his BS takes (Twitter, EOs, press conferences, interviews, whatever).

And jerry - since I don't have a Twitter account, I just hit it here and there for useful info, can't say I get the same as easily from FB, so I guess I don't get the full Twitter experience.

Back on topic - totally agree with Bunty's post about needing to reset. Just about the only way the US can get a grip on this is to start shutting stuff down again, but our "leadership" won't do that, so it's going to be off and on, unpredictable shutdowns and in the end, the US is still going to be screwed. Cannot believe it's this hard for the US to do the right thing, we're not great, not sure if we'll ever be great again, this is most likely another step downhill, and just wait until the unemployment runs out and evictions start, Great Depression #2 here we come...

I don't know if this has been posted, but it's an interesting collection of the anti-mask thought process. The big takeaway for me was just how flat out misinformed so many of the responses were.

https://oklahoman.com/article/5667903/10-reasons-oklahomans-arent-wearing-masks-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic

I don't know if this has been posted, but it's an interesting collection of the anti-mask thought process. The big takeaway for me was just how flat out misinformed so many of the responses were.

https://oklahoman.com/article/5667903/10-reasons-oklahomans-arent-wearing-masks-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic

I'm embarrassed to say these are my fellow citizens.

Here's a nice little statistic - in the USA, one person dies from COVID-19 every minute right now (and probably for at least the next few days, if not weeks).

This isn't true. I already linked to two studies that show that kids are hugely, significantly less likely to spread it into the home, and this pattern is borne out in other studies in other countries:

https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/children-and-covid-19 " Based on source and contact tracing from the beginning of the epidemic, we see the following: looking at 10 COVID-19 patients who were <18 years old, they had 43 close contacts, and none of them became ill, whereas 8.3% (55/566) of the close contacts of the 221 patients who were ≥18 years old became ill.

https://www.cebm.net/study/covid-19-cluster-of-covid-19-cases-in-the-french-alps-2020/
"Subsequent to identifying the index case in a French holiday chalet, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 11 additional people: 5 in France (including 1 child), 5 in England, 1 in Spain: overall attack rate in the chalet: 75%.

One paediatric case, with picornavirus and influenza A coinfection, visited 3 different schools while symptomatic. No resulting transmission was identified. "

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/146/1/e20200961
"Among the 74 pediatric case patients included in this study, 68 had a definite exposure history, and 65 (95.59%) were household contacts of adults whose symptoms developed earlier. There has been no evidence showing the virus was transmitted from children to others."

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2020/07/08/peds.2020-1576
"children do not seem to be a major vector of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, with most pediatric cases described inside familial clusters6 and no documentation of child-to-child or child-to-adult transmission"

These are all peer-reviewed studies, and you can find similar outcomes from countries that stayed open and kept schools open.

direct quote from your first study....

The first part of the study has now been completed. The second part of the study is still ongoing. RIVM will be looking at the spread of the virus within families after a diagnosis of COVID-19 in a child. This approach gives us an even better opportunity to investigate how often an infection in children leads to further spread of the virus.

so even in this study they still say they don't know from their study about if a child is the one infected, and how it will spread to family, because that part of the study is still ongoing.

second study literally looked at just one case of a child who had two siblings in the home. not exactly a test that holds any scientific weight since it literally only has one case study involving children. probably why that study doesn't go on to talk anymore about the child anymore after the 4th paragraph of the paper.


on your third study... after your quote of
"Among the 74 pediatric case patients included in this study, 68 had a definite exposure history, and 65 (95.59%) were household contacts of adults whose symptoms developed earlier. There has been no evidence showing the virus was transmitted from children to others."

this is literally the next sentence in the discussion that you conveniently left out.

Among the 74 pediatric case patients included in this study, 68 had a definite exposure history, and 65 (95.59%) were household contacts of adults whose symptoms developed earlier. There has been no evidence showing the virus was transmitted from children to others. However, the relatively low attack rate of COVID-19 in children might be explained by the stringent implementation of home confinement and nationwide school closure as required by the Chinese governments.During the outbreak, public activities were discouraged, and children spent most of their days at home with strengthened protection from caregivers.

and on the fourth study... this line is very important


however, with our study design, we cannot confirm that child-to-adult transmission occurred.

so even the creators of the study state that because of the design, you can't confirm or deny child-to-adult transmission. infact the entire last two paragraphs of that study pretty much sum up that we don't know.. here they are


This study has some limitations. The study sample likely does not represent the total number of pediatric SARS-CoV-2 cases during this time period. Indeed, patients with milder or atypical presentation might not have sought medical attention. Moreover, the recall of symptom onset among HHCs might be inaccurate, although this seems for once less likely because of the confinement measures and anxiety in the community.

The results of this study are important because of the extensive HHC tracing and the almost absence of loss to follow-up. Extended diagnostic screening of suspected cases and thorough contact tracing are needed to better understand the dynamics of transmission within households.


so, back to my original statement. there is little evidence. but thank you for the sources to back up my claim. that was extremely handy.

It's not enough to just copy and paste links, but to evaluate them critically and make sure the conclusions they make actually back up your point.

funny you should say that.

Herman Cain has now died from the COVID he almost certainly acquired at the President's rally in Tulsa.

I'm embarrassed to say these are my fellow citizens.
Me too.

Herman Cain has now died from the COVID he almost certainly acquired at the President's rally in Tulsa.

Ugh, awful

Herman Cain has now died from the COVID he almost certainly acquired at the President's rally in Tulsa.

Sad and yet completely unsurprising too.

Herman Cain has now died from the COVID he almost certainly acquired at the President's rally in Tulsa.

The rally was on June 20. Herman Cain, who railed against wearing masks, was seated next to Kevin Stitt, who thinks masks should be optional. Neither were wearing masks.

On July 2, Herman Cain was admitted to the hospital for Covid-19, where he remained until his death today.

He totally got it at Trump's rally, and one wonders if Stitt did as well.