COVID-19 Pandemic: Transmissions, Deaths, Treatments, Vaccines, Interventions and More...
- Thread starter Richie O
- Start date
- Status
So then it would appear kids will be home for well over another year . And even after a vaccine it looks like teachers like zoom classes.
My wife is a teacher, I can assure you it's not this simple. So many factors go into it. Her district has am/pm classes (like kindergarten), bumped up janitorial etc. The reality is it's going to expose teachers, teachers will expose kids, people will get sick. Bussing is a issue. Subs is an issue, teaching aides are an issue, etc etc. Her classroom is rather larger and we got 10 desks and her in there with some room to spare, but maybe at max we could get 12-13 (her normal class size is maybe 24, but Chicago Public School it's much, much larger).
Not to mention in less affluent areas how can kids remote learn? Do they have computers, internet? Do the parents care enough to spend the necessary one on one time to help them learn effectively?
It's very, very trick situation. I can tell you there is a massive battle between admin, teachers and parents happening.
Every teacher I have spoken to would prefer to be in the classroom if it can be done safely.
I have family and friends that are teachers too, my mom was a public school teacher. I am well aware it's not going to be easy, nothing really is these days.
But the issue of no computers and a lack of internet service is something that has been circulating around in school systems for years yet little has actually been done to address and correct the problem. Make school a 6 day thing... “spread out “ sessions...and lengthen the year.
Ask local tenting companies who are losing their shirt right now with no events/weddings to pitch an 80x40 with 2/4 sidewalls for a little above cost and a sign promoting them as a school partner and the promise of future town tenting needs, and you have two classrooms for 20 socially distant kids that is partially open air.
As most here know, I've been very hopeful (since March!) that convalescent plasma from COVID survivors, containing protective antibodies to the virus would be an effective treatment for COVID patients. Well, we don't quite have ironclad results from a formal randomized, controlled, blinded clinical trial, but today we got a preprint from the leaders of the CP expanded access program (overseen by the Mayo Clinic, with over 50,000 patients infused so far) featuring a meta-analysis aggregating results from all controlled trials to date and the results are very encouraging, with a highly statistically significant mortality reduction of 57%.
https://www.medrxiv.org/…/10…/2020.07.29.20162917v1.full.pdf
We've heard countless anecodotes of success and many of these individual studies showed mortality reduction, but weren't statistically powered well enough (not enough patients) to be considered statistical "proof" of efficacy. By aggregating the studies and controlling for patient variables as well as possible, there was enough statistical strength for the authors to feel that there is now very strong evidence of morality reduction at a p-value of <0.001 (normally "statistically significant" is indicated by a p-value of <0.05, translating to 95% probability that the treatment outcome is valid - it's more complicated than that, but not worth repeating here, IMO).
These results also bode well for the effectiveness of engineered antibodies, which should be more consistent and highly targeted than CP (plasma is very variable based on the patient); these should be done with phase III trials by the end of August. I'm also much more confident, now, that use of plasma is one of the key reasons fatality rates have dropped significantly in this 2nd wave, as 50,000 patients infused is a decent percentage of those that have been pretty ill - would be nice to see more data on that to prove or disprove that thinking. I'm still a bit disappointed they didn't just do a randomized/controlled right away back in April, so we'd have even better data, but that's water under the bridge now.
The present analyses included a total of twelve studies including three RCTs, five matchedcontrol studies, and four case series studies containing 804 COVID-19 patient outcomes from around the world (Table 1). The mean or median age of patients enrolled in these studies ranged from 48 to 70 years, with a greater proportion of men than women in most studies (proportion of women: 25% to 56%). All studies included patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19. At the time of plasma transfusion, the proportion of patients on mechanical ventilation varied by study from 0% to 81%. The duration of follow up ranged from 7 to 30 days. All case-series studies demonstrated relatively low mortality rates for COVID-19 patients transfused with convalescent plasma (0% to 13%). Among RCTs, patients transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a reduced mortality rate (13%) compared to non-transfused COVID-19 patients (26%; OR: 0.46, P = 0.03). Among matched control studies, patients transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a reduced mortality rate (12%) compared to nontransfused COVID-19 patients (25%; OR: 0.41, P = 0.001). When patient outcomes from controlled studies were aggregated, patients transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a reduced mortality rate (13%) compared to non-transfused COVID-19 patients (25%; OR: 0.43, P < 0.001). Meta-regression analysis indicated that mean or median cohort age, proportion of cohort receiving mechanical ventilation, and duration of study follow up did not affect the aggregate OR computed for all controlled studies (all coefficients P > 0.22). The fixed effect OR (OR: 0.44, P<0.001) was not different when outlier mortality rates from the matched control study by Xia and colleagues were included in analyses (case mortality rate: 2%, control mortality rate: 4%).
https://www.medrxiv.org/…/10…/2020.07.29.20162917v1.full.pdf
We've heard countless anecodotes of success and many of these individual studies showed mortality reduction, but weren't statistically powered well enough (not enough patients) to be considered statistical "proof" of efficacy. By aggregating the studies and controlling for patient variables as well as possible, there was enough statistical strength for the authors to feel that there is now very strong evidence of morality reduction at a p-value of <0.001 (normally "statistically significant" is indicated by a p-value of <0.05, translating to 95% probability that the treatment outcome is valid - it's more complicated than that, but not worth repeating here, IMO).
These results also bode well for the effectiveness of engineered antibodies, which should be more consistent and highly targeted than CP (plasma is very variable based on the patient); these should be done with phase III trials by the end of August. I'm also much more confident, now, that use of plasma is one of the key reasons fatality rates have dropped significantly in this 2nd wave, as 50,000 patients infused is a decent percentage of those that have been pretty ill - would be nice to see more data on that to prove or disprove that thinking. I'm still a bit disappointed they didn't just do a randomized/controlled right away back in April, so we'd have even better data, but that's water under the bridge now.
The present analyses included a total of twelve studies including three RCTs, five matchedcontrol studies, and four case series studies containing 804 COVID-19 patient outcomes from around the world (Table 1). The mean or median age of patients enrolled in these studies ranged from 48 to 70 years, with a greater proportion of men than women in most studies (proportion of women: 25% to 56%). All studies included patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19. At the time of plasma transfusion, the proportion of patients on mechanical ventilation varied by study from 0% to 81%. The duration of follow up ranged from 7 to 30 days. All case-series studies demonstrated relatively low mortality rates for COVID-19 patients transfused with convalescent plasma (0% to 13%). Among RCTs, patients transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a reduced mortality rate (13%) compared to non-transfused COVID-19 patients (26%; OR: 0.46, P = 0.03). Among matched control studies, patients transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a reduced mortality rate (12%) compared to nontransfused COVID-19 patients (25%; OR: 0.41, P = 0.001). When patient outcomes from controlled studies were aggregated, patients transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a reduced mortality rate (13%) compared to non-transfused COVID-19 patients (25%; OR: 0.43, P < 0.001). Meta-regression analysis indicated that mean or median cohort age, proportion of cohort receiving mechanical ventilation, and duration of study follow up did not affect the aggregate OR computed for all controlled studies (all coefficients P > 0.22). The fixed effect OR (OR: 0.44, P<0.001) was not different when outlier mortality rates from the matched control study by Xia and colleagues were included in analyses (case mortality rate: 2%, control mortality rate: 4%).
Last edited:
Someone has to pay for it right? Computers cost money and so does internet, would also need bump pay to teachers for the sixth day. (OT). Do the computers get returned at all or in working condition?
Still think the bigger issue is tracking kids with less parental support. Knowing a lot of CPS teachers I can tell you the struggle there is real.
See that’s thinking out of the box... states with warmer climates could use tents as additional classroom space. .. in bad weather they would need to make planned adjustments...
Have mentioned these too - all good ideas. I attended split sessions from 7th-12th grade - I'm sure they weren't optimal, but we survived and hopefully we're talking about half a year if we can get a vaccine by the end of the year. I do think areas need to get cases down, though, before reopening schools - otherwise we're going to have a mess.
We noticed that it significantly affected their socialization, and strongly believe it is healthy for them to be with other kids their own age. Daycare (or ours at least), isn't babysitting, it is education. The kids learn how to behave in a group, to not be selfish, to share, to listen, and that they can't have undivided attention every second of the day. That is before you factor in all the things they learn there as part of the curriculum (which includes a second language that we don't speak at home). You can't replicate those things at home, in my view, even if you are a full time parent, because some of it they only learn while dealing with other kids their age.
I can't speak for kids that don't go to daycare normally, but in our family, both adults work demanding jobs. When daycare closed, we had to hire full time help (we hired the best daycare staff member who was furloughed while the daycare was closed), and even that only worked because both adults were at home and could assist throughout the day. We still had to do all meals and assist with naps.
Another affect is screen time. I'm sure in many families it has increased greatly for their kids. The exact thing that researchers have been telling everyone is terrible for child development is now supposed to be the new normal.
If the daycare did not reopen, one of us would have had to take a leave of absence from work. Luckily for society, if that had or does happen, we aren't essential workers. What are people in the medical field or who work at the grocery store or food factory supposed to do with their school-age children in the fall if school isn't open? I'm thankful not to be part of that equation, but leadership is lacking because they're not thinking of those consequences. In our family, if we did not have an adult available to do full time parenting, that would have had a significant affect on our children, if it is even possible to pull off.
Last edited:
That is exactly the issue ...parental support which in many cases is null and void is stunting the growth of many of these students... it is a big conundrum for educators. My daughter-in -law is a supervisor in Long Island NY and teaches in a district which to say the least is “ dirt” poor, with most lacking a two parent household . It is not a good way to educate the children and now it is beyond tough. The longer their out and not in school the worst this impacts these marginalized kids.
Also had split sessions in grammar school for 18 months...back during WWII many schools had to split session... surprised we haven’t heard more on that topic.
That is at least what the studies show. Those same children (under 10) are the ones least likely to learn remotely, if there is even the resources or an adult able to get the child to do it. If a family has multiple kids and parents that work at home, they need to buy a computer for every person just to have the ability to have them all learn/work remotely. That assumes the internet connection is even sufficient for so many people at once.
According to the NY Times, 110 years ago, society found a way to have school outside. We have numerous government and other buildings available, limitless vehicle travel, and so much other knowledge, not to mention now 4.5 months to prepare, and the plans they came up with work for almost no one. If a student presented such a plan as part of a class they should get an F -- but nevertheless, since no one can apparently think outside of a structured box (i.e., we can only have school in the designated school building), we're just going with it anyway.
Are there enough tents for the number of districts we have
Also expect massive teacher layoffs unless there is an influx of federal funds
these people are nuts....FACE SHIELDS....HAHA this was predicted. Fauci and Birx this week and now her answer was embarrassing for herself....these are your pandemic leaders...f them, full of s...they went from no masks to now wearing full out masks and face shields...hahaha
I respected Birx before today but omfg she looked like stupid dope talking about decorating fun face shields..wtf
I respected Birx before today but omfg she looked like stupid dope talking about decorating fun face shields..wtf
The constant circulating air in the central cooling and heating systems used continually since March in all the Wal Marts and shop rites and Wegmans and all those other super markets throughout NJ doesnt seem to have given rise to any outbreaks among the essential employees of any of those venues. Why should the schools be any different? Time to open em' up !!
It's actually not time to open them up. School's out in July, regardless.
Sounds like more hours for teachers and workers, and again twice the bussing.
But we are dealing out $$$ heavy anyways, so I'm not against it, but it will need to come from up top..
The school district I'm in is going to have a phase 1, where kids go to school for 2 days a week, and 3 days at home. I think that runs through Sept, at which point I imagine they reevaluate, maybe add a day? I dunno, just guessing, but that would make sense.
Hey , I‘m all for 6 day school weeks like in “ other countries “ ... long overdue ... just scale back the hours... add more younger teachers and expand the curriculums for many inner city and marginalized children.
This is actually a good point. As a society we all collectively said last month that systemic racism was no longer acceptable. It is hard to believe that the "remote learning" plans adopted just about everywhere won't disproportionately affect minorities. The words were great but actions always speak louder as to what priorities really are.
I read about how we reacted and adapted as a society to the great wars and I wonder why were so paralyzed to be creative with this. Someone earlier said nothing is easy these days. That's not true. The only thing in our way is the cage around our own minds. We are more powerful with more tools than at any point in human history. Of course there's also more at stake today with the overall value of our economy, higher velocity of money, and increased dependence on consumerism... not to mention the neverending growth of the lawyer industry.
Your post is relevant from the perspective of this shows that masks work and it also shows that eye protection is very likely not required. I'm not a big proponent of requiring eye protection, except in high risk situations, where its already in use (ERs/COVID wards). For schools, if we can get mask compliance from kids, which will be no easy thing to do, I'd say reopen them in areas with low transmission rates, like here, but not in places that are spiking.
There was all sorts of push back during the early stages of the world wars. Many generals were still in favor of the cavalry over tanks in the early stages of WW2. There was a large portion of this country that wanted no part of the war until Pearl Harbor.
I know it feels like this has been going on forever but we are less then 6 months into this thing in the US. It takes time to figure things out.
Last edited:
Do you know if these type stores modified the systems with specialized filter systems or had more modern systems that filtered better than schools might have?
Obviously we have 2 major issues colliding here. If sending minority kids in poor areas into jam packed schools caused major spread that would not be a good thing. So either way I think this negatively affects minorities. Like in more affluent communities, which would clearly rather have their kids at school if no pandemic, this is simply choosing the lesser of two evils.
We are so diametrically opposed in our thinking on politics that we have been unable to put together a national plan to get our children back into school where they belong interacting with their friends and classmates and when able to also with their teachers... Every major group with a knowledge of epidemiology highly endorses this to happen NOW and not 6-8-12 months from today... The students getting hurt the most during the pandemic are the ones who can least afford to. So ,for those groups who are blocking a safe measured return to school this Fall, you will bare the responsibility In the future when those students continue to underperform . There is a way and safe mechanisms which school districts can implement and 100 billion $$$$ his available to accomplish that project.
https://78449.themediaframe.com/dataconf/productusers/cydy/mediaframe/39976/indexl.html
Cytodyn's conference call regarding efficacy on their drug leronlimab.
Would love to hear from the board's science community.
Cytodyn's conference call regarding efficacy on their drug leronlimab.
Would love to hear from the board's science community.
If March’s air were still circulating through those stores, would there be any oxygen left?
Last edited:
As most here know, I've been very hopeful (since March!) that convalescent plasma from COVID survivors, containing protective antibodies to the virus would be an effective treatment for COVID patients. Well, we don't quite have ironclad results from a formal randomized, controlled, blinded clinical trial, but today we got a preprint from the leaders of the CP expanded access program (overseen by the Mayo Clinic, with over 50,000 patients infused so far) featuring a meta-analysis aggregating results from all controlled trials to date and the results are very encouraging, with a highly statistically significant mortality reduction of 57%.
https://www.medrxiv.org/…/10…/2020.07.29.20162917v1.full.pdf
We've heard countless anecodotes of success and many of these individual studies showed mortality reduction, but weren't statistically powered well enough (not enough patients) to be considered statistical "proof" of efficacy. By aggregating the studies and controlling for patient variables as well as possible, there was enough statistical strength for the authors to feel that there is now very strong evidence of morality reduction at a p-value of <0.001 (normally "statistically significant" is indicated by a p-value of <0.05, translating to 95% probability that the treatment outcome is valid - it's more complicated than that, but not worth repeating here, IMO).
These results also bode well for the effectiveness of engineered antibodies, which should be more consistent and highly targeted than CP (plasma is very variable based on the patient); these should be done with phase III trials by the end of August. I'm also much more confident, now, that use of plasma is one of the key reasons fatality rates have dropped significantly in this 2nd wave, as 50,000 patients infused is a decent percentage of those that have been pretty ill - would be nice to see more data on that to prove or disprove that thinking. I'm still a bit disappointed they didn't just do a randomized/controlled right away back in April, so we'd have even better data, but that's water under the bridge now.
The present analyses included a total of twelve studies including three RCTs, five matchedcontrol studies, and four case series studies containing 804 COVID-19 patient outcomes from around the world (Table 1). The mean or median age of patients enrolled in these studies ranged from 48 to 70 years, with a greater proportion of men than women in most studies (proportion of women: 25% to 56%). All studies included patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19. At the time of plasma transfusion, the proportion of patients on mechanical ventilation varied by study from 0% to 81%. The duration of follow up ranged from 7 to 30 days. All case-series studies demonstrated relatively low mortality rates for COVID-19 patients transfused with convalescent plasma (0% to 13%). Among RCTs, patients transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a reduced mortality rate (13%) compared to non-transfused COVID-19 patients (26%; OR: 0.46, P = 0.03). Among matched control studies, patients transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a reduced mortality rate (12%) compared to nontransfused COVID-19 patients (25%; OR: 0.41, P = 0.001). When patient outcomes from controlled studies were aggregated, patients transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a reduced mortality rate (13%) compared to non-transfused COVID-19 patients (25%; OR: 0.43, P < 0.001). Meta-regression analysis indicated that mean or median cohort age, proportion of cohort receiving mechanical ventilation, and duration of study follow up did not affect the aggregate OR computed for all controlled studies (all coefficients P > 0.22). The fixed effect OR (OR: 0.44, P<0.001) was not different when outlier mortality rates from the matched control study by Xia and colleagues were included in analyses (case mortality rate: 2%, control mortality rate: 4%).
So what’s next for this? Are any double blind randomized trials in the works currently?
- Status
