KSpan

Not sure what you're 'trying again' but as I and others have posted it's not only about deaths. A big part of this is that this infection is novel and its mechanism of action and risk factors are not yet fully clear, so no one knows what the long-term outcomes will be for either children or adults while the long-term outcomes of things like the flu are well known and documented. Even if risk of child death does end up being ultimately higher with other seasonal circulating diseases, this specific discussion continues to ignore the risks to those who works in these environments. At least, however, as adults they have the option and (seemingly) cognitive ability to weigh the risks and make their own informed decisions. Again, I speak this as someone who works in pharmaceutical development and disease research (having just left a company that is playing a large role in COVID tracking and tracing initiatives). There are comments in here about science being wrong and changing... and that's because that's what science is and does. It's about gathering information, organizing it as best it can be with what's available, and then drawing conclusions based on said information. In a dynamic situation like this one a balance must be struck between these analyses and informing action to be taken, and it does happen that new data leads to new conclusions.

I haven't advocated for anything - that's what you're projecting onto my comments. I am in the same position as millions of other parents, weighing whether we would/should send our kids back or go with home-based and accommodate accordingly. Regarding kids and permanent damage, that has been discussed here in the form of MIS-C. It is rare but can cause permanent damage. This is why I asked about acceptable risk level. Regarding your premise that online falls behind as a general outcome, please cite a source. It's certainly a complicated issue that in my experience with educators (I studied education in college and many in my family are teachers and administrators) they cite pros and cons to both, but also acknowledge that there can be confounding factors such as SES and home situations. That can't be ignored, andother studies have shown that homeschooling is as effective, if not moreso, than public education in many ways while falling short in others. A pretty balanced overview can be seen here: https://home-school.lovetoknow.com/Statistics_on_Public_School_Vs_Homeschooling Regarding daycare there is variability in state licensing requirements and how they're run but the groups are typically much smaller and spaces more controlled. I worked at a daycare for several years during college and agreed that it's conceptually the same thing but there's a notable difference between having 10-15 kids to monitor, with more than 1 adult for the younger groups, and class sizes that extend upward of 20 or 25. Regarding vaccines I'm just saying that those diseases pose a threat of permanent damage and mandatory vaccines have been instituted to mitigate it. I've no idea if a vaccine is around the corner and as someone in the dug development industry I have my concerns about the pace and rigor with which these current IPs are being developed. I'm simply pointing out how other such things have been handled in today's environment.

I have not taken any position on this subject nor moved any goalposts, though I acknowledged that the risks are as much to the adults as to the kids. However, what risk is tolerable when it comes to permanent damage to children (or anyone) for something that can be avoided by staying home/doing online schooling and should the teachers and school staff be obligated into a much higher risk situation given that kids can't be trusted to follow protocols? It's as much a philosophical question as practical one. We've been able to minimize risks of things like MMR, polio, etc through vaccines and in many places kids can't go without that protection. Should this be different when the protection is avoiding the situation?

Agreed that the risk is as much to the adults as to the students. In Florida, 1/3 of all kids currently tested are positive. Regarding masks and hygiene there is no way kids, particularly younger elementary kids, can fully comply. Many just don't have the maturity yet and can't stop themselves from doing things that would compromise the protective measures. Also, simply surviving doesn't guarantee damage-free with COVID. No one wants to see their kids with permanent effects, so even if chances are low it should be weighed. The seasonal flu doesn't leave people with wrecked lungs. Here's an article about the current Florida situation. They are an extreme example at the moment but also perhaps an indicator of where things may be headed in more places. There could also be confounding/related factors to be considered with those numbers but any way of it kids are generally in school, so any kid tested would be in that environment. I would also wonder about the timing of those positives and antibodies/re-infection risk in those who have already been infected. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-pbc-health-director-covid-children-20200714-xcdall2tsrd4riim2nwokvmsxm-story.html "State statistics also show the percentage of children testing positive is much higher than the population as a whole. Statewide, about 31% of 54,022 children tested have been positive. The state’s positivity rate for the entire population is about 11%."

I understand the statement, but what is your overall premise?

You're making the statement so yes, that burden of proof lies with you.

The whole 'wearing a mask doesn't benefit me so I won't do it' angle is incorrect in numerous ways that have been discussed in recent pages.

You realize that hundreds of healthcare workers have died from COVID and almost 80,000 have been infected, right? And that wearing masks helps to protect these Frontline Heroes you mention, and that reducing overall infections would make their lives easier and allow everyone to not wear masks? I know several people who have had it (tested positive and clinically diagnosed) and this infection is not a joke. Your position here is untenable.

And this is an entirely different situation, especially at this point, with 2009 being a different H1N1 virus that had much shorter incubation periods (minimizing the risk of asymptomatic spreading) and a different segment of vulnerable population. Your position continues to make little sense. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-03-h1n1-flu-covid-pandemics-response.html Current COVID death rate is quite literally orders of magnitude higher and that is ignoring the other debilitating and permanent complications that may occur.

So what? Ignoring any/all potential differences in these situations and assuming that not mandating masks at that time was some kind of failure, why does a past failure justify a current one? That is nonsense.

Virus particles, among anything else that might be in your exhalation, relies on air velocity to move far. Having a mask doesn't filter particles, it creates obstacles and turbulence that cuts down and redirects breath airspeed, thereby minimizing the 'cloud' radius of someone's breath or especially a sneeze or cough. Folks with foggy glasses (such as myself) are walking examples of how this works and I worked a job where we wore surgical masks for hours on end. No ill effects. Additionally, of direct benefit to the wearer is the mask preventing unconscious touching of their face/mouth/nose, which could be a source of infection via cross-contamination.

I wonder if they're using confirmed cases to compare against each other to find the links, which can potentially identify carriers/other positive cases if a string of positives points back to them as a link. Not saying it's iron-clad or disagreeing that the tracing could be intrusive but more that it can be done with the right dataset. With that said if that IS being done I wonder if 'positives' identified in this manner end up with COVID noted on any health records. I can see value in presumptive positives for epidemic purposes but sketchy for actual medical purposes without an actual diagnosis and test.

That's a lot of Kelvin.

That's a lot of Kelvins.

KCMO just enacted a mask mandate and the reactions are as one might expect for a midwestern stereotype... "Is it about the virus, or is it about control? Wake up, people!" I just don't understand.

Perhaps but it would be difficult to point out exactly when folks were exposed unless antibody presence curves are available, which is something I don't know about; a positive antibody test could come from an exposure at any point. What I do know is that I work in a medical-related field and my wife is a nurse, with our own supply of flu and strep tests at our house. All flu tests were negative, which is what my healthcare provider associate said about many of the suspect diagnoses they mentioned. Now, there are many respiratory viruses that aren't the flu - I fully recognize that. The timing is sure suspicious though and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's likely a duck even though I have no way of being 100% sure. An article about the December sample in France that tested positive for COVID. Who knows if this is a false positive or what but interesting nonetheless. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52526554

My wife exhibited the common symptoms of a moderately-affected person (dry cough, on/off fever and fatigue for weeks) in December and a medical professional I know who treats many soldiers from a nearby army base with lots of global travelers was seeing numerous cases fitting COVID profile back in November. There seems little doubt that this was around since at least late Fall 2019.

I daresay a protest carries a much greater urgency than a pool party, presenting an argument for non-equivalence, and as mentioned many protesters seem to be masked (reasons can obviously vary but the net effect is the same).

Objectively, there probably will be some hotspots as a result of large group protests. That's the reality. It's the twisting of this for one agenda or another that will be unfortunate.

As a decade-long CRO vet there is little to nothing a clinical CRO does for core competencies that requires an office. IT infrastructure, perhaps some corporate/executive meeting spaces, printing/central doc services, etc are exceptions to that but that's only a small fraction. Many things like proposal and contract functions and general training can be boosted a bit by having folks together but can also be done very easily remotely. Phase I CRUs and lab services are a different story of course. The bigger thing IMO is a potential paradigm shift of mandatory wfh as you indicate. Not everyone likes it and not everyone has the space/layout to create a working environment at their home. Will be interesting to see how things unfold across all industries in the next year.

Vaccines also have adjuvants in them, basically additives that typically enhance the immune response relative to invasion of the foreign body alone and/or accounting for the modified form that the vaccine foreign body takes. I don't know enough about the potential COVID vaccines though to know what the intended mechanism and effect would be.

Kansas legislators today overruled the stay-home order, angling that her updated order on Tuesday extending to church services and funerals infringed on right to practice religion and effectively invalidating the ban entirely. Amazing, https://www.cjonline.com/news/20200408/kansas-coronavirus-update-gov-laura-kelly-condemns-ag-legislators-for-rsquopolitical-attackrsquo-as-deaths-infections-surge

Not specifically, no - general research is as hampered by the need to quarantine and minimize exposure just like everything else. It does present opportunities to innovate and, resulting in project delays and slowed revenue. Strategically though it does put specific expertise and capability to use, building brand recognition and new relationships with clients (drug companies, biotechs, potentially even government agencies) who may not have required such expertise before. Personally, it also affords the opportunity to use our specific skills to contribute to improvements in public health that will result.

The concept yes, and they're already working on it with the plasma from recovered patients. In terms of practical application assuming whatever is developed is proven safe and efficacious, which takes time, antibody production would then need to be scaled up. https://deadline.com/2020/04/netflix-pandemic-doctor-coronavirus-cure-anthony-fauci-response-1202898136/ I've worked in pharmaceutical development and clinical trials for almost 15 years. Nothing unusual or particularly novel about this approach, and I don't say that to disparage the claim but rather to give context to my comment. My company alone is already heavily involved in various COVID-19 development and tracking activities, some of which has been publicly-announced.

There is no real 'fast-tracking' of a vaccine - it will be at least a year before anything has the data available to at all support a conclusion of safety and efficacy, and even then that in itself represents a fast track through standard drug trial requirements. There's just no way around it