But I'm not entirely persuaded that the data referenced in this article is robust enough to support the headline. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
The key element that doesn't seem present in this data - is how the level of transmission in schools relates to level of transmission in the surrounding community. Existing CDC guidelines focus on that as a principal driver of in-school risk.
So if the data are telling us that school transmission is consistently low irrespective of localized transmission levels, that's a super relevant finding - but isn't addressed in this data set (only school-based mitigation measures are captured).
Also unclear how representative this data is, as it seems to be ~260 schools with 200k kids self-reporting from across 47 states.
There are around 56m school-age kids in the country; important to understand whether self-reporting may create any selection bias in the sample.
Also important to be cautious about how much we can extrapolate about schools amplifying wider transmission when so many of them in so much of the country remain closed. Again, reinforces why it's important to look at entire transmission context, not just in-school spread.
I don't mean any of this as criticism; it's really important to collect this kind of data. But important too to understand what limitations it has given the collection methods, and given the stakes (in Israel, mass school reopenings are believed to have fueled a case surge).
It's great that academics are stepping up to try to fill this kind of analytical gap. But it's also insane that they have to do so; this is the kind of data that CDC and Dept of Ed should be collecting on a more comprehensive and representative basis.
I certainly don't think we should take a zero-risk approach to school reopenings (the article straw-mans a bit on that point); we should be seeking to accept and manage risk. And the awfulness of remote education (which my household lives every day) is a valid factor to weigh.
But to manage a risk effectively - especially at national scale - we need to understand it. This evidence helps toward that, but I'm not persuaded it's robust enough to conclude the risk of returning ~1/6 of the US populace back to daily congregate settings is "low."
And as I've said before, the fact that school districts have to make these decisions in the dark is a huge preparedness failure. We could have made investments in rigorous research, school-level testing regimes (which are working in some US colleges), school adaptions...
...and prioritizing reopening policies toward schools rather than bars and other high-spread businesses. Instead, led by the feds, the country took none of those steps and forced parents and schools leaders to roll the dice.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The three academics lay out their case here. It's pretty brief and easy to read.
Interestingly, it does not cite or reference a single piece of research to support their arguments, nor does the linked website containing their sign-on "declaration." unherd.com/2020/10/covid-…
The basic argument:
- COVID poses little risk of death beyond specific vulnerable groups
- Non-vulnerables face little risk so should just go ahead and get the disease
- Vulnerables should be sheltered while non-vulnerables get naturally infected
- Ta-da, natural herd immunity
Douthat's column and the powerful @AlecMacGillis piece it references both argue without much evidence that the resistance to school reopening is largely a reaction to Trump pushing schools to open.
Let's be explicitly clear: "learning to live with it" means needlessly accepting hundreds of thousands more preventable deaths and letting our hospitals get nuked yet again.
"Close the country" vs "learn to live with it" is a false choice, and one that exists only because of Trump's mishandling of the pandemic.
Peer countries have had shorter closures than we have precisely because they chose not to live with it but to control it.
There is an option besides indefinite closure vs let-it-rip: evidence-driven reopening + aggressive public health interventions centered around mass testing and tracing.
Trump's whole game since back in April/May is to make you forget that option exists.
It's not a choice between living recklessly vs living in fear. It's a choice to live responsibly, to balance sensible precautions with continuing to live our lives.
He is still, even now, trying to frame a false choice.
He wants you to believe we must choose between taking no risks or accepting all risks.
That's not the choice, that was never the choice.
The choice was and is incompetent outbreak response vs competent outbreak response.
The West Wing and EEOB facilities are conducive to transmission - small, enclosed spaces with limited airflow (many/most suites in EEOB have secure doors and windows that are always closed).
So there's real risk of rolling spread throughout the staff.
But must balance keeping government running with stopping spread.
White House should immediately take several steps:
- First, quarantine anyone who was in direct contact with POTUS or other confirmed. Fact that McEnany was still working y'day suggests this hasn't happened.
Ebola and COVID are VERY different diseases that transmit and behave VERY differently.
Unlike, COVID, Ebola:
- Does not spread asymptomatically
- Is not very contagious at symptom onset, becomes more contagious as symptoms worsen
- Spreads thru direct contact with bodily fluids
This means the precautions for both diseases are very different.
Under Obama we developed a careful system for screening returning travelers from West Africa, based on the science (remember science?) of how the virus spreads. I wrote about it here: cgdev.org/publication/st…