All Remote Learning for Columbus City Schools High School Students

pheesh

Active member

The study that sparked the latest controversy was anything but randomized. Not only was it not randomized, outside experts noted, but patients who received hydroxychloroquine were also more likely to get steroids, which appear to help very sick patients with Covid-19. That is likely to have influenced the central finding of the Henry Ford study: that death rates were 50% lower among patients in hospitals treated with hydroxychloroquine.

How science usually works:

Nissen and Borio say observational studies simply cannot be used to determine whether a medicine is effective. Again and again they have been wrong. In one famous example, estrogen replacement therapy after menopause was thought to have benefits in preventing heart and other problems; large studies showed this was not the case. In another, a knee surgery for arthritis was shown to have no benefits over medical care.

A paper that showed that hydroxychloroquine was potentially harmful, which was published in The Lancet in May, was met with similar criticism. It was eventually withdrawn over questions about the validity of its data.


From the study itself:

chart.png
 

Running Man 101

Active member

The study that sparked the latest controversy was anything but randomized. Not only was it not randomized, outside experts noted, but patients who received hydroxychloroquine were also more likely to get steroids, which appear to help very sick patients with Covid-19. That is likely to have influenced the central finding of the Henry Ford study: that death rates were 50% lower among patients in hospitals treated with hydroxychloroquine.

How science usually works:

Nissen and Borio say observational studies simply cannot be used to determine whether a medicine is effective. Again and again they have been wrong. In one famous example, estrogen replacement therapy after menopause was thought to have benefits in preventing heart and other problems; large studies showed this was not the case. In another, a knee surgery for arthritis was shown to have no benefits over medical care.

A paper that showed that hydroxychloroquine was potentially harmful, which was published in The Lancet in May, was met with similar criticism. It was eventually withdrawn over questions about the validity of its data.


From the study itself:

View attachment 8324
pheesh-just to keep you busy. You couldn't be more wrong about HCQ. I'll wait for you to admit it. I don't want some legalistic difference either. One skilled in the art would anticipate.

In the meantime, check out this literature review of masks. There is some data that shows the wearer of the mask can redirect a droplets sideways and/or up/down but it doesn't change the volume into the air. If you believe the aerosol theory (I do), will not change it. This is my area of expertise, so be careful...
 

Attachments

grange45

Active member
Wow, Trolling Man 101. When you post like this I feel your doing the total opposite of what you think you're doing. Keep on crusading though if you must. Posting on here is not going to change anything about masks,social distancing, or Dewine canceling sports if he does (unless pheesh is Dewine or Acton).

I don't know if all your time and effort on this forum has been productive and are not changing anyone stance that goes against you.

I'm waiting for another attack comment and another graph coming our way very soon.
 

mathking

Active member
pheesh-just to keep you busy. You couldn't be more wrong about HCQ. I'll wait for you to admit it. I don't want some legalistic difference either. One skilled in the art would anticipate.

In the meantime, check out this literature review of masks. There is some data that shows the wearer of the mask can redirect a droplets sideways and/or up/down but it doesn't change the volume into the air. If you believe the aerosol theory (I do), will not change it. This is my area of expertise, so be careful...
Yeah, well, it's become an area of expertise for me too. In particular studies about the effectiveness of various mask types. And I spent a decent amount of my time in March involved in testing various mask designs for how much the prevented/impeded droplets and particles flowing in either direction. (Plus fluid spread models is how I got into doing epidemic models back in the day at CWRU. Gas expanding through membranes. Particulate motion. Oil flowing through rock strata. Automobile air filters.) One of the scientists behind data showing that Sars-cov-2 aerosolizes (who was one of the ones who signed that letter last week) is a former student athlete of mine. Another works at Battelle on mask design. Plus several more friends who work in this field. So as I have learned and read more and more evidence I have people to double check with and work through assumptions and misconceptions. Oh, as a bonus I have already read every one of the studies cited in the article. Plus several dozen others. So I can comment about selective evaluation of data. (Hint: Denis G. Rancourt, PhD Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association) This is the third time in 18 hours I have seen this cited.

1. Even if you accept everything about aerosolized particles (and it's not all correct) it still does not change the fact that a significant amount of virus is in droplets.
2. Ignores simple, obvious evidence. Such as the many recent studies that simply had an infected person wear a cloth mask and breath. Lots of virus ends up stuck in the mask. It would have gone somewhere else.
3. This ignores the actual data showing that places that did both physical distancing measures and mask wearing are seeing far, far less infection.
4. Ignores how much of the work in the cited studies is on preventing you from getting infected, rather than preventing infection in others. ).
5. Ignores how much of the cited work is on threshold level protect (i.e. get to this level of percentage protection or fail).
6. Ignores probability, and fact the relatively low percentages are not the same as 0%. And even a 30% reduction in one person to one person infection chance from a mask means that two people wearing them means a better than 50% chance of stopping at least one infection.
7. Includes NO DATA FROM ACTUAL SARS-COV-2/COVID-19 studies.

But here is the thing. Even if you don't think masks actually help, if you actually want "things to get back to normal" why wouldn't you adopt a "Pascal's Wager" type approach and say I will mollify all those lefties like Mike DeWine and do this so we can get back to work and back to school?
 

pheesh

Active member

Protecting surgeons or patients from the surgeon?


A surgical mask, also known as a face mask, is intended to be worn by health professionals during healthcare procedures. It is designed to prevent infections in patients and treating personnel by catching bacteria shed in liquid droplets and aerosols from the wearer's mouth and nose


Results
The median-fit factor of the homemade masks was one-half that of the surgical masks. Both masks significantly reduced the number of microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission than the homemade mask.
Conclusion

Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection.

It is true the COVID particles are smaller than what even the N95 masks are rated to protect, but the point of public mask wearing isn't to stand in front of an infected individual inhaling their breath for hours on end.

On the article itself, please note; most of the articles cited in the mildly unbalance article posted were regarding n95 vs surgical\cotton\disposable masks. Some of the works cited conclusions:


Conclusion: Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.


In conclusion there remains a substantial gap in the scientific literature on the effectiveness of face masks to reduce transmission of influenza virus infection. While there is some experimental evidence that masks should be able to reduce infectiousness under controlled conditions [7], there is less evidence on whether this translates to effectiveness in natural settings. There is little evidence to support the effectiveness of face masks to reduce the risk of infection. Current research has several limitations including underpowered samples, limited generalizability, narrow intervention targeting and inconsistent testing protocols, different laboratory methods, and case definitions. Further in-vivo studies of face masks in infectious individuals are warranted to determine the proportion of exhaled virus that is trapped by the mask. More detailed volunteer challenge and volunteer transmission studies could be designed to include both infectious and susceptible participants, to evaluate the efficacy of face masks both in reducing infectiousness and reducing susceptibility. However, such studies would require substantial resources, and contrived experiments may have limited generalizability to the natural setting. Large intervention studies in healthcare and community settings are likely to provide the best evidence of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing transmission in pandemic and inter-pandemic periods and are an urgent priority to guide pandemic preparedness for second and subsequent waves of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) and future pandemics.


Conclusion
Although N95 respirators appeared to have a protective advantage over surgical masks in laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that there were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks in protecting health care workers against transmissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings. Additional, large RCTs are needed to detect a potentially clinically important difference owing to small event rates. Initial guidelines on preventing acute respiratory infection relied on surrogate exposure data and data extrapolated from the protection of health care workers against tuberculosis because clinical evidence did not exist at that time.58,59 Randomized controlled trials conducted in clinical settings represent the most valid information to evaluate the effectiveness of N95 respirators. They are more relevant to real clinical situations and report actual outcomes in health care workers, and therefore they are the best evidence on effectiveness to inform policy-making.

https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

Conclusions
In this review and meta-analysis, we analysed the collective evidence from published RCTs and observational studies in order to identify major gaps and methodological shortcomings in the current literature and develop evidence-based recommendations for the use of masks and respirators in healthcare settings. We found evidence to support universal medical mask use in hospital settings as part of infection control measures to reduce the risk of CRI and ILI among HCWs. Overall, N95 respirators may convey greater protection, but universal use throughout a work shift is likely to be less acceptable due to greater discomfort.
Our analysis confirms the effectiveness of medical masks and respirators against SARS
. Disposable, cotton, or paper masks are not recommended.
The confirmed effectiveness of medical masks is crucially important for lower-resource and emergency settings lacking access to N95 respirators. In such cases, single-use medical masks are preferable to cloth masks
, for which there is no evidence of protection and which might facilitate transmission of pathogens when used repeatedly without adequate sterilization [8]. .....


I can go on, but I think your researcher might be unstable:


Its USA state-to-state absence or presence for the same viral ecology on the same territory, being correlated with nursing home events and government actions rather than any known viral strain discernment. These "COVID peak" characteristics, and a review of the epidemiological history, and of relevant knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, lead me to postulate that the "COVID peak" results from an accelerated mass homicide of immune-vulnerable individuals, and individuals made more immune-vulnerable, by government and institutional actions, rather than being an epidemiological signature of a novel virus, irrespective of the degree to which the virus is novel from the perspective of viral speciation.

I mean, that's an eye catching headline. I have not read the article, nor do I plan to.
 

Running Man 101

Active member

Its USA state-to-state absence or presence for the same viral ecology on the same territory, being correlated with nursing home events and government actions rather than any known viral strain discernment. These "COVID peak" characteristics, and a review of the epidemiological history, and of relevant knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, lead me to postulate that the "COVID peak" results from an accelerated mass homicide of immune-vulnerable individuals, and individuals made more immune-vulnerable, by government and institutional actions, rather than being an epidemiological signature of a novel virus, irrespective of the degree to which the virus is novel from the perspective of viral speciation.

I mean, that's an eye catching headline. I have not read the article, nor do I plan to.
The assertion in bold is without a doubt true. AND has skewed the data and most likely the countries response.

I do believe that masks can help in some situations (droplet splatter). Surgeons wear masks to protect themselves. Secondary benefit is the patient. We found the best thing for improving any mask is electrostatic charging which requires two things: 1) incorporation of the charging agent and 2) excitation of that ion (because they have to be added into the plastic to last). Talk porosity and pore size distribution all you want. Electrostatic repulsion and huge differences in surface free energy rule once you get decent mechanical barrier. Wearing masks outside when you are social distancing is the silliest thing ever, well maybe outside of someone in a car by themselves wearing one.

There are two parts to an infection:
  • Catching it-the mask and social distancing. Get no argument from me on social distancing and hand washing. Masks seem to me like 0.1% of the equation. Zero compelling data on wearing them. I know every train I have ever been on in Japan people wear them, to prevent coughing or sneezing on other people. Where is the data on how much it works? It should exist, but cannot find it. Common sense is wrong, frequently.
  • Immuno Response-what happens after you catch it. What pheesh doesn't get with HCQ is most all of the studies he is citing is people were about 20 minutes from death, of course it doesn't work then. Take it before or early on and it prevents your immune system from suicide. I've taken it before/during travel to some parts of the world and I know its used for autoimmune disorders. Like anything else, it doesn't work for everyone, nothing does.
The problem in our area right now is people allergies are starting to flare up, so people are starting to sneeze and cough. Timing is not good.
 

mathking

Active member
There is evidence. You can find in compelling or not. There is tons of statistical evidence comparing places (like Japan) where mask wearing is prevalent because physical distancing is extremely difficult and places where mask wearing is not common during this actual pandemic to at the very least strongly suggest a statistically significant protective effect from masks.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext# (Notice 172 studies, not a handful)
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
Will we still be debating this same stuff in September, December, March, Etc... Things that should be well out of sight of our rear view mirror are still right there closer than they appear. I do not personally know a single person that is not back at work, but I know those people exist. I have a lot of family and friends that are teachers, so that could change. I'm sure they will be working, but not like they are used to. I do deal with a lot of people still working remotely from home. That might be a permanent thing as it has seemed seamless and maybe even a bit more efficient sometimes. The new thing we will be talking about soon is foreclosures and evictions. How anyone sees this as anything but a huge failure of leadership from the President on down is beyond me.

We now have had to put more responsibility of keeping people safe and healthy in the hands of the Wal-Mart greeter than the President of the United States of America. We are asking 17 year old kid to get into conflict with some MAGA hat wearing A-hole at Home Depot to try and enforce a wear a mask in this county mandate by the governor. (Saw it first hand yesterday in Strongsville/Middleburg Heights) The rest of the world seems to have figured it out, but we are a huge failure. I was at our local produce market last Saturday and it was a very small what looked like 17 year old girl having to tell people they could not continue any further until they put on a mask. She handed them out to people who did not have them. Who doesn't have them at this point? (I've forgotten mine in the other car or walked out of the house and left it sitting on the counter, but there were too many people without them. I either stay in the car, or we go back and get the masks ) Some people gave the girl hassle or the "You have got to be kidding me" response. She's at the front of this while the President is making sure the incandescent light bulb makes a comeback for 6 months. Who cares who's right or wrong anymore? Kids and wal-mart greeters should have a little less responsibility than the President.

World wide pandemic folks. Look at what is happening in Texas, California, Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama........

I was driving home the other night talking to coach Howard on the phone about how good Unioto is and how it's a shame that they might not get a chance to show Bay how good they are when he told me he had to go and listen to what the governor had to say. I had a business call I knew I was going to be on for some time, so I called my 18 year old son and told him to watch it and tell me what is said. When I got home, I asked him and he told me "He said we need to get our sh_t together." I think that sort of says it all.

How do you have kids only in school some days and not others if they are under say 12 years old? What are the parents going to do the days they aren't in school? Drop them off at a friends house. Drop them off at Grandparents? Nothing is solved. Federal Government has to come up with a workable plan that helps parents and employers. CDC should be the authority.

Contact Tracing is so far below what is needed in some places they are just giving up. Texas is being crushed. Isn't that a job people could be doing from home with not a lot of skills but some training. Again, something that was talked about by nearly every expert and not followed through on.
 
Last edited:

psycho_dad

Well-known member
Why are so many people assuming that younger kids will not wear masks? My kids would have. Especially if we had made the masks something fun. My older two stayed in car seats a full year longer than they had to because they were small enough to. If I told my kids to keep their masks on, they would have. If the teacher told them to, there is no doubt they would have. My kids would have done what was asked of them from preschool to graduation. People are making this an issue. Like the kids are not capable of following rules or directions and that it's impossible to wear a mask. Same with staying 6 feet away from everyone. It won't be perfect, but kids will do a good job of it.
 

cvctrackfan

Active member
Folks the way we live has got to change. If we like it or not or believe it or not. Let’s just take this little baby step and open the schools. We shouldn’t over react if we have a little set back. I am a little older then most of you and I am willing to step out on faith and try to live my life. I refuse to spend the rest of my days locked up in my basement watched reruns of the dating game. Oh by the way I learned Ted Bundy got to go on a date with that pretty blond Girl on the show. Hmm I wonder how that turned out.
 

madman

Well-known member
Why are so many people assuming that younger kids will not wear masks? My kids would have. Especially if we had made the masks something fun. My older two stayed in car seats a full year longer than they had to because they were small enough to. If I told my kids to keep their masks on, they would have. If the teacher told them to, there is no doubt they would have. My kids would have done what was asked of them from preschool to graduation. People are making this an issue. Like the kids are not capable of following rules or directions and that it's impossible to wear a mask. Same with staying 6 feet away from everyone. It won't be perfect, but kids will do a good job of it.
There are some kids who are rule followers throughout their scholastic careers and others who seek to explore the boundaries of their independence by opposing even the most modest requests from authority figures, especially in high school. You never gave up on your kids, but I have had parents tell me things likek "I've done what I can with them. It's up to you to handle it" and "They got themselves into to this, they need to get themselves out of it. Don't ever call me again." There is such a broad spectrum of attitudes out there that imputing your kids attitudes and behaviors to all kids is almost laughable.

I agree that many young kids could be trained to wear masks by their parents this summer and that would make things much easier for elementrary school teachers this fall, but the portion of parents willing and likely to do that is likely to be smaller than what reads to their kids each night when they are pre-readers. If there is any hint that the "state" is mandating they do this with their kids, the proportion will go down even further.

Your kids probably never smoked or vaped in school. I consider myself relatively aware of what kids are doing in my classroom, but know that there are some who are vaping when my back is turned to them, while I am working with another student, etc.

There are some students who purposely get suspended from school when they don't want to be there. In-house suspension is suppose to fight this trend, but if a student is purposely removing their mask in-house suspension really isn't an option.

I think it also depends on your community, but there is a significant proportion of parents who think being forced to wear a mask endangers their health and is unconstitutional. By the time students are in high school, they are well aware of their parents' attitudes on things like this and adapt similar beliefs.

This fall is going to be filled with challenges that cannot be ignored if the district ever wants pass another levy.
 
Delaying the start of the season does nothing. These kids need to get together and practice while we can. The start of school only begins the greater risk of something bad happening.
Back to a different post but brings up the question, what is the PreSeason meet going to look like?
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
There are some kids who are rule followers throughout their scholastic careers and others who seek to explore the boundaries of their independence by opposing even the most modest requests from authority figures, especially in high school. You never gave up on your kids, but I have had parents tell me things likek "I've done what I can with them. It's up to you to handle it" and "They got themselves into to this, they need to get themselves out of it. Don't ever call me again." There is such a broad spectrum of attitudes out there that imputing your kids attitudes and behaviors to all kids is almost laughable.

I agree that many young kids could be trained to wear masks by their parents this summer and that would make things much easier for elementrary school teachers this fall, but the portion of parents willing and likely to do that is likely to be smaller than what reads to their kids each night when they are pre-readers. If there is any hint that the "state" is mandating they do this with their kids, the proportion will go down even further.

Your kids probably never smoked or vaped in school. I consider myself relatively aware of what kids are doing in my classroom, but know that there are some who are vaping when my back is turned to them, while I am working with another student, etc.

There are some students who purposely get suspended from school when they don't want to be there. In-house suspension is suppose to fight this trend, but if a student is purposely removing their mask in-house suspension really isn't an option.

I think it also depends on your community, but there is a significant proportion of parents who think being forced to wear a mask endangers their health and is unconstitutional. By the time students are in high school, they are well aware of their parents' attitudes on things like this and adapt similar beliefs.

This fall is going to be filled with challenges that cannot be ignored if the district ever wants pass another levy.
Poor job by me. I work with people that say everything is impossible and that not a single kid will wear a mask. It will be like 95% kids not wearing masks or being able to socially distance at all. I think it will be more like 90% kids will do fine and that it will be a small percentage that either can't or just refuse.

I think that most kids will be fine. There will be the knuckleheads and hard core defiant kids, but not a huge percentage do you think?

Everything that my boss and coworkers have complained about has not been nearly as bad. In some cases these stupid and impossible restrictions have improved our business.
 

madman

Well-known member
Poor job by me. I work with people that say everything is impossible and that not a single kid will wear a mask. It will be like 95% kids not wearing masks or being able to socially distance at all. I think it will be more like 90% kids will do fine and that it will be a small percentage that either can't or just refuse.

I think that most kids will be fine. There will be the knuckleheads and hard core defiant kids, but not a huge percentage do you think?

Everything that my boss and coworkers have complained about has not been nearly as bad. In some cases these stupid and impossible restrictions have improved our business.
My district is allowing kids to sign up for 100% online classes (assuming enough sign-up for that option in each course), so hopefully the hardcore anti-maskers will choose not to be in the building. Even so, I expect things to go relatively well the first few days and then I think people are going to get less diligent - students and teachers. I am genuinely concerned about inconsistent messaging regarding masks from one classroom to another and the effect that has on students.
 

Running Man 101

Active member
Sorry that I have been quite the past few days. Mathking (thank you) sent me a link to some information on masks and I have been studiously going through those links and many, many more. Also followed along on the social distancing data. I want to share the results from that work. You can do whatever you want with the information. I am responsible for several dozen kids and want to protect them.



Start with this summary from the New England Journal of Medicine on the topic of mask use vs Covid-19: “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to covid 19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (some say more than 10 minutes and others even 20 minutes. The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread making is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” April 1, 2020.



This advice was updated in the July 9, 2020 issue as follow:” We did state in the article that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” but as the rest of the paragraph makes clear, we intended this statement to apply to passing encounters in public spaces, not sustained interactions within closed environments. A growing body of research shows that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is strongly correlated with the duration and intensity of contact: the risk of transmission among household members can be as high as 40%, whereas the risk of transmission from less intense and less sustained encounters is below 5%.5-7 This finding is also borne out by recent research associating mask wearing with less transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in closed settings.8 We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.”



So the first question I had was, what is a closed environment? The vast majority of the historical articles reference hospital type of situations. Another would be, for example, a train car (i.e. Japanese wearing the face masks). In any event, it is inside where people are very close together. The articles mentioned within 3 feet for distancing, not 6 feet. So for 3 feet, in sustained contact (the 10-20 minute range, imagine standing side by side in a full train car) the chances of transmission are somewhere between 9% to 20%. The data showed significant differences in transmission rates between covid and influenza (covid is much higher). Outside, the risk is essentially zero. So for XC, the risk is very, very low. The kids cannot share drinks…the bus ride should be with windows down and at most single seat.



What about school? The risk to kids is very low, they just don’t seem to transfer it to other people (which is interesting in itself). So the teachers would be the concern. What to do? The teachers will need to wear the throw away “surgeon” masks and keep the kids at least 6 feet away. If they do that they will be fine. The cloth masks are almost useless. If you really care, then you will need to wear surgeon masks.



There is more I can share if you have questions. I will leave the politics out of it for this type of discussion.
 

pheesh

Active member
Sorry that I have been quite the past few days. Mathking (thank you) sent me a link to some information on masks and I have been studiously going through those links and many, many more. Also followed along on the social distancing data. I want to share the results from that work. You can do whatever you want with the information. I am responsible for several dozen kids and want to protect them.



Start with this summary from the New England Journal of Medicine on the topic of mask use vs Covid-19: “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to covid 19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (some say more than 10 minutes and others even 20 minutes. The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread making is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” April 1, 2020.



This advice was updated in the July 9, 2020 issue as follow:” We did state in the article that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” but as the rest of the paragraph makes clear, we intended this statement to apply to passing encounters in public spaces, not sustained interactions within closed environments. A growing body of research shows that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is strongly correlated with the duration and intensity of contact: the risk of transmission among household members can be as high as 40%, whereas the risk of transmission from less intense and less sustained encounters is below 5%.5-7 This finding is also borne out by recent research associating mask wearing with less transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in closed settings.8 We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.”



So the first question I had was, what is a closed environment? The vast majority of the historical articles reference hospital type of situations. Another would be, for example, a train car (i.e. Japanese wearing the face masks). In any event, it is inside where people are very close together. The articles mentioned within 3 feet for distancing, not 6 feet. So for 3 feet, in sustained contact (the 10-20 minute range, imagine standing side by side in a full train car) the chances of transmission are somewhere between 9% to 20%. The data showed significant differences in transmission rates between covid and influenza (covid is much higher). Outside, the risk is essentially zero. So for XC, the risk is very, very low. The kids cannot share drinks…the bus ride should be with windows down and at most single seat.



What about school? The risk to kids is very low, they just don’t seem to transfer it to other people (which is interesting in itself). So the teachers would be the concern. What to do? The teachers will need to wear the throw away “surgeon” masks and keep the kids at least 6 feet away. If they do that they will be fine. The cloth masks are almost useless. If you really care, then you will need to wear surgeon masks.



There is more I can share if you have questions. I will leave the politics out of it for this type of discussion.
Thanks, this all sounds reasonable. I agree with XC risks being very low or any daytime outdoor events, due to moving air and UV light.


Ninety percent of infectious virus was inactivated every 6.8 minutes in simulated saliva and every 14.3 minutes in culture media when exposed to simulated sunlight representative of the summer solstice at 40°N latitude at sea level on a clear day. Significant inactivation also occurred, albeit at a slower rate, under lower simulated sunlight levels.

I would exercise increasing caution with kids as they get older, which makes sense that they wouldn't suddenly become capable of spreading COVID just because they turned 18. Research out of Korea:

 

grange45

Active member
Sorry that I have been quite the past few days. Mathking (thank you) sent me a link to some information on masks and I have been studiously going through those links and many, many more. Also followed along on the social distancing data. I want to share the results from that work. You can do whatever you want with the information. I am responsible for several dozen kids and want to protect them.



Start with this summary from the New England Journal of Medicine on the topic of mask use vs Covid-19: “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to covid 19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (some say more than 10 minutes and others even 20 minutes. The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread making is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” April 1, 2020.



This advice was updated in the July 9, 2020 issue as follow:” We did state in the article that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection,” but as the rest of the paragraph makes clear, we intended this statement to apply to passing encounters in public spaces, not sustained interactions within closed environments. A growing body of research shows that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is strongly correlated with the duration and intensity of contact: the risk of transmission among household members can be as high as 40%, whereas the risk of transmission from less intense and less sustained encounters is below 5%.5-7 This finding is also borne out by recent research associating mask wearing with less transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in closed settings.8 We therefore strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear masks when circumstances compel them to be within 6 ft of others for sustained periods.”



So the first question I had was, what is a closed environment? The vast majority of the historical articles reference hospital type of situations. Another would be, for example, a train car (i.e. Japanese wearing the face masks). In any event, it is inside where people are very close together. The articles mentioned within 3 feet for distancing, not 6 feet. So for 3 feet, in sustained contact (the 10-20 minute range, imagine standing side by side in a full train car) the chances of transmission are somewhere between 9% to 20%. The data showed significant differences in transmission rates between covid and influenza (covid is much higher). Outside, the risk is essentially zero. So for XC, the risk is very, very low. The kids cannot share drinks…the bus ride should be with windows down and at most single seat.



What about school? The risk to kids is very low, they just don’t seem to transfer it to other people (which is interesting in itself). So the teachers would be the concern. What to do? The teachers will need to wear the throw away “surgeon” masks and keep the kids at least 6 feet away. If they do that they will be fine. The cloth masks are almost useless. If you really care, then you will need to wear surgeon masks.



There is more I can share if you have questions. I will leave the politics out of it for this type of discussion.
Everyone is now promoting masks. Bipartisan. No political divides about not wearing them except for the very few who are doubling down as their sink ships.

I said this before and I’ll say it again: until we are out of this, the last thing that will return to normal are the places that mass congregate. It was the same 100 years ago with the Spanish flu. I’m not evenly comparing both situations. Luckily this virus is not attacking everyone at will but no congregations is a major way to combat a virus that you don’t want to spread.

The way we are going we are not going to have school in buildings in the fall or have contact sports, which xc is. If we do I would be surprised and would be counterproductive e to what Dewine is doing right now. But he has contradicted himself numerous times so who in the hell knowss.
 
Last edited:

cvctrackfan

Active member
Not to change the subject. But some states will be running their post season races in a dual meet format. Can anyone explain to me how this would be done ?
 

madman

Well-known member
I have no idea what their plans are, but for with the inception of automatic/electronic scoring I've wanted invitationals in XC to be scored as simultaneous duals. For instance if there were 20 teams there would be "20 choose 2" or 380 dual meets. Overall place would be determined by your record in your 19 duals with some ties broken by head-to-head results. This would place a higher priority on each of the 5 scorers as the maximum score for any one runner would be 12. Currently, a team's score is too dependent on a single runner - the 5th man.

It's kind of like wrestling having two state meets, one of which is based on dual meet type scoring. We could do the same but we don't have to change the format of how we actually run the race.
 

NECoach

New member
My guess is they could do it like football. Invite teams to the playoffs and have a bracket set up leading to a state championship. Dual meet strength and invitational strength aren't the same, and it would change things dramatically, but at this point, I'll take any sliver of hope.
 

cvctrackfan

Active member
I guess kinda like tennis does their coaches association championships. That would take a lot of work by the meet schedulers.
 
It would take a great deal of planning to find venues, volunteers, and officials. And would the higher seed host? Many would think hosting is a disadvantage for a XC team since the coach would most likely be splitting attention between coaching and managing the meet. I think this scenario would be rough to implement.
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
Why hasn't all Ohio schools just postponed school starting until after Labor Day. Gives everyone more time to get it together.

We need a national simultaneous shut down like we should have had back in March/April... 6 weeks with strict travel restrictions. control it and move on with life. This crazy every state for themselves will just insure that there are flare ups here and there for a much longer time with many more deaths and much more damage to economy etc.... It's what drove me nuts in the beginning. How can we control it when people from Indiana can travel here daily and have different guidelines and restrictions. That x every state. It's just prolonging this garbage for many more months. Cleveland and Columbus are on the short list of cities that could see some bad days pretty soon. This is a joke for about the 1000th time. Shut it down tomorrow and get it under control. Another pathetic day in the US today.
 
Last edited:

madman

Well-known member
Many schools near me include mine, have already delayed the start of school by 2 weeks (8/26) or later.

Giving up our personal liberties, no matter how small (wearing a mask), for the greater good is proving to be a real weakness in America. It is disappointing and aggravating. What made America great was our willingness to sacrifice for our neighbors and the greater good. We would have never tamed the west if it was every man for himself. WWII would have been lost if we had refused to get involved. "Me before thee" and "I want it now" is not the secret to our past success, and it won't be in the future either.

I would like to say that it shouldn't take government mandates for us to to the right thing. but without the draft would we have won past wars? Sometimes governent needs to intrude on our personal liberties to ensure the long term ability for everyone to be able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
 

CedarBuck92

Active member
Shut it down tomorrow and get it under control. Another pathetic day in the US today.
If you are truly wanting a 6 week shutdown you are going to need to give a few days of heads up for everyone to get their stuff together and businesses to make plans on how they want to approach this. On a personal note I am also going to need a few days to get 6 weeks worth of clothes together because I will have to stay at the office for 6 weeks.
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
If you are truly wanting a 6 week shutdown you are going to need to give a few days of heads up for everyone to get their stuff together and businesses to make plans on how they want to approach this. On a personal note I am also going to need a few days to get 6 weeks worth of clothes together because I will have to stay at the office for 6 weeks.
Do whatever you have to do. This is stupid. There are so many and such big outbreaks that tests are taking weeks to get results for. They can't trace and isolate. Test results should take a day or two max. This is an insane way to live. How are we at a point where 5 months into this, we can't confidently send kids to school? If we had properly shut things down in March, we'd be living with minor restrictions. Instead, we just prolong the agony and make it harder. We are still up in the air on if we are going to be able to have kids run outside in cross country races 6 months into this. Think about that!
 

Percidae

Member
Why hasn't all Ohio schools just postponed school starting until after Labor Day. Gives everyone more time to get it together.

We need a national simultaneous shut down like we should have had back in March/April... 6 weeks with strict travel restrictions. control it and move on with life. This crazy every state for themselves will just insure that there are flare ups here and there for a much longer time with many more deaths and much more damage to economy etc.... It's what drove me nuts in the beginning. How can we control it when people from Indiana can travel here daily and have different guidelines and restrictions. That x every state. It's just prolonging this garbage for many more months. Cleveland and Columbus are on the short list of cities that could see some bad days pretty soon. This is a joke for about the 1000th time. Shut it down tomorrow and get it under control. Another pathetic day in the US today.
For the 1000th time, the feds do not have the authority to impose a national shutdown.

 
.
Top