CDC Recommendations

7,255 Views | 44 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by AgLA06
NASAg03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/us/school-closures-cdc-long-term-trnd/index.html

This two-week talk is already extending.

Expect more lockdowns for a longer duration in the coming days.
Russ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Didn't see a 8 week recommendation in linked article.
Just saw that 8 weeks could be be better than 2.

Did see quote that says no increase in success in containment in countries that closed school vs those that did not.

Edit, wrong emoji , hit accidentally
AgED
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1UbaobL2ymO4_MW4N0eVvdBEfMPLyGaH7KipH27Onmg0/mobilebasic

Texas is saying gear up for summer..
NASAg03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
True, I should change the title. Oh well. They also just announced a recommendation to drop crowd limits to 50 from 250.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-guidelines-cancel-events-50-people-over-due-to-coronavirus-2020-3
hatchback
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG




New guidance does not apply to schools.
nai06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Nm
98Ag99Grad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I thought the whole 2 week thing was BS anyway. Always figured it would be longer.
Wicked Good Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Make sure because I posted this hours ago when I heard it and was promptly rebuffed in other thread
Lateralus Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
98Ag99Grad said:

I thought the whole 2 week thing was BS anyway. Always figured it would be longer.


It is BS. But not because it should be longer.
NASAg03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What do you mean? We shouldnt have any closures?
bagger05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
1. Thereisaroleforschoolclosureinresponsetoschool-basedcasesofCOVID-19fordecontaminationandcontact tracing (few days of closure), in response to significant absenteeism of staff and students (short to medium length, i.e. 2-4 weeks of closure), or as part of a larger community mitigation strategy for jurisdictions with substantial community spread* (medium to long length, i.e. 4-8 weeks or more of closure).
2. Availablemodelingdataindicatethatearly,shorttomediumclosuresdonotimpacttheepicurveofCOVID-19or available health care measures (e.g., hospitalizations). There may be some impact of much longer closures (8 weeks, 20 weeks) further into community spread, but that modelling also shows that other mitigation efforts (e.g., handwashing, home isolation) have more impact on both spread of disease and health care measures. In other countries, those places who closed school (e.g., Hong Kong) have not had more success in reducing spread than those that did not (e.g., Singapore).
3. Inplaceswhereschoolclosuresarenecessary,theanticipatedacademicandeconomicimpactsandunintended impacts on disease outcomes must be planned for and mitigated. Provision of academic support (e.g., tele-ed), alternatives for school-based meals as well as other services (e.g., behavioral and mental health services) for economically and physically vulnerable children, support for families for whom telework and paid sick leave is not available, ensuring that high risk individuals continue to be protected must all be addressed. Special consideration must be given for health care workers so that school closures do not impact their ability to work.
*Substantial community spread is defined as large scale community transmission, health care staffing significantly impacted, multiple cases within
AgLA06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nai06 said:

The CDC recommendations are 8-20 weeks of school closure to have an effect on the spread of the virus.


https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/considerations-for-school-closure.pdf


I read that completely opposite.
nai06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So I read it again, and I think my first impression was incorrect so I edited the post. It sounds like the CDC is saying that short to medium closures are ineffective. Longer ones could be more effective when combined with other measures.

What's your take?
AgLA06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I read it as short and medium closures are ineffective. Long term could be more effective, but have other issues. However, recommendations is to only close at all if confirmed cases are in the school. Then recommendation is to close for 4-5 days, report to health authorities (for paperwork, tracking, and quarantine), sanitize, and reopen.
annie88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cancel all event with 50 or more people

Schools are ok


Yeah that makes no sense at all.
HowdyTexasAggies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Same way I read it.
jokershady
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This **** is going to bankrupt me
aggierogue
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If you are going to keep schools open, you may as well keep everything open. The logic of banning gatherings of 50 or more but green lighting schools is astounding.
HowdyTexasAggies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggierogue said:

If you are going to keep schools open, you may as well keep everything open. The logic of banning gatherings of 50 or more but green lighting schools is astounding.

Most students are not high risk, take out the high risk employees and students and let schools continue. The current option of having all non high risk people stop their businesses and go bankrupt is what I find astounding.
aggierogue
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Students are still carriers. You send kids to school. You may as well let everyone continue their normal lives.
HowdyTexasAggies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To me, the logical approach is to have all high risk people be sequestered for however long needed, and let non high risk continue their lives. Most of the high risk are non productive already (most not all). Current approach is to have all productive people be non productive, and go bankrupt.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We aren't going to stop the disease. We need to stagger it. So I can get the logic of keeping school but preventing other functions. It at least slows it down.
aggierogue
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
beerad12man said:

We aren't going to stop the disease. We need to stagger it. So I can get the logic of keeping school but preventing other functions. It at least slows it down.


That seems logical to you? Schools are going to be where it spreads the fastest.

I don't necessarily disagree with Olsarge. Part of me is ready to live "business as usual." But acting like we're going to suppress this virus and keep schools open is hilarious. Kids spread germs, and they will be taking it home and infecting their parents/siblings.

My point is that banning gatherings of more than 50 people and sending kids to school makes zero sense. I'm not sure why that would be difficult to understand.

If the goal is to stagger the infection rate, then you shut down schools for as long as it takes. If you're prepared to treat the ill at all capacities, then perhaps let people live their lives like normal.

I don't know what the answer is because of the unknowns of this virus. Part of me wants to contract it and recover (assuming that would shield me from getting it again this season, which is an assumption at this point). And I say that as I sit in bed recovering from flu A.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Neither solution is perfect, but yeah, it does. School may be where it spreads the fastest, but it isn't as fast as schools plus dozens of other social gatherings combined. A will never be great than A+B(well so long as B can't be negative ) Again, we aren't stopping this thing, but we can stagger it at least some.

I think the key is that shutting schools down would have a much bigger** ramifications than preventing other, less important gatherings

Edit: Dang so many typos in this post
Hogties
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OlSarge92 said:

To me, the logical approach is to have all high risk people be sequestered for however long needed, and let non high risk continue their lives. Most of the high risk are non productive already (most not all). Current approach is to have all productive people be non productive, and go bankrupt.
The UK is running this experiment real time. It will be interesting to see how it plays out between the UK and pretty much anywhere else when the dust settles.
JDCAG (NOT Colin)
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OlSarge92 said:

aggierogue said:

If you are going to keep schools open, you may as well keep everything open. The logic of banning gatherings of 50 or more but green lighting schools is astounding.

Most students are not high risk, take out the high risk employees and students and let schools continue. The current option of having all non high risk people stop their businesses and go bankrupt is what I find astounding.


I highly recommend this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/

"high risk" speaks to mortality/symptoms, but not ability to spread.

Part of that ability to show little/no symptoms in children is precisely why there is danger there - because you won't have sick kids staying home - they won't know they're sick. They'll just give it to classmates, who will unknowingly take it home to family.

Obviously, there has to be a balance because many parents can't just bring kids home for weeks at a time - not only that, but is over crowded daycares better than schools? I fully acknowledge that there are hurdles and challenges with any path of action....I just think it is important to realize that low risk people can absolutely spread this thing.
beerad12man
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If anything, the low risk people are spreading more than anyone else. We don't know we are spreading it.

And don't get me wrong, if we want to cancel school for 8 weeks and can do that? Sure. The powers that be make that decision go for it.

I'm just saying that doing some is always better than nothing. So even if you have school, it's still logical to cancel what events we can to slow it down. Again, I'm under the impression that we aren't stopping this thing, but we can slow it down some.
NASAg03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The administration and CDC and completely failing.

The numbers are out and two weeks of economic shutdowns do nothing to slow this disease. A year does nothing. More people are going to die from an economic crisis, rushed vaccines, hording, and other things than the virus itself. And when a more serious disease spreads in the future, people won't take it series.

Either you go full lockdown for the duration of the virus to stop spreading, or you do nothing but quarantine the most vulnerable and let the remainder of the population keep making money to support the weak.

Instead we're essentially doing the opposite.
HowdyTexasAggies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
agreed
JDCAG (NOT Colin)
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
NASAg03 said:

The administration and CDC and completely failing.

The numbers are out and two weeks of economic shutdowns do nothing to slow this disease. A year does nothing. More people are going to die from an economic crisis, rushed vaccines, hording, and other things than the virus itself. And when a more serious disease spreads in the future, people won't take it series.

Either you go full lockdown for the duration of the virus to stop spreading, or you do nothing but quarantine the most vulnerable and let the remainder of the population keep making money to support the weak.

Instead we're essentially doing the opposite.


Where is this data you're seeing - cause again, the linked article above points to the fact that trying to "quarantine the most vulnerable" only is a bad way to approach this. It relies pretty much entirely on nobody from group A (at risk) and group B (low risk) contacting anyone from the other group, which is absolutely impractical.

And don't get me wrong, I think we've had terrible failure at the highest levels - this has not been handled well.

I'm just not sure there is a good solution that isn't going to wreck the economy.....and I'm not sure just letting things roll to avoid wrecking the economy is going to work....basically, no good answers here.
HowdyTexasAggies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Doesn't every approach rely on this?

" It relies pretty much entirely on nobody from group A (at risk) and group B (low risk) contacting anyone from the other group, which is absolutely impractical."
JDCAG (NOT Colin)
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OlSarge92 said:

Doesn't every approach rely on this?

" It relies pretty much entirely on nobody from group A (at risk) and group B (low risk) contacting anyone from the other group, which is absolutely impractical."


No.

Social distancing basically assumes that everyone else has it. That's why it is the most likely way to successfully combat this.

Every other mechanism makes a distinction between those who have it and those who don't, and we're not NEARLY good enough at making that determination - especially as soon as they become contagious - for those plans to work. This is the fallacy of the whole "me and a bunch of folks got together, but we're all low risk with no symptoms, so it's totally okay" mindset.
NASAg03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://medium.com/@joschabach/flattening-the-curve-is-a-deadly-delusion-eea324fe9727



That's our current approach, and it's not viable socially, or economically.

You either lock everything down to let it run it's course individually and hope no other outbreaks occur (China, S Korea), or you let it run it's course publicly and keep the economy.

This state-by-state voluntary social distancing and partial closures isn't doing anything to slightly delaying the inevitable.
JDCAG (NOT Colin)
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
NASAg03 said:

https://medium.com/@joschabach/flattening-the-curve-is-a-deadly-delusion-eea324fe9727



That's our current approach, and it's not viable socially, or economically.

You either lock everything down to let it run it's course individually and hope no other outbreaks occur (China, S Korea), or you let it run it's course publicly and keep the economy.

This state-by-state voluntary social distancing and partial closures isn't doing anything to slightly delaying the inevitable.


There are a number of issues with this...

He simply takes projected sick and applies a normal distribution curve and says "look, everything will be shut down for years" and explains that, apparently, it is better to just let a few million die off...he doesn't acknowledge that "flattening the curve" also buys us more time for things like advances in ways to combat corona, better early detection that can slow the transmission, potentially medicines that can help those that do have it, etc. The notion that what we're doing in 3 months will be identical today is baked into his comparison and that is false. Additionally, more time means potentially more resources and devices for hospitals.

That isn't even to mention the number of folks who don't need ventilators, but will die from lack of space, doctors (and the ones available running on fumes) and all the other issues associated with a massive overrun of hospitals in the short term. If we just let the huge peak occur, many people will die because they can't get the care they need - NOT just cause they can't get the physical resources necessary.

Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.