The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Does it really matter? Fauci says we should wear goggles. When does that campaign start to enforce that in the grocery store?

(08-11-2020 06:53 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Does it really matter? Fauci says we should wear goggles. When does that campaign start to enforce that in the grocery store?

I’m just asking if you really did that on a Zoom call.

It was a silly thing to say. I didn’t listen to the full quote, I suppose if you’re really worried about contracting the virus and don’t care what people think then it you might do it. But personally I think saying stuff like that undermines the official message. Keep it simple and straight forward as possible.

DO NOT UNDERMINE THE NARRATIVE, COACH!

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

(08-11-2020 06:53 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  Does it really matter? Fauci says we should wear goggles. When does that campaign start to enforce that in the grocery store?

I've been wearing a Michael Myers mask in 7-Eleven

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So true!
[attachment=10381]

Sent from my SM-G965U using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-12-2020 06:21 AM)bigblueodu Wrote:  So true!


Sent from my SM-G965U using CSNbbs mobile app

More info about kids' transmission of COVID.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/.../jmv.26394

Quote:We studied 23 family clusters of COVID‐19. Infection was diagnosed by RT‐PCR in respiratory specimens. The level of viral load was categorized as high, moderate, or low based on the cycle threshold values...

There was no evidence of child‐to‐adult or child‐to‐child transmission...

While children become infected by SARS‐CoV‐2, they do not appear to transmit infection to others. Furthermore, children more frequently have an asymptomatic or mild course compared to adults. Further studies are needed to elucidate the role of viral load on these findings.

(08-12-2020 08:46 PM)ODUCoach Wrote:  More info about kids' transmission of COVID.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/.../jmv.26394

Quote:We studied 23 family clusters of COVID‐19. Infection was diagnosed by RT‐PCR in respiratory specimens. The level of viral load was categorized as high, moderate, or low based on the cycle threshold values...

There was no evidence of child‐to‐adult or child‐to‐child transmission...

While children become infected by SARS‐CoV‐2, they do not appear to transmit infection to others. Furthermore, children more frequently have an asymptomatic or mild course compared to adults. Further studies are needed to elucidate the role of viral load on these findings.

It doesn't fit the narrative, so it just can't be true. There was a kid that tested positive in a neighborhood Florida, so we know children are extremely vulnerable, and likely will all die and take all of the teachers with them. That's a fact, and anyone who disagrees doesn't care about children.

FWIW, I think the study I posted is limited. Small sample size, and probably other limiting factors.

But, given all of the studies, here's where I've come down (I'm no scientist of any kind, so take it for what it's worth.). The most reasonable conclusion I have is I think it's possible for children to transmit it. I just don't think it happens that frequently, and when it does, in most cases, the actual effects are negligible, if anything at all. Just like, it's possible for it to be transmitted through a surface at the grocery store, but not very likely at all

(08-13-2020 09:50 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  FWIW, I think the study I posted is limited. Small sample size, and probably other limiting factors.

But, given all of the studies, here's where I've come down (I'm no scientist of any kind, so take it for what it's worth.). The most reasonable conclusion I have is I think it's possible for children to transmit it. I just don't think it happens that frequently, and when it does, in most cases, the actual effects are negligible, if anything at all. Just like, it's possible for it to be transmitted through a surface at the grocery store, but not very likely at all

Yes, that is why delaying is the right move because you can't make decisions on small samples. I know of a child that got COVID but none of us know whether she spread it to others or how it was spread to her. I think its plausible that is difficult but not impossible to spread through children.

(08-13-2020 10:03 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 09:50 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  FWIW, I think the study I posted is limited. Small sample size, and probably other limiting factors.

But, given all of the studies, here's where I've come down (I'm no scientist of any kind, so take it for what it's worth.). The most reasonable conclusion I have is I think it's possible for children to transmit it. I just don't think it happens that frequently, and when it does, in most cases, the actual effects are negligible, if anything at all. Just like, it's possible for it to be transmitted through a surface at the grocery store, but not very likely at all

Yes, that is why delaying is the right move because you can't make decisions on small samples. I know of a child that got COVID but none of us know whether she spread it to others or how it was spread to her. I think its plausible that is difficult but not impossible to spread through children.

I think you are entitled to the opinion that delaying is the right move. I tend to look at the science which, IMO, leans toward showing that children are NOT significant spreaders and thus, because there are consequences to delaying opening schools, think we ought to take the risk.

(08-13-2020 09:50 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  FWIW, I think the study I posted is limited. Small sample size, and probably other limiting factors.

But, given all of the studies, here's where I've come down (I'm no scientist of any kind, so take it for what it's worth.). The most reasonable conclusion I have is I think it's possible for children to transmit it. I just don't think it happens that frequently, and when it does, in most cases, the actual effects are negligible, if anything at all. Just like, it's possible for it to be transmitted through a surface at the grocery store, but not very likely at all

Most studies I've read show about 50% of the transmission rate of young children. Middle Schoolers and High Schoolers though are at least as good at transmitting it as adults. Here's one of the largest studies of that kind done in S Korea. It showed children aged 0-9 were the lowest transmitters in family clusters but children aged 10-19 was actually the highest (marginally higher than adults). These type of studies shed some light but are flawed and make certain assumptions but it's the best we have as of now.

The Study:

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

NYT article on the study (for laymen terms)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/healt...hools.html

(08-13-2020 10:06 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 10:03 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 09:50 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  FWIW, I think the study I posted is limited. Small sample size, and probably other limiting factors.

But, given all of the studies, here's where I've come down (I'm no scientist of any kind, so take it for what it's worth.). The most reasonable conclusion I have is I think it's possible for children to transmit it. I just don't think it happens that frequently, and when it does, in most cases, the actual effects are negligible, if anything at all. Just like, it's possible for it to be transmitted through a surface at the grocery store, but not very likely at all

Yes, that is why delaying is the right move because you can't make decisions on small samples. I know of a child that got COVID but none of us know whether she spread it to others or how it was spread to her. I think its plausible that is difficult but not impossible to spread through children.

I think you are entitled to the opinion that delaying is the right move. I tend to look at the science which, IMO, leans toward showing that children are NOT significant spreaders and thus, because there are consequences to delaying opening schools, think we ought to take the risk.

Actually, Im following the science. And FWIW, its not really all children. Children under about 12 have a more difficult time spreading. Children around 12 and above can spread it very easily.

Its based on puberty....I got a 30 minute very technical answer from a doctor friend. Didn't really understand much except that at the age around puberty, it can be spread easily.

(08-13-2020 10:44 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Actually, Im following the science. And FWIW, its not really all children. Children under about 12 have a more difficult time spreading. Children around 12 and above can spread it very easily.

You're right. I'm just making stuff up. Clearly, my agenda is for my wife (a teacher) and my children to be knocked off. I've never really liked them anyway. Totally busted.


I mean, seriously, do you honestly believe ALL of the science is on your side and you are absolutely convinced sending kids to school is dangerous?

I'm fairly convinced that my opinion is correct, but I'm willing to recognize there is a chance I'm not. Are you willing to admit the same? Do you think closing the schools has any negative effect whatsoever?

I believe in what Ive read and been told by Doctors. Its is enough for me to believe that sending kids to school is not worth the risk. And for my kids, they can get just as good an education as being in school. (probably better) Any negatives that are involved with kids not in school are not worth the positives.

It will be difficult to have a right or wrong answer. If you do send kids to school, there is no chance that there are zero transmissions of COVID. THus, there won't be a right or wrong answer.
I can leave it at that.

(08-13-2020 10:48 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 10:44 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Actually, Im following the science. And FWIW, its not really all children. Children under about 12 have a more difficult time spreading. Children around 12 and above can spread it very easily.

You're right. I'm just making stuff up. Clearly, my agenda is for my wife (a teacher) and my children to be knocked off. I've never really liked them anyway. Totally busted.


I mean, seriously, do you honestly believe ALL of the science is on your side and you are absolutely convinced sending kids to school is dangerous?

I'm fairly convinced that my opinion is correct, but I'm willing to recognize there is a chance I'm not. Are you willing to admit the same? Do you think closing the schools has any negative effect whatsoever?

If you were following the science you would know that there's not enough evidence to conclude anything at this time. That being the case, I prefer a conservative approach.

(08-13-2020 11:17 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  If you were following the science you would know that there's not enough evidence to conclude anything at this time. That being the case, I prefer a conservative approach.

I've said as much. The science is far from settled. I just lean toward opening the schools, as we have proven data about the impact closed schools/virtual learning have on the educational experience of the most needy in our society, and I tend to think it's worth taking the risk, given the information we have on both sides.

(08-13-2020 11:23 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 11:17 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  If you were following the science you would know that there's not enough evidence to conclude anything at this time. That being the case, I prefer a conservative approach.

I've said as much. The science is far from settled. I just lean toward opening the schools, as we have proven data about the impact closed schools/virtual learning have on the educational experience of the most needy in our society, and I tend to think it's worth taking the risk, given the information we have on both sides.

And the experts are on your side. Apparently, the CDC and Academy of Pediatrics are not experts according to some in this discussion.

(08-13-2020 11:33 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 11:23 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 11:17 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  If you were following the science you would know that there's not enough evidence to conclude anything at this time. That being the case, I prefer a conservative approach.

I've said as much. The science is far from settled. I just lean toward opening the schools, as we have proven data about the impact closed schools/virtual learning have on the educational experience of the most needy in our society, and I tend to think it's worth taking the risk, given the information we have on both sides.

And the experts are on your side. Apparently, the CDC and Academy of Pediatrics are not experts according to some in this discussion.

Some of the experts is what you should say. And neither of those experts said COVID cannot be transmitted through kids.