Michigan Board of Ed: e-learning hours won’t count
Not sure what to think of this. A couple of things here:
1) logic says they must plan on returning to school before too much longer
2) this really will piss of teachers. They are busting ass putting together material for their kids and none of it is going to count? That sucks
3) This really screws up people’s plans. I get that isn’t much of a concern, but those hoping to head out on vacation in early-mid June can pretty much forget it.
Buddy of mine teaches in a public high school out in Romeo. He was saying just a few days ago that the only kids who will do the homework he sends out will be the AP kids prepping for the test.
One more reason I'm thankful to have my children outside of the public school system. When they're back in session next week (albeit online), the standards will not be slipping.
the only kids who will do the homework he sends out will be the AP kids prepping for the test.
How is that on the public school and not on the parents of the kid or the kid themselves?
My wife's HS was told flat out by the State they couldn't introduce new content unless they could meet the special ed kids accommodations. Private schools aren't required to do that and her private school teachers have more ability to move forward.
I came from a private school. I support it and love it. But there are many great Public Schools out there and it often isn't fair to compare them apples to apples.
Sorry, but what "standards" exactly? And why are you implying that public schooling standards are slipping? I am NOT suggesting that a child cannot receive a good education at a private school, but I won't sit quite while you opine that the public education system is short-changing our students during this situation.
Buddy of mine teaches in a public high school out in Romeo. He was saying just a few days ago that the only kids who will do the homework he sends out will be the AP kids prepping for the test.
One more reason I'm thankful to have my children outside of the public school system.
I am a HS public school teacher. There is a problem with the culture of public schools. But, the problem is the parents and not the schools. There was a time when schools didn't give a shit if parents didn't agree with discipline or grades. Today, parents are much more likely to speak up, complain, and admin is much more likely to listen and put pressure on the teacher to accommodate them. If teachers cannot hold students accountable for their work or their behavior then standards simply cannot be kept up. This trains teachers to make things easy to keep everyone happy and waters down the curriculum. If parents stopped putting so much pressure on the kids to be perfect all the time, held them accountable when they messed up, and allowed them to suffer the consequences of their actions and learn from their mistakes teachers could actually do their jobs. Kids are supposed to mess up. Learning from those mistakes is what growing up is all about and parents today are robbing kids of these valuable lessons by never letting them fail.
Another jackass decision by the moron state governments. This whole thing is really mind blowing to shut down the country over a virus with a 1.4% mortality rate. The economic damage from the decisions of these ego maniac governors is going to be far worse than what this virus can do.
Listen, man, if you're still not taking it seriously there's nothing we can do to convince you. A 1.4% mortality rate would mean over 3 million dead in this country alone.
You're not a genius. You're a person who was told they were smart, like, once, in third grade, and you have spent the rest of your life thinking you are ineffable.
Yes, because everyone will be infected. Well, except you.
Sounds like you've got it all figured out.
Except the part about how antibodies work, and how literally no one has any for this virus.
....He's Chuck Norris.
No one? Not even the ones that have recovered from the virus?
March 21st, 2020 at 10:25 PM ^
Well, but, those people would have "gotten" the virus, no?
Just to make sure we’re on the same page, the 1.4% mortality rate is for people showing symptoms. We have no idea how much lower the actual mortality rate is.
Well sort of. When figures like 1.4% are cited they are already adjusted for the mild, unconfirmed cases out there. The actual rate right now is 11,277 deaths out of 258,419 cases or 4.36% (per Johns Hopkins numbers). It's still a moving target though since about 170,000 of those cases don't have an outcome yet. Some of those people will still die making the rate higher.
More startling, Italy has a mortality rate of 8.6% currently. That's a huge number even if you brush it off by saying their population is old. Further, US has been tracking exactly along Italy's exponential growth rate of cases and deaths up until yesterday when we increased our cases and are now tracking even worse than them.
Well sort of. When figures like 1.4% are cited they are already adjusted for the mild, unconfirmed cases out there.
can you show me where you got that? Because that is new data to me, or maybe I’m reading something wrong.
March 20th, 2020 at 10:02 PM ^
I got that by looking at the actual rate of know cases and known deaths. Johns Hopkins is largely regarded as collecting the most accurate data. Per their figures, the current mortality rate is over 4%. They update their figures at least once an hour. Saying anything less than 4% is assuming (like most do) that there are several asymptomatic people out there. I'm also talking about in the world. It's still a little early to talk about mortality rate in the US but currently it is only 1.3% so I guess an article could be citing that as well. If you haven't seen it, I recommend looking at the numbers collected by Johns Hopkins. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
No, read the article.
1.4% is from a recent (peer reviewed, published yesterday) comprehensive study of data which does include cases with mild symptoms, but not infected persons that are asympomatic. There is no reliable data on what % of the population shows no symptoms when infected.
the data from JH that you’re citing is deaths divided by positive tests. The denominator is severely constrained by testing capability.
This isn't even remotely close to true.
Our case rate is shooting up because our testing capacity has increased.
We also aren't tracking anywhere close to Italy. Italy is far and away the worst case scenario.
Saying Italy is old is one factor out of any number. Population density, social custom (kissing + grand parents living with younger asymptomatic carriers), smoking, etc. would all factor into this.
This is what I'm talking about: People thrusting the worst case scenario into the spotlight and then just straight up making shit up like "We are tracking even worse than them".
Yes. The truth of it is that .01% of healthy people under 45 die of this. If you're healthy and young-ish you'll most likely be ok. If you have cancer (which affects your immune system, mostly our are on chemo in general) are over 70, have lung problems, after grossly (the medical term, not used as disgustingly) obese you're hosed. Possibly. Except the healthy over 70 crowd is doing ok.
If you have Type A blood, find a ventilator. If you're Type O, you're probably good, as well.
Italy also has in excess of 100,000 Chinese nationals in residence there and had regular flights from Wuhan.
Obviously you're not a genius because based on your math of 3 million dead, you are assuming 100% of the population would get it.
A 1.4% mortality rate would mean over 3 million dead in this country alone.
Is that really that bad of a thing? There are many places around the globe where human overpopulation is real, China being one of them. Many think we are almost at the earth's carrying capacity and will exceed it within the next 25 years at the current rate. As medicine advances, immigration increases, mortality rates decrease, etc. there is a point at which our environment cannot sustain the population with food, drinkable water, and breathable air. There are no more world wars. Humans naturally over consume. Is a virus that reduces the population really that bad from a global and species perspective?
Are you volunteering to be one of the culled?
No one wants to die, but nature will decide. The weak dying is natures way. Humans are not immune to that. People like to talk like they want save everybody. I think that's just talk. I see how people act in real life. They are just scared that they or someone close to them will die, but they don't really care about strangers. If they did they'd give their time and money to help others.
How many of that 3 million are part of the 3 million that are gonna die anyway in the US this year?
20-30% of people who get this illness will get acute respiratory distress syndrome which will require hospitalization and possible intubation (putting a tube down your throat so a machine can breathe for you), and this can even happen in younger people.
There aren't very many of these breathing machines in the country so once they run out, even more people will die. That's why you try to stop the spread of this disease to everyone at the same time which is what would happen if we acted like nothing was wrong like you suggest.
This is a serious disease, but the numbers aren't quite that bad.
"Dr. Pritish Tosh, a Mayo Clinic infectious diseases specialist, offers one of the most important things he wants people to know about this virus.
"I think it's important for people to understand that most of the infections with COVID-19 are mild," says Dr. Tosh. "Most healthy people who become infected with this virus are going to have mild symptoms and aren't going to have severe illness."
"The true percentage of young people who require hospitalization is likely much less, because many remain asymptomatic.
Between 2 percent and 4 percent of confirmed cases among people that young are admitted to intensive care units."
Yes. We should be social distancing.
Though I disagree with her on many issues, so far I'm pretty pleased with Governor Whitmers response to all this.
But we have to be careful with the numbers. Fear doesn't do anyone any good.
The problem is all we have is bad news constantly cascading at us every single day:
Governors issuing shelter at home orders (that...don't really change much? So why even bother?)
Rumors of bans on domestic travel and national shelter in place.
Maximum concentration on the worst case scenario for the virus in Italy which makes everyone think that is what will happen (why not concentrate on Germany?)
Papers coming out predicting wild numbers of people dead and infected and then everyone nodding seriously and saying "yes, experts, experts are never wrong. Models are never wrong".
Stories constantly coming out telling us news we already know to emphasize how bad things are. WHOA REALLY UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIMS WERE UP THIS WEEK COMPARED TO THE SAME TIME LAST YEAR? SHOCKING.
Some perspective: People keep saying we are ten days behind Italy. Well, ten days ago Italy had 168 people die of COVID-19. Italy had 631 total deaths. The United States had 26 deaths and 233 total deaths. Italy has 1/5th the population than we do. We've only just begun testing at a high level and our CFR at this moment is 1.3%. Italy's at that time? 6.2%.
We have a younger, more spread out population. We don't have the same level of people living 3 generations to the home that Italians do. We smoke less. We don't kiss as a greeting. We had weeks of people practicing better hygiene before the virus got to us in a serious manner.
We will not be Italy.
I have a son with an anxiety disorder and asthma. I try to check out the CDC/Mayo clinic websites every day. I also get updates from the hospital at which I work.
I am not ignoring this. I have nightmares about my son getting it. But in working with the pediatrician he says keep him at home, follow good disinfection procedures, and be very good about the asthma protocols and the meds we give you. Don't panic your son because *that* won't help his asthma either if he lies awake at night worrying. Even if he does get it the reality is we stand a really good chance of getting him through the other side without real harm.
There are a huge amount of problems with bad data; not the least of which is that it ends up causing issues with believability when we do have good, solid data come out. It also causes fear. I've seen people toss around bad numbers then get bugged when people freak out and start to hoard. I've seen people say it's not a big deal at all and will blow over, and people say that society will collapse. Both scenarios are exceedingly unlikely.
I expect our numbers to shoot up. We had alot of people going around prior to test kits being available, and the fact that it is very communicable is going to bite us in the ass. As good test kits come on line, I think we are going to discover alot of cases that are already existing and the numbers will skyrocket up. But it won't be cause to freak out yet. Just keep hunkering down and keep clean and follow CDC suggestions and we can flatten this out.
And yes, we *do* have to think about how to put things in place. California putting a statewide 'shelter in place' rule in effect with less than a day of notice could have led to disaster if people freaked out and made a run on stores. That was just stupid. And it *isnt* a sin to think of ways to mitigate the impact on the economy.
Flatten the curve. Lets keep our heads.
The media fixates on the latest big thing... that's just life. The easy answer is to turn it off. In response to Italy, I don't think we'll have quite the death rate they do, but the number of infections is growing faster than theirs did. We crossed their growth curve yesterday when we added ~5800 cases for an increase over 70% in a single day. We have more bed capacity than rural Italy but we are very close to capacity already. When we have to turn sick people away, you'll start to see an increase in the death rate (which is currently 1.3% with the majority of the sick in the early stages)
This has the potential to be very damaging to life. I see no point in obsessing over it since we can't really do much except stay home. Obsessing about it is your fault. I read your entire rant as you being upset at everyone else because the news/society is disagreeing with how you think this should be communicated. It's like complaining about someone like Steven A Smith because they said something outrageous that you disagree with. I think that's your fault for getting worked up about it. Change the channel.
A
You complain about the news but post heavily in every thread on this topic, and most of your posts are borderline trolling, challenging people to show the data. If you don’t want to discuss this, OK, but then take your own advice.
Because someone has to counter doom porn merchants such as yourself who post shit without even a shred of critical thinking.
If we don't take the necessary steps, it will get bad. I sincerely hope people understand this and act appropriate.
...whereas I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish by quoting coronaskeptic tweets ("the virus isn't passed by humans") and whatnot.
If you don't want to hear scary news, then don't pay attention. But don't troll all over threads that are intended to be informative.
The survey discussed on 538 helps illustrate the tremendous uncertainty about al of these numbers.
The expert consensus is to expect about 200,000 deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 this year, but the uncertainty around that number was also huge: There’s an 80 percent chance the final number will be anywhere between 19,000 and 1.2 million, according to these estimates.
Thank you for the references, I hadn’t seen that one and I like reading these. I think there is an issue with sampling which makes the statement that 20-30% of people who get it will be hospitalized misleading. For example, in the ref 2 in your quote (linked below, the 17%) the study seems to only include 99 patients that were already in the hospital. That introduces a huge sampling bias.
“In this retrospective, single-centre study, we included all confirmed cases of 2019-nCoV in Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital from Jan 1 to Jan 20, 2020.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620302117
& it’s not just the largely.
40% of US patients hospitalized with corona virus are 20-54. (Sorry, WD. You’re age group isn’t invincible after all)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/health/coronavirus-young-people.html
The quoted data on this has gotten way out of hand. There is no credible data that supports this statement:
“20-30% of people who get this illness will get acute respiratory distress syndrome which will require hospitalization and possible intubation”
Inducing fear with shotty statistics is counter productive. I know everyone is trying to encourage others to social distance, which is great. For our society, when we start shunning actual science and data bc it hinders our efforts for the “greater good”, that does much more damaging than this virus ever will.
I agree that statistics about this are getting out of hand. There are a lot of sources (many questionable) and a study from 2 weeks ago is probably outdated already. That said, there are some resources to be used for estimates. For example, in Colorado the CDPHE releases numbers about hospitalization. In CO, there are 363 cases and 44 hospitalizations. That's 12% but I assume (really not sure) that's actively hospitalized and wouldn't include deaths and discharged patients. They also don't specify ARDS cases. So, 20-30% is probably reasonable. You might be able to make a case that it's more like 10-20% but we're talking about predicting the future so no one will know for sure.
source: https://covid19.colorado.gov/data
I agree with your statement, " For our society, when we start shunning actual science and data bc it hinders our efforts for the “greater good”, that does much more damaging than this virus ever will." but it kind of sounds like you're arguing against yourself. I read your first paragraph as saying the data and scientists can't be trusted ("There is no credible data that supports this statement..."). Uh, yes there is; doctors and scientists are collecting the information. You seem to be "shunning actual ... data" by stating there is no credible data. There may be a lot of bad data, but that doesn't mean there isn't good, credible data.
"
There is a lot of quality data out there. There is also a lot of quality, yet incomplete data out there that is being twisted into untrue statements. That is what I was referring to. 12% of patients who test positive (under a situation where tests are being rationed to only those who are sickest) being hospitalized does not = 20-30% of people infected will be hospitalized. Not even close.
I am very much promoting data being shared, especially with proper context and caveats associated with said transparent data. I’m actually a bit offended/frustrated that it came off like I want to people to hide data or science, I want the opposite.
Here's anecdotal data on hospitalization rates from New York City, which is looking like the epicenter of the crisis:
(If you don't care to click on the link, the rates were 19%, 19%, 23% and 17% the last four days.)
@NYGovCuomo provides this figure in his daily press conference. Here are the figures from the last four days. It seems to be pretty stable around 20%. pic.twitter.com/qLUzLRn74K
— Jeff Hammerbacher (@hackingdata) March 20, 2020
Just to recenter on the statement I took issue with: “20-30% of people who get this illness will get acute respiratory distress syndrome which will require hospitalization and possible intubation (putting a tube down your throat so a machine can breathe for you)”
even ignoring the major issues with the numbers you’re citing (largely doesn’t include patients without symptoms, and the huge bias in who gets tested toward people that will need hospitalization) only one of the numbers you quoted was in that 20-30 range. Are you saying you believe that 20-30% of all people that get infected will need to be hospitalized? You can get behind that?
One in five confirmed cases results in hospitalization. Yes, if you could somehow factor in all the unconfirmed cases, it would be lower, but that really doesn't matter, because the number of confirmed cases is skyrocketing anyway.
Our hospital systems can't handle this kind of volume indefinitely. There is a breaking point at which we run out of room in ICUs and run out of ventilators. At that point we become like Italy.
You're obsessing yourself with infection rates when the whole issue here is about the resilience of our health system. It can only handle so many patients at once.
“One in five confirmed cases results in hospitalization.” =\= 20-30% of people who get this will be hospitalized. Do you understand why those statements are different?
I agree with everything you said about hospital capacity and the risk of running out, we don’t need To make intentionally misleading statements to make that point.
I'm literally posting from medical literature, from peer reviewed respectable journals. All you're saying is "no way this is true," without anything to back your feelings. I'd say there's a good chance you think the virus is a hoax.
Go up and read my reply to your cited article. There is a really strong probability that you didn’t actually read the article you cited (certainly not the references the claim you made rely on). I also am posting links to actual medical journals. If you actually read my posts you’d know I don’t think this is a hoax. I hate that this has turned political. Now people like you are going around trying to lump anyone that questions outlying data as extremists. These 3 things can’t all be true:
1) US is completely unprepared and doesn’t have enough tests to fight this thing properly (I think this is true)
2) there are a large number of people that have mild or no symptoms that are the workhorse spreaders. This makes it important for everyone to social distance to flatten the curve (I think this is true)
3) just taking # of deaths or hospitalizations divided by positive tests as clean and inherent data on the disease and use that as predictive data on what will happen to people that are infected. (I think this is extremely misleading given 1 and 2)
Extremely well stated MC. Your positions on this are 100% what I've been saying in other forums and taken a lot of shit for, when in fact they are completely logical and rational. You state things better than I have and are still taking a ton of negs. I wish I had more upvotes to give
Because we have no idea how many people are actually infected because a % of people don't show symptoms, we don't actually know how the % of people hospitalized.
Here is a data point: 50% of people on the Princess Diamond did not show symptoms but tested positive. So this would suggest that there are a number of people who have been infected, but wouldn't even know it. And this doesn't even get into the people who have symptoms, but weren't tested because our testing capabilities only expanded a few days ago. But of course, your entire line of thinking is "how do I make the numbers worse, oh I'll only acknowledge deaths and discharged patients. Now I get to 20-30% hospitalized. There that sounds reasonable".
March 22nd, 2020 at 12:55 PM ^
"How do I make these numbers worse?"
I'll state this again. These aren't my numbers. This comes from a review article on radiographics, one of the top medical journals. I'm not calling hospitals to ask how their covid patients are doing and changing things to prove a point.
I’m struggling with the comparison of mortality rate on the basis of “U.S. is tracking almost exactly [with Italy], just a week behind)”
1 week ago the deaths over cases for italy was 1266/17660 = 7%
as of now the US is showing 207/13789 = 1.5%
(Per https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/)
obviously these ratios will change over time with testing increases and with existing cases causing future deaths. I know we’re trying to convince people that social distancing is important, but exaggeration inducing fear can be just as damaging. I have a friend that works in an ER in Detroit that told me they’re flooded and bogged down with arrivals of patients that have COVID symptoms that may or may not have it, and definitely don’t need to be hospitalized.
This is a serious pandemic, but let’s try to at least communicate real, representative data. This is the best article I’ve read to this point (also posted above): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0822-7.pdf
Edit: ...and for some reason your post disappeared. I’ll leave mine bc I think there are some good references in it at least.