There's a question there and there's an assumption there. The answer to one may invalidate the other.
I'm not an epidemiologist (and I don't play one on the internet) but perhaps think about the actual cost and means of "mitigating spread" as a starting point.
ZeroCovid isn't sensible or real.
I'm not an epidemiologist (and I don't play one on the internet) but perhaps think about the actual cost and means of "mitigating spread" as a starting point.
ZeroCovid isn't sensible or real.
Comments
And yet, here we are.
Decreasing disease burden != Zero Covid. We can still consider improving air filtration in schools as well as other measures to mitigate illness spread.
“Decreasing disease burden” is a very broad statement which no one could possibly disagree with except with specific proposals. 🤷🏾
Victoria put this into practice and where are the results from their implementation of clean air in schools?
You should be asking the Victorian government questions to release the data and report?
How is that working? Where’s the reporting and data?
https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/following-three-vs-safe-return-school
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412023002179
https://www.colorado.edu/today/2023/09/27/can-air-purifiers-help-keep-kids-school-new-study-seeks-find-out
What an unserious response and a demonstration of zero care or interest in real world public health.
It might be the case that reductions in *only* one area might give underwhelming results, but IMO that's an argument for tackling multiple areas, not zero.
- haven’t read the article?
- misunderstood the article?
- don’t want to accept the point (premise) of the article?
What is the “high population burden” you’re talking about, exactly?
Secondly, it’s weird to refer to kids as “hubs of infection”?
Lastly: vaccination?
🤷🏾