Thursday Throughput: The Trailing Edge of Omicron Edition

Michael Siegel

Michael Siegel is an astronomer living in Pennsylvania. He blogs at his own site, and has written a novel.

Related Post Roulette

117 Responses

  1. Brandon Berg says:

    Last September there were reports that a trial of a second dose of J&J actually worked really well, with 94% protection against symptomatic infection. I’m not sure whether or how much the follow-up period overlapped with the delta wave, though.

    The guy who made the call to use a single-dose regimen in the original clinical trial must have had a pretty rough day at work when the results for the two-dose trial came in.Report

  2. John Puccio says:

    Yes, the circumstances have changed.

    The mid-terms are rapidly approaching.Report

    • Slade the Leveller in reply to John Puccio says:

      Check out the blue square on that graph.Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

        “I put up this tiger-proof fence, and I haven’t been eaten by any tigers since, therefore the fence is vital and necessary, and your insistence that we take it down can only be seen as a desire for me personally to be eaten by a tiger.”

        “We live in Canada, and the only time there was a tiger was around here it had escaped from the zoo.”Report

  3. fillyjonk says:

    IDK, I feel like I want to be really cautious for a while yet, ‘cos I felt this way (“covid is waning, yay”) right before Delta and then again right before omicron. Twice bitten, four times shy. (Though I also feel like that once I finally DO relax a bit, that’s when we get the really horrific variant. I have to remind myself that this isn’t a malign force bent on outthinking me but it doesn’t always work)

    I do still mask in class and in stores (in class, because students party, and our student body is only about 1/3 vaccinated as per the latest stats, and in stores because people are gross). I don’t love it but I’ve grown accustomed to it. Will I give it up? I don’t know. I’m going to wait at least a few more months to see what new variants crop up.

    Also I interact from time to time with someone on heavy immunosuppressants and someone else with a husband who’s doing chemo, and I figure the mask doesn’t hurt and might help, so….Report

  4. Damon says:

    [ThTh1] “The plan for COVID was never to mask everyone forever. The plan for COVID was not to close restaurants forever. The plan was to buckle down until the situation improved, one way or another. And the situation now is massively better than it was two years ago.”

    No, the plan was “two weeks to flatten the curve”, and “masks aren’t effective” (Fauci quote) in the beginning. Then it changed, and changed, and changed, and changed. Now, two years later, the impacts are rippling through the economy as supply shortages continue. Prices are up, inflation is up, and we’ve got kids who, based upon Baltimore City’s experience, are a year behind in their education and continuing to fall behind because of the “remote learning”. Anecdotally, people are fatter, and in poorer health as they weren’t in the gym for months to years (I’ve seen this in the dojo as people start coming back), and there’s lots of buildings that, once rented, are still vacant because everyone who can work remotely doesn’t want to go into the office again. And those companies that paid that rent, if they are gov’t contractors, just might have a problem getting those costs approved by DCAA for their incurred cost submissions. Disallowing a few million dollars in rent will impact medium and small contractors the most, possibly resulting in bankruptcy and more folks out of work. Masking has gone from a health issue to a political issue. Vaccinations have gone from something the vast majority of people considered safe to a political issue. The covid situation might be massively better now than before, but the economy, politics, and society aren’t.Report

  5. Oscar Gordon says:

    ThTh6: It’s like hearing about Lake Bonneville or Lake Missoula suddenly breaking free, but on such a grander scale.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_LRo3wIT34&ab_channel=DKMerrickReport

  6. Oscar Gordon says:

    ThTh9 (the 1st) – Bug was in a play based pre-school. His last year there they were slowly introducing structured classroom activities to get the kids ready for kindergarten.

    I get annoyed by people who seem to think that kids need to be aggressively educated like that, as if they heard about that one kid who has a Tiger Parent and can speak 6 languages and play 3 instruments and is learning Calculus in 4th grade, and think all kids should do that, if they get started early enough.Report

    • fillyjonk in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      when I was a kid in the 1970s, I went to kindergarten. It was 1/2 day (I think it was in the mornings, and we went home for lunch and for the afternoon?) and it was pretty heavily play based. I don’t remember a lot about it but I remember there being a pretend kitchen, and a sand table sort of thing, and we got read stories.

      Granted, I grew up in a more affluent district and maybe there was less worry about us falling behind – I already could read, having learned at home as a kid, and was learning to print, and I knew some basic math. But I don’t remember *aggressive* education in kindergarten; most of the educational stuff I got was at home, and my parents presented it more as “games” than as “you will learn this” so IDK.

      I suspect that pushing kids too much too early burns them out.Report

  7. Jaybird says:

    ThTh7: The whole Whale Fall phenomenon is kinda nightmare fuel if you put too much thought into it. Putting an entire ship down there? (shudder)Report

  8. Chip Daniels says:

    Apparently no one told the virus it was supposed to go away.

    Someone should do that because I’m really sick and tired of it.Report

  9. Kazzy says:

    We didn’t need that study to know that plat-based preschool focused on SEL is best. Sad we have to keep repeating the same mistakes.Report

  10. Jaybird says:

    The last two links about nuclear do my heart good. I’m vaguely worried about boneheaded opposition to the new plants but I know that getting off of fossil fuel will require not only electric cars but non-fossil fuel generators powering them and the focus on the former before the latter is literally putting the cart before the horse.Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

      The Germans shutting down reactors and increasing reliance on Russian Gas via a new pipeline that bypasses Ukraine strikes me as the sort of Global Warming feel good story we deserve.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

      In round numbers, burning the petroleum in a thermal power plant and using the electricity to power cars cuts the emissions per mile in about half. The dominant factor is thermal efficiency, and power plants are about twice as efficient as ICEs.

      Re fusion, come see me when there’s a device producing excess energy at a rate in the 10s of MWs, with extraction temperatures high enough to be useful. Say, 400 °C water/steam for a Rankin cycle, 800 °C gas for a Brayton cycle. I’m eager to see how they deal with the problem of superconducting magnets at -200 °C in close proximity to pressurized hot water at +400 °C.Report

    • North in reply to Jaybird says:

      As an anglophile it causes me near physical pain to type this but the French really have their heads on straight when it comes to power generation. Ugh. I need a drink.Report

      • InMD in reply to North says:

        I believe their grid was carbon neutral in the 60s due to nuclear. There are a number of things about them it is good that the Anglosphere does not emulate but there is also a very forward looking aspect to their culture you have to respect.

        Sometimes I wish my mother had kept her French citizenship so I could have benefited from it. Which for me would mean eating baguettes and smoking all day.Report

      • Brandon Berg in reply to North says:

        So do the Swiss. As with most policy issues, you can use them as your go-to example of a European country getting it right.Report

        • North in reply to Brandon Berg says:

          Ooof yeah I hear the Swiss public health insurance system is excellent.Report

        • I only respond to this because you’re encouraging North, who is generally in this thread patting countries on the back for committing to nuclear. The official Swiss policy is to eliminate nuclear power. There’s no overall fixed schedule for retiring the existing plants, but under current law two of their four reactors have to shut down by 2031, and no new commercial power reactors can be licensed.Report

          • Brandon Berg in reply to Michael Cain says:

            Huh. I did not know that. Thanks for the correction. I just know that currently Switzerland has very low CO2 emissions due to relying on hydro and nuclear for electricity generation. Do they have a non-fossil alternative lined up?Report

  11. You know, I hate to be that person, but there are way more people questioning the Covid lockdowns and mask mandates than “seemingly half the conservative commentariat”.

    It seems a little peculiar, if not outright misleading, to use that clearly very carefully selected set of words, when a whole lot of people who have nothing to do conservativism are also looking back and asking those same questions.

    The word “some” would have sufficed. No characterization needed.Report

    • Slade the Leveller in reply to Kristin Devine says:

      On the other hand, re: masks, I haven’t had a cold for 2 years.Report

      • InMD in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

        It has its pros but I don’t think it’s good for us in the long term on a population level. I will totally defer to someone with more expertise than me on the subject but I would assume we want our immune systems getting target practice with the occasional cold.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to InMD says:

          In schools, we’re seeing research (backed up by anecdotal observations) that young children are experiencing more struggles with speech and language, possibly due to masks. It’s hard to tease out whether the masks made it harder to identify existing issues, exacerbated existing issues, caused new issues, or what, but there is definitely an uptick in speech and language referrals. That doesn’t mean masks were or are wrong for a population not yet eligible for vaccination, but is one of the areas where we can see a real, concrete cost which needs to be weighed against whatever benefits they confer.Report

          • InMD in reply to Kazzy says:

            On a personal level I am very ready to get rid of them now that vaccines are and have been everywhere.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to InMD says:

              I erred on the side of more mask wearing then less for a while, mainly because a positive case would have had real shitty consequences, possibly causing 5 of us (3 kids, 2 teachers) to miss extended school. We’re all vaxxed but rules for exposure generally still apply with ongoing household exposure.

              But recently I said fish it. If we aren’t required to mask, we won’t. We did our part, we all got our shots, we’ll follow any rules, but won’t voluntarily subject ourselves to more.

              The kids’ school anticipates going mask optional on March 7 and we anticipate embracing that.

              Day cares (where I work) remain uncertain so we will likely finish out the year in masks. We work really hard not to stress the kids about it, though most kids are better than adults.

              But we can’t keep saying they don’t have costs. They absolutely do.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Kazzy says:

                I’m still masking where asked, and at the grocery store and Lowe’s. Too many people, too much exposure possibility since Mississippi MIGHT cross 50% fully vaccinated this spring.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Philip H says:

                I’m in NJ where numbers are much better, fortunately.Report

              • PD Shaw in reply to Kazzy says:

                The situation here has changed a lot in the last two weeks. A trial judge ruled that the school mandates were illegal and enjoined the state from enforcing them. The next day half of the teachers at my son’s high school stopped wearing masks. They are all vaccinated or obtained an exception.

                The Governor criticized the judge’s poor legal reasoning (she was appointed by the state supreme court to hear all of the pandemic cases against the state) and pursued an appeal. Several days later, the legislature vetoed renewal of the school policy, and then yesterday the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as moot because the policy no longer exists.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to PD Shaw says:

                There’s a funny story about what’s going on in Newark from Michael Tracey. Newark had a Vaccine Passport system in place. He’s got a copy of the decree in his post.

                And he just walked around the city and saw where people were checking his passport.

                He says that not only did he not get checked, the people he talked to said that they didn’t know that they were supposed to be checking him! (An exception was the library.)

                Seriously, this is a funny read.

                Report

              • PD Shaw in reply to Jaybird says:

                We don’t have vaccine passports in Illinois, which doesn’t stop Illinois Democrats from violating the indoor masking rule when they party:

                https://capitolfax.com/2022/02/07/question-of-the-day-3391/Report

  12. Jaybird says:

    Tying schools and covid and masking all together in a neat little bow:

    Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

      If you want to see the CDC page for yourself, it’s here.

      At the bottom (this is copy/pasted):

      Page last reviewed: February 17, 2022Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

      On the one hand, development does take place in a context and isn’t free of outside influences. So being mindful of how the context is changing and how that might impact developmental expectations is important.

      But this contextual change SHOULD be temporary so it doesn’t make sense to change bigger picture expectations. I need to dig into these to see if they’re meant to be prescriptive or descriptive, but at initial, headline-level read, this is worrisome.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

      And now a word from someone who doesn’t do research on Facebook:
      https://twitter.com/dfreedman7/status/1494846691752751104

      No, the CDC did not quietly revise language development guidelines to hide mask induced delays. This is misinformation. The change is based on a 15 year update on the 2004 recs & a lit review performed in *2019* with the explicit goal of identifying higher risk kids. 1/

      The prior developmental milestone screening tools hinged on 50% of children not reaching that goal (e.g. 50 words by age 2) to identify delays. The unintended result is that many times parents, providers, etc adopted a “wait & see” approach rather than referring to therapy. 2/

      A higher 75% threshold or identifying the 25% of kids not reaching that milestone (30 words by age 2) will mean more referrals for these at risk kids & less “wait & see.” All of this is clear to anyone with knowledge of child development. But isn’t clear to an adult oncologist.3/

      You could also just read the paper that clearly outlines this thinking rather relying on bad journalism and misinformation from contrarian doctors. End/

      https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/doi/10.1542/peds.2021-052138/184748/Evidence-Informed-Milestones-for-Developmental

      It would be great if Ordinary Times had the same high standards for truth and accurate information as Twitter.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        There’s a lot of disagreement out there.

        I *WILL* say that the standards that have been in used for the last decade and a half being upgraded and upgraded downwards is… well. Maybe we’ll get more people agreeing that these kinds of standardized tests leave too many people on the wrong side of them.

        If the tweet was misinformation, it’s good that it’s not real. I hope it’s not real.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

          Both you and I are wholly unqualified to determine if the new or old standards are suitable or not. We just don’t know enough to comment.

          The revision was made by a committee within a medical society comprised of professionals, for reasons that have nothing to do with the pandemic.

          Maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong, but to imply as you did that this is in reaction to the pandemic is just false.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            Oh, I don’t have those skills.

            But I can do stuff like look at “average SAT scores over time“.

            I look at the columns for “Critical Reading” and see what’s been happening since 1972. Huh. 1991 (my year) dipped under 500 for the first time since they’d been recording it… trendlines over the years were not good.

            But, hey, they changed the test in 2017 and the scores jumped almost 40 points! In one year!

            Anyway, I don’t look at the chart and suddenly see improvement at 2017.

            It’s that same attitude that I look at the revisions of benchmarks.

            Huh. They seem to be slipping as the years pass.

            Huh. They’re changing the benchmarks.

            Huh. Scores are higher now since the benchmarks changed.

            Huh.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

              This is why I am so scornful of self-professed “skeptics” who claim to distrust authority.
              You saw a tweet that confirmed your priors, and swallowed it hook line and sinker without bothering to do any other checking.

              And then when challenged, retreated to the “there’s a lot of disagreement” motte.

              But of course, you have absolutely no way of knowing which side is correct, but instead of trusting a group of medical professionals comprising thousands of knowledgeable people, you place your trust in some rando on the internet.

              This is not skepticism. This is not rational, or reasonable or logical.
              This is a Medieval level of credulousness and gullibility.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip, I said that I hope it’s not real.

                But as you said: Both you and I are wholly unqualified to determine if the new or old standards are suitable or not. We just don’t know enough to comment.

                All we have are different groups of experts who have different groups of benchmarks.

                And one of the groups of experts recently changed their benchmarks.

                The only thing that I can compare that to is when I’ve seen benchmarks changed in the past.Report

            • Brandon Berg in reply to Jaybird says:

              It’s tough to interpret long-run trends in SAT scores due to changes in composition of the population taking the test. Historically, it was taken only by students planning to apply to college. As college went down the path to becoming the new high school, less highly self-selected students started taking it. Until recently, there was a push to have everyone take it or the ACT, which drove down average scores further.

              Now that the War on Messengers is in full swing, there’s a push to eliminate the SAT or make it optional. It’s possible that we’ll see average SAT scores rising as a consequence of this, not because students are getting smarter, but as less intelligent students start opting out again.

              That aside, the SAT really isn’t intended to be a barometer of long-term trends in academic achievement, so there’s nothing wrong with recalibrating it to maintain the desired score distribution (a mean of 500 with a standard deviation of 100 for each section). Really, they should probably just give percentile scores.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Brandon Berg says:

                I retook a PSAT today and found myself thinking “YOU HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE QUESTION!” because there were a bunch of tricksy ones that weren’t asking what the surface appeared to be asking.

                It gives you a bunch of fractions of X and then asks for the difference between two of the fractions and is more than happy enough to give you enough rope to hang yourself with answers that would have been appropriate for a slightly differently worded question.

                On top of that, there were a bunch of words that were totally bullshit.

                quiddity
                palanquin
                gambrel
                bibelot
                pensile
                protean

                Seriously.

                Back in the late 80s, the big word was “loquacious”. Everybody was running around saying that for half a year. (Yes, it made the test.)

                Anyway, the point of the SAT isn’t really for the students. It’s for the colleges.

                For a while there, having students who were good at SATs was one of the main goals of “elite” schools. Now that it’s something else, the tests can go out the window.

                Well, except for places like School of Mines and whatnot. They’ll probably keep putting a lot of emphasis on that sort of thing.Report

              • Brandon Berg in reply to Jaybird says:

                So what’s the verdict? Are you smarter than a tenth-grader?

                “Protean” is the one of those things that’s not like the others for me. That one is fairly common, I think. “Palanquin” I knew well enough that I probably could have picked it out of a five-word lineup in the context of an analogy or cloze question. The others, no idea.

                For the more obscure vocab questions, it’s often less a matter of knowing the correct answer as of knowing enough of the wrong words to have a 50/50 chance of guessing the right answer. I got a 1600 (post-1995, and contrary to lefty mythology, my parents were not particularly well-off, and I did not get any tutoring), and I think there were about three vocab questions where it was a straight-up coin toss.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Brandon Berg says:

                I got 79%. I tightened my lips because if I had gotten 80%, I would have been happy. 79% was exactly at the “I am irritated” point.

                And I thought “protean” meant “elemental” rather than “able to change easily”. Well, I know it now.

                Back in 1990 or 1991 (whenever the class of 1991 took it), I got a 1450. A few years later, I got a letter in the mail and it told me “We’ve changed the test, your adjusted score is now 1550.”

                Which was weird because I don’t know that my SAT came into play a single time after the first time I was accepted into college.

                Feel like taking it?
                https://www.4tests.com/satReport

              • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

                They keep them for years, because you might decide to take some more college classes somewhere else. The GRE scores are kept for 20 years. Unfortunately, when I decided to go to grad school for a second time, it had been 25. My most recent GRE scores are also about to age out. Damn, am I getting old.

                The GREs are — or at least were — computerized and the vocabulary test is adaptive. You start with simple words. Every right answer increases the degree of difficulty for the next question, every wrong answer decreases it. As I understand things, your score is not how many you got right/wrong, but the highest degree of difficulty you achieved.

                When I needed undergraduate transcripts for the second round of grad school, they came with a cover letter saying that they had miscalculated my cumulative grade point average when I was graduating, so were raising it by a fraction. Could have been a life-changing error. The corrected score put me in “high honors” rather than “honors”, and might have been the difference in getting into my first choice of graduate school.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain says:

                Holy cow. The NYT wrote about it.

                Huh. So that’s what happened.

                Is the SAT computerized now? I remember the SAT being a book and a scantron back when I took it. I assumed that the GRE would have been the same until… the late 90s, maybe?Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

                The SAT tested their computer version this past fall, with acceptable (to them) results. 2023 will be the last year the paper version is available.

                When I took the GRE you had to go to a test center and use their computer. They have at-home testing now, if you meet the technology requirements. Those include a video camera, and sufficient bandwidth, so the on-line proctor can watch you.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            All of this is much more complicated than you guys realize. Qualifying for public services is ultimately a local decision, generally most impacted by available resources.

            A kid in a wealthy-town — where demands for services are going to be lower and resources are going to be higher — a kid in the 25th or 35th (or higher) percentile may qualify. In a poor town — being in the 10th percentile may not be enough.

            These are all guidelines and they matter but practical logistics carry the day far more often.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy says:

              In terms of sources, I’m the parent of a speech-delayed child who received therapy for that (and OT) privately, through EI, and threw the public district.

              I often make recommendations for speech or OT evals and work with consulting professionals in both areas.

              I’ve sat in numerous special ed meetings as both a parent and educator.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                I look at the changing of the benchmarks and I’m not a parent so I’m only guessing here but if one of my kids was on this side of the benchmarks as of January and now that it’s February and the benchmarks changed so the kiddo is now on that side of them…

                I’m not sure how much relief I’m feeling.

                What’s your take on the change?Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                Well, that initial tweet did indeed play a shell game.

                Prior guidelines used to look at 50th percentile. New ones look at 35th it seems. So, yes, the threshold is lower. But a kid at or near 50th percentile wasn’t going to be identified as delayed or get services.

                We’ll have to see how this plays out in practice. It is less changing the benchmarks themselves and more changing where attention is focused. Should we see how kids relate to average? Or focus on those who really are well below it?

                50 percent of kid have 50+ words at 2. What’s it mean if your kid has 48? Or 40? Or 30? How concerned should be?

                You’re thinking of the kid on the 40th percentile who previously would have not met a benchmark but now will. But most off that kid was sort of shrugged off… “Wait and see. You can pay for private support if you’re really worried.”

                This instead says, “Let’s establish a clearly defined zone of concern and identify everyone within it.”

                If it works out that way, probably a good move. Time will tell

                If the new milestone is “Less than 30 words [or whatever, I didn’t dig into the details] at age 2 is a real red flag,” may prove more helpful.

                Ultimately, this is on professionals to make recommendations and offer services. And as I said, they have a whole bunch of other things that factor in.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy says:

                https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2022/02/10/cdc-revises-developmental-milestones-for-young-kids/29698/

                Good summary here. The AAP’s involvement gives me a lot more faith in the plan.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                So it’s something like “we’ve gone from 50% at 2 years to 75% at 30 months”?

                I assume that that’s because the mushy middle standard deviation isn’t worth worrying about, it’s only the 2nd deviation (and lower) on the bad side?Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                No. The added a 30-month checklist but still have a 24-month checklist.

                It used to say, “Most 2-year-olds can do X (e.g., say 50 words),” which was true enough because 50% of kids could do it. So parents would wonder, “My kid can’t do X. Should I be concerned?” And often times the response was, “Nah… half of kids can’t do that. Let’s wait and see.”

                Now it’s “Most 2-year-olds can say 30 words (or whatever),” which is truer because 75% of kids can do it. Now if a parent says, “My kid can’t do that… should I be concerned?” They’re much more likely to hear, “Yes, that is a concern. Let’s do an eval.”

                Make sense? They didn’t change the milestone… they changed what “most” means, basically.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Yeah, thanks. That makes sense, I guess. We’re changing where we’re officially switch from “well, not everybody is above average…” to “okay, we need to get professionals involved”.

                Or, more precisely, making that delineation explicit.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                Yea. We used to worry a little about a lot of kids. Now we’ll worry a lot about fewer kids.

                IF this goes as planned.

                Again, the Pediatricians being on board, to me, is a big deal. I’d want to see how other groups (e.g., ASHA) respond.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Yeah, it’s going to have to be the doctors.

                As someone who came from a circle where being in the 35th percentile was seen as a devastating disappointment, I don’t know that this will work for the group it’s probably trying to target.

                The “obsessively buys, reads books like Your Baby’s Milestones and/or Your Ivy League Toddler” demographic is not the one that needs the guidance and the one who doesn’t know the ballpark of the number of dozens of baby’s words are the ones that would most likely need to do this.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                I don’t know how much it varies by state. I can speak to my experiences though.

                Public Route
                – Under 2 you are in the Early Intervention program. Here, that was organized at the county level. An evaluator or team of evaluator conducts screenings and will either approve services or not. This is somewhat objective. Mayo outright qualified for speech but technically didn’t qualify for OT; however, because we had a new baby coming and some of his needs related to safety (and because I knew the evaluator), an exception was made. I believe we needed a referral from our pede to get the evals, but I also believe there are ways around that. Services were provided by private practitioners who contracted with the county at no cost to the family.
                Over 2 (there are some funky rules here about extending EI beyond 2 but that’s not super important), you are working with your local school system, first via CPSE (Committee for Preschool Special Education) and then CSE (Comm. for SpEd) once they’re school age. For CPSE, you’re usually getting private providers again, maybe even the same ones as in EI. Once they’re in school, you’ll usually get someone who works for the district if they’re in a district school. Though a child’s right to services does not require them to be in a public school. Private school students can receive public services — at their private schools even, if logistics work out.

                Private Route
                Find a provider, get an eval, almost assuredly get an opportunity for services if paying out of pocket. If going through insurance, you’ll need a referral and approval and will have to follow all the insurers rules.

                These therapies are non-invasive and have no real cost to the child (outside of time) so there is no real disincentive to private providers offering them.

                Any route generally requires some amount of parent initiative. Even if we strongly recommend a speech eval, we can’t force a family’s hand. So, if these new guidelines make it clearer for parents of at-risk kids that they need to take action, that’s a very good thing. We shall see. How the information gets communicated matters tremendously. The CDC website says an updated app is coming.

                To bring it full circle, this was not as claimed by that initial Tweet a Covid-inspired attempt to lower expectations and hide Covid-caused delays. Seems like a long-time-coming, well-intentioned change that, if successful, can make a real difference for lots of kids and families. We shall see.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                ¿Por Qué No Los Dos?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Pardon me. It seems like there are a lot of things going on and have been for a couple of years now.

                The last two years of schooling have been, pretty much, bad. Google “covid learning loss” and boggle at the various articles talking about disparities and there’s one on the front page that talks about $17 trillion of lifetime earning power lost.

                There were a whole bunch of things put on the back burner because the pandemic was so very awful.

                Part of the problem, however, is that the whole “consensus” thing wasn’t really established and there were a lot of bad decisions made by the CDC, by the FDA, by spokespeople, by politicians, and on and on and on and on.

                The omicron wave seems to be petering out (knock wood) and rumors are flying that the CDC will soon relax masking requirements at the national level and this is going to be announced at the State of the Union address next week.

                So *IF* those rumors happen to be true and *IF* the omicron wave puts the pandemic in the rear view mirror (knock wood) then society will quickly find itself tallying up the various costs that have been paid over the last two years which will include stuff like learning loss and, yeah, a handful of development problems among kids who already have a tough row to hoe in the first place.

                And people are going to start getting mad about it because the authorities are going to start acknowledging a handful of things that were called “conspiracy theories” a mere handful of months before.

                And the new guidelines are not only better policy than the old ones, they may paper over the milestones that were appropriate for a maskless world but are less appropriate for a masked one.

                It’s okay. Half of kids in 2018 couldn’t do that stuff either. It’s not a big deal. Don’t get so worked up about it. Look at the new guidelines.

                And it’ll prevent an honest argument over the various costs and whether what we bought was worth the cost because, if it wasn’t, people are going to (maybe even unfairly!) call for accountability.

                Given that that is something that we probably ought to avoid, the best play is to say “we didn’t have that many costs at all and, besides, you’re well within the new and improved benchmarks.”

                The only thing that we need is enough trust in our institutions to make that explanation work.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy says:

                Jaybird,

                You got snookered by a wrong-headed and/or disingenuous Tweet. You had someone with a close working knowledge of the topic take the time to explain to you. And you finally decided your take away was to double down on the wrong ideas proposed in the initial Tweet.

                Do you realize how disrespectful that is to others? How counter to the ideas of this site that runs? And how stupid it makes you look?Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy says:

                kazzy

                when a cop who shot someone says “but he was speeding, and he had stolen stuff in his car, and besides I smelled pot”

                do you accept that as a response to “you wouldn’t have shot him if he was white”Report

              • Damon in reply to Jaybird says:

                “because the authorities are going to start acknowledging a handful of things that were called “conspiracy theories” a mere handful of months before.”

                No they aren’t. The “authorities”, and the mainstream media are going to try and memory hole it and spin things like “no one EVER said wearing a cloth mask prevented transmission of the virus. Who said that, some crazy Trump supporter?”Report

              • Philip H in reply to Damon says:

                The “authorities”, and the mainstream media are going to try and memory hole it and spin things like “no one EVER said wearing a cloth mask prevented transmission of the virus. Who said that, some crazy Trump supporter?”

                I’m am getting so weary of reporting this:

                A cloth mask is intended to trap respiratory droplets that are released when the wearer talks, coughs or sneezes. It also acts as a barrier to protect the wearer from inhaling droplets released by others.

                https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449Report

              • Damon in reply to Philip H says:

                https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/health/cloth-masks-covid-cdc.html

                Published Jan. 14, 2022
                Updated Jan. 15, 2022

                “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday clarified its stance on various kinds of masks, acknowledging that the cloth masks frequently worn by Americans do not offer as much protection as surgical masks or respirators.”…..

                When the C.D.C. finally recommended masks for ordinary Americans, it emphasized cloth face coverings. It took months more for the C.D.C. and the W.H.O. to concede that the coronavirus can be carried by tiny droplets called aerosols, which can linger indoors for hours…….

                According to the C.D.C.’s new description of masks, loosely woven cloth products provide the least protection and layered finely woven products offer more.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Damon says:

                Yes they do. But they are still better then nothing – and tightly woven cloth is better then loose.

                I hope you understand that what you and everyone else are decrying is just how science works. And over and over masks keep being said by scientists to be effective as part of a multi-prong solution.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H says:

                lol

                “you and everyone else are just decrying how science works!”

                “science now says that cloth masks don’t actually do anything.”

                “eh, well, they’re better than nothing.”Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

                “science now says that cloth masks don’t actually do anything.”

                That’s not what science actually says.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

                Nature Magazine had a study where they found a lot of stuff that surprised them.

                The SL-P mask yielded no statistically significant difference compared to no mask. In contrast, the homemade U-SL-T and U-DL-T masks however yielded a significant increase in outward particle emission per second (or per cough) compared to no mask, with median emission rates of 49.2 and 36.1 particles/s, respectively.

                This one was really interesting:

                Our results clearly indicate that wearing surgical masks or unvented KN95 respirators reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask. However, for the homemade cotton masks, the measured particle emission rate either remained unchanged (DL-T) or increased by as much as 492% (SL-T) compared to no mask for all of the expiratory activities.

                There are masks that actively make things worse than no mask at all.

                Which is nuts.

                Here’s the conclusion:

                These observations directly demonstrate that wearing of surgical masks or KN95 respirators, even without fit-testing, substantially reduce the number of particles emitted from breathing, talking, and coughing. While the efficacy of cloth and paper masks is not as clear and confounded by shedding of mask fibers, the observations indicate it is likely that they provide some reductions in emitted expiratory particles, in particular the larger particles (> 0.5 μm). We have not directly measured virus emission; nonetheless, our results strongly imply that mask wearing will reduce emission of virus-laden aerosols and droplets associated with expiratory activities, unless appreciable shedding of viable viruses on mask fibers occurs. The majority of the particles emitted were in the aerosol range (< 5 μm).

                I suppose it’s possible to read that and say “See? Masks work!” but I read that and see that there are a lot of circumstances under which masks don’t work and a handful under which they make things worse.

                I wear N95 masks when I go to the grocery store.

                At this point, I’m among the 10% of customers wearing them.

                I suppose that good news is around the corner, though.

                Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                SERIOUSLY?

                Do we need to do this again?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Apparently.

                I know that you have come out and said that you don’t have the necessary background to read scientific studies and haven’t done the homework to even be able to tell if a study is good or not.

                That’s fair. That’s an appropriate level of humility for someone who hasn’t had a background where they do stuff like read scientific papers.

                Some of us have had some training, however, and we can do stuff like read papers and come to (tentative) conclusions about them.

                The conclusions that I reached after reading the Nature study is that the most common masks (the ones I got used to seeing in my community, anyway) were not KN95 or N95 or surgical masks but SL-T or DL-T or paper masks.

                But I have been arguing for KN95 or N95 masks for a while now against people who see “masking up” as a totem.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                No, you don’t have that ability.

                You repeatedly misinterpreted that very study you linked to, and made demonstrable errors of simple logic.

                And even after it was repeatedly pointed out to you, you continue to make demonstrably false statements of fact.Report

              • JS in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Congratulations, you have encountered “What Jaybird Actually Believes” versus the more common “Jaybird JAQing off”.

                In the former, literally nothing will sway him. He has found a Truth with a conviction Prophets would kill for, and no data, argument, study, rationale, or logic shall sway him off his hill.

                In the latter, of course, he won’t stick to a belief or argument for longer than one post.

                Either way, there’s literally no point in discussing it. The former he will repeat like a catechism, and the latter he will JAQ off cutely thinking he’s being Socratic in the “he think’s he’s a wit” style.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to JS says:

                “I’m too dumb to answer the questions of some guy on the internet” is not quite the flex you seem to think it is, sirReport

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck says:

                We keep answering him, and he keeps ignoring those answers. Which IMHO is standard forum etiquette these days.Report

              • JS in reply to DensityDuck says:

                ““I’m too dumb to answer the questions of some guy on the internet” is not quite the flex you seem to think it is, sir”

                Is that what you took from it? You argue with flat earthers a lot, I take it? How do you even have time to post anywhere else?

                Seriously, the reason I stopped bothering with Jaybird is he simply has no interest in engaging with anyone.

                He either plays the “Just asking questions” games where he never acknowledges an answer save to shift to a different, often contradictory question (sometimes while berating you for daring to think his previous question was some indication of his opinion), or he simply repeats himself without ever acknowledging you.

                And you think refusing to engage in bad-faith conversation is an admission of stupidity?

                Do you think intelligence is repeatedly bashing your face into a wall? Weird flex.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                What are you guys really arguing about? That study is from September 2020, back when we had the vanilla version of covid. The omicron variant, which was far more highly transmissible, has peaked and faded already. 20% of the population is reported as having been infected; you’ve got to figure that another 20% never reported, and another 20% never knew. We’re in a Yalta situation; the main work is done, and while there will still be deaths we need to start talking about life beyond this. This article is on the right track. There will be outbreaks in places like Denmark that practically never got hit in the first place, but there probably aren’t many such places left. Mask time is over.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky says:

                Remember how i said that if a new pandemic breaks out, the same anti-mask nonsense would be spread by the same people?Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Yeah, that was funny. Good times.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Pinky says:

                I was too flippant.

                On the one hand, I think it’s wrong-headed to act like the next battle is going to be just like the last one. We don’t know when the next pandemic will happen, whether it’ll be airborne or how airborne it’ll be, or anything else about it. I feel like the vehement arguing over the particulars (or the particulates) right now is failing to see the forest for the trees. The mask wars should be over. Coronavirus is on its way out. It’s time for the Hand Sanitizer Scouring of the Shire.

                On the other hand, it’s important that we continue our study, of both science and policy. We actually have a commenter on this site who publicly espouses socialism, which should tell you that garbage ideas can last well beyond they’re proven wrong. I want scientists to understand virology better, and I want policy experts to review what worked and didn’t. I also want the people who were wrong (all of us, at one time or another) to admit it and examine why it happened.

                As for who will be on what side next time, there’s no way to tell.Report

              • Chris in reply to Jaybird says:

                The problem with homemade masks in that study was not that they emit more virus-carrying particles, but they emit fibers from the mask, which makes it difficult to measure the amount of virus-carrying particles they emit. Point being, the study (as the author’s note) can’t really tell you how effective the homemade masks are. If you read it as saying they make things worse, then you’re not actually reading the words.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Chris says:

                Remember, Jaybird and several other of our commenters don’t take written words at face value because they don’t write at face value. When scientists do – and especially when scientists do within the constraints of uncertainty as we are trained to do – they default to that being subterfuge.Report

              • Chris in reply to Chris says:

                Wondering, now: are you seeing people using this study (which clearly shows that by one measure, surgical and KN95 masks are very effective) to argue that masks are not only not effective (which the study does not show), but that they’re making things worse? I mean, you’re using this study to argue that, but is this a thing people are arguing out there using this study? Because that’s depressing, if it is the case.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chris says:

                My argument is and remains you ought to use N95 and KN95 masks. “Masking up” is not enough. You need to use a quality mask.

                As it is for the other masks, I can only point to how it said that measured particle emission rates went up compared to no mask.

                That doesn’t mean they don’t work, of course.

                But they did conclude that “the efficacy of cloth and paper masks is not as clear and confounded by shedding of mask fibers” before saying that they did protect against the larger particles.

                My argument is *NOT* “Masks don’t work!”

                It’s that N95 and KN95 masks work. And mask mandates that are okay with homemade U-SL-T and U-DL-T masks are mask mandates that are more interested in signaling than efficacy.Report

              • Chris in reply to Jaybird says:

                Your words: ” but I read that and see that there are a lot of circumstances under which masks don’t work and a handful under which they make things worse.” Nothing in the paper suggested either. If you’re walking that back now, cool.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chris says:

                You know the part that said:

                In contrast, the homemade U-SL-T and U-DL-T masks however yielded a significant increase in outward particle emission per second (or per cough) compared to no mask, with median emission rates of 49.2 and 36.1 particles/s, respectively.

                You shouldn’t use U-SL-T and U-DL-T masks.

                You should use KN95 or N95.

                Mask mandates that are okay with homemade U-SL-T and U-DL-T masks are mask mandates that are more interested in signaling than efficacy.Report

              • Chris in reply to Jaybird says:

                There is other data showing that cloth masks (with n layers, usually 3) are effective, just not nearly as effective as surgical and KN95/N95. We’ve known this for what? 2 years. We had the data even before that for airborne illness generally. The passage you quote says nothing about effectiveness, just that homemade masks spit out a lot of their fibers when a lot of air (e.g., with a cough or sneeze) flows through them, which makes it difficult to measure their efficiency looking at particle emissions.

                Anyway, at this point I’m pretty sure you know this, but just don’t want to say, “That stuff I said upthread was wrong. My bad, folks.” So meh.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chris says:

                So while U-SL-T and U-DL-T masks may not be good, U-TL-T masks are good, and therefore the statements about U-SL-T and U-DL-T masks aren’t accurate?

                The passage you quote says nothing about effectiveness, just that homemade masks spit out a lot of their fibers when a lot of air (e.g., with a cough or sneeze) flows through them, which makes it difficult to measure their efficiency looking at particle emissions.

                So the study says that, at best, we just don’t know whether they’re effective?

                While the study also says that KN95 masks and N95 masks were determined to be?

                Because that sure as hell seems to me like “KN95 and N95 masks work” and, at *BEST*, cloth masks spit out mostly particles emitted in the aerosol range (< 5 μm) and, given what I know about airborne viruses, that's the bad size. (I will say that if it's not about efficacy but signaling, it makes a lot more sense that lefties are more pissed off about people complaining about politicians being unmasked than they are about politicians being unmasked.)Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                I suppose it’s possible to read that and say “See? Masks work!” but I read that and see that there are a lot of circumstances under which masks don’t work and a handful under which they make things worse.

                UM no. That’s not what they said at all. Which is where your lack of science literacy is tripping you up. They say – as have other studies – that even ill fitting N-95, KN-95 and surgical masks show measurable (significant) reductions in particle emissions, which means that if you have COVID and are masked you spew less contagion into the air. They also say that cloth mask reduce particle emissions as well, but their tendency to shed fibers that particles might be attached to makes it harder to tell how effective they are.

                Masks work.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Kazzy says:

              The fact that its complicated is my point, and why I have no opinion on whether the change in benchmarks is correct or not.

              My objection is when self-professed skeptics credulously amplify ignorant randos and try to make them sound as authoritative as actual experts.

              Because of the vast campaign of health disinformation by the likes of BowTiedRanger and Karen Vaites, now being amplified here at OT, several hundred thousand Americans refused to get vaccinated and are now dead.

              So you can understand why I have so little patience for this nonsense.Report

        • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird says:

          Probably the best course of action in any controversy is to not treat tweets as primary sources.Report

  13. Michael Cain says:

    ThTh10: Let’s look at the details of the announced timeline for those 14 new French reactors.

    They’ve only committed to build six, with construction starting in 2028. They hope the first of the six will be online as soon as 2035. (Note that France is currently building a new reactor at Flamanville, using their latest design, and construction is now at 15 years and counting. 2035 seems optimistic.) The last of the six is expected to be finished around 2050. The other eight are in the “maybe” category. The cost-to-build estimate is pushing $10B per reactor (Flamanville is at $14.4B and counting.)

    Meanwhile, this winter and last winter both, more than 25% of the existing French reactor fleet has been offline for scheduled and emergency repairs. Discovery a few years ago of irregularities in the steel used for pressure vessels make it likely that several reactors will not get their operating licenses extended, and will be retired before any of the new reactors come online.

    I don’t think it’s exaggerating to say that if French electricity generation is going to contribute anything to the large reductions in CO2 emissions the EU has promised for 2030, it will be due to renewables and conversion from coal to gas.Report

    • North in reply to Michael Cain says:

      Which countries or regions have accomplished the transition to 100% renewable and storage so far?Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to North says:

        Well, Iceland has 100% renewable electricity but they’re a freak. A couple of South American countries are up to 90%, but also have unusual circumstances. The power authority that provides my electricity now gets 45-55% of delivered power from renewables per year (currently, as I type, 57%). Their resource plan calls for 100% noncarbon by 2030.

        I’m not knocking nuclear per se, I’m knocking France’s announced schedule. The EU, so France, has pledged major CO2 emission reductions by 2030. How much will the announced 6-14 new nukes contribute to that? Zero. None of them will be online before 2035. So France’s share of that 2030 target is going to come from some combination of renewables, efficiency, and getting more out of the problematic current nuclear fleet.

        Not to mention the EU’s statement that there will be no new petrol/diesel cars allowed starting in 2035. Assuming that means a large bump in EV sales by 2030, France will also need more total electricity by then — zero of which will be from the announced nukes.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Michael Cain says:

          If elected I promise that future politicians will figure out a way to make all of this happen. Future politicians will make the painful choices and trade offs that I am unwilling to do.

          So vote for me. You can trust my promises will be fulfilled long after I have left office and can no longer be held accountable.Report

  14. Chip Daniels says:

    ThTh1:
    The post-Covid world is permanently changed, or at least for a generation.

    If there is a new pandemic, lets say a novel cornoa virus 2024, what makes anyone think it will play out any different than what we see currently?

    The Republican laws targeting mask mandates, vaccine mandates and the power of health officials will be firmly in place.
    The millions of people who tune in to Tucker Carlson and Fox News will treat the new virus with the same flat-earth absurdity that they do now.
    The grifter and hucksters making bank off horse paste and quack medicine will still be here with plenty of support from the media.

    So yeah, if a new pandemic hits, we can expect it to kill a million Americans give or take.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      You accused Jaybird thusly: “You saw a tweet that confirmed your priors, and swallowed it hook line and sinker without bothering to do any other checking.” If true, at least he did it based on a tweet. This comment of yours is all just assertion and regurgitation of your priors (and in that classic liberal “I know the future” way).Report

    • Ann Greensburg in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      We expected this pandemic to kill 20 million Americans (to be fair, we didn’t get hit with the Original Pandemic). Your error bars on the next pandemic are outta sight.

      My prediction is that the next pandemic (which is already extant) is going to kill a negligible amount of people. That’s because “Sane people don’t make Plagues, they make Vaccines.” Bill Gates is calling Omicron a better vaccine than the ones we’ve been jabbing in people. I think he’s right.Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to Ann Greensburg says:

        To be fair, in March 2020 some pundits were suggesting COVID might kill a hundred thousand people in America, and they were howled off the stage as doom-saying fearmongers because there was no way it would ever get that bad and we’d just have to lock down for a month and then we could all go back to brunch.Report

  15. Ann Greensburg says:

    https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-whistleblowers-share-dod-medical-data-that-blows-vaccine-safety-debate-wide-open

    Now, if you want, have a read about the response to the whistleblowers. (Covered by the same media outlet).Report