Thursday Throughput: The Trailing Edge of Omicron Edition
[ThTh1] As the Omicron wave wanes across the country, COVID restrictions are falling like dominos. Even in Democratically controlled states and cities, mask mandates are being rescinded, businesses are going to full pre-pandemic status and vaccine passport ideas are being shelved. Does this mean, as seemingly half the conservative commentariat is saying, that COVID restrictions were wrong all the time and we damaged our country for nothing?
No.
What it means is that the circumstances have changed and so our policy is changing along with it. The vast majority of Americans are vaccinated, and the vaccines still protect against severe disease. Those who are not vaccinate are unlikely to change their minds. And while they are still a danger to the vulnerable, they are mostly a danger to themselves. Many of them have already been exposed to Omicron and have some degree of “natural” immunity.
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. The dominant variant is less lethal. And we have abundant vaccines and ramping up therapeutics that protect those willing to take them. I’m sure there are people who would love to keep restrictions in place until COVID is gone. But ultimately, our efforts to control the disease have to be tempered by what the population is willing to do.
We must also be cognizant of the reality that COVID may not be done with us. There tends to be pattern to these things:
For all those removing mask mandates, I repeat a graphic I've been using since March 2020. We keep doing this over and over and over. pic.twitter.com/LjYpukLi0G
— Cheryl Rofer (@CherylRofer) February 8, 2022
The sudden explosion of COVID numbers in Denmark just after all COVID restrictions were removed does suggest this note of caution is warranted. But if we’re going to expect people to buckle down if a future variant hits, we have to ease up when those variants fade.
But, really, I feel like there’s a bit of “Guns of August” thing going on here, where we want to have perpetual arguments about things that are no longer relevant. What we really need to be doing is thinking about the future: what we do if a much more dangerous variant of COVID emerges; what we do if a much more dangerous variant of the flu emerges; what we do if a different virus goes global? If we’re going to have to “live with COVID”, what does that world look like?
Remember … we’ve done this before. Many of the things we do every day — such as not defecating in the streets or tossing dead bodies in our drinking water — are things we started doing to reduce disease. We wash dishes, we wash ourselves, we throw out moldy food, we clean scrapes and cuts — to keep disease in check. We wear seatbelts, we put safeties on our guns, we put child safety locks on medicines. Many of these things we do without thinking. But they all reduce our risks in various ways.
How do we reduce the risks in a post-COVID world? We need to be investing more research into universal coronavirus vaccines that can deal with any variant. We need to be vaccinating people all over the world and increasing our disease surveillance so that we can spot new disease and variants before they explode into the general population. We need to be putting a huge effort into figuring out if remote schooling doesn’t have to be a fiasco — the next variant may target kids for all we know. We need to especially focus on ventilation, revamping buildings to turn over their internal air as fast as practicable.
The post-COVID world doesn’t have to be a nightmare of preventable death. Nor does it have to be a nightmare of lockdowns and restrictions. We have to evaluate what has happened over the last two years to see what worked and what didn’t. But that evaluation should not be about assigning blame; it should be about learning lessons. It should be about — as it has been for all of human history — finding ways to reduce risk that don’t damage our society.
[ThTh2] The BBC asks an interesting question: what happened to the AstroZeneca vaccine? While the AZ vaccine was the first developed, it has come to be overshadowed by the mRNA vaccines. They go into the politics of the vaccines and how that might have affected it, but I think the answer is much simpler: the mRNA vaccines were new. They got the most attention because they were revolutionary tech. And so, they eventually came to overshadow not just the AstroZeneca vaccine but the Johnson and Johnson vaccine.
At this point, it doesn’t make a huge amount of difference. The main impediments to vaccinating people are vaccine resistance and logistics, not availability.
[ThTh3] Astronomy is a 6000-year story of the universe telling us we don’t know half as much as we think we do:
#Space Facts 😲 pic.twitter.com/7DoegYO3SM
— Space_Hub (@SpaceHub_SL) February 15, 2022
[ThTh4] NASA has selected its next two missions to study the Sun. Congratulations to the teams that got picked.
[ThTh5] I’ve written before about the dangers of the coming Solar maximum. Last week, the Sun decided to fry a bunch of Elon Musk’s satellites. As you can probably imagine, I’m just heartbroken about this.
[ThTh6] Great thread on the zanclean megaflood.
[ThTh7] Don’t look now but bacteria are eating the Titanic.
[ThTh8] One of the most fun things to talk about is Dark Matter. This matter constitutes 95% of the mass in the universe and we have no idea what it is. Well … we could get some new insights by studying it in our own Solar System.
[ThTh9] A new and large study indicates that state-run pre-K systems may actually harm children’s long-term development. There is an intense debate going on about why this may be. I lean toward the explanation that many of these programs are instruction-based, run likes schools for older kids. But little kids seem to do better in play-based pre-K where they mainly focus on social skills and getting to know other kid. Instruction rigor is slowly introduced as they get older. Both of my kids went to a play-based pre-K program and both transitioned well to elementary school.
There’s a great scene in the movie Uncle Buck where the title character tears into a school Administrator for thinking a 6-year-old should be taking her educational career seriously. It’s funny but I think there’s also a point: the solution our educational woes is not to crush the life out of younger and younger kids; it’s to slowly open them up to the glorious splendor of knowledge and learning. That’s not something that a giant government program is going to be good at. And so, we should be cautious as we stampede toward “universal pre-K”.
[ThTh9] Advances in nuclear fusion seem to be coming faster and faster. It used to be that the “we’re a decade away from commercial nuclear fusion” folks were wild-eyed futurists and science fictions fans. But I’m hearing that more and more from actual engineers and plasma physicists. We have made more progress in the last five years than in the previous fifty. And if we do get to a point where this is real thing, it would solve many many problems.
[ThTh10] Speaking of which, France is addressing both global warming and rising Russian influence in the best way possible right now: building more fission reactors.
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
Yes, the circumstances have changed.
The mid-terms are rapidly approaching.Report
Check out the blue square on that graph.Report
“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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
I have disappointing news:
The CDC apparently thinks that everybody should be able to live as if they were rich enough to go to the Superbowl.Report
CDC, always on time to be late.Report
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
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
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
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
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
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
I have heard no small numbers of Americans and English involuntarily wax rhapsodic about French (and Italian) food- even routine French food.Report
No. Here’s their profile going back to 1971. Like much of the world, their first big change was after OPEC started making oil too valuable to burn to generate electricity. By eye nuclear’s share peaked in the early 2000s and has started to decline as they retire the oldest and/or most dangerous reactors.Report
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
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
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
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
On the other hand, re: masks, I haven’t had a cold for 2 years.Report
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
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
On a personal level I am very ready to get rid of them now that vaccines are and have been everywhere.Report
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
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
I’m in NJ where numbers are much better, fortunately.Report
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
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
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
Tying schools and covid and masking all together in a neat little bow:
Report
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
¿Por Qué No Los Dos?Report
???Report
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
Sigh.Report
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
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
“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
I’m am getting so weary of reporting this:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449Report
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
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
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
That’s not what science actually says.Report
Nature Magazine had a study where they found a lot of stuff that surprised them.
This one was really interesting:
There are masks that actively make things worse than no mask at all.
Which is nuts.
Here’s the conclusion:
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
SERIOUSLY?
Do we need to do this again?Report
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
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
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
“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
We keep answering him, and he keeps ignoring those answers. Which IMHO is standard forum etiquette these days.Report
““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
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
Remember how i said that if a new pandemic breaks out, the same anti-mask nonsense would be spread by the same people?Report
Yeah, that was funny. Good times.Report
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
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
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
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
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
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
You know the part that said:
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
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
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
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
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
Probably the best course of action in any controversy is to not treat tweets as primary sources.Report
Next time I’ll add a link to the CDC webpage itself.Report
JeremiahJohnsonNodding.gifReport
I’m not on Twitter but I tend to be skeptical of Tweets that include screen shots of articles but no links. Maybe I don’t know how Twitter works but that always seems like a red flag of someone wanting to misrepresent something.Report
yeah, it’s a “red flag” that the poster expects the article to be modified substantially (or deleted entirely) when the publication sees that The Wrong People have noticed itReport
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
Which countries or regions have accomplished the transition to 100% renewable and storage so far?Report
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
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
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
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
If true, at least he did it based on a tweet.
You make that sound as if it is exculpatory. But that is the charge itself. “I passed on a tweet,” isn’t a defense to a charge of passing on tweets.Report
“Yes that happened but it’s good, actually” is a good counter-argument to “this happened”.
But, still, I’m not sure that it’s good, actually.Report
This seems to be a response to Pinky. My point was precisely the opposite.Report
To be precise, my charge was not “passing on a tweet”.
My charge was that the self-professed “skepticism of authority” was replaced with unquestioning acceptance of ignorance.Report
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
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
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