PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> Online teaching cant go on forever because you say it cant?
>
> Your making my points for me. Parents are eager for F2F teaching and
> students are "very much done" with online, and then make the leap
> that 100% vaccination. Students and parents would welcome going back to F2F
> if there wasnt a vaccine at all.
>
> The risk of infection is not zero, valid data shows that the vaccinated can
> get infected.
>
> We disagree.
It can't go on forever because schools, parents and students don't want it to continue forever.
Yes, as I said parents and students are eager, but that doesn't mean they're all completely careless (well, most students might be but most parents aren't) - if they have two options of in-person teaching (either 100% vaccinated staff or 100% unvaccinated staff) they will choose they one with the least amount of risk: the 100% vaccinated staff.
As I said before: I never said vaccinated teachers can't still get infected. But they have a 90% lower risk of infecting others (students and other teachers). And a school can order the teachers to keep their classroom ventilated and keep their distance from others.
Vaccine info in CV?
Reply
@Heliotrope
Nice try walking it back. You identify a factor that gets you to the outcome you want (parents want F2F) and then use it to justify your claim (that its a selling point), as if the two are co-variates of one another, they arent.
Desire and want have all of zero to do with it. If the COVID19 . didnt have a vaccine or it was going to be a much longer prolonged pandemic remote learning would continue, because governments would dictate it so.
Creating a dichotomy between two options does not validate your claims. That one choice is preferential to another does not make it a selling point, there is a substantial difference between what people will choose and what they will pay coin for.
You dont know its 90%, youre relying on a study that thinks its 90%. there is no study or research available that can claim with 1.0 validity that it has accounted for the variance of all factors.
Nice try walking it back. You identify a factor that gets you to the outcome you want (parents want F2F) and then use it to justify your claim (that its a selling point), as if the two are co-variates of one another, they arent.
Desire and want have all of zero to do with it. If the COVID19 . didnt have a vaccine or it was going to be a much longer prolonged pandemic remote learning would continue, because governments would dictate it so.
Creating a dichotomy between two options does not validate your claims. That one choice is preferential to another does not make it a selling point, there is a substantial difference between what people will choose and what they will pay coin for.
You dont know its 90%, youre relying on a study that thinks its 90%. there is no study or research available that can claim with 1.0 validity that it has accounted for the variance of all factors.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1173
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
If parents prefer a school with a 100% vaccinated staff over one that doesn't, then having a 100% vaccinated staff is a selling point for a school.
The '90% less likely to infect others' is from a thorough and peer-reviewed study. If it's good enough for the CDC, it's good enough for me.
The '90% less likely to infect others' is from a thorough and peer-reviewed study. If it's good enough for the CDC, it's good enough for me.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1173
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
Yes it is.
No they aren't.
Yes, we do.
No they aren't.
Yes, we do.