Or maybe her kids have grown up and bring back home less virus? Or they have adopted a healthier lifestyle? I failed to see how how flu vaccine causes flu.
哎 昨晚看到友圈有人去要糖了 美国貌似真的是个很自由的国度啊 顺便贴一个 Cambridge家长群里来的关于学校“不/低”传染covid-19的讨论，作者貌似是波士顿拉丁学校毕业的 This is an interesting (if long-winded) article from American Prospect: https://prospect.org/coronavirus/why-reopening-schools-has-become-the-most-fraught-debate-of-the-pandemic/ The work it critiques as not being statistically valid for drawing conclusions about COVID rates in schools has been cited here to support reopening. The conclusions of low transmission rates in schools might in fact turn out to be correct, but the data being used to support them in this work seems to be based on self-selected samples. That doesn't meet the bedrock statistical test of requiring a random sample to draw conclusions about a population. Self-selected samples are quite likely to be biased, and even with a lot of analysis you may well not know what the bias is. The journalists covering the issue are not noticing this problem. That means we get articles in the popular press saying "COVID doesn't spread in schools" when really what the data says is "COVID didn´t spread in the schools we checked." What´s being left out is "... but because the schools we checked were not a random sample, this data doesn´t allow us to draw any statistically valid conclusions about schools generally." There may be other data sets that don't have this problem, but the article points to one widely cited data collection effort -- including, as noted, some mentions here -- that does. The other school cases data set cited in the article is this one: https://tinyurl.com/y39foxba. To me it's better -- not because it uses a random sample (it doesn't), but because it just summarizes reported case counts, and doesn't try to draw conclusions from self-reported data. Note I am not saying "COVID spreads in schools." Only that data based on non-random samples can´t answer that question for schools generally.
今年其实不一定要打Flu shot。因为大家为了防新冠病毒的招数，基本上把流感都防住了。下面是CDC的一个report，南半球3个国家（澳大利亚，智利和南非），过去三年平均每年流感季24512/3= 8171 Flu确诊，今年流感季只有51 Flu确诊。南半球今年就是没有流感季节。因为防御新冠导致呼吸道疾病（包括流感）断崖式下降的情况已经在香港报道过了。 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937a6.htm In the Southern Hemisphere countries of Australia, Chile, and South Africa, only 33 influenza positive test results were detected among 60,031 specimens tested in Australia, 12 among 21,178 specimens tested in Chile, and six among 2,098 specimens tested in South Africa, for a total of 51 influenza positive specimens (0.06%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.04%–0.08%) among 83,307 tested in these three countries during April–July 2020 (weeks 14–31). In contrast, during April–July in 2017–2019, 24,512 specimens tested positive for influenza (13.7%, 95% CI = 13.6%–13.9%) among 178,690 tested in these three countries (Figure 2). 但是既然流感疫苗已经生产出来了，又是免费，那想打就打吧。不过今年流感疫苗是不是有问题需要自己考虑。韩国今年有59-72人打流感疫苗后死亡。其中有人打了赛诺菲的疫苗。韩国官方说这些死亡不是由flu shot导致的。 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-southkorea-flushot/south-korean-authorities-stick-to-flu-vaccine-plan-after-deaths-rise-to-48-idINKBN2790G8
我家里蹲不出门，送菜送餐上门，我不打，我从来不打流感疫苗
有的人觉得流感疫苗打了还是会感冒。。。
Re, 犹豫的就是这个。现在娃一周只去学校两个小时还带口罩。我们也WFH 也就出去买个菜... 朋友小孩前两天打了还发烧两天，所以....
I would if my kid goes to school and I go shopping.
我也有这个疑问，难道他们预测的病毒株如果和流行的不同反而会增加感染几率。
Or maybe her kids have grown up and bring back home less virus? Or they have adopted a healthier lifestyle? I failed to see how how flu vaccine causes flu.
顺便贴一个 Cambridge家长群里来的关于学校“不/低”传染covid-19的讨论，作者貌似是波士顿拉丁学校毕业的
This is an interesting (if long-winded) article from American Prospect: https://prospect.org/coronavirus/why-reopening-schools-has-become-the-most-fraught-debat e-of-the-pandemic/
The work it critiques as not being statistically valid for drawing conclusions about COVID rates in schools has been cited here to support reopening. The conclusions of low transmission rates in schools might in fact turn out to be correct, but the data being used to support them in this work seems to be based on self-selected samples. That doesn't meet the bedrock statistical test of requiring a random sample to draw conclusions about a population. Self-selected samples are quite likely to be biased, and even with a lot of analysis you may well not know what the bias is.
The journalists covering the issue are not noticing this problem. That means we get articles in the popular press saying "COVID doesn't spread in schools" when really what the data says is "COVID didn´t spread in the schools we checked." What´s being left out is "... but because the schools we checked were not a random sample, this data doesn´t allow us to draw any statistically valid conclusions about schools generally."
There may be other data sets that don't have this problem, but the article points to one widely cited data collection effort -- including, as noted, some mentions here -- that does.
The other school cases data set cited in the article is this one: https://tinyurl.com/y39foxba. To me it's better -- not because it uses a random sample (it doesn't), but because it just summarizes reported case counts, and doesn't try to draw conclusions from self-reported data.
Note I am not saying "COVID spreads in schools." Only that data based on non-random samples can´t answer that question for schools generally.
还有这种公司
今年其实不一定要打Flu shot。因为大家为了防新冠病毒的招数，基本上把流感都防住了。下面是CDC的一个report，南半球3个国家（澳大利亚，智利和南非），过去三年平均每年流感季24512/3= 8171 Flu确诊，今年流感季只有51 Flu确诊。南半球今年就是没有流感季节。因为防御新冠导致呼吸道疾病（包括流感）断崖式下降的情况已经在香港报道过了。 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6937a6.htm In the Southern Hemisphere countries of Australia, Chile, and South Africa, only 33 influenza positive test results were detected among 60,031 specimens tested in Australia, 12 among 21,178 specimens tested in Chile, and six among 2,098 specimens tested in South Africa, for a total of 51 influenza positive specimens (0.06%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.04%–0.08%) among 83,307 tested in these three countries during April–July 2020 (weeks 14–31). In contrast, during April–July in 2017–2019, 24,512 specimens tested positive for influenza (13.7%, 95% CI = 13.6%–13.9%) among 178,690 tested in these three countries (Figure 2).
但是既然流感疫苗已经生产出来了，又是免费，那想打就打吧。不过今年流感疫苗是不是有问题需要自己考虑。韩国今年有59-72人打流感疫苗后死亡。其中有人打了赛诺菲的疫苗。韩国官方说这些死亡不是由flu shot导致的。 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-southkorea-flushot/south-korean-authorities-stick-to-flu-vaccine-plan-after-deaths-rise-to-48-idINKBN2790G8
打吧，成熟的疫苗。每年都打
这个... 算你狠的
今年肯定得打， 不打的话， 万一得流感了， 不知道得的是什么， 去医院还容易传染上新冠