The New York Times reports that the public schools of New York City have been conducting random drug tests, and the results reveal a surprisingly small number of COVID-19 infections. The city might be a “national model.”
For months, as New York City struggled to start part-time, in-person classes, fear grew that its 1,800 public schools would become vectors of coronavirus infection, a citywide archipelago of super-spreader sites.
But nearly three weeks into the in-person school year, early data from the city’s first effort at targeted testing has shown the opposite: a surprisingly small number of positive cases.
Out of 15,111 staff members and students tested randomly by the school system in the first week of its testing regimen, the city has gotten back results for 10,676. There were only 18 positives: 13 staff members and five students.
And when officials put mobile testing units at schools near Brooklyn and Queens neighborhoods that have had new outbreaks, only four positive cases turned up — out of more than 3,300 tests conducted since the last week of September.
New York City is facing fears of a second wave of the virus brought on by localized spikes in Brooklyn and Queens, which have required new shutdown restrictions that included the closure of more than 120 public schools as a precaution, even though few people in them have tested positive.
But for now, at least, the sprawling system of public schools, the nation’s largest, is an unexpected bright spot as the city tries to recover from a pandemic that has killed more than 20,000 people and severely weakened its economy.
If students can continue to return to class, and parents have more confidence that they can go back to work, that could provide a boost to New York City’s halting recovery.
The absence of early outbreaks, if it holds, suggests that the city’s efforts for its 1.1 million public school students could serve as an influential model for school districts across the nation.
In September, New York became the first big urban district to reopen schools for in-person learning.
Roughly half of the city’s students have opted for hybrid learning, where they are in the building some days, but not others. The approach has enabled the city to keep class sizes small and create more space between desks.
Since then, large school districts across Florida have opened for in-person learning, too. Some wealthier districts in the New York suburbs declined to take this step, worried that it was too risky and logistically challenging.
The city’s success so far could put much more pressure on other districts that have opted for only remote instruction to start considering plans to bring their children back as well.
“That data is encouraging,” said Paula White, executive director of Educators for Excellence, a teachers group. “It reinforces what we have heard about schools not being super spreaders.”
So far, it is also good news for Mayor Bill de Blasio, who has staked much of his second-term legacy on reopening schools for in-person learning during the pandemic.
While public health experts said the data was encouraging, they also cautioned that it was still early.
In general, maintaining low levels of infection at schools would depend on how well New York City does in holding off a broader spread in the population.
Also, some experts have called for much more frequent random testing in all schools — something that city officials are considering — in order to increase the odds of discovering an outbreak early.
So far, most coronavirus testing for school workers has taken place at city-run sites outside the purview of the education department.
Out of 37,000 tests of staff members at city sites, 180 were positive, a city official said.
According to separate data reported to the state by local school districts, 198 public school students in New York City have tested positive since Sept. 8. (Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in early September ordered those conducting coronavirus tests to collect school information on children, but so far compliance has been spotty, state officials said.)
The city’s new schools testing regimen, which began Oct. 9, calls for 10 to 20 percent of the school population to be tested once a month, depending on the size of the school. The city is applying this testing to its 1,600 traditional public schools; the city’s 260 charter schools are not included.
Some researchers have questioned the efficacy of that approach, saying it could miss a large outbreak.
“It’s great that New York City is doing some level of random testing,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health. “It’s not at the level that would be ideal.”
One study recommended testing half the students twice a month.
Michael Mulgrew, president of the teachers union, said the city is looking to increase testing to as much as three times a month citywide. Such frequency, he said, would be “much more valuable” in terms of keeping the virus in check…
A positive test of a student or teacher causes the city to spring into action. Under the rules, one case can cause the closure of a classroom. Two or more cases in separate parts of the same school can prompt a temporary schoolwide closure. At least 25 schools have temporarily closed since classes began. But only three were closed as of Friday…
A positive test of a student or teacher causes the city to spring into action. Under the rules, one case can cause the closure of a classroom. Two or more cases in separate parts of the same school can prompt a temporary schoolwide closure. At least 25 schools have temporarily closed since classes began. But only three were closed as of Friday.
I have not found information about the names of the tests (labs responsible) the reliability of the tests, method of testing, or the turnaround time for test results. This apparently good news for NYC as well as the data for other parts of the state could be helpful to other states if some of those questions were answered.
All of the information you suggest is necessary to make truly well-informed decisions. I have not heard of anyone touting a new miracle rapid test. False positives and negatives have been a major problem and have resulted in the call for two tests in close succession.
It is good news, although it’s not surprising. Thanks for posting it.
Two classes in my Bronx school plus their teachers were put on 2 week quarantine Friday. Another 2 cohorts were just sent home. I wouldn’t brag just yet.
Random drug tests or COVID tests?
This is so confusing because so few students are going to school. It’s like saying that any city is safe after lots of restrictions. That proves that lots of restrictions keeps people safe, not that reopening entirely is possible.
I do believe that some careful, limited reopening of schools is possible, but not sure how this says anything except what we already know — that social distancing and mask wearing and having very few students in schools allows that.
I think the only conclusion to be drawn from this story is that small classes and social distancing and regular temp checks are keeping the students and schools safe.
It does not suggest that a full reopening without social distancing and with full class sizes would be safe.
Temperature checks do not verify that Covid 19 is NOT in the building. That is just making sure you do not have one of the symptoms.
And as usual they ask an E4E hack to get a quote.
Why would Diane Ravitch source an article that included a quote from E4E, created by TFA in 2010.
WOW! She used to be anti TFA, or whoever is writing her stuff has no knowledge of the history.
THIS IS THE QUOTE FROM A NYT ARTICLE about how safe nyc schools are.
“That data is encouraging,” said Paula White, executive director of Educators for Excellence, a teachers group. “It reinforces what we have heard about schools not being super spreaders.”
Since pfh64 used the pronoun “they” I thought he was noting an action by NYT, not Diane.
Given an earlier discussion, folks might be interested in this interview of Emily Oster: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/16/924583724/opening-schools-and-other-hard-decisions
My wife teaches in the system. She says the classroom are almost empty. Students aren’t coming. Even students who were supposed to be for the hybrid plan. NO SHOWS. I hear this from other teachers as well. I wouldn’t pat NYCDOE on the back yet, much less hold it up as a model for moving ahead.
I really think it is way too soon to be praising NYC! “ Out of 15,111 staff members and students tested randomly by the school system in the first week of its testing regimen, the city has gotten back results for 10,676. There were only 18 positives: 13 staff members and five students.” We have figures for one week. 13 staff are positive. Are they hospitalized? Are they dead? This glorification of in person school is dangerous! Life is too short as it is. Every life should counts.
https://twitter.com/mirandabarbot/status/1318271529357115392?s=21
I agree with every word you wrote, Poetic Justice. I too want to have those answers. I also read John’s comment above this with great interest. If just one person dies, then anyone who cheers this on and would have the temerity to say that lives are priceless needs to STFU. The jury is still out. Uncertainty still dominates certainty. And none of these statistics mentions a wit about others in the community who may have been exposed.
The real villains in this sordid tale are Republicans in Congress the Idiot in the White House. There should have been at least three stimulus bills passed by now, just as if we had been at war for our nation’s existence. Instead we’re debating statistics that are nebulous at best, disastrous at worst.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education and commented:
I’m shocked, they are actually testing and have a plan. I’ve never heard of such a thing.
It just make me shake my head more at the lack of leadership at the national level. If we had some leadership at the national level, then we would be closer to ending this than closer to starting round two.
encouraging indeed, but early. . . .
“We have it totally under control. . . . It’s going to be just fine.” –Jan 22
“We think we have it very well under control. We have very little problem in this country at this moment–five. And those people are all recuperating successfully.” –Jan 30
“The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. . . . Stock market starting to look very good to me.” –Feb 24
“We have very few people with it, and the people that have it are . . . getting better. They’re all getting better. . . . As far as what we’re doing with the new virus, I think that we’re doing a great job.” –Feb 25
“And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.” –Feb 26
The second surge has begun nationwide.
“ The city’s new schools testing regimen, which began Oct. 9, calls for 10 to 20 percent of the school population to be tested once a month, depending on the size of the school. The city is applying this testing to its 1,600 traditional public schools; the city’s 260 charter schools are not included.
Some researchers have questioned the efficacy of that approach, saying it could miss a large outbreak.”
As much as I want our schools to be safe; a sampling of this size isn’t enough to make me feel confident. Most of my colleagues feel the same.
I, too, agree with Poetic Justice & GregB: one death is too many. They just closed down 4 campuses of the 2 local high schools, & these are newer buildings, better built, some bathrooms w.no-touch sinks (although the hand blowers vs. paper towels in not best hygiene, as it’s an air spreader). Why? Because parties were held on the weekend(s) at which kids were infected (contact tracing was done). &, right, temperature taking tells us…
nothing. Too many people may be asymptomatic. They were going to shut down the schools, sanitize & reopen, but they’re going full remote for the foreseeable future: the weather is changing, & the positive numbers are climbing all over the midwest.
No, I just can’t see it. It was said yesterday–&, again, today–that most people are being infected at home. So who will these kids bring it home to? It’s all too unknown, but one thing we do know: the virus is airborne. It is not like AIDS, it is not like Zika, it is not like West Nile Virus. It. Is. In. The. Air. Everywhere. Do people wear masks 24/7?
KEY words: the kids bring it home
I don’t have much time to comment here….because I have to get ready for school.
But I’m glad to read your thoughts.
A QUESTION: what is the status of hand sanitizer in schools?. According to the guidance I read from the New York State Dept of Health (as of late August 2020) hand sanitizer should be made available throughout common areas in schools.
But then I hear that hand sanitizer has been pulled from hallways etc… in some districts because it could be flammable and/or the potential for students drinking it. (If the dispensers are unsupervised by adults.). There’s alcohol in there….various types of varying danger, as I understand it.
(Yes, you read that right…the potential for drinking hand sanitizer is limiting its availability …during a global pandemic.)
Your help on this issue would be appreciated, Diane and company. I’ve been trying to get to the bottom of this question….
How are other schools in New York State handling hand sanitizer (pun intended)? And, around the nation.
Thanks,
Gotta go…
While it is good news for New York, other states, particularly Utah, have not been as lucky. There was an entire New York Times article over the weekend that discusses Utah’s huge school outbreaks. Many schools have closes and a couple have closed, reopened, and then closed again.
People should NOT assume that schools aren’t superspreaders. Utah’s schools are proof of that.
Where is the proof that Utah’s schools are “superspreaders”?
Hundreds of cases in schools. Schools shut down because of high levels of infection. Some schools shut down, reopened, then shut down again. Entire staffs quarantined. Need I go on? You have no clue what us happening in Utah
That wouldn’t show that schools are “superspreading.” Schools will likely mirror the infection rates of the larger communities.
If there is one or more events that fueled the high caseload in schools, I have a feeling that contact tracing is going to take awhile to figure out what events are responsible if ever. It’s just now I am hearing them saying that the motorcycle rally in South Dakota Aug.7-14 seeded the entire upper Midwest and was therefore a superspreader. Here it is two months later. Whether the schools can be classified as superspreaders doesn’t change the immediate remedy of closing the schools if there are lots of sick kids and staff. What else needs to be addressed will surface in the days and weeks to come.
No way to prove that the spread isn’t happening in schools, either, by your logic.
It’s the excuse schools have used to stay open, even with horrifyingly high cases loads–that it’s “community spread,” not school spread.
Meanwhile, since schools and colleges in Utah have reopened, cases in Utah have skyrocketed and Utah now has the largest rates of hospitalization since the pandemic started.
The local high school has gone full remote for a week because of community spread in the surrounding area. The students found to be positive did not contract it at school, but the numbers in the surrounding communities met the threshold for closing down the in-house teaching after only a week at 25%. Out elementary schools that feed into the high school are still open hybrid. They draw from a smaller area than the high school that serves several towns. Fortunately elementary kids are less likely to spread the virus at weekend parties than teenagers.
If infection rates in schools are similar to or lower than community infection rates, schools are not “superspreader” environments.
“the city has gotten back results for 10,676. There were only 18 positives: 13 staff members and five students.”
Few seem to be questioning the “only 18 positives” (0.17% positivity rate)
Personally, I find that claim surprising not because of any preconceived notion about how safe schools are (or are not), but because of what I have read about the (nonzero) false negative rate of even the most accurate covid tests (RT-PCR)
I find the claim incredibly surprising , with the emphasis on incredible. As in not credible.
I don’t know what kind of tests are being done and who is doing them for NYCity schools because that information is not readily available (I lsearched to no avail) but let’s assume they are all RT-PCR tests and that the samples were all properly collected.
No one can say with certainty what the “actual” false negative rate of RT-PCR tests is, not least of all because it depends on at what point during an infection the test is performed. The test has its best chance of being accurate (lowest false negative rate) during the active symptom stage. At other times during an infection it can vary wildly (and I mean that quite literally, from up to 100% false negative rate on day one of infection down to a few percent when symptoms are full blown)
https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20200616/us-taking-wrong-approach-to-covid19-testing-expert-warns
This is why actual experts actually provide a range for the false negative estimate of RT- PCR tests. A fairly recent article in the New England Journal of medicine put the false negative percentage at between 2% and 29%, based on an evaluation of a number of studies for those “under suspicion of Covid-19” or with “confirmed cases”)
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2015897#:~:text=In%20days%201%20through%207,at%20least%20one%20respiratory%20specimen.
That is also why even testing labs (the honest ones, at least) that provide a false negative estimate are careful to say something like “<3% false negative during active symptoms”. In other words, if there is a good clinical reason to suspect someone has covid, then a PCR test will most likely confirm it with fairly high (albeit still imperfect) accuracy.
But, of course, the tests that the NYCity schools are performing are not just on those showing symptoms. They are supposedly “random” (although not really because they require parental consent and only about half of parents have consented).
But let’s assume they are actually random and a fairly representative sample . Let’s also ignore the fact that the 2- 29% range estimate for false negative was for those “under suspicion of Covid-19” or with “confirmed cases” and assume it applies to random testing as well.
Even the most optimistic assumption (the false negative rate of 2% for RT-PCR tests) would yield over 200 actual infections for the NYCity schools sample (2% of 10,658 negatives =213 false negatives) .
That would be over ten times the “only 18” that are at least implied by the reported results.
And a 29% false negative rate would yield over 3000 actual real covid infections (29% of 10,658 negatives = 3091 false negatives)
We have no way of knowing for sure at what point in the infection cycle people “randomly” being tested are likely to be, but these numbers at least provide a probable range for infections (200 – 3000) that paints a picture that is (shall we say)” not quite as rosy” as that painted by the implication that only 18 out of 10,676 tested were infected with the sarscov2 virus.
The CENTRAL problem here (and one that keeps rearng its head (of is it rear?) with regard to claims reported by economists and other self-styled “experts”) is that some people are taking numbers like “18” (out of 10,676) to be perfectly accurate, with ZERO uncertainty attached.
But they are NOT perfectly accurate and to assume they are is decidedly UNscientific. It might come as a surprise to some, but there is no such thing as a perfectly accurate test for disease (or any other sort of scientific measurement) .
And any time a “bare” result like “18 out of 10, 676” (or posivity rate like 0.17%) is provided without any uncertainty attached, it is a warning to “Watch out! Swim at your own risk. There might be sharks below the calm surface!”
And it should go without saying that there is a significant difference between 18 and 213 and of course, an even larger difference between 18 and 3091 (to put it mildly)
Would 213 infections out of 10,676 (~2%) still indicate that the NYC schools are “surprisingly safe”?
After all, a 3% (on a seven day average) positivity rate is the threshold established by NYCity officials to close schools down. How does one even get a seven day average if one is only testing once a month, by the way? Does one test over seven days once a month? Or how does that work? How does random testing just once a month prevent outbreaks of a disease with a virus that spreads much quicker than that (on a scale of days)? Inquiring minds want to know.
How about 3091 infections out of 10, 676? (~29%) Would that still be ” surprisingly safe?”
I’d call the latter “alarming” (surprisingly or otherwise) but others are free to disagree (and if we can be certain of anything, it is that someone somewhere on the internet WILL disagree😀)
What I find MOST surprising about all this is that some very smart people seem to be just taking claims like “only 18 positives” out of 10, 676 tests at face value — a rate of 0.17% that is better than ten times the estimated accuracy of the tests themselves,even under optimal circumstances.
Can someone please explain how that works? I am sure there are people who are quite literally dying to know.
**Following quotes are from NEJm
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2015897#:~:text=In%20days%201%20through%207,at%20least%20one%20respiratory%20specimen.
From New England Journal of Medicine
“In a preprint systematic review of five studies (not including the Yang and Zhao studies), involving 957 patients (“under suspicion of Covid-19” or with “confirmed cases”), false negatives ranged from 2 to 29%.”
[my comment: But even that came with a disclaimer:]
Again, From NEJM
“However, the certainty of the evidence was considered very low because of the heterogeneity of sensitivity estimates among the studies, lack of blinding to index-test results in establishing diagnoses, and failure to report key RT-PCR characteristics.4 Taken as a whole, the evidence, while limited, raises concern about frequent false negative RT-PCR results.“
I just noticed the nonsense has been “updated” above, with a new nonsensical claim of 28 positives out of 16,298 test results for a positivity rate the same as before (0.17%)
Some may believe otherwise, but updated bullshit is still bullshit.
It’s utter nonsense to claim a positivity rate of 0.17% that is not only less than, but less than 1/10th (!!) the estimated “best case” false negative rate for the RT-PCR test ( 2%)
For anyone who actually believes that one can attain an overall result with an accuracy higher than that of the covid test itself, I have some prime oceanfront property in Arizona to sell (cheap! Get it while it lasts!)
Let’s use the estimated false negative range for the RT-PCR test (2% – 29%) to estimate a reasonable (supported by the science) range for the number of actual infections for 16,298 test results, shall we?
Subtracting the 28 positives from 16,298 yields 16,270 negatives.
If 2% of those are false negatives, that would mean 325 actual covid infections among the negatives.
If 29% of those are false negatives, that would mean 4718 actual covid infections among the negatives.
Putting this all together and adding the original 28 positives to the likely false negative numbers gives an estimate for the actual number of infections that probably lies somewhere in the range 353 to 4746
That’s what the science implies.
So, does the ” only 28″ positives claimed lie within the range 353 to 4746?
Not according to any math I ever learned. Not even close (unless maybe one is talking about the blast of a hydrogen bomb)
And for anyone who believes that the accuracy in this case somehow improves (error % decreases) with a larger sample size (as with polls), I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but it does NOT. Although even any half way decent poll includes a margin of error, which is absolutely critical to interpreting the results (something that most people and even the news media regularly ignore).
Any time a “result” is given without an associated error/uncertainty , it’s a sure sign of “bullshit ahead”.
I should point out that as long as one has no further information, one is wise to use the ranges of infection calculated using the given false negative rates.
While it is possible that the number of actual infections could be less than the low number calculated for the 2% false negative rate, it’s simply not valid ( for the reason I pointed out above) to just assume that the number (in this case 28 out of 16,298) is the real number of infections just because that was the number of test positives.
And lest anyone think I exaggerate the false negative issue
https://www.wkrn.com/community/health/coronavirus/false-negative-covid-19-tests-may-contribute-to-rising-numbers/
False-negative COVID-19 tests may contribute to rising numbers
“Receiving a negative COVID-19 test result is a relief, but infectious disease doctor with Vanderbilt University Medical Center, David Aronoff, said it’s not a free pass.
“What we’re having some issues with is not all negative tests mean that we’re uninfected,” said Dr. Aronoff.
He warned there’s a pretty significant risk of a false-negative test particularly in the early stages of infection”
Well, I remain sufficiently skeptical that I declined a job offer last week at a school in the North Bronx. I really respect the faculty and administration with whom I interviewed, so it was a very tough decision. I actually wanted this job. But as I say, I remain skeptical. I need and want a job; at the same time, I have determined that being dead will cut into my earning power….
No one ever died of skepticism — except, of course, for Giordano Bruno, for supporting Copernicus.
But hopefully, you won’t be similarly burned at the stake for skepticism on the covid issue.
Otherwise, we’ll have to start referring to you as the late, great “marksXedterminal”
And NY School officials as Xterminalators
Hahahahahaha! Made my day, SomeDAM. Can I get you a coffee?
Some day, when this is all over, maybe Diane can have a giant get-together and we can share a coffee or beer (with Brett K, of course, since he likes beer) . I think it will have to be in a national park, cuz that’s the only place big enough.
Great idea, SDP.
Death Valley might be apt
I love Death Valley, by the way.
It has an austere beauty.
Being dead brings worming power.
You are being smart, mark. Don’t ever apologize for that.
We still don’t know what we still don’t know.
Thank you RBMTK. In the meantime, to brighten my day, a calico cat literally followed me home today. I brought her up to my apartment, opened a can of tuna for her, and enjoyed a meowy afternoon.
Speaking of not knowing what we don’t know.
Where is Donald Rumsfeld when we need him?
“We know where the WMD are. They’re in the area around 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and east, west, south and north somewhat,”
As Mick Jagger said,
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try some time
You won’t get what you don’t want
I hope you get what you want, Mark. You deserve it. I second retiredbut…’s comments. Plus anyone who’s good to a cat is alright in my book.
Thanks Greg—I greatly appreciate it.
NY school reopening! How long will this bad play run? Comment: “With no national “Plan,’ except, for the universal belief, that children need to be in school, tell me why any teacher or parent would feel ‘inspired’ to begin school this fall! Are school boards willing to ‘roll the dice,’ and adopt the same attitude as the ruling administration? What if a child or teacher dies of this virus, after school has begun? This is akin to putting a student pilot in an F16, with instructions to ‘fly it!’ Ridiculous, at best!“
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2020/07/laurie-garrett-on-folly-of-re-opening.html
“American schools are not like those in other countries. Our chronic underinvestment in school facilities has left us with many schools that are crowded and have inadequate HVAC systems. One-fifth of our schools have no nursing care; another one-fifth only have part-time nurses. Neither of these issues are being addressed, as Washington has not allocated any additional funds to make schools safer or cleaner during the pandemic.
And again: many of the children who return to school buildings will do so only for a few days a week. If they spend the other days in childcare, they may be exposed to two different sets of peers and two different sets of adults overseeing them. The current plans for schooling are therefore likely increasing the number of possible vectors for transmission.
So that’s the gamble. If we win the bet, the payoff is, at best, a highly stunted in-school experience — in many cases for only a few days a week — with, perhaps, marginally better delivery of non-academic services. But if we lose, we’ll expose many more children and educational staff to the virus, with immediate and devastating consequences for many, and potentially severe repercussions in the future.“ -Mark Weber, a New Jersey public school teacher, public school parent, taxpayer, and NJEA member, doctoral student in education policy at the Rutgers Graduate School of Education.
https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/school-reopening
And you are worthy of having the last word on this, Richard. Great comments & link.
👍