How will schools be able to go back in September? (Continued)

Blondini

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

This thread is about schools. Setup a thread about meat factories and discuss it to your hearts content there.

As an aside, clusters in meat factories prompted across the board testing, how come this wasn't afforded to schools? Fair is fair.

Exactly.

Furthermore, meat factory clusters were made public news.

School cases and clusters are cloak and dagger which has prompted nearly 70000 people to join a group to share verified information.

Will Yam

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

You deliberately ignore the post I made after showing it is minimum 199 schools and 8 preschools with cases. Then again you like to skew things. You seem to think that this thread is a game where it's up to you to prove people wrong/play devils advocate. Easy to know you don't have children or work in a school.

You stated in post 8969 that the figure was 131 cases according to NPHET. You went on to say that you believed that figure to be out of date and extrapolated the revised figure to 200.

We can debate all night if your extrapolation was reasonable or not, but that’s beside the point.

But it does appear that given that the total number of cases over approx the same period is 5,200 there are some here who don’t like the fact that, based on your estimate, the maths say that schools account for less than 4% of cases.

Will Yam

Blondini wrote: »

Where did the 4% come from?

The 200 figure was not accepted, so how can a percentage based on that disputed figure be?

Ehh, you provided it.

wirelessdude01

Will Yam wrote: »

You stated in post 8969 that the figure was 131 cases according to NPHET. You went on to say that you believed that figure to be out of date and extrapolated the revised figure to 200.

We can debate all night if your extrapolation was reasonable or not, but that’s beside the point.

But it does appear that given that the total number of cases over approx the same period is 5,200 there are some here who don’t like the fact that, based on your estimate, the maths say that schools account for less than 4% of cases.

Once again you ignore what follows as it doesn’t suit you.

Check out post 8978.

Blondini

Will Yam wrote: »

We can debate all night if your extrapolation was reasonable or not, but that’s beside the point.

It's not beside the point.

You based 4% on it, so it is the point.

Blondini

Will Yam wrote: »

Ehh, you provided it.

Last week. It's outdated. Also, you've posted numerous times that you didn't accept my figure?

Will Yam

Blondini wrote: »

It's not beside the point.

You based 4% on it, so it is the point.

See post 8540.

YOU posted the figure 200.

The total in September is 5200.

So by your own figure the % in schools is 4%.

And your colleague confirmed the 200 number (through a reasonable argument I thought).

You should have plucked a much higher figure out of the air to support your case.

Will Yam

Blondini wrote: »

Last week. It's outdated. Also, you've posted numerous times that you didn't accept my figure?

He updated it becuse it was out of date.

What’s your estimate now? 5,200?

wirelessdude01

Will Yam wrote: »

See post 8540.

YOU posted the figure 200.

The total in September is 5200.

So by your own figure the % in schools is 4%.

And your colleague confirmed the 200 number (through a reasonable argument I thought).

You should have plucked a much higher figure out of the air to support your case.

Post 8978.

Blondini

Will Yam wrote: »

See post 8540.

YOU posted the figure 200.

The total in September is 5200.

So by your own figure the % in schools is 4%.

And your colleague confirmed the 200 number (through a reasonable argument I thought).

You should have plucked a much higher figure out of the air to support your case.

The number is no longer 200 so 4% is wrong.

Blondini

Will Yam wrote: »

He updated it becuse it was out of date.

What’s your estimate now? 5,200?

It wasn't an estimate. Ever. It was from verified sources.

Will Yam

Blondini wrote: »

Last week. It's outdated. Also, you've posted numerous times that you didn't accept my figure?

I didn’t accept your assertion that 200 was the number of cases, AND the number of schools.

It had to be one or the other, but you failed to clarify this.

And according to your pal the outdated figure was 131 which he updated.

Will Yam

Blondini wrote: »

It wasn't an estimate. Ever. It was from verified sources.

Name them.

wirelessdude01

Will Yam wrote: »

I didn’t accept your assertion that 200 was the number of cases, AND the number of schools.

It had to be one or the other, but you failed to clarify this.

And according to your pal the outdated figure was 131 which he updated.

Post 8978.

And stop calling me anyones pal. I'm independent of anyone on here.

Blondini

Will Yam wrote: »

I didn’t accept your assertion that 200 was the number of cases, AND the number of schools.

It had to be one or the other, but you failed to clarify this.

And according to your pal the outdated figure was 131 which he updated.

So your 4% is based on what then?

Blondini

Will Yam wrote: »

Name them.

You name your source for the 4%.

Will Yam

Blondini wrote: »

You name your source for the 4%.

There were 200 cases in schools (source : YOU, and, erm, the poster with a similar perspective to you). I won’t quibble on the 200.

There were 5,200 cases (approx) in september thus far (Source: official govt Covid website)

After that divide the 200 by 5200. (Long division)

Multiply the result by 100. ( multiplication)

In detail

200 divided by 5,200 = .03846

.03846 multiplied by 100 = 3.846%.

So I rounded it up to 4%.

But if you prefer we can agree to call it 3.846%. In fact it makes the position in schools look even better. But you might not like that.

wirelessdude01

Will Yam wrote: »

There were 200 cases in schools (source : YOU, and, erm, the poster with a similar perspective to you). I won’t quibble on the 200.

There were 5,200 cases (approx) in september thus far (Source: official govt Covid website)

After that divide the 200 by 5200. (Long division)

Multiply the result by 100. ( multiplication)

In detail

200 divided by 5,200 = .03846

.03846 multiplied by 100 = 3.846%.

So I rounded it up to 4%.

But if you prefer we can agree to call it 3.846%. In fact it makes the position in schools look even better. But you might not like that.

Post 8978.

Blondini

Will Yam wrote: »

I won’t quibble on the 200.

Really?
I will quibble, because you posted numerous times ridiculing this figure. It was your pet project.

So now you are saying I was right all along with my 200?
Thanks for backing down at last.

Phew.

Good night.

Will Yam

Blondini wrote: »

Really?
I will quibble, because you posted numerous times ridiculing this figure. It was your pet project.

So now you are saying I was right all along with my 200?
Thanks for backing down at last.

Phew.

Good night.

Which of your 200s are you asking me to say was right?

The 200 about cases?

Or the 200 about schools?

I presume you didn’t teach maths?

Blondini

Will Yam wrote: »

I presume you didn’t teach maths?

Post reported for attacking the poster.

wirelessdude01

Will Yam wrote: »

Which of your 200s are you asking me to say was right?

The 200 about cases?

Or the 200 about schools?

I presume you didn’t teach maths?

Post 8978.

Spanish Eyes

All I can say now is fair play to the teachers. They always entered the Autumn term with many bugs floating around, and now Covid.

They need a lot of thanks.

Jinglejangle69

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

All I can say now is fair play to the teachers. They always entered the Autumn term with many bugs floating around, and now Covid.

They need a lot of thanks.

Yeah, you're right, it was a dangerous job before covid.

Wonder why they took the job in the first place.

Blondini

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Wonder why they took the job in the first place.

Vocation or the love of imparting knowledge.

khalessi

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Yeah, you're right, it was a dangerous job before covid.

Wonder why they took the job in the first place.

So we could teach wonderful kids, and meet parents like yourself who have a positive attitude to teachers.

Spanish Eyes

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Yeah, you're right, it was a dangerous job before covid.

Wonder why they took the job in the first place.

Colds and bugs never killed anyone. Covid can, not necessarily the kids or the teachers, but those they go home to.

Full marks to the brave teachers who are exposing themselves in order for parents to either get a break from the brats or go back to work. That is the reality.

downthemiddle

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Yeah, you're right, it was a dangerous job before covid.

Wonder why they took the job in the first place.

I'm quite sure you have your own theories which you are willing to share with anyone who listens to you.

Blondini

Regarding the facebook group, there are murmers there that schools have become much tighter on sending texts, letters etc, in case they end up on the group.

wirelessdude01

Blondini wrote: »

Regarding the facebook group, there are murmers there that schools have become much tighter on sending texts, letters etc, in case they end up on the group.

Schools seem to have stopped sending out the HSE letter. Aladdin messages and text seems to be the method primarily used over the past week.