Breaking News

The US House advanced a package of 95 billion Ukraine and Israel to vote on Saturday Will Israel’s Attack Deter Iran? The United States agrees to withdraw American troops from Niger Olympic organizers unveiled a strategy for using artificial intelligence in sports St. John’s Student athletes share sports day with students with special needs 2024 NHL Playoffs bracket: Stanley Cup Playoffs schedule, standings, games, TV channels, time The Stick-Wielding Beast of College Sports Awakens: Johns Hopkins Lacrosse Is Back Joe Pellegrino, a popular television sports presenter, has died at the age of 89 The highest-earning athletes in seven professional sports Executive Business Meeting | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Key Takeaways

The California Next Generation Science Standards (CA NGSS) —approved in 2013 — have the potential to improve the scientific skills and empowerment of California’s workforce. However, the long-term funding of science education and emergencies caused by COVID-19 has increased the challenges facing California counties, schools, and students. In this report, we use data from multiple sources to understand the impact of COVID-19 on science education while in general education. We find that:

Read also :
Montclair Research Team Creates Educational Programs for Northern New Jersey SchoolsPublished in:…


California is one of 44 states — serving 71 percent of U.S. students — and educational standards affected by the Guidelines for K-12 Science Education and/or the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (National Science Teaching Association 2021). Many efforts to reform science education have focused on developing scientists and engineers that outperform America in a growing global economy. To see also : Hold science to higher standards on racism. reliance on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (National Academy of Science 2021). The NGSS goes further by emphasizing the need for scientific knowledge:

“The science, engineering, and technology they involve permeate all aspects of modern life. Of course, knowledge of science and engineering is required on the major issues of government policy today as well as decision making. good, such as opting for alternative medical treatment or budgeting the national budget for water supply. In addition, the knowledge of science and the unique insights he gained can be meaningful and relevant on a personal level, opening up new worlds to explore and offering lifelong opportunities for the enrichment of lives. of people. In these cases, learning science is important for everyone, even those who end up choosing careers in fields other than science or engineering.

The successful implementation of NGSS depends on equipping students with the skills to think, analyze information, solve complex problems and pursue opportunities. in and beyond STEM. Preliminary studies of the implementation of NGSS have identified challenges in the science curriculum, the quality of NGSS materials, teacher preparation, assessment classification, school and district competencies, and teaching change in classrooms. (Penuel, Harris, and DeBarger 2015; Banilower et al. 2013; Reiser 2013; Trygstad et al. 2013; Krajcik et al. 2014; Tyler and DiRanna 2018; Gao et al. 2018; Haag and Megowan 2015).

California adopted CA NGSS in 2013 and was the first to implement NGSS. Counties are making progress in implementing the trials before the COVID-19 virus suddenly changes the landscape in spring 2020. California schools have been closed for more months than schools in another state. Most students spent the entire 2020–21 school year in distance learning (Burbio 2020, 2021). These school extension closures have had an undue impact on students of color, English learners, and children with special needs (Hamilton et al. 2020; Garet et al. 2020; Gao, Lafortune, and Hill 2020). Concern is growing that the COVID-19 disease has limited or reversed some of the progressive studies previously conducted, by diverting resources from scientific studies.

In this report we aim to (1) investigate the impact of COVID-19 on science education; (2) understand the challenges in much -needed districts; (3) examine district plans to support science education in rehabilitation; and (4) identify policies that can support similar science education after the disease and beyond. We rely on a lot of data. We launched a statewide survey of school districts in the fall of 2021. 213 (out of 1034) districts responded to the survey, and these districts serve 50 percent of the state’s K-12 population. There was no significant difference in the share of high- or low -income student districts. Most of the differences in the response rate are due to the size of the district and the location: large districts and urban districts are more responsive in our study (Add Technical Chart 1). We also submitted 858 Local Control and Accountability Plans which are available online to assess district support for science education.

Finally, we conducted semi-scheduled interviews with 10 of the 11 county offices of education Leads Regional Leads for Science, 10 most needed, 8 districts participating in the CA NGSS Early Implementers initiative, several scientific organizations. statewide, and many statewide legislators identify ways to support science education.

This may interest you :
The venerable British journal Nature will publish four special issues in 2022…

District Implementation Was Disrupted by the Pandemic

To better understand the impact of the disease on the implementation of CA NGSS, we need to know more about how counties across the state are doing before in the spring of 2020. In this section we look at the results from the surveys we presented in 2016-17 and 2019-20 to assess the going forward in the district, with a review of a sample of the School Report Papers (SARCs) to help us to evaluate the use of books prior to COVID-19.

NGSS Implementation Was Progressing—though Somewhat Unevenly—before Spring 2020

Our recent survey asked districts to indicate their share of CA NGSS implementation before spring 2020 (Figure 1). 94 percent of the implementation level represents a significant increase from 2016-17, when 78 percent of the districts responded in terms of the implementation level (Gao et al. On the same subject : Travel problems continue across the country and at home. 2018).

Almost all districts were in the implementation phase in 2019–20

SOURCE: PPIC school district survey, 2016–17, 2019–20. This may interest you : President Biden nominates Dr Arati Prabhakar to head the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

NOTE: In the 2019-20 survey, we asked districts to report their NGSS status before spring 2020. The difference between urban and non-urban districts was significant in 2016-17, but not 2019-20. In both studies there was no significant difference by level of regional poverty, level of Black/Latino, or level of need.

However, the performance was not the same across all grades: in 2019-20, progress was made more in K-8 schools than in secondary schools (Figure 2). High -need districts had more CA NGSS implementation in the primary school than low -need districts, but implementation in rural secondary schools was lagging behind (Four) additional Technical B Chart 1).

NGSS implementation was uneven across grades and district types in 2019–20

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: The sample covers 200 districts reported to be in the implementation phase. High need: at least 55 percent of students are in high need (for example, low income, English or homeless). High -poverty areas: at least 75% of students are eligible for free/reduced lunch. * p & lt; 0.01. For districts in high demand, the relative proportion of districts is low; for rural districts, the comparative group of non -rural districts, including urban and rural areas.

Effective implementation of NGSS includes the use of modeling materials, development and / or implementation of science training systems for middle and high schools, providing higher education to teachers and administrators, supporting teachers to implement training in classrooms, and the development or implementation of local scientific research (National Research Council 2014). Performance in those key areas was inconsistent, with significant curriculum improvement and teaching organization (53%) and changes in the classroom (45%). A small percentage of districts have started the teacher training process (41%), in line with local research (28%) or railway operators (24%) in 2019-20 (Figure 3). In addition, most districts did not use local surveys, such as district labels (Appendix B Figure 1). . The only significant difference in the different districts was that the upper-Black/Latino districts were more likely to have professional training in managers (31% compared to 24% overall, Technical Appendix B Table 2). .

Districts in the implementation phase were most likely to be aligning local curricula in 2019–20

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: Samples involving 200 districts were reported to be in the implementation phase.

The state has issued its list of approved curriculum items for K-8 grades in 2018 and requires schools to report book titles and years of adoption on their forms. annual School Accountability Reports (SARCs). To get an idea of ​​how the districts are progressing in this area, we take the book names and years of adoption from the SARC as a selected sample of schools and compare them to the state approved list (Figure 4). ). Overall, 43 percent of K-8 schools used textbooks related to CA NGSS; a large share of poor counties (53%), high Black/Latino counties (50%), and urban counties (51%) used state -approved materials.

High-poverty schools were especially likely to have adopted CA NGSS–aligned textbooks in 2019–20

SOURCE: School Report Papers, 2019–20.

NOTE: The sample included 376 randomly selected schools. The error rate is ± 5 percent to 95 percent reliability. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 5 percent of the results when surveyed all public schools in California. * p & lt; 0.10; ** p & lt; 0.05.

According to the state Director of Science, the use of course samples and CA NGSS is an important practice (California Department of Education 2016). Elementary schools can choose an integrated model or a specialized model; high schools can choose a three -class model (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics with earth and space sciences combined), a modeling model (e.g., biology, chemistry, physics, and earth and space) or a composite model of any science, each year. In 2013, the State Board of Directors declared the combined model to be the best option for the middle class. According to our study, most districts chose the combined model for primary school scores in 2019–20 (Figure 5) —the same share as in 2016–17 (Gao et al. 2018). The only significant difference in district characteristics was the high proportion of poor districts that chose the combined model (61% compared to 55%).

As of 2020, most districts had adopted the integrated course model for middle schools

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: The sample covers 213 districts.

Nearly half of the districts that responded to our 2019-20 survey chose the three-class sample for their high school education. There was little change from 2016–17 to 2019–20 in the proportion of districts that made a decision in a sample — about 30 per cent of the districts remained uncertain (Figure 6). The most needy districts had a slight decrease in the choice of a new model for secondary education (34%).

Most high schools that had chosen a CA NGSS-aligned course model chose the three-course option

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: The sample covers 213 districts.

The sudden shift to distance learning in the spring of 2020, and the prolonged closure of schools in the 2020-21 school year, has hampered the district’s progress in implementing CA NGSS — as we see next section.

COVID-19 Derailed Science Education in Most Districts

More than 60 per cent of district respondents to our survey reported that science was at its lowest point in the 2020-21 school year (Figure 7). Interestingly, only 40 percent of rural counties reported making science a low priority. Interviews with science educators in the two major rural districts revealed that declining population, remote locations, and increased outdoor opportunities have been facilitated. continuing scientific education in times of illness. Across the country, back -to -school education is also more likely to return to personalized education (Berger et al. 2022). Some back-schools were closed for a while in spring 2020, but most students were educated remotely in 2020-21 (Burbio 2020, 2021).

Science became a lower priority in most districts in 2020–21

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: The sample covers 213 districts.

Key CA NGSS activities — including the use of imaging materials — were delayed or delayed during the course of the disease. Approximately 43 percent of the districts in our experimental study did not use CA NGSS equipment for K-8 prior to the disease, while 64 percent of those who responded did not use CA NGSS equipment. for high school. More than 60 percent of those counties — and less than half of them in urban areas — said COVID-19 delayed their selection (Figure 8).

Urban districts were less likely to report that COVID-19 delayed their CA NGSS textbook adoption

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: Samples included 43 districts that did not use NGSS textbooks for K-8 and 64 districts that did not apply for high school prior to COVID-19. Samples are very small based on district types (combined, primary, and secondary).

The share of districts that did not use their primary and/or model secondary schools with CA NGSS in 2019-20 remained unchanged in the year. time of disease (Gao et al. 2018). Many counties reported that COVID-19 delayed their local activity (Figure 9). The small sample is too small to be separated by regional characteristics.

Most districts reported that COVID-19 delayed their alignment of science courses with CA NGSS

NOTE: Samples included nearly 60 counties that did not apply their primary/secondary science standards prior to COVID-19. Because the sample was so small, we did not break down the analysis by regional characteristics such as student share of power. too much pressure or place.

Teachers’ instructional materials and methods were particularly affected

We did a little research to understand how the disease affects the education of science teachers. The California Science Educator Association (CASE) shared the teacher survey with its members and 124 science educators answered questions. More than 90 percent of teachers are primary or secondary school teachers. Seventy -four percent have a master’s degree or higher, and the average teaching experience is 16 years. Due to the small size of the sample, we do not disclose any small sample size studies that should not be reproduced. ‘ all science courses in California.

Compared to a typical school year, almost 70 percent of the teachers in our sample reported using a lot of online or offline lessons. resources during COVID-19 (Figure 10). About 40 percent used the many available tutorials, paid online resources, and online units to let students study at their own pace.

Most science teachers in our sample used more free online resources during COVID-19

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: The sample included 124 science teachers. Examples of open source learning resources include OpenSciEd, InquiryHub, and Achieve. Here, we report the top five answers.

Many of the online lessons, resources, or units used by these teachers were not well compliant with CA NGSS (Figure 11). This may help explain some of the delays in applying teaching to new classrooms and settings.

Most of the online resources our sample of science teachers used were not fully aligned to CA NGSS

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: The sample included 124 science teachers. Here we report the top four answers. The state prepared a list of K-8 candidates in 2018; and the California NGSS Collaborative, which includes the CDE, California Science Project, CASE, CCSESA and the K – 12 Alliance) provided tools to help districts evaluate, select, and implement four criteria. regarding educational materials. Because of those efforts, the prevalence of NGSS is often high.

Most schools were closed for private tutoring in the 2020-21 school year. As a result, the majority of science teachers (78%) reported unequal teaching performance in 2020-21 (Figure 12). Due to reduced access to science labs, 45 percent of teachers reported doing a lot of teacher-led / led science experiments — for example, teaching students about electricity through by rubbing a balloon over the head, place the filled balloon next to an empty can of water, and show it rolling toward the balloon. Some of the districts interviewed mentioned transporting or delivering scientific materials and equipment to students ’homes, and some teachers used all household items (such as baking soda). Many districts provided printed material — rather than numerical — in addition to student learning, and about one in five teachers reported more printed material during distance learning.

Most science teachers in our sample provided more asynchronous instruction in 2020–21

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: The sample included 124 science teachers. Direct instruction is based on co -instruction — most schools were closed for self -directed instruction during the study period. ‘ega.

The curriculum was improved in the fall of 2020 and spring of 2021, as teachers moved from more content review to learning new things. . Nearly half of teachers in the country said they reviewed subjects before teaching new subjects in spring 2020 (Besecker, Thomas, and Daley 2020; Hamilton et al. 2020). By fall 2020, many California school districts have focused their distances on innovation (Gao, Hill, and Lafortune 2021). And by the fall of 2021, most of the science teachers in our model learned a lot of new things (Figure 13).

Most science teachers in our sample report teaching new content during the 2020–21 school year

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: The sample included 124 science teachers.

Most of the teachers in our sample covered less than 50 percent of the intended training in the 2020-21 school year (Figure 14). . Fifty -one percent of science teachers said most students in their class had completed work, and close to the quarter said 75 to 100 percent of students had completed their work (Figure 15). This survey is based on national numbers. In a national survey conducted in 2020, 52 percent of teachers in all subjects reported less than half of their students graduating. distance learning (Hamilton et al. 2020). Inadequacies may indicate that children are learning at a slower pace. We asked the teachers in our model to identify the causes of incompleteness. The majority of teachers (56%) said that student participation was the best (Figure 16). Other important factors included parental involvement (46%), home environment (45%), lack of social-emotional support (27%), lack of educational support (22%), and lack of an internet / device (11%). All of that is reflected in the tragic tragedy that befell students, families, and their communities.

Most science teachers in our sample covered less than half of the intended curriculum in 2020–21

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: The sample included 124 science teachers.

Most science teachers in our sample reported that more than half of students completed assignments in 2020–21

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: The sample included 124 science teachers.

Surveyed science teachers identified student engagement as the key factor in non-completion of assignments

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: The sample included 124 science teachers.

The quality of education in 2020–21 may have been affected by a lack of professional learning opportunities. Research shows that 80 hours of intensive professional training is needed to replace/improve teacher training; and the additional 80 hours required to change the classroom environment (Supovitz and Turner 2000; Kenney 1998; Clewell et al. 2005). This suggests that teachers need years of permanent professional training to completely transform their teaching – the key to the success of NGSS. However, in a typical year, half of public school teachers receive 9 to 32 hours of professional training in their subjects (National Center for Education Statistics 2017).

Moreover, in our study, only 43 percent of teachers reported receiving appropriate training for transition to distance learning. Less than 20 percent of teachers received appropriate training to support English learners and 25 percent received appropriate training for students with special needs. (Figure 17). As a result, the quality of science education may be affected in 2020-21.

Most surveyed science teachers did not receive adequate professional learning (PL) in 2020–21

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: The sample included 124 science teachers. In the survey we asked teachers how well they received guidance and support. The answers are “very little”, “somewhat inadequate”, “not enough or not enough”, “quite a bit” and “very much.” In this picture we show the results for “good” and “very old.”

In our study we asked how often teachers performed in training related to CA NGSS (Table 1). Less than 20 percent said they regularly participate in technical problems or use three-dimensional models — scientific models, thought processes, and critical concepts — to explain specific issues or solve problems. Thirty -eight percent of teachers said they engaged students in a series of meaningful, relevant learning, and 20 percent provided students with intermediate learning, in which students reviewed prior knowledge to interview. the current light. Very few educators used environmental and conceptual (EP&C) subjects to describe their expertise.

Support for Science Learning during COVID-19 Was Limited

Districts as well as district education agencies limited support for science education during the outbreak. Many districts provided additional teaching materials, including some online resources reported by the teachers we surveyed (Figure 11). Forty percent of the districts provided services and programs to support social and emotional education (Figure 18). However, compared to the numbers and the ELA, the number of science programs in the districts is limited. For example, 89 percent of the districts administered tests to assess students’ learning in mathematics/ELA, while only 28 percent did. in science. Nearly two -thirds of counties provided specialized training for mathematics / ELA, compared with 25 percent in science. Nearly half of the counties had access to extended education or individual training in mathematics/ELA, but very few counties did so for science (Gao, Hill and Lafortune 2021). Forty -three percent of counties offered summer programs in science in the summer of 2021, and many of these programs were given priority to students who were back in school. Rural districts were more likely to study student learning, but there was no significant difference from other districts (Appendix B Table 3). .

Supplemental science instructional materials were the most common type of district support during the pandemic

CONCLUSION: Author’s Review.

NOTE: The sample covers 213 districts.

The California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) coordinates 58 district superintendents of education into 11 services/ networks to identify and promote practices. quality, affordable education and providing support to school districts. Each unit/network has a regional science leader, and we interviewed ten out of eleven of these leaders. We found that county offices that provide professional training to counties are usually on a contractual basis (county pay at a fee), and that science leaders have worked with partners to develop resources throughout the state.

Prior to the outbreak, all regional leaders in the district offered services for science education. As the implementation of the CA NGSS began to be expanded after the state adopted the standards in 2013, county officials offered additional support. Six out of ten agencies hired other people to provide science programs. Four out of ten county councils made science a district priority through programs in areas such as STEM or environmental knowledge. In these districts, staff received additional funding through grants such as the National Science Foundation and through the establishment of partnerships with local and business organizations to expand their science programs. Five out of ten supported science but did not.

During COVID-19, all ten regional leaders we interviewed continued to provide professional science training, four ‘ and five changes to working with individual teachers rather than districts. Seven provided technical assistance through professional training, discussing the use of technology in classrooms, and five offered distance-learning courses. All of the county’s lead agencies held videos or webinars in addition to the online broadcasts. Four specialized in outdoor training and three provided homework lessons/activities. Six continued to work with faculty liaisons, although participation was not equal as the harassment continued. ‘i. The networking meetings provided an opportunity for teacher leaders to share their work with each other, provide youth support, and find information about changes across the state — for example, changes to the California Scientific Examination Test (CAST) assessment.

Four district offices continued to work with districts using CA NGSS TIME — a set of tools and systems to help districts select training materials that are consistent with CA NGSS. Many district offices continued to develop resources throughout the state with their partners as part of the CA NGSS Collaborative. For example, one district office is developing a research toolkit that will be used in the CA NGSS Collaborative’s Professional Learning Series this year. school 2022-23. One county office reduced the number of employees providing technical services — eliminating the scientific leadership position — and the types of services provided to school districts.

To see also :
With the fall season covering everything from AIDS to cryptocurrency to the…

Most District Recovery Plans Have Not Prioritized Science Education

When we asked districts how to prioritize math, ELA, and/or science in their recovery plans, only 27 percent of respondents said science is a high priority, but more than 80 percent said the number / ELA was a high priority (Figure 19). Urban districts did not make science a high priority (Appendix B Figure 2).

Only about one in four districts reported that science is a high recovery priority

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: The sample covers 213 districts.

To examine the districts’ plans to support science education in the coming years, we have submitted the Local and Responsible Plans (LCAPs) for the 2021 school year. -24; 858 of the 1,034 district plans (83%) are posted online. We found that 14 percent of LCAPs did not mention science or CA NGSS; those who did, many did not discuss specific programs or install dedicated resources. Nearly half of the districts plan to use, develop, or purchase educational materials based on circumstances. Thirty -eight per cent of the plan is to provide teacher training; 32 percent have set student achievement goals for the California Science Assessment (CAST); and 25 percent are targeted to provide extended learning opportunities, such as after -school and enrichment programs. Less frequently mentioned initiatives include the appointment of dedicated staff (such as a TOSA or coordinator) to support science faculty (14%), procurement of equipment and four items. science (14%), and the use of teacher research to measure and monitor local performance (13%).

Districts’ plans to support science education

SOURCE: Editor’s note.

NOTE: Sample covers the universe of 2021–24 LCAPs (N = 858). Fourteen percent of LCAPs did not mention science education or NGSS. Among those who mentioned science education, most did not discuss specific science programs or involve dedicated resources.

Districts with higher need and higher poverty have better access to comprehensive education; urban districts are better allocated for dedicated staff; and rural districts are more focused on offers and opportunities for science education (Additional Table B Table 4). Regarding districts that may not include science programs in LCAPs, our database can report the number and type of science programs rehabilitated. However, consultations with school districts, county science leaders, science education partners, and state legislators suggest that the opposite is actually happening: since the county state does not need to conducting science training at LCAPs, local districts continue to prioritize numeracy and ELA and are largely doing so. do not provide resources to support scientific programs.

County Offices Are Adapting to District Needs during Recovery

Districts ’priority of ELA and mathematics — as well as social and emotional — in their recovery plans has caused many COEs to change their service lists: seven out of ten COE science leaders we interviewed were offering fewer professional training opportunities due to reduced demand from districts. In districts trying to promote science, professional education is hampered by a lack of replacement classrooms — making it difficult for teachers to find the time. leave for professional training.

However, there are many positive changes. In addition to professional training, COE’s scientific leaders continue to provide technical support and assistance to district offices. in their regions; they work with regional and statewide services. Two county agencies are continuing to move fast with help from federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation, private foundations, and local organizations or businesses. One of the district offices continues to develop an assessment toolbox for distribution throughout the state. Four district leaders reported providing CA NGSS TIME services to districts that are ready to use science books. One district office has developed an online CA NGSS Foundation Course for teachers statewide that is new to CA NGSS. Four district offices reported success in combining science and reading; one offered a “summer camp” for students with this as the theme. Some county agencies continue to develop “outdoor science” programs, and one is developing programs focused on environmental justice.

All science leaders reported efforts to re -establish relationships with districts and test programs to meet their needs. The COE staff’s common denominator is “good NGSS training for all students.” Programs designed to meet the needs of English learners are more common than programs for low -income students. In most county offices, science is working with the coordinator EL, and three county offices reported conducting trainings in lower districts to promote science education. One county office offers free services, and two county offices are developing scientific or low -cost products. Students with special needs do not appear to be targeted by CA NGSS special programs. All COEs reported that these student needs are catered for by Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs), although one district agency recently applied for assistance from the National Science Foundation (NSF). with respect to technical education and science.

Policy Recommendations

Before the plague, many California counties were in the early stages of implementing new science, and some counties moved on. in full implementation. However, COVID-19 has caused a number of disruptions in the implementation of CA NGSS in many districts, and these disruptions may affect the education of students. for years to come.

The Next Generation Science Standards Systems Implementation Plan for California (2014) set out eight guidelines for ensuring a consistent implementation of the CA NGSS — including facilitation of professional education, training delivery, and development. of new research. The state and local governments will need to review these guidelines and develop policies to support the NGSS vision for all students. We offer the following suggestions:

The Next Generation Science Standards define a new vision for the teaching and learning of science that, if properly implemented, can encourage the improvement of scientific knowledge and increase global competition. the US staff (National Research Council 2013; Pruitt 2014; Stage et al. 2013). ). As schools recover from COVID-19 disease, continued commitment from state, county, school leaders, and faculty will be needed to support a successful and equitable recovery in science.


• Clean your hands with sanitizer before entering the store • Cover a cough or sneeze with your elbow or elbow. many stores now require a mask.) • When you get home, wash your hands thoroughly as well as after handling your groceries.

Will COVID-19 vaccines stop the pandemic?

It is likely that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, will continue to spread and spread. It is impossible to know how the disease is or how severe the new changes are. Therefore, it is important to achieve and maintain high levels of immunization in all villages and sections of the population, both nationally and internationally. Vaccination remains an important part of the classification process needed to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2.

Does the vaccine prevent long-term COVID-19? In fact, a recent study from the UK found that vaccines caused a lower risk of long -term COVID compared to those who had not, but were still close to 10%. all people who received the vaccine showed symptoms of long -term COVID three months later.

Can the COVID-19 vaccine reduce the risk of severe disease?

According to the CDC, studies from January 2022 show that coronavirus vaccines are very effective in preventing severe COVID-19. The CDC promotes survival for those who are eligible, and indicates current compliance with all COVID-19 vaccines.

What does the COVID-19 vaccine prevent?

Scientists are monitoring the longevity of the COVID-19 vaccine. The COVID-19 vaccine is effective in preventing serious illness, hospitalization, and death. However, public health experts are seeing a decrease in the immunity of COVID-19 vaccine over time, especially for certain groups of people.

Can you still get COVID-19 after vaccine?

Most people with COVID-19 have not been vaccinated. However, because the vaccine is not 100% effective against the disease, some people who have been vaccinated will still get COVID-19. An infection of a person who has been stricken with a stroke is called a ‘stroke.’

What is the best household disinfectant for surfaces during COVID-19?

Regular cleaning and disinfectants will help keep germs out of the house. For the cleaning and disinfection of households where COVID19 is suspected or confirmed, disinfectants, such as 0.05% sodium hypochlorite (NaClO), should be used. and ethanol -based products (at least 70%).

Can we clean up street and sidewalks during a COVID-19 infection? Roads and pathways are not considered pathways for COVID-19. Disinfectant washing, even externally, can harm people’s health and cause damage to the eyes, stomach or skin.

Can the coronavirus survive on surfaces?

It is not certain how long the virus that causes COVID-19 on the surface will live, but it does appear to behave like other coronaviruses. A recent review of the survival of surface coronavirus patients found a number of variables, from 2 hours to 9 days (11). Survival time depends on many factors, including surface type, temperature, relative humidity and specific problems of the virus.

How long can the virus that causes COVID-19 survive on surfaces after being expelled from the body?

After being expelled from the body, the coronavirus can live on the surface for several hours a day. If a person touches dirty soil, they can store the virus in the eyes, nose, or mouth that can enter the body and cause the infection.

How do I disinfect surfaces during the coronavirus disease pandemic?

In unhealthy areas, sodium hypochlorite (bleach/chlorine) can be used in the order of 0.1% or 1,000ppm (1 part 5% calcium strength in 49). part of the water). Alcohol to 70-90% can also be used for topical inflammation. The surface should be cleaned with soap and water or a detergent first to remove dirt, followed by cleaning. Cleaning should start from the dirtiest (cleanest) to the dirtiest (dirtiest) so that the dirt does not spread to the less dirty areas.

Can COVID-19 be transmitted through food?

There is currently no evidence that humans can get COVID-19 from food. The bacterium that causes COVID-19 can be killed by heat similar to other bacteria and viruses known to be found in food.

Can COVID-19 survive in food or packaging? Like other viruses, the virus that causes COVID-19 can live on surfaces or objects. If you are concerned about spoiling food or packaging, wash your hands after handling food, after removing food from packaging, but do not ‘ in preparing food for eating and before you eat.

Is the U.S. food supply safe?

Currently there is no evidence of dietary or packaged foods associated with the release of COVID-19. Unlike gastrointestinal (GI) viruses such as norovirus and hepatitis A that often infect people through contaminated food, SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, is a virus that causes stomach but not the stomach, and foods containing this virus are not known to be a means of transmission. the virus can then enter their own mouths, noses, or eyes, but are not thought to be the main way the virus is spread. It is always important to follow the 4 basic steps of food safety – clean, separate, cook, and refrigerate.

Can I get COVID-19 from a food worker handling my food?

Currently, there is no evidence of dietary or packaged foods associated with the release of COVID-19.

Can you catch COVID-19 from food?

I DON’T KNOW. There have been no reports to date of people contracting the novel coronavirus from eating food or handling packaged food. COVID-19 is highly contagious through coughing and sneezing and human-to-human contact. There is no evidence that it is transmitted through food intake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *