5 ms·

Maybe the issue lies more in your first statement that children need to go somewhere. That's a fairly modern notion. If we've created a society where we rely on

Maybe the issue lies more in your first statement that children need to go somewhere. That's a fairly modern notion. If we've created a society where we rely on strangers to care for our kids, then maybe that's something that needs to be looked rather than creating additional covid hotspots? While we're doing that, maybe a compromise with A/B school days to limit student numbers, with online participation for whichever group is at home. Schools also need to create strict rules as far as cafeterias, masks, etc... With clear consequences for violations. The school I am at has dividers in the cafeteria and staggered lunches with no talking while eating. Masks at all times. Temperature checks at the doors and such. This is countrywide (not US) and there has been no spread in schools.

salmon30salmon 6y ago
Well the issue may well lie in my first statement. I am not disagreeing in principle with you. But we a day late and a dollar short to actually make large scale societal change in the time needed to respond to _this_ pandemic. The children need an education, parents need to work. That is the fact of the times. Should this be an ongoing conversation to prepare for the _next_ pandemic? Certainty. But we lost the benefit of time on this one.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  Respectfully, this is a sunk cost fallacy. The idea that we’ve already screwed up so there’s no way to radically change course is a recipe for disaster. Even the UK, who foolishly tried to go the probably-nonexistent “herd immunity” route realized their error, turned things around, and is now doing much better than the US (although worse than Europe, because of their early mistakes).
  - salmon30salmon 6y ago
    It is only a fallacy if incorrectly applied :D In some cases, it is better to continue course with known variables. Also, I wouldn't say it is non-existent. As I said in another response, I currently see a lot of evidence for the cross-reactive t-cell immune response causing the virus to burn out after around 25% infection rate.
    - claudeganon 6y ago
      There are no “known variables” under the circumstances you describe in a novel pandemic because we don’t know the long term consequences of the disease. There’s likewise no firm understanding of the duration or quality of immunity, nor will there be for probably years, making every appeal to herd immunity little more than dangerous speculation.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        But the variables in the other direction aren't firmly known either. We don't know that suppression can be maintained in the medium term, and we don't know that a vaccine will be able to eliminate the virus in the long term. We have no option but to make choices based on dangerous speculation.
      - salmon30salmon 6y ago
        We don't know the long term consequences of completely shutting down a majority of society for an unknown period of time, including depriving children of an education. So let's not compare unknowns. This whole thing is an unknown and we need to accept some risk in each direction or be motionless.

salmon30salmon 6y ago

Well the issue may well lie in my first statement. I am not disagreeing in principle with you. But we a day late and a dollar short to actually make large scale societal change in the time needed to respond to _this_ pandemic. The children need an education, parents need to work. That is the fact of the times. Should this be an ongoing conversation to prepare for the _next_ pandemic? Certainty. But we lost the benefit of time on this one.

claudeganon 6y ago
Respectfully, this is a sunk cost fallacy. The idea that we’ve already screwed up so there’s no way to radically change course is a recipe for disaster. Even the UK, who foolishly tried to go the probably-nonexistent “herd immunity” route realized their error, turned things around, and is now doing much better than the US (although worse than Europe, because of their early mistakes).
- salmon30salmon 6y ago
  It is only a fallacy if incorrectly applied :D In some cases, it is better to continue course with known variables. Also, I wouldn't say it is non-existent. As I said in another response, I currently see a lot of evidence for the cross-reactive t-cell immune response causing the virus to burn out after around 25% infection rate.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    There are no “known variables” under the circumstances you describe in a novel pandemic because we don’t know the long term consequences of the disease. There’s likewise no firm understanding of the duration or quality of immunity, nor will there be for probably years, making every appeal to herd immunity little more than dangerous speculation.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      But the variables in the other direction aren't firmly known either. We don't know that suppression can be maintained in the medium term, and we don't know that a vaccine will be able to eliminate the virus in the long term. We have no option but to make choices based on dangerous speculation.
    - salmon30salmon 6y ago
      We don't know the long term consequences of completely shutting down a majority of society for an unknown period of time, including depriving children of an education. So let's not compare unknowns. This whole thing is an unknown and we need to accept some risk in each direction or be motionless.