4 ms·

This is disgusting. It's just a "I went through it, so they should, too." argument. The completely legitimate concerns of teachers are being waved away as emot

This is disgusting. It's just a "I went through it, so they should, too." argument. The completely legitimate concerns of teachers are being waved away as emotions. > It’s going to be hard; it’s going to be stressful; it’s not going to be perfect. It's not just going to be "stressful". People are going to die! And she's missing the huge differences between hospitals and schools. Patients don't go back and forth between the hospital and school every day. Students don't have to go to school to avoid death. Teachers doing their part means refusing to participate in a system that will cause more deaths just so someone else can score political points.

johnnyb9 6y ago
Just because their argument appeals to emotion doesn't make the argument for school closure any more valid. There will always be a risk of death in life... what if a child gets the flu? These are remote risks that we accept may happen, we accept them and move on with our lives. 166 children died from the flu in 2019-2020 season, so far there have been 86 child covid deaths. https://www.aappublications.org/news/2020/04/10/fluupdate041020 https://www.aappublications.org/news/2020/04/10/fluupdate041... https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20and%20CHA%20-%20Children%20and%20COVID-19%20State%20Data%20Report%207.30.20%20FINAL.pdf https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20and%20CHA%20-%20Chil...
- travisjungroth 6y ago
  I’m not saying her argument appeals to emotion. I’m saying it dismisses teachers’ reasoning as emotion. It says that teachers are “nervous”, not that they think that reopening schools will put themselves, their students and community at risk.
  - ryathal 6y ago
    It dismisses their arguments as emotion, because that seems to be the primary argument. Based on the evidence we currently have: >there is little to no danger for the kids themselves >they are unlikely to spread to adults if they are infected >Online doesn't work with teachers not trained to do it >there are significant dangers to keeping kids out of school, socially and developmentally

johnnyb9 6y ago

Just because their argument appeals to emotion doesn't make the argument for school closure any more valid. There will always be a risk of death in life... what if a child gets the flu? These are remote risks that we accept may happen, we accept them and move on with our lives. 166 children died from the flu in 2019-2020 season, so far there have been 86 child covid deaths. https://www.aappublications.org/news/2020/04/10/fluupdate041020 https://www.aappublications.org/news/2020/04/10/fluupdate041... https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20and%20CHA%20-%20Children%20and%20COVID-19%20State%20Data%20Report%207.30.20%20FINAL.pdf https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/AAP%20and%20CHA%20-%20Chil...

travisjungroth 6y ago
I’m not saying her argument appeals to emotion. I’m saying it dismisses teachers’ reasoning as emotion. It says that teachers are “nervous”, not that they think that reopening schools will put themselves, their students and community at risk.
- ryathal 6y ago
  It dismisses their arguments as emotion, because that seems to be the primary argument. Based on the evidence we currently have: >there is little to no danger for the kids themselves >they are unlikely to spread to adults if they are infected >Online doesn't work with teachers not trained to do it >there are significant dangers to keeping kids out of school, socially and developmentally