5 ms·

It is very important for the development of the children to continue their education and socialize. Basically every child you ask will tell you it wants to go b

It is very important for the development of the children to continue their education and socialize. Basically every child you ask will tell you it wants to go back to school. Making this about economics is nonsense. It increasingly baffles me how we accept all kinds of risk every day (e.g. traffic) but in the case of Corona forbid children very important parts of their childhood, while allowing all kinds of other useless activities. Disclaimer: this obviously varies from country to country.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
I think there's an interesting rhetorical split and contradiction. The same politic groups, that would argue that teachers are the heroes of society that we can't live without, are now arguing that school must under no circumstance resume. We must indefinitely put off in-person schooling. What? Is this the best we can do? Does this even measure up with scientific reality and risk calculation? Are teachers really that simultaneously important/unimportant? If the grocery baggers are working and handling the crisis well enough, so should teachers. It's clear that there's a class element to "essential worker." And this entire profession that seems to love the praise they generally receive from the left about how indispensable they are, are now suspiciously absent from the essential worker category. You can only conclude that the social and mental development of children isn't essential. If they cared enough, they'd use this crisis as an opportunity to start hiring younger teachers in droves to build up the workforce with relatively inexperienced teachers who aren't at much risk from the virus (at least compared to some 50-60yo teacher). But I suspect unions would stop at nothing to impede adaptive, efficient, and creative solutions.
- bfdm 6y ago
  Buying food is necessary to stay alive. Kids attending school in person is not. If there were a real plan in place to ensure safety, and if adults were willing to sacrifice in other areas like going out to bars then school could work if we had consistent isolated groups. As it stands, at least in Ontario, there's been a strong push to "open up" bars and restaurants etc which to me is public mixing incompatible with the mixing of students in a class. Pick one: school or everything else.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    > Kids attending school in person is not. But you're not owning up to the possible irreparable damage to children's psyche, mental wellbeing, career prospects, etc. At least be honest about the tradeoffs. If I'm saying that people are overestimating risk and people will blame me for associated mortality and effects of the disease, it's like the other side of the debate is never that open and explicit about the very serious drawbacks and costs of their choices. Let's be fair to both sides: you're responsible for suicides, health effects of prolonged isolation, etc.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      > irreparable damage to children's psyche, mental wellbeing That will be the case if they continue school. > Let's be fair to both sides: you're responsible for suicides, health effects of prolonged isolation, etc. With that logic you are personally responsible for suicides, health effects of bullying and school slavery, etc. > and people will blame me for associated mortality and effects of the disease I do not think that blaming people for expressing their opinion will be worth much to the family who just lost one of its members. It is cheap for you to accept blame and worthless to these that suffer due to following the same belief.
- blub 6y ago
  Schools and kindergartens even more are the perfect environment for spreading diseases and especially respiratory viruses. Spending multiple hours in a closed, often poorly ventilated room often without wearing masks is a recipe for disaster. You're also misinformed about the risks to young people. An unknown amount of mild courses (I've read about estimates of 10%) result in long-term damage, just like with SARS. These people are called COVID long-haulers.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    Isn’t it misinformation to cite “an unknown amount” and then assume the worst case scenario to bolster your argument? This is the logic of an agoraphobe.
    - blub 6y ago
      The amount is unknown because very few are studying it. The 10% comes from a German doctor which was interviewed.
bfdm 6y ago
Traffic accidents don't follow a pattern of exponential propagation, nor do most other "everyday risks of life". A new virus is certainly exceptional circumstances warranting exceptional response.
blub 6y ago
No one's arguing that they should be locked down alone in a room for the duration of the pandemic. They'll spend time with their family and probably see at least some friends. Somehow kids are able to survive summer holidays or home schooling without grave developmental consequences. This is purely about economic consequences and it's a calculated risk that the outbreaks in schools will be able to be contained without having to shut down the entire educational system again and forcing families to both work and take care of their kids.
- fileeditview 6y ago
  Maybe this is true for older children. For younger ones i cannot agree. Children go through various phases which are very important in their development. You cannot just postpone them. Having the family (often only parents) around and maybe 1-2 friends from time to time is vastly different from a class of 20-30 pupils. Also remember that the summer holidays you mention don't disappear. They additionally increase the time of separation. Especially this year where a lot of families won't go on vacation as usual.
dependenttypes 6y ago
> Basically every child you ask will tell you it wants to go back to school No, absolutely not.
sbierwagen 6y ago
Fun fact: there's been an enormous drop in youth mortality, ~10%, over the last 6 months: https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1296868460195192832 https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1296868460195192832 You can say the lockdown might not be "emotionally" healthy. But it seems it has been healthy in a more literal sense.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

I think there's an interesting rhetorical split and contradiction. The same politic groups, that would argue that teachers are the heroes of society that we can't live without, are now arguing that school must under no circumstance resume. We must indefinitely put off in-person schooling. What? Is this the best we can do? Does this even measure up with scientific reality and risk calculation? Are teachers really that simultaneously important/unimportant? If the grocery baggers are working and handling the crisis well enough, so should teachers. It's clear that there's a class element to "essential worker." And this entire profession that seems to love the praise they generally receive from the left about how indispensable they are, are now suspiciously absent from the essential worker category. You can only conclude that the social and mental development of children isn't essential. If they cared enough, they'd use this crisis as an opportunity to start hiring younger teachers in droves to build up the workforce with relatively inexperienced teachers who aren't at much risk from the virus (at least compared to some 50-60yo teacher). But I suspect unions would stop at nothing to impede adaptive, efficient, and creative solutions.

bfdm 6y ago
Buying food is necessary to stay alive. Kids attending school in person is not. If there were a real plan in place to ensure safety, and if adults were willing to sacrifice in other areas like going out to bars then school could work if we had consistent isolated groups. As it stands, at least in Ontario, there's been a strong push to "open up" bars and restaurants etc which to me is public mixing incompatible with the mixing of students in a class. Pick one: school or everything else.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > Kids attending school in person is not. But you're not owning up to the possible irreparable damage to children's psyche, mental wellbeing, career prospects, etc. At least be honest about the tradeoffs. If I'm saying that people are overestimating risk and people will blame me for associated mortality and effects of the disease, it's like the other side of the debate is never that open and explicit about the very serious drawbacks and costs of their choices. Let's be fair to both sides: you're responsible for suicides, health effects of prolonged isolation, etc.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    > irreparable damage to children's psyche, mental wellbeing That will be the case if they continue school. > Let's be fair to both sides: you're responsible for suicides, health effects of prolonged isolation, etc. With that logic you are personally responsible for suicides, health effects of bullying and school slavery, etc. > and people will blame me for associated mortality and effects of the disease I do not think that blaming people for expressing their opinion will be worth much to the family who just lost one of its members. It is cheap for you to accept blame and worthless to these that suffer due to following the same belief.
blub 6y ago
Schools and kindergartens even more are the perfect environment for spreading diseases and especially respiratory viruses. Spending multiple hours in a closed, often poorly ventilated room often without wearing masks is a recipe for disaster. You're also misinformed about the risks to young people. An unknown amount of mild courses (I've read about estimates of 10%) result in long-term damage, just like with SARS. These people are called COVID long-haulers.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  Isn’t it misinformation to cite “an unknown amount” and then assume the worst case scenario to bolster your argument? This is the logic of an agoraphobe.
  - blub 6y ago
    The amount is unknown because very few are studying it. The 10% comes from a German doctor which was interviewed.

bfdm 6y ago

Traffic accidents don't follow a pattern of exponential propagation, nor do most other "everyday risks of life". A new virus is certainly exceptional circumstances warranting exceptional response.

blub 6y ago

No one's arguing that they should be locked down alone in a room for the duration of the pandemic. They'll spend time with their family and probably see at least some friends. Somehow kids are able to survive summer holidays or home schooling without grave developmental consequences. This is purely about economic consequences and it's a calculated risk that the outbreaks in schools will be able to be contained without having to shut down the entire educational system again and forcing families to both work and take care of their kids.

fileeditview 6y ago
Maybe this is true for older children. For younger ones i cannot agree. Children go through various phases which are very important in their development. You cannot just postpone them. Having the family (often only parents) around and maybe 1-2 friends from time to time is vastly different from a class of 20-30 pupils. Also remember that the summer holidays you mention don't disappear. They additionally increase the time of separation. Especially this year where a lot of families won't go on vacation as usual.

dependenttypes 6y ago

> Basically every child you ask will tell you it wants to go back to school No, absolutely not.

sbierwagen 6y ago

Fun fact: there's been an enormous drop in youth mortality, ~10%, over the last 6 months: https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1296868460195192832 https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/1296868460195192832 You can say the lockdown might not be "emotionally" healthy. But it seems it has been healthy in a more literal sense.