4 ms·

I don't understand - are you implying that the act of deciding to have a long lockdown necessitates that the decision makers do not care about children, or are

I don't understand - are you implying that the act of deciding to have a long lockdown necessitates that the decision makers do not care about children, or are there specifics you are leaving unsaid?

matz1 6y ago
Isn't it obvious? The lockdown harm the children.
- croes 6y ago
  So does dead parents and grandparents.
  - matz1 6y ago
    Without lockdown they will die regardless, beside do they even want to be isolated?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jansan 6y ago
    Won't somebody think of the over 90 year olds?
- _Microft 6y ago
  The length of lockdowns is the problem, here in Germany at least. An even harder lockdown limited in length would have most likely achieved better control of the pandemic than the on-going half-measures and we would have been out of it earlier as well.
  - adolph 6y ago
    The interdependence of humans means that no lockdown could be hard or long enough and the independence of humans means that nobody would actually live under such a hypothetical regime anyway (starting at the top especially). As it stands the worst of both worlds was erected, a lockdown too soft to effectively “eradicate” the virus and too hard to prevent the economic and psychological ills that have predictably presented themselves. The bright spot is that the anticipated deaths due to over utilization of healthcare resources seen in northern Italy has been mostly avoided. Maybe the worst of both worlds has been the least bad option.
    - _Microft 6y ago
      We do not talk eradication here. It already worked fine during the first lockdown last year. At the end we were down to numbers at which tracing contacts and quarantining them worked quite fine for a while. This would have been an acceptable level where people would have been able to do quite a lot of things but not everything. A lot of people overdid it though. Parties, weddings, ... if nothing had ever happened. Unfortunately the response was slow and weak. Now we still deal with the consequences.
      - adolph 6y ago
        How can you tell a difference between something that “worked fine” and the natural seasonality of the virus? How can you measure the effectiveness of “quite a lot of things” over “everything?”
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    The problem with a harder lockdown limited in length is that Germany is a member of Schengen, so even if Germany largely eradicated COVID within its borders, it could then be reimported from another EU country that hadn’t been as locked down. You might advocate for Germany closing its borders earlier and for longer, and forcing police registration of fellow Europeans, but personally I think that is horrible. I see restrictions on free movement in Schengen and challenges to European integration as much more of a problem in the long term than COVID morbidity.
    - _Microft 6y ago
      I am as pro-European as they get but what should we do when things go downhill as they did in e.g. Belgium or Czechia? We have no influence on preventive measures there. All we can do is to deal with it and to be as little affected by it as possible. Beside that, a more fine-grained control than national borders would be preferrable anyways in that case, so it would be not only be about locking fellow Europeans out but fellow Germans as well. There is no base in law for that though and attempts to limit visits between federal states have therefore been anulled by courts. Can we agree that it is not an easy situation?
cassalian 6y ago
> are you implying that the act of deciding to have a long lockdown necessitates that the decision makers do not care about children Not quite... I'm referring to the fact that society has often gotten quite worked up over "think of the children" arguments for perceived dangers, but when faced with a real threat to child welfare, the response has been rather mild in comparison.
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> are you implying that the act of deciding to have a long lockdown necessitates that the decision makers do not care about children I do get this impression from watching interviews with some of the public-health experts advising governments. As an academic, I can recognize my fellow academics who are obsessively focused on their own field and passionate about it, but they might not realize that people outside the field don’t have the same investment. For some of these public-health experts, reducing transmission to zero and avoiding every potential death is paramount, and the societal and political consequences are only at the margins of their consciousness at best. However, the general public is broadly ready to accept some level of morbidity and disease spread in order to live with fewer restrictions, there is only a debate about how much.
- sjg007 6y ago
  I don't think we've done a poll asking that question. At any rate this is a representative democracy so we expect our leaders to trust the experts.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    > I don't think we've done a poll asking that question. You don't have to, it is common sense. Would a country be willing to go into social distancing, schools and restaurants closed, etc. in order to save one elderly person somewhere? Of course not. How about two? That is where the debate starts, but that debate is foreign to people (whether public-health academics interested in pushing numbers to zero, or health ministers whose job performance is judged only on looking proactive) whose main concern is avoiding death. Even in a representative democracy you don't have to expect leaders to trust the experts if those experts go beyond the pale. Among the scientific advisors to governments, a handful have suggested maintaining strict social distancing and masks even after COVID to have a shot at eradicating flu, etc., and from an expert public-health viewpoint they may be perfectly right, but would the public expect their elected officials to heed that advice?
    - sjg007 6y ago
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Many decisions about what precisely needs to be locked down seem to have been made without much concern for the needs and interests of children. In the summer, for example, quite a few areas opened stores before playgrounds and restaurants before schools.

I don't understand - are you implying that the act of deciding to have a long lockdown necessitates that the decision makers do not care about children, or are there specifics you are leaving unsaid?

matz1 6y ago

Isn't it obvious? The lockdown harm the children.

croes 6y ago
So does dead parents and grandparents.
- matz1 6y ago
  Without lockdown they will die regardless, beside do they even want to be isolated?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jansan 6y ago
  Won't somebody think of the over 90 year olds?
_Microft 6y ago
The length of lockdowns is the problem, here in Germany at least. An even harder lockdown limited in length would have most likely achieved better control of the pandemic than the on-going half-measures and we would have been out of it earlier as well.
- adolph 6y ago
  The interdependence of humans means that no lockdown could be hard or long enough and the independence of humans means that nobody would actually live under such a hypothetical regime anyway (starting at the top especially). As it stands the worst of both worlds was erected, a lockdown too soft to effectively “eradicate” the virus and too hard to prevent the economic and psychological ills that have predictably presented themselves. The bright spot is that the anticipated deaths due to over utilization of healthcare resources seen in northern Italy has been mostly avoided. Maybe the worst of both worlds has been the least bad option.
  - _Microft 6y ago
    We do not talk eradication here. It already worked fine during the first lockdown last year. At the end we were down to numbers at which tracing contacts and quarantining them worked quite fine for a while. This would have been an acceptable level where people would have been able to do quite a lot of things but not everything. A lot of people overdid it though. Parties, weddings, ... if nothing had ever happened. Unfortunately the response was slow and weak. Now we still deal with the consequences.
    - adolph 6y ago
      How can you tell a difference between something that “worked fine” and the natural seasonality of the virus? How can you measure the effectiveness of “quite a lot of things” over “everything?”
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  The problem with a harder lockdown limited in length is that Germany is a member of Schengen, so even if Germany largely eradicated COVID within its borders, it could then be reimported from another EU country that hadn’t been as locked down. You might advocate for Germany closing its borders earlier and for longer, and forcing police registration of fellow Europeans, but personally I think that is horrible. I see restrictions on free movement in Schengen and challenges to European integration as much more of a problem in the long term than COVID morbidity.
  - _Microft 6y ago
    I am as pro-European as they get but what should we do when things go downhill as they did in e.g. Belgium or Czechia? We have no influence on preventive measures there. All we can do is to deal with it and to be as little affected by it as possible. Beside that, a more fine-grained control than national borders would be preferrable anyways in that case, so it would be not only be about locking fellow Europeans out but fellow Germans as well. There is no base in law for that though and attempts to limit visits between federal states have therefore been anulled by courts. Can we agree that it is not an easy situation?

cassalian 6y ago

> are you implying that the act of deciding to have a long lockdown necessitates that the decision makers do not care about children Not quite... I'm referring to the fact that society has often gotten quite worked up over "think of the children" arguments for perceived dangers, but when faced with a real threat to child welfare, the response has been rather mild in comparison.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

> are you implying that the act of deciding to have a long lockdown necessitates that the decision makers do not care about children I do get this impression from watching interviews with some of the public-health experts advising governments. As an academic, I can recognize my fellow academics who are obsessively focused on their own field and passionate about it, but they might not realize that people outside the field don’t have the same investment. For some of these public-health experts, reducing transmission to zero and avoiding every potential death is paramount, and the societal and political consequences are only at the margins of their consciousness at best. However, the general public is broadly ready to accept some level of morbidity and disease spread in order to live with fewer restrictions, there is only a debate about how much.

sjg007 6y ago
I don't think we've done a poll asking that question. At any rate this is a representative democracy so we expect our leaders to trust the experts.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > I don't think we've done a poll asking that question. You don't have to, it is common sense. Would a country be willing to go into social distancing, schools and restaurants closed, etc. in order to save one elderly person somewhere? Of course not. How about two? That is where the debate starts, but that debate is foreign to people (whether public-health academics interested in pushing numbers to zero, or health ministers whose job performance is judged only on looking proactive) whose main concern is avoiding death. Even in a representative democracy you don't have to expect leaders to trust the experts if those experts go beyond the pale. Among the scientific advisors to governments, a handful have suggested maintaining strict social distancing and masks even after COVID to have a shot at eradicating flu, etc., and from an expert public-health viewpoint they may be perfectly right, but would the public expect their elected officials to heed that advice?
  - sjg007 6y ago

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Many decisions about what precisely needs to be locked down seem to have been made without much concern for the needs and interests of children. In the summer, for example, quite a few areas opened stores before playgrounds and restaurants before schools.