4 ms·

Couldn’t a kid go to school, pick it up, recover flawlessly since kids do, but give it to their overweight parent who dies? It’s not just the kids…

Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
That is a risk, but that risk needs to be weighed against the known risk of keeping them detained.
- pooper 6y ago
  I have exactly zero sympathy for the children not being able to go to school in person. Schools aren't in my opinion places where we park children through the day. We have completely overloaded schools to be anything and everything children and it is ridiculous. If there needs to be outrage, it should be against monopolies like Comcast which has said it will expand data caps to more markets this year. I for one would support life in prison for the current Comcast CEO as well as dismantling the company and making an example out of it.
- CodeMage 6y ago
  Because a kid will recover more easily from feeling responsible for their parent's death than they will from extended but finite lockdown?
  - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
    I keep saying "do the cost-benefit" because you should do the cost-benefit. One option harms every child and potentially saves some parents' lives. The other harms practically no children and will likely lead to some more parents dying, although the data is unclear (as death rates in states with much more open schools is not consistently higher). Harm all kids to save a few parents on the margin...potentially? Do the cost-benefit.
    - schrodinger 6y ago
      > The other harms practically no children and will likely lead to some more parents dying Really? You think that a parent dying harms "practically no children"? For christ's sake, I lost my father at 25 years old (10 years ago) and it still hurts me daily (at 35 now). Your calculus is just plain fucking cold.
  - umanwizard 6y ago
    Of course not, but that assumes the first outcome is as likely a result of no-lockdown as the second is of lockdown. In reality you need to consider probabilities. What if there are thousands of times more kids in the second category than the first? This is a pattern of thinking that I’ve seen a lot on the pro-lockdown side: reasoning from the axiom that a human being dying has infinite negative utility. While normally a good policy heuristic in practice when all else is equal, it of course can’t be strictly true. If it were, then it would be worth it for everyone in the world to experience unbounded misery if that extended the life of one person by one day. Clearly that is absurd. So the moral calculus must be more nuanced than “if it saves lives, it must be worth it”.

Wolfenstein98k 6y ago

That is a risk, but that risk needs to be weighed against the known risk of keeping them detained.

pooper 6y ago
I have exactly zero sympathy for the children not being able to go to school in person. Schools aren't in my opinion places where we park children through the day. We have completely overloaded schools to be anything and everything children and it is ridiculous. If there needs to be outrage, it should be against monopolies like Comcast which has said it will expand data caps to more markets this year. I for one would support life in prison for the current Comcast CEO as well as dismantling the company and making an example out of it.
CodeMage 6y ago
Because a kid will recover more easily from feeling responsible for their parent's death than they will from extended but finite lockdown?
- Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
  I keep saying "do the cost-benefit" because you should do the cost-benefit. One option harms every child and potentially saves some parents' lives. The other harms practically no children and will likely lead to some more parents dying, although the data is unclear (as death rates in states with much more open schools is not consistently higher). Harm all kids to save a few parents on the margin...potentially? Do the cost-benefit.
  - schrodinger 6y ago
    > The other harms practically no children and will likely lead to some more parents dying Really? You think that a parent dying harms "practically no children"? For christ's sake, I lost my father at 25 years old (10 years ago) and it still hurts me daily (at 35 now). Your calculus is just plain fucking cold.
- umanwizard 6y ago
  Of course not, but that assumes the first outcome is as likely a result of no-lockdown as the second is of lockdown. In reality you need to consider probabilities. What if there are thousands of times more kids in the second category than the first? This is a pattern of thinking that I’ve seen a lot on the pro-lockdown side: reasoning from the axiom that a human being dying has infinite negative utility. While normally a good policy heuristic in practice when all else is equal, it of course can’t be strictly true. If it were, then it would be worth it for everyone in the world to experience unbounded misery if that extended the life of one person by one day. Clearly that is absurd. So the moral calculus must be more nuanced than “if it saves lives, it must be worth it”.