5 ms·

> but everyone is apparently cool with that because "kids don't get sick from it" (ignoring any long-covid repercussions, which seems foolish to me) If kids do

> but everyone is apparently cool with that because "kids don't get sick from it" (ignoring any long-covid repercussions, which seems foolish to me) If kids don't get sick, then they don't get sick. What's foolish or difficult to understand about this? BTW when someone says "kids don't get sick from it" they don't talk in absolute terms. Kids also can get cancer, yet we are not screening their prostate yearly like we do with old men. Wanting to harm children's future, education, development and mental health because out of your own fear is rather distasteful.

Kaze404 6y ago
Kids don't get sick but they can still transmit the virus to the adults that care for them.
- dustinmoris 6y ago
  ...which have been vaccinated by now (unless they are young), so why penalise kids for a risk assessment which doesn't exist anymore?
  - loeg 6y ago
    You know most parents with "kids" are under 50, right? OP is complaining that the vaccination rate <50 is too low.
  - input_sh 6y ago
    Because vaccines are never 100% effective, and there are plenty of people who legitly can't receive one due to other medical conditions.
    - incrudible 6y ago
      An honest question: At what point should we stop trading the healthy development of children for a reduction of risk for certain vulnerable parts of the population?
      - ghaff 6y ago
        The general decision seems to be at the point when vaccines are widely available.
        simonh 6y ago
        Which is in just a few months.
        ghaff 6y ago
        In some countries at any rate.
      - input_sh 6y ago
        When everyone that wants a vaccine gets one (well, two). And I mean everyone in the world unless we a) close the borders completely for absolutely everything, or b) implement covid passports.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    That statement is demonstrably false. UK is only at 8% vaccination rate overall. 60% of eligible adults have had a single dose, but that 60% is heavily biased to the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions.
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      The single dose has been shown to provide good protection in the short term, so the 60% number is more relevant than the 8% one. Although percentage of total population rather than adult population would probably be a more accurate representation.
  - Kaze404 6y ago
    What's your solution to kids that have young parents? Every child of people 50+ years old go back to school, and the others stay behind?
    - nicoburns 6y ago
      Young parents are also much less likely to get severely ill than older parents.
      - Kaze404 6y ago
        So the ones that do get infected and die are just part of the sacrifice?
        samr71 6y ago
        People die of the seasonal flu all the time too. We don't shut life down over it. Covid is much much worse than the seasonal flu for many people. For others, it's less dangerous. That said, people still get hit with it. You can't get to 0
        Kaze404 6y ago
        I don't understand the point of your comment if you admit that Covid is much worse than the seasonal flu. We don't shut life down over the season flu, but we might for a much more dangerous disease. That's the whole point.
Denvercoder9 6y ago
> If kids don't get sick, then they don't get sick. There's no data about prevalence of long-term symptoms after an infection yet, regardless of whether people show immediate symptoms.
- dustinmoris 6y ago
  If the fear is long-term damage, then we must stay locked down and isolated for another two years to first wait for any real long term damage to show and then study it. With this mentality, what's the point of life? Might as well commit suicide, especially those grandparents which might not survive until then anyway.
  - Denvercoder9 6y ago
    It's not a binary choice between opening up now and staying in lockdown forever. We could wait a bit longer with opening up till more people are vaccinated, to reduce the risk of getting an infection for everyone (don't forget vaccines aren't 100% effective). We also could decide the immediate harm of lockdown outweighs the risk of long-term effects. It's a complicated situation, and there's likely no perfect answer. However, it's definitely not as black-and-white as "if they don't get sick, they don't get sick", and such reductionist statements don't help make an informed decision.
  - dfgdghdf 6y ago
    Depends if the lock-downs are at your doorstep or at the border. The UK had a few opportunities to pursue a zero covid strategy but squandered them all.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >There's no data about prevalence of long-term symptoms after an infection yet There's also no data about the prevalence of long-term symptoms of the covid vaccines, since it's literally impossible to test the 2-5 year effects of something that's only existed for one year, so by your logic should non-at-risk populations avoid taking that?
- TheButlerian 6y ago

Kaze404 6y ago

Kids don't get sick but they can still transmit the virus to the adults that care for them.

dustinmoris 6y ago
...which have been vaccinated by now (unless they are young), so why penalise kids for a risk assessment which doesn't exist anymore?
- loeg 6y ago
  You know most parents with "kids" are under 50, right? OP is complaining that the vaccination rate <50 is too low.
- input_sh 6y ago
  Because vaccines are never 100% effective, and there are plenty of people who legitly can't receive one due to other medical conditions.
  - incrudible 6y ago
    An honest question: At what point should we stop trading the healthy development of children for a reduction of risk for certain vulnerable parts of the population?
    - ghaff 6y ago
      The general decision seems to be at the point when vaccines are widely available.
      - simonh 6y ago
        Which is in just a few months.
        ghaff 6y ago
        In some countries at any rate.
    - input_sh 6y ago
      When everyone that wants a vaccine gets one (well, two). And I mean everyone in the world unless we a) close the borders completely for absolutely everything, or b) implement covid passports.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  That statement is demonstrably false. UK is only at 8% vaccination rate overall. 60% of eligible adults have had a single dose, but that 60% is heavily biased to the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    The single dose has been shown to provide good protection in the short term, so the 60% number is more relevant than the 8% one. Although percentage of total population rather than adult population would probably be a more accurate representation.
- Kaze404 6y ago
  What's your solution to kids that have young parents? Every child of people 50+ years old go back to school, and the others stay behind?
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    Young parents are also much less likely to get severely ill than older parents.
    - Kaze404 6y ago
      So the ones that do get infected and die are just part of the sacrifice?
      - samr71 6y ago
        People die of the seasonal flu all the time too. We don't shut life down over it. Covid is much much worse than the seasonal flu for many people. For others, it's less dangerous. That said, people still get hit with it. You can't get to 0
        Kaze404 6y ago
        I don't understand the point of your comment if you admit that Covid is much worse than the seasonal flu. We don't shut life down over the season flu, but we might for a much more dangerous disease. That's the whole point.

Denvercoder9 6y ago

> If kids don't get sick, then they don't get sick. There's no data about prevalence of long-term symptoms after an infection yet, regardless of whether people show immediate symptoms.

dustinmoris 6y ago
If the fear is long-term damage, then we must stay locked down and isolated for another two years to first wait for any real long term damage to show and then study it. With this mentality, what's the point of life? Might as well commit suicide, especially those grandparents which might not survive until then anyway.
- Denvercoder9 6y ago
  It's not a binary choice between opening up now and staying in lockdown forever. We could wait a bit longer with opening up till more people are vaccinated, to reduce the risk of getting an infection for everyone (don't forget vaccines aren't 100% effective). We also could decide the immediate harm of lockdown outweighs the risk of long-term effects. It's a complicated situation, and there's likely no perfect answer. However, it's definitely not as black-and-white as "if they don't get sick, they don't get sick", and such reductionist statements don't help make an informed decision.
- dfgdghdf 6y ago
  Depends if the lock-downs are at your doorstep or at the border. The UK had a few opportunities to pursue a zero covid strategy but squandered them all.
logicchains 6y ago
>There's no data about prevalence of long-term symptoms after an infection yet There's also no data about the prevalence of long-term symptoms of the covid vaccines, since it's literally impossible to test the 2-5 year effects of something that's only existed for one year, so by your logic should non-at-risk populations avoid taking that?
TheButlerian 6y ago