4 ms·

I was thinking about these categories with the opposite approach: we need a safe way [to educate people without the burden of home schooling] way more than we n

I was thinking about these categories with the opposite approach: we need a safe way [to educate people without the burden of home schooling] way more than we need a safe way [to eat/exercise without the burden of doing so at home].

Alupis 5y ago
At this point in time, children have experienced an infection rate, and complications that are near zero, statistically. To date, no child has received a vaccination. Why would we punish the vaccinated, and children, for a minority unvaccinated population? A population that largely (entirely?) puts their own self at risk and no other individual that has taken steps to protect themselves from the virus. Vaccines (in the US at least) are free to anyone that wants one at this point. It's been that way for months. If someone doesn't have a vaccine, it's because they chose to not get one - and therefore take on the risk of becoming ill or death. That's their problem... not children's problem or vaccinated people's problem. We're doing all this to protect a population that's actively resisting your protection. With all that said, let's get back to normal here. People who don't want vaccines aren't going to get them even if you made it the law... be realistic.
- hunter2_ 5y ago
  I'm not saying we punish children. I'm saying it's more important to allow public education to proceed in whatever way works than to allow restaurant- and gym-going to proceed willy-nilly. I don't like restrictions in general, but I do prioritize these two things in a certain way.
  - Alupis 5y ago
    Why don't we let it all go forward, was the point I was making. We're trying to protect people that don't want protection. Time to move on and get back to normal.
    - krapp 5y ago
      "Normal" is being vaccinated. This isn't the world's first pandemic, nor is it the world's first widespread vaccination campaign. The fear, paranoia and mistrust around vaccinations against COVID is not normal. "Just let nature take its course" isn't normal, at least not in the modern history of civil societies.
      - Alupis 5y ago
        Regardless of your personal definition of normal, you will not convince the unvaccinated people to get vaccinated. You've tried, and failed. Short of going door-to-door with guys with guns and body armor, forcefully pinning down people and jabbing them with vaccine - nothing you (or anyone) does will convince people to get a vaccine if they've decided at this point they do not want it for whatever their reasons may be. So... go about your business as usual. Stop trying to protect people that refuse your protection. It's wasted effort, and hurts everyone else that is already vaccinated.
        krapp 5y ago
        >So... go about your business as usual. Stop trying to protect people that refuse your protection. It's wasted effort, and hurts everyone else that is already vaccinated. Umm... no. They spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (and COVID) at every opportunity, they consider themselves on a crusade against vaccination and the vaccinated. Society is under no obligation to let dangerous fools remain comfortable in their foolishness.
        Alupis 5y ago
        > They spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (and COVID) at every opportunity Except they don't. The people who are vaccinated aren't afraid, uncertain or in any doubt. Nor can they contract COVID from unvaccinated people - otherwise what would be the point of the vaccine anyway? > they consider themselves on a crusade Who cares? Why do you care what some other people think? If you're vaccinated, their choices literally have zero impact on you. > Society is under no obligation to let dangerous fools remain comfortable in their foolishness Last I checked, we were talking about the US... so ya, they are allowed to be foolish, particularly since the only people they are potentially harming is themselves. So... what is your plan? Are we storming people's houses with armed men to forcefully vaccinate people that don't want it? Or are we just sitting on some high horse? I'll tell you who's spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt - it's the very same people making these arguments. Get a vaccine - or else! But you'll still need to wear a mask - or two - and quarantine at home and be careful who you're around because the COVID will get you regardless. It's complete poppycock. Given those choices, why would someone want to vaccinate if literally nothing about their life improves afterwards? I think what we have here is an intolerance for other people's choices... and a desire to compel people into submission of what some other people believe is the "right way". Both sides are guilty of willfully ignoring facts when convenient... so who's right? Good thing we're in the US and don't have to care - both can be wrong and go about their business without bothering each other.
- mcguire 5y ago
  If I'm interpreting this page (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/COVID-19-Cases-by-Age-Group.aspx https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/COV...) correctly, children less than 5 provide 2.4% of cases of COVID in California; they are 5.8% of the population so they seem to have a lower infection rate (although those 75-79 provide 1.6% of cases from 2.7% of the population). Children between 5 and 17 provide 10.7% of cases from 16.7% of the population. Children have a very non-zero infection rate while they do have effectively a zero death rate (no actual information on "complications").
  - Alupis 5y ago
    The data is listed weird, because someone over the age of 12 can get the vaccine. A 17 year old has a lot more social opportunity to catch the virus, etc. Regardless, the people who do get sick, typically get only midly-so, and rarely (statistically 0) experience serious complications or death. Therefore, my initial conclusion that the risk for children is near zero stands.

Alupis 5y ago

At this point in time, children have experienced an infection rate, and complications that are near zero, statistically. To date, no child has received a vaccination. Why would we punish the vaccinated, and children, for a minority unvaccinated population? A population that largely (entirely?) puts their own self at risk and no other individual that has taken steps to protect themselves from the virus. Vaccines (in the US at least) are free to anyone that wants one at this point. It's been that way for months. If someone doesn't have a vaccine, it's because they chose to not get one - and therefore take on the risk of becoming ill or death. That's their problem... not children's problem or vaccinated people's problem. We're doing all this to protect a population that's actively resisting your protection. With all that said, let's get back to normal here. People who don't want vaccines aren't going to get them even if you made it the law... be realistic.

hunter2_ 5y ago
I'm not saying we punish children. I'm saying it's more important to allow public education to proceed in whatever way works than to allow restaurant- and gym-going to proceed willy-nilly. I don't like restrictions in general, but I do prioritize these two things in a certain way.
- Alupis 5y ago
  Why don't we let it all go forward, was the point I was making. We're trying to protect people that don't want protection. Time to move on and get back to normal.
  - krapp 5y ago
    "Normal" is being vaccinated. This isn't the world's first pandemic, nor is it the world's first widespread vaccination campaign. The fear, paranoia and mistrust around vaccinations against COVID is not normal. "Just let nature take its course" isn't normal, at least not in the modern history of civil societies.
    - Alupis 5y ago
      Regardless of your personal definition of normal, you will not convince the unvaccinated people to get vaccinated. You've tried, and failed. Short of going door-to-door with guys with guns and body armor, forcefully pinning down people and jabbing them with vaccine - nothing you (or anyone) does will convince people to get a vaccine if they've decided at this point they do not want it for whatever their reasons may be. So... go about your business as usual. Stop trying to protect people that refuse your protection. It's wasted effort, and hurts everyone else that is already vaccinated.
      - krapp 5y ago
        >So... go about your business as usual. Stop trying to protect people that refuse your protection. It's wasted effort, and hurts everyone else that is already vaccinated. Umm... no. They spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (and COVID) at every opportunity, they consider themselves on a crusade against vaccination and the vaccinated. Society is under no obligation to let dangerous fools remain comfortable in their foolishness.
        Alupis 5y ago
        > They spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (and COVID) at every opportunity Except they don't. The people who are vaccinated aren't afraid, uncertain or in any doubt. Nor can they contract COVID from unvaccinated people - otherwise what would be the point of the vaccine anyway? > they consider themselves on a crusade Who cares? Why do you care what some other people think? If you're vaccinated, their choices literally have zero impact on you. > Society is under no obligation to let dangerous fools remain comfortable in their foolishness Last I checked, we were talking about the US... so ya, they are allowed to be foolish, particularly since the only people they are potentially harming is themselves. So... what is your plan? Are we storming people's houses with armed men to forcefully vaccinate people that don't want it? Or are we just sitting on some high horse? I'll tell you who's spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt - it's the very same people making these arguments. Get a vaccine - or else! But you'll still need to wear a mask - or two - and quarantine at home and be careful who you're around because the COVID will get you regardless. It's complete poppycock. Given those choices, why would someone want to vaccinate if literally nothing about their life improves afterwards? I think what we have here is an intolerance for other people's choices... and a desire to compel people into submission of what some other people believe is the "right way". Both sides are guilty of willfully ignoring facts when convenient... so who's right? Good thing we're in the US and don't have to care - both can be wrong and go about their business without bothering each other.
mcguire 5y ago
If I'm interpreting this page (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/COVID-19-Cases-by-Age-Group.aspx https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/COV...) correctly, children less than 5 provide 2.4% of cases of COVID in California; they are 5.8% of the population so they seem to have a lower infection rate (although those 75-79 provide 1.6% of cases from 2.7% of the population). Children between 5 and 17 provide 10.7% of cases from 16.7% of the population. Children have a very non-zero infection rate while they do have effectively a zero death rate (no actual information on "complications").
- Alupis 5y ago
  The data is listed weird, because someone over the age of 12 can get the vaccine. A 17 year old has a lot more social opportunity to catch the virus, etc. Regardless, the people who do get sick, typically get only midly-so, and rarely (statistically 0) experience serious complications or death. Therefore, my initial conclusion that the risk for children is near zero stands.