5 ms·

I think the article does a good job at looking at this as a trade-off. No where in the article do they state outright that there is no change to transmission. T

I think the article does a good job at looking at this as a trade-off. No where in the article do they state outright that there is no change to transmission. The main point is to ask the question "Is avoiding the damage to those that are older worth the damage to those that are younger?"

XorNot 5y ago
The question only ever asked by people in no danger (or who believe they're in no danger) of the consequences of what they propose.
- chmod600 5y ago
  No. Everyone with children asks that question, because they see the damage happening. Some reach different conclusions about the trade-off, but no parents take your absolutist position that doesn't even question the damage.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    I'm sure they do: and they do from the position of being able to talk about the consequences but not actually grok the consequences. You're doing it right here: think of the children! Well sure, but okay what about the teachers, the janitorial staff, the administrative staff? Schools aren't a machine children go into and then with no other inputs, education comes out.
    - dcolkitt 5y ago
      Nobody is forcing teachers, janitors or administrative staff to keep working. If they find the risk personally unsuitable they’re free to find another job. Plenty of other jobs are hiring.
- nradov 5y ago
  There will always be some level of danger. Insisting on eliminating danger is irrational.
  - hhmc 5y ago
    It's good that no-one is insisting we eliminate danger then.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Are you saying people who don't ask these questions are selfish and myopically focused on the benefits of mandates and lockdowns to themselves? That's pretty harsh. I can see where you're coming from it sometimes seems this way especially if you're discussing it on the internet. But I have found there are a few of these people who have thought about this and do have concern for the consequences and are willing to have reasonable discussions about it. So I don't think it is very constructive to generalize so negatively about people.

XorNot 5y ago

The question only ever asked by people in no danger (or who believe they're in no danger) of the consequences of what they propose.

chmod600 5y ago
No. Everyone with children asks that question, because they see the damage happening. Some reach different conclusions about the trade-off, but no parents take your absolutist position that doesn't even question the damage.
- XorNot 5y ago
  I'm sure they do: and they do from the position of being able to talk about the consequences but not actually grok the consequences. You're doing it right here: think of the children! Well sure, but okay what about the teachers, the janitorial staff, the administrative staff? Schools aren't a machine children go into and then with no other inputs, education comes out.
  - dcolkitt 5y ago
    Nobody is forcing teachers, janitors or administrative staff to keep working. If they find the risk personally unsuitable they’re free to find another job. Plenty of other jobs are hiring.
nradov 5y ago
There will always be some level of danger. Insisting on eliminating danger is irrational.
- hhmc 5y ago
  It's good that no-one is insisting we eliminate danger then.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
Are you saying people who don't ask these questions are selfish and myopically focused on the benefits of mandates and lockdowns to themselves? That's pretty harsh. I can see where you're coming from it sometimes seems this way especially if you're discussing it on the internet. But I have found there are a few of these people who have thought about this and do have concern for the consequences and are willing to have reasonable discussions about it. So I don't think it is very constructive to generalize so negatively about people.