5 ms·

The article contextualizes itself at the beginning. A large number of people believe the effect of the lockdowns on children was not a normal distribution but w

The article contextualizes itself at the beginning. A large number of people believe the effect of the lockdowns on children was not a normal distribution but was skewed negative. So a normal distribution is news. This does not discount your argument that emphasizing the positive side of the distribution is clickbait, but if it is positioning itself as emphasizing that positive side to a population who thinks it is all negative, then I think it’s fine. For me textbook clickbait is an article that does not substantiate the promise of the headline, or one that comically exaggerates the excitement of the information in the article. There are people who believe the lockdowns were wholly an atrocity on children, and this article substantiates a counterbalance without going all the way (after all, the headline itself tells you that 2/3 children were unaffected or negatively affected).

bavell 5y ago
> The highest proportions of students who reported improved mental wellbeing were among those who were in school every day (39%) and most days (35%), while the highest proportion of students who reported worse wellbeing were those who attended just once or twice (39%). Seems that it absolutely skews negative for the kids who had to deal with more lockdowns, i.e. not going to school with their peers. > So a normal distribution is news. I don't see anywhere in the article where they claim it's a normal distribution? OP was just speculating IIUC.
- _Nat_ 5y ago
  > Seems that it absolutely skews negative for the kids who had to deal with more lockdowns, i.e. not going to school with their peers. That's incorrect. If you look at Figure-1 from [the article](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00787-021-01934-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00787-021-01934-z ), it appears that students were happier when they attended either "Not at all" or "Every day". It's the middle-ground options that averaged out to show lower-satisfaction. Or to frame it differently, students who never went to school in-person reported a net-positive average: 33.5% better vs. 32.7% worse (vs. 33.8% the same). That doesn't support the notion that students didn't like staying home. That said, I'd warn against over-interpreting such small differences. --- Separately, if we did want to speculate based on the data: we might guess that it was about consistency. Students appeared to be happiest when they attended not-all-all or every-day, with lower improvements in middle-ground options. Comparing the two extremes, there is a preference for every-day over not-at-all (stressing that we're talking about smaller figures here), but even that might be explainable in terms of consistency: because, before the pandemic, students did attend every-day -- so not-at-all was a major shift in lifestyle for those students, i.e. a major inconsistency. Hypothetically, if students always attended online, but then some had to start attending in-person every-day, we might see the reverse bias, as then it'd be the students who'd have to attend having the major shift in lifestyle. --- All that said, there appear to be more underlying factors. For example, if we look at Table 2, it appears that there was a more considerable gender-gap: * males were happier (2400 vs. 1836); * females weren't (3185 vs. 3861). That's a large enough relative-disparity as to suggest that it may be a mistake to interpret the data in a gender-blind way; the little on-average differences seem overshadowed by the gender-differences.
dv_dt 5y ago
When data was reviewed, the effect in suicides among school age children was that it was significantly lower despite anti-lockdown spokespeople claiming it was higher. The shocking thing was that thisj was not even close in the data.
- DocTomoe 5y ago
  Political leaders wanted kids back in school so parents would be able to go back to work. At the same time, the media starts talking about how bad homeschooling and lockdowns are for kids mental health and suicide rates. Consent is always manufactured.
  - geoduck14 5y ago
    >Political leaders wanted I feel the need to intervene here. The only thing political leaders want... is to get reelected. That is there job. To get reelected. Sure, in certain cases, a politician has kids and wants their kids back in school. But in this example the line should go: Political leaders had constituents that wanted kids back in school, so the leaders worked to make that happen.
    - DocTomoe 5y ago
      I used to believe the same things, that politicians followed the general will of their potential voters. I don't anymore, and reading some Chomsky made me understand how the system works. "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" is suggested reading, with the caveat that it opens the readers eyes to a harrowing reality and that what has been seen cannot be unseen.
      - tehjoker 5y ago
        Agreed, once you read that book (or watch the documentary [0]) it sets you down a new path of understanding. However, you will feel alternatively annoyed or horrified every day of the rest of your life. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuwmWnphqII https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuwmWnphqII
blagie 5y ago
My kid was a lot happier without school. I'd keep him out if I had the choice.

bavell 5y ago

> The highest proportions of students who reported improved mental wellbeing were among those who were in school every day (39%) and most days (35%), while the highest proportion of students who reported worse wellbeing were those who attended just once or twice (39%). Seems that it absolutely skews negative for the kids who had to deal with more lockdowns, i.e. not going to school with their peers. > So a normal distribution is news. I don't see anywhere in the article where they claim it's a normal distribution? OP was just speculating IIUC.

_Nat_ 5y ago
> Seems that it absolutely skews negative for the kids who had to deal with more lockdowns, i.e. not going to school with their peers. That's incorrect. If you look at Figure-1 from [the article](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00787-021-01934-z https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00787-021-01934-z ), it appears that students were happier when they attended either "Not at all" or "Every day". It's the middle-ground options that averaged out to show lower-satisfaction. Or to frame it differently, students who never went to school in-person reported a net-positive average: 33.5% better vs. 32.7% worse (vs. 33.8% the same). That doesn't support the notion that students didn't like staying home. That said, I'd warn against over-interpreting such small differences. --- Separately, if we did want to speculate based on the data: we might guess that it was about consistency. Students appeared to be happiest when they attended not-all-all or every-day, with lower improvements in middle-ground options. Comparing the two extremes, there is a preference for every-day over not-at-all (stressing that we're talking about smaller figures here), but even that might be explainable in terms of consistency: because, before the pandemic, students did attend every-day -- so not-at-all was a major shift in lifestyle for those students, i.e. a major inconsistency. Hypothetically, if students always attended online, but then some had to start attending in-person every-day, we might see the reverse bias, as then it'd be the students who'd have to attend having the major shift in lifestyle. --- All that said, there appear to be more underlying factors. For example, if we look at Table 2, it appears that there was a more considerable gender-gap: * males were happier (2400 vs. 1836); * females weren't (3185 vs. 3861). That's a large enough relative-disparity as to suggest that it may be a mistake to interpret the data in a gender-blind way; the little on-average differences seem overshadowed by the gender-differences.

dv_dt 5y ago

When data was reviewed, the effect in suicides among school age children was that it was significantly lower despite anti-lockdown spokespeople claiming it was higher. The shocking thing was that thisj was not even close in the data.

DocTomoe 5y ago
Political leaders wanted kids back in school so parents would be able to go back to work. At the same time, the media starts talking about how bad homeschooling and lockdowns are for kids mental health and suicide rates. Consent is always manufactured.
- geoduck14 5y ago
  >Political leaders wanted I feel the need to intervene here. The only thing political leaders want... is to get reelected. That is there job. To get reelected. Sure, in certain cases, a politician has kids and wants their kids back in school. But in this example the line should go: Political leaders had constituents that wanted kids back in school, so the leaders worked to make that happen.
  - DocTomoe 5y ago
    I used to believe the same things, that politicians followed the general will of their potential voters. I don't anymore, and reading some Chomsky made me understand how the system works. "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" is suggested reading, with the caveat that it opens the readers eyes to a harrowing reality and that what has been seen cannot be unseen.
    - tehjoker 5y ago
      Agreed, once you read that book (or watch the documentary [0]) it sets you down a new path of understanding. However, you will feel alternatively annoyed or horrified every day of the rest of your life. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuwmWnphqII https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuwmWnphqII

blagie 5y ago

My kid was a lot happier without school. I'd keep him out if I had the choice.