4 ms·
> Swizzling a swab in their nostrils (…) could well cause instant, significant distress if they have a hypersensitivity disorder or other trauma. This is like
by dpark 5y ago
> Swizzling a swab in their nostrils (…) could well cause instant, significant distress if they have a hypersensitivity disorder or other trauma.
This is like saying that it’s absolute torture to make kids walk up two flights of stairs, and then when rebutted by someone else saying the kids will be fine, trotting out that some kids are in wheelchairs.
Yeah, some kids are special needs. It is intellectually dishonest to trot that out as an opposition to a general thing. Some kids legitimately cannot wear masks for various reasons. Some kids probably can’t handle being swabbed nasally. And some kids can’t walk up stairs. This is why we have accommodations while general guidelines apply to kids who do not have these uncommon issues. We still expect kids to learn math and to run around in PE even though some kids unfortunately can’t do either of those things.
> or around the back of their throat
I don’t know anyone who has ever swabbed their kid’s throat for COVID. Maybe that’s a thing some places. Sounds unpleasant although most kids would survive that just fine, too.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago> This is like saying that it’s absolute torture to make kids walk up two flights of stairs, and then when rebutted by someone else saying the kids will be fine, trotting out that some kids are in wheelchairs. No, it's not, because you're talking about an unusual and gross medical test. A literal, very personal intrusion, poking something far up where kids are told not to poke things. Not walking upstairs. > I don’t know anyone who has ever swabbed their kid’s throat for COVID. Maybe that’s a thing some places. Sounds unpleasant although most kids would survive that just fine, too. Most test kits don't require it; it's still the best way to get an accurate result, though (and it's very definitely part of the adult routine that they may have witnessed). Kids may have experienced the throat swab in a medical situation and be very resistant to the swab full stop. > Yeah, some kids are special needs. It is intellectually dishonest to trot that out as an opposition to a general thing. But it's intellectually honest to generalise saying "if your kids experience trauma, you caused it"? You're proud of this argument so I'll leave it at that.
- ceejayoz 5y ago> No, it's not, because you're talking about an unusual and gross medical test. A literal, very personal intrusion, poking something far up where kids are told not to poke things. Not walking upstairs. The same is true when I clean my kids' ears. > Most test kits don't require it; it's still the best way to get an accurate result, though... It is explicitly recommended against by the FDA. https://twitter.com/US_FDA/status/1479548116684709890 https://twitter.com/US_FDA/status/1479548116684709890
- unfocussed_mike 5y agoIt's explicitly part of the instructions in the UK tests.
- ceejayoz 5y agoThat's an argument for changing which tests are being bought, then.
- unfocussed_mike 5y agoWhy, in particular? You could argue that the UK test that gives one level of accuracy with a throat swab and a nose swab is not statistically better than the US test that only uses a nose swab (though most health advisers here will say kids can just have their nostrils swabbed if the throat swab causes distress). But the USA does not proportionately have the mass home testing data set to make that comparison with. It's silly to make the argument.
- ceejayoz 5y ago> Why, in particular? Because you're asserting a risk of "instant, significant distress" from them? Seems like an easy fix to that concern.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago