3 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
  It's explicitly part of the instructions in the UK tests.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    That's an argument for changing which tests are being bought, then.
    - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
      Why, 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
        Except that I said that about swabbing the nostrils, did I not? Look, I think the tests are essential. I also think that people judging their neighbours parenting or their kids or completely ignoring the difference in people's circumstances when the outcome is distressing or difficult are wrong to do so, especially when it is the result of actually trying to comply with advice. Being superior about parenting in this context strikes me as bad manners.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        > Except that I said that about swabbing the nostrils, did I not? Sure, and I pointed out that's not a big deal, and then you said the UK tests require a throat swab and asserted that's a bigger deal, to which I pointed out switching to the nasal swabs might be appropriate. Pick one to discuss, please, so I can respond to the option you're currently thinking about.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
dpark 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. You went from claiming you’re “pro-testing” to claiming that the test is “unusual”, “gross”, and “intrusive”. Also suddenly your concern for kids with sensitivity disorders is nowhere to be found and you’re speaking in general terms again. This is exactly why I said the argument about special needs kids is dishonest. Because the argument isn’t about them. It’s about kids in general but you want to feign outrage on behalf of a population because it’s conveniently emotional. Anti maskers do the same and is interesting to see people with legitimate respiratory diseases and parents of actual disabled children plea for people to put their masks on to protect that exact population. It’s utterly gross to invoke a disadvantaged population dishonestly. > Most test kits don't require it; it's still the best way to get an accurate result, though You’re really trying to blame others for the fact that some parents might choose to do a throat swab when they are not obligated to? That’s literally on the parents for making that choice. > But it's intellectually honest to generalise saying "if your kids experience trauma, you caused it"? Yeah. If your kid doesn’t have some special need or sensitivity and getting a nasal swab is that traumatic for them, that sounds like you’re doing it wrong. Maybe you’re being too rough with the swab. Maybe you’re screaming at them because they won’t sit still. I don’t know. But I’ve seen dozens of kids line up for swabs and be just fine. When there’s a problem with a kid, it’s generally appropriate to look to the parents first. Child psychologists say this consistently. The problem is virtually always the parents. Also “intellectually dishonest” doesn’t mean “incorrect” or “asshole”. Maybe I’m both of those things. But I’m not intellectually dishonest for calling out bullshit.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  > You went from claiming you’re “pro-testing” to claiming that the test is “unusual”, “gross”, and “intrusive”. I am pro testing. Are you suggesting that they are mutually exclusive ideas? (Plus, that was meant to be from the kid's perspective, hence the bit about sticking things where they are told not to be sticking things; that might not have come across well, admittedly.) I am not feigning outrage. I'm suggesting to you that you're being overbroad with your assertions in this context. > virtually always Sums it up.

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 ago
It's explicitly part of the instructions in the UK tests.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  That's an argument for changing which tests are being bought, then.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    Why, 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
        Except that I said that about swabbing the nostrils, did I not? Look, I think the tests are essential. I also think that people judging their neighbours parenting or their kids or completely ignoring the difference in people's circumstances when the outcome is distressing or difficult are wrong to do so, especially when it is the result of actually trying to comply with advice. Being superior about parenting in this context strikes me as bad manners.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        > Except that I said that about swabbing the nostrils, did I not? Sure, and I pointed out that's not a big deal, and then you said the UK tests require a throat swab and asserted that's a bigger deal, to which I pointed out switching to the nasal swabs might be appropriate. Pick one to discuss, please, so I can respond to the option you're currently thinking about.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

dpark 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. You went from claiming you’re “pro-testing” to claiming that the test is “unusual”, “gross”, and “intrusive”. Also suddenly your concern for kids with sensitivity disorders is nowhere to be found and you’re speaking in general terms again. This is exactly why I said the argument about special needs kids is dishonest. Because the argument isn’t about them. It’s about kids in general but you want to feign outrage on behalf of a population because it’s conveniently emotional. Anti maskers do the same and is interesting to see people with legitimate respiratory diseases and parents of actual disabled children plea for people to put their masks on to protect that exact population. It’s utterly gross to invoke a disadvantaged population dishonestly. > Most test kits don't require it; it's still the best way to get an accurate result, though You’re really trying to blame others for the fact that some parents might choose to do a throat swab when they are not obligated to? That’s literally on the parents for making that choice. > But it's intellectually honest to generalise saying "if your kids experience trauma, you caused it"? Yeah. If your kid doesn’t have some special need or sensitivity and getting a nasal swab is that traumatic for them, that sounds like you’re doing it wrong. Maybe you’re being too rough with the swab. Maybe you’re screaming at them because they won’t sit still. I don’t know. But I’ve seen dozens of kids line up for swabs and be just fine. When there’s a problem with a kid, it’s generally appropriate to look to the parents first. Child psychologists say this consistently. The problem is virtually always the parents. Also “intellectually dishonest” doesn’t mean “incorrect” or “asshole”. Maybe I’m both of those things. But I’m not intellectually dishonest for calling out bullshit.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> You went from claiming you’re “pro-testing” to claiming that the test is “unusual”, “gross”, and “intrusive”. I am pro testing. Are you suggesting that they are mutually exclusive ideas? (Plus, that was meant to be from the kid's perspective, hence the bit about sticking things where they are told not to be sticking things; that might not have come across well, admittedly.) I am not feigning outrage. I'm suggesting to you that you're being overbroad with your assertions in this context. > virtually always Sums it up.