7 ms·

I'm not sure what you expect when you instill constant fear of simply getting sick, take away all of their social structure, and isolate them in front of a scre

I'm not sure what you expect when you instill constant fear of simply getting sick, take away all of their social structure, and isolate them in front of a screen, all for a virus that doesn't affect kids barely at all. Per the CDC there is a 0.003% chance of someone under age 20 dying from COVID; they have greater risk driving to school. It's no wonder their mental health is so poor, even if the trend was starting before the pandemic.

aedocw 5y ago
The point was to limit the spread of the virus throughout the entire population, and an attempt to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed by the infected.
- vinyl7 5y ago
  Whatever helps you rationalize that we basically destroyed the younger generation in hopes of saving the old/dying generation
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  Too bad you'll never really know if any of it worked. Kinda would have been nice to stick with proven mitigations we had planned out for decades instead of chuck it all out of the window in search of a miracle cure. If you read pre-covid pandemic planning, virtually everything they suggestion you dont do society decided to do. Everything they suggested you should do, we ignored.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Sweden's low-restrictions approach exists as an alternative case study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden
    - heyoni 5y ago
      And if we (the US) are going to take example on Europe for anything, let's do universal healthcare first before taking the laissez-faire approach to a pandemic. Seems like a good pre-requesite.
spookthesunset 5y ago
It disgusts me to see this downvoted. There isn't anything false about what you said. What we have done to children the last two years is absolutely disgusting. The fact so many people seem to cheer it on makes it even worse--especially how so many of the "pro-education" crowd cheers it on too. We fucked kids the last two years and it requires some serious mental gymnastics to rationalize it away.
- standardUser 5y ago
  "all for a virus that doesn't affect kids barely at all" It's downvoted because the above line is either a willful misrepresentation in service of a political gripe or, less likely, a genuine ignorance that should not be promoted.
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    In what way are kids at risk? We have two years of data to show otherwise.
    - standardUser 5y ago
      All initial restrictions were to slow the spread of the virus to prevent overwhelming healthcare systems, not to prevent children from getting ill specifically, as literally everyone knows.
      - spookthesunset 5y ago
        That argument holds true only for the first month or so. Once governors started closing unused field hospitals and then extending their stay at home order instead of celebrating Covid not being nearly as bad as predicted… once that happened your argument no longer remains valid. The day those field hospitals closed was the day data left the building entirely… we should have opened everything back up when those field hospitals shut down… we should have celebrated that Covid was not the threat it was originally believed to be.
- 5y ago

aedocw 5y ago

The point was to limit the spread of the virus throughout the entire population, and an attempt to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed by the infected.

vinyl7 5y ago
Whatever helps you rationalize that we basically destroyed the younger generation in hopes of saving the old/dying generation
spookthesunset 5y ago
Too bad you'll never really know if any of it worked. Kinda would have been nice to stick with proven mitigations we had planned out for decades instead of chuck it all out of the window in search of a miracle cure. If you read pre-covid pandemic planning, virtually everything they suggestion you dont do society decided to do. Everything they suggested you should do, we ignored.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Sweden's low-restrictions approach exists as an alternative case study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden
  - heyoni 5y ago
    And if we (the US) are going to take example on Europe for anything, let's do universal healthcare first before taking the laissez-faire approach to a pandemic. Seems like a good pre-requesite.

spookthesunset 5y ago

It disgusts me to see this downvoted. There isn't anything false about what you said. What we have done to children the last two years is absolutely disgusting. The fact so many people seem to cheer it on makes it even worse--especially how so many of the "pro-education" crowd cheers it on too. We fucked kids the last two years and it requires some serious mental gymnastics to rationalize it away.

standardUser 5y ago
"all for a virus that doesn't affect kids barely at all" It's downvoted because the above line is either a willful misrepresentation in service of a political gripe or, less likely, a genuine ignorance that should not be promoted.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  In what way are kids at risk? We have two years of data to show otherwise.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    All initial restrictions were to slow the spread of the virus to prevent overwhelming healthcare systems, not to prevent children from getting ill specifically, as literally everyone knows.
    - spookthesunset 5y ago
      That argument holds true only for the first month or so. Once governors started closing unused field hospitals and then extending their stay at home order instead of celebrating Covid not being nearly as bad as predicted… once that happened your argument no longer remains valid. The day those field hospitals closed was the day data left the building entirely… we should have opened everything back up when those field hospitals shut down… we should have celebrated that Covid was not the threat it was originally believed to be.
5y ago