5 ms·

Yes, people have stated that 'the kids will be fine' quite consistently. Also, all costs other than deaths have been underplayed by people in favour of lockdown

Yes, people have stated that 'the kids will be fine' quite consistently. Also, all costs other than deaths have been underplayed by people in favour of lockdowns. Memory-holing this is literally insane (where insane = disconnected from reality). That's not to say that what was done wasn't the best of a suite of bad options. But I saw nothing but fairly extreme downplaying of the consequences of lockdowns from people who wanted long (the only effective) ones.

ryanklee 4y ago
I think you should clarify your sample. I'm a liberal, was in favor of school closings early, my daughter went to her first year of kindergarten remote, and I was very aware of the tradeoffs. People like Emily Oster have been excellent at raising concerns.
- yonaguska 4y ago
  You were aware of the tradeoffs for your daughter. Were you aware of the tradeoffs for children in less fortunate situations? And while being aware, did you still support schools closing early? Do you stand by your support knowing the trauma it has inflicted now? The school closings have had catastrophic effects on children with poor home lives. School for me was a place to eat, and in middle school, even just showering when the gas or electricity had been cut at home. Many of these kids were dodging abusive relatives, gangs, and drugs by going to school. The more fortunate kids were lucky to drop high school in exchange for working to support their families. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-11-year-old-reports-sexual-abuse-20210108-rqax7xobanas5npruzoiaclu7i-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-11-year-old-... https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-online-sex-abuse-caught-charged-20201017-fepiggml2bcopkduhoaqmpcofi-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-online-sex-a... https://www.wbez.org/stories/to-help-their-families-during-the-pandemic-chicago-teens-are-skipping-class-to-work/ba108579-4fc9-4dcb-b9fc-9ffc82e08c2e https://www.wbez.org/stories/to-help-their-families-during-t...
  - ryanklee 4y ago
    Yes, I was aware of the tradeoffs up and down the line. And we should not fall prey to outcome bias. Given the massive unknowns of the virus early on and through the first full year of school, it seems to me we made the right choice. We've created many problems for many families and children, but we were avoiding a worst case scenario of a mountain of dead children. We know now that that was never going to be the case, but we didn't then.
    - xorcist 4y ago
      Do you still think it was the right choice in retrospect? There were no reports of "a mountain of dead children" anywhere in the world.
      - ryanklee 4y ago
        Again, we should not fall prey to resulting. It's not about what we did know, it's about what we didn't. Early on, we had no idea how the virus was interacting with children and the school system. Being under-cautious would have been the wrong move, because the worst case scenario was horrifying.
        xorcist 4y ago
        Schools didn't close until late March. There was weeks of data from western society by then. The basic understanding of the contagion, what drove the pandemic, and mortality numbers across age groups was known. The data has become more specific since, but not dramatically different.
        ryanklee 4y ago
        The schools closed before we allowed the virus to course through the school system. We did not have good data. The decisions to close the schools was made to prevent the conditions that would supply that data.
        4y ago
synergy20 4y ago
one reason to close school is not just about kids got covid themselves, but they could carry covid back home and hurt those elders in the house and make the pandemic worse. it's a trade-off, I think we did what we had to do.
- nradov 4y ago
  No that's incorrect. We never had to close schools. Sweden kept primary schools open (without masks) and they did fine. Closing schools was a completely irrational overreaction.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    They had vastly more covid deaths than their nordic peers. That's a consequence you can argue is justified, I suppose, but you shouldn't try to dismiss it as "did fine."
    - spookthesunset 4y ago
      When the dust has settled and level heads can do actual good studies on the outcomes of the last two years of mitigations... I'm pretty sure the findings will be that closing schools didn't do a damn thing but screw over kids. Same with virtually every other NPI.
    - xorcist 4y ago
      That's an extreme form of cherry picking. Germany and the Netherlands are more suitable comparisons.
- ovi256 4y ago
  > they could carry covid back home and hurt those elders in the house So why not remote school just the children with elders in the house, and not hurt the others' schooling ?
mort96 4y ago
It might have to do with the media enviroment we're exposed to; I'm from Norway, and I feel like the impact on children has been on the forefront of everyone's mind all the time, in domestic news, in domestic policy, and in my impression of international news. But the view from within the US might be completely different. One problem I've seemed to notice in the US is that you have the "somewhat reasonable" side and the "batshit insane" side of every discussion, and the "somewhat reasonable" side over-corrects. A clear example of that is the mask discussion; you have the "batshit insane" side which claimed that masks literally deprived you of oxygen, and then the "somewhat reasonable" side would over-correct and downplay any negative sides to having to wear a mask. Whereas outside of the US, I feel like there was a much more reasonable conversation about how masks suck and are really annoying to wear, especially when you're exerting yourself physically or wear glasses, but are overall a good thing. So it wouldn't surprise me if you had the same effect regarding schools, where the "batshit insane" side wants no response at all and doesn't even think COVID exists/thinks it's manufactured by the illuminati to control citizens/is no worse than a flu/whatever, and the "somewhat reasonable" side overcorrects by downplaying any negative sides to a COVID response.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Let's not mince words: "batshit insane" are the people you disagree with, and "somewhat reasonable" are the people you agree with. You completely mischaracterize the side you disagree with, and then excuse the side you agree with as simply "over-correcting." In reality, the "batshit insane" people were closer to the truth, which is that the shitty cloth masks that were considered acceptable and worn by the majority of people did little to nothing to stop the spread of Covid.
- kurisufag 4y ago
  >you have the "batshit insane" side which claimed that masks literally deprived you of oxygen, and then the "somewhat reasonable" side would over-correct and downplay any negative sides to having to wear a mask this seems to be a false dichotomy. you can certainly fit all of the opinions into a binary if you'd like, but nowhere near enough people believed what you are calling "batshit insane" to constitute one side. more reasonably, you could talk about how one side advised not wearing masks at all, proclaiming they were totally useless, and the other "over-corrected" by mandating wearing cloth masks, which we knew all along were practically useless.
ryandrake 4y ago
> people in favour of lockdowns > from people who wanted long (the only effective) ones. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I think this kind of wording maybe sets up a straw man. Nobody _wanted_ lockdowns. I know hardly anyone who was genuinely excited and happy about quarantine and stay-at-home. Your wording sounds like there are some significant group of people who want everyone isolated in their homes (for what reason?), and when COVID came along, they could finally get their way! There is no mustache-twirling villain gleefully plotting to lock people in their homes just because. I was in favor of sustained stay-at-home because it seemed like the only way to at least slow the pandemic from causing even more sickness and death, but that doesn't mean I liked or wanted lockdowns.
- mattcwilson 4y ago
  I think you’re reading too much into the word “wanted” or the words “in favour of.” It sounds like, if it had come to a vote, you would have voted for them.
JeremyNT 4y ago
> Yes, people have stated that 'the kids will be fine' quite consistently. Also, all costs other than deaths have been underplayed by people in favour of lockdowns. Memory-holing this is literally insane (where insane = disconnected from reality). Perhaps this hinges on your definition of "fine" - will most of these children become functional well adjusted adults? Sure, people can weather far worse things than this. But will they be set back on their education? Unquestionably. As a parent of an elementary school child, I can tell you that if "people" were saying schools closures were of no consequence, they were idiots or charlatans. From the beginning it was obvious that a "remote only" learning plan for kids this age was going to be terrible, and it would exacerbate any underlying inequality that was already in place. "People" can and do state absolute nonsense all the time, so the fact that "people have stated" something dumb is, on its own, a useless data point. The more useful question is whether these people who were making bold claims that there would be no harm successfully manipulated public policy.

ryanklee 4y ago

I think you should clarify your sample. I'm a liberal, was in favor of school closings early, my daughter went to her first year of kindergarten remote, and I was very aware of the tradeoffs. People like Emily Oster have been excellent at raising concerns.

yonaguska 4y ago
You were aware of the tradeoffs for your daughter. Were you aware of the tradeoffs for children in less fortunate situations? And while being aware, did you still support schools closing early? Do you stand by your support knowing the trauma it has inflicted now? The school closings have had catastrophic effects on children with poor home lives. School for me was a place to eat, and in middle school, even just showering when the gas or electricity had been cut at home. Many of these kids were dodging abusive relatives, gangs, and drugs by going to school. The more fortunate kids were lucky to drop high school in exchange for working to support their families. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-11-year-old-reports-sexual-abuse-20210108-rqax7xobanas5npruzoiaclu7i-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-11-year-old-... https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-online-sex-abuse-caught-charged-20201017-fepiggml2bcopkduhoaqmpcofi-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-online-sex-a... https://www.wbez.org/stories/to-help-their-families-during-the-pandemic-chicago-teens-are-skipping-class-to-work/ba108579-4fc9-4dcb-b9fc-9ffc82e08c2e https://www.wbez.org/stories/to-help-their-families-during-t...
- ryanklee 4y ago
  Yes, I was aware of the tradeoffs up and down the line. And we should not fall prey to outcome bias. Given the massive unknowns of the virus early on and through the first full year of school, it seems to me we made the right choice. We've created many problems for many families and children, but we were avoiding a worst case scenario of a mountain of dead children. We know now that that was never going to be the case, but we didn't then.
  - xorcist 4y ago
    Do you still think it was the right choice in retrospect? There were no reports of "a mountain of dead children" anywhere in the world.
    - ryanklee 4y ago
      Again, we should not fall prey to resulting. It's not about what we did know, it's about what we didn't. Early on, we had no idea how the virus was interacting with children and the school system. Being under-cautious would have been the wrong move, because the worst case scenario was horrifying.
      - xorcist 4y ago
        Schools didn't close until late March. There was weeks of data from western society by then. The basic understanding of the contagion, what drove the pandemic, and mortality numbers across age groups was known. The data has become more specific since, but not dramatically different.
        ryanklee 4y ago
        The schools closed before we allowed the virus to course through the school system. We did not have good data. The decisions to close the schools was made to prevent the conditions that would supply that data.
      - 4y ago

synergy20 4y ago

one reason to close school is not just about kids got covid themselves, but they could carry covid back home and hurt those elders in the house and make the pandemic worse. it's a trade-off, I think we did what we had to do.

nradov 4y ago
No that's incorrect. We never had to close schools. Sweden kept primary schools open (without masks) and they did fine. Closing schools was a completely irrational overreaction.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  They had vastly more covid deaths than their nordic peers. That's a consequence you can argue is justified, I suppose, but you shouldn't try to dismiss it as "did fine."
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    When the dust has settled and level heads can do actual good studies on the outcomes of the last two years of mitigations... I'm pretty sure the findings will be that closing schools didn't do a damn thing but screw over kids. Same with virtually every other NPI.
  - xorcist 4y ago
    That's an extreme form of cherry picking. Germany and the Netherlands are more suitable comparisons.
ovi256 4y ago
> they could carry covid back home and hurt those elders in the house So why not remote school just the children with elders in the house, and not hurt the others' schooling ?

mort96 4y ago

It might have to do with the media enviroment we're exposed to; I'm from Norway, and I feel like the impact on children has been on the forefront of everyone's mind all the time, in domestic news, in domestic policy, and in my impression of international news. But the view from within the US might be completely different. One problem I've seemed to notice in the US is that you have the "somewhat reasonable" side and the "batshit insane" side of every discussion, and the "somewhat reasonable" side over-corrects. A clear example of that is the mask discussion; you have the "batshit insane" side which claimed that masks literally deprived you of oxygen, and then the "somewhat reasonable" side would over-correct and downplay any negative sides to having to wear a mask. Whereas outside of the US, I feel like there was a much more reasonable conversation about how masks suck and are really annoying to wear, especially when you're exerting yourself physically or wear glasses, but are overall a good thing. So it wouldn't surprise me if you had the same effect regarding schools, where the "batshit insane" side wants no response at all and doesn't even think COVID exists/thinks it's manufactured by the illuminati to control citizens/is no worse than a flu/whatever, and the "somewhat reasonable" side overcorrects by downplaying any negative sides to a COVID response.

jaywalk 4y ago
Let's not mince words: "batshit insane" are the people you disagree with, and "somewhat reasonable" are the people you agree with. You completely mischaracterize the side you disagree with, and then excuse the side you agree with as simply "over-correcting." In reality, the "batshit insane" people were closer to the truth, which is that the shitty cloth masks that were considered acceptable and worn by the majority of people did little to nothing to stop the spread of Covid.
kurisufag 4y ago
>you have the "batshit insane" side which claimed that masks literally deprived you of oxygen, and then the "somewhat reasonable" side would over-correct and downplay any negative sides to having to wear a mask this seems to be a false dichotomy. you can certainly fit all of the opinions into a binary if you'd like, but nowhere near enough people believed what you are calling "batshit insane" to constitute one side. more reasonably, you could talk about how one side advised not wearing masks at all, proclaiming they were totally useless, and the other "over-corrected" by mandating wearing cloth masks, which we knew all along were practically useless.

ryandrake 4y ago

> people in favour of lockdowns > from people who wanted long (the only effective) ones. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I think this kind of wording maybe sets up a straw man. Nobody _wanted_ lockdowns. I know hardly anyone who was genuinely excited and happy about quarantine and stay-at-home. Your wording sounds like there are some significant group of people who want everyone isolated in their homes (for what reason?), and when COVID came along, they could finally get their way! There is no mustache-twirling villain gleefully plotting to lock people in their homes just because. I was in favor of sustained stay-at-home because it seemed like the only way to at least slow the pandemic from causing even more sickness and death, but that doesn't mean I liked or wanted lockdowns.

mattcwilson 4y ago
I think you’re reading too much into the word “wanted” or the words “in favour of.” It sounds like, if it had come to a vote, you would have voted for them.

JeremyNT 4y ago

> Yes, people have stated that 'the kids will be fine' quite consistently. Also, all costs other than deaths have been underplayed by people in favour of lockdowns. Memory-holing this is literally insane (where insane = disconnected from reality). Perhaps this hinges on your definition of "fine" - will most of these children become functional well adjusted adults? Sure, people can weather far worse things than this. But will they be set back on their education? Unquestionably. As a parent of an elementary school child, I can tell you that if "people" were saying schools closures were of no consequence, they were idiots or charlatans. From the beginning it was obvious that a "remote only" learning plan for kids this age was going to be terrible, and it would exacerbate any underlying inequality that was already in place. "People" can and do state absolute nonsense all the time, so the fact that "people have stated" something dumb is, on its own, a useless data point. The more useful question is whether these people who were making bold claims that there would be no harm successfully manipulated public policy.