> It's not a pot-shot to say that remote learning is ineffective for children It's not remote learning that is being discussed here, it's remote learning durin

> It's not a pot-shot to say that remote learning is ineffective for children It's not remote learning that is being discussed here, it's remote learning during a pandemic. That's what repeatedly keeps being ignored. We have never had a proper experiment with remote and in-person learning side-by-side when, you know, there weren't headlines about the number of deaths in the paper every day. > Plus, once-in-a-100-years or not, a substantial portion of a generation of kids spent their formative years in a world that enforced physical separation, covered faces and general agoraphobia for a world bearing an unseen, airborne and contagious horror (with a fatality rate between 0.001 and 0.003 for ages 0-19, established since late 2020[1]). Children born during the pandemic have already demonstrated decreased IQs, and that's just in the short-term. We're probably going to see an upward trend in childhood neuroses and maladaptive social behavior in the years to come. Yeah, this is all fair and should be discussed – I just don't understand why a 2% decrease in average scores during a pandemic is considered the gold standard of evidence for it.