3 ms·
Terrific false dichotomy — bravo. The post I was responding to was critiquing the prior post on the grounds that people make decisions without a scientific basi
by gnicholas 2y ago
Terrific false dichotomy — bravo. The post I was responding to was critiquing the prior post on the grounds that people make decisions without a scientific basis all the time. My point was that people are free to make these decisions, but that governmental mandates should be held to a higher standard.
I of course would not have said that we could have reduced covid infections by following the steps you suggest. But governmental mandates need to take into account both sides of the ledger. If having kids in school could have prevented massive learning loss and not resulted in significant additional deaths/hospitalizations, then that's something worth considering.
- stahtops 2y agoOk so you admit that social distancing and masks help reduce the spread of covid-19. That’s great to hear. What do you and Jim expect to learn from a scientific study? That 12 feet is better than 6 feet? I’d like to hear from each of you what you hope to learn, and why you think it would have been worth intentionally infecting people with covid-19, as that’s what would be required for a conclusive scientific study.
- gnicholas 2y ago> What do you and Jim expect to learn from a scientific study? That 12 feet is better than 6 feet? I don't know anyone named Jim, nor am I saying we need to have definitive studies before giving out guidance. However, if we are going to give out guidance that ends up requiring schools to space out kids' desks in a way that makes it impossible for many of them to open, I think that guidance should either be grounded in science or admitted to be a best-guess. This is about transparency and honest, which are especially important when the government issues mandatory rules that upend life as we know it.