Teachers: do you trust the families in your school to take COVID seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like seriously, it’s not a reasonable way to discriminate. “Jane’s mom works at a grocery store. Good. Safe enough. Chris’s mom went to the grocery store. Bad. Unnecessary. Dangerous.”

+1

Consider that the two moms may not have the same risk factors. That muddies looking just at behavior. It may not seem risky to a non-Lupus patient to spend a day in the winter sun.

They're not talking about the actual "safety" of these adults who are able to choose for themselves about working in or shopping at a grocery store, but about the teacher who decides that the first one is safe but the second one is dangerous. Obviously when you put these two actions side-by-side, you can see the absurdity of that judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like seriously, it’s not a reasonable way to discriminate. “Jane’s mom works at a grocery store. Good. Safe enough. Chris’s mom went to the grocery store. Bad. Unnecessary. Dangerous.”

+1

Consider that the two moms may not have the same risk factors. That muddies looking just at behavior. It may not seem risky to a non-Lupus patient to spend a day in the winter sun.

They're not talking about the actual "safety" of these adults who are able to choose for themselves about working in or shopping at a grocery store, but about the teacher who decides that the first one is safe but the second one is dangerous. Obviously when you put these two actions side-by-side, you can see the absurdity of that judgment.

Yes, the original question seems to be about teachers judging parents on their "virus morality" rather than actually being concerned with risks.

Unless the original poster is suggesting that teachers refuse to teach the kids of grocery-store workers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like seriously, it’s not a reasonable way to discriminate. “Jane’s mom works at a grocery store. Good. Safe enough. Chris’s mom went to the grocery store. Bad. Unnecessary. Dangerous.”

+1

Consider that the two moms may not have the same risk factors. That muddies looking just at behavior. It may not seem risky to a non-Lupus patient to spend a day in the winter sun.

They're not talking about the actual "safety" of these adults who are able to choose for themselves about working in or shopping at a grocery store, but about the teacher who decides that the first one is safe but the second one is dangerous. Obviously when you put these two actions side-by-side, you can see the absurdity of that judgment.

Yes, the original question seems to be about teachers judging parents on their "virus morality" rather than actually being concerned with risks.

Unless the original poster is suggesting that teachers refuse to teach the kids of grocery-store workers?

The original teacher comment was about being willing to teach the kids of parents who had to work in-person (like grocery store workers) but very judgmental about teaching the kids of parents who did "unnecessary" things like visiting the grocery store.

I find these people suggest that it is too dangerous to visit the grocery store. But groceries have to get to the house somehow. This involves either a family member or a friend or a delivery service. In either case, it involves a person taking on risk. I might suggest that it may even be the more moral choice to take on the risk yourself rather than pay someone to take the risk for you.

[Anonymous]

As a high school math teacher, I believe it is my prerogative to decide what is safe behavior among my students and their families.

[Anonymous]

What's the survival rate if you're under 70?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a high school math teacher, I believe it is my prerogative to decide what is safe behavior among my students and their families.

Really? How will you be enforcing your judgment? Will tracking devices be used?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like seriously, it’s not a reasonable way to discriminate. “Jane’s mom works at a grocery store. Good. Safe enough. Chris’s mom went to the grocery store. Bad. Unnecessary. Dangerous.”

+1

Consider that the two moms may not have the same risk factors. That muddies looking just at behavior. It may not seem risky to a non-Lupus patient to spend a day in the winter sun.

They're not talking about the actual "safety" of these adults who are able to choose for themselves about working in or shopping at a grocery store, but about the teacher who decides that the first one is safe but the second one is dangerous. Obviously when you put these two actions side-by-side, you can see the absurdity of that judgment.

Yes, the original question seems to be about teachers judging parents on their "virus morality" rather than actually being concerned with risks.

Unless the original poster is suggesting that teachers refuse to teach the kids of grocery-store workers?

The original teacher comment was about being willing to teach the kids of parents who had to work in-person (like grocery store workers) but very judgmental about teaching the kids of parents who did "unnecessary" things like visiting the grocery store.

I find these people suggest that it is too dangerous to visit the grocery store. But groceries have to get to the house somehow. This involves either a family member or a friend or a delivery service. In either case, it involves a person taking on risk. I might suggest that it may even be the more moral choice to take on the risk yourself rather than pay someone to take the risk for you.

Yep. You are not morally superior because you let someone else take all the risks for you. You aren't morally superior for not getting your hair cut since March, despite minimal evidence of risk, while your hairdresser tried to live with no income. And no, schools aren't closed because some people grocery shop once per week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like seriously, it’s not a reasonable way to discriminate. “Jane’s mom works at a grocery store. Good. Safe enough. Chris’s mom went to the grocery store. Bad. Unnecessary. Dangerous.”

+1

Consider that the two moms may not have the same risk factors. That muddies looking just at behavior. It may not seem risky to a non-Lupus patient to spend a day in the winter sun.

They're not talking about the actual "safety" of these adults who are able to choose for themselves about working in or shopping at a grocery store, but about the teacher who decides that the first one is safe but the second one is dangerous. Obviously when you put these two actions side-by-side, you can see the absurdity of that judgment.

Yes, the original question seems to be about teachers judging parents on their "virus morality" rather than actually being concerned with risks.

Unless the original poster is suggesting that teachers refuse to teach the kids of grocery-store workers?

The original teacher comment was about being willing to teach the kids of parents who had to work in-person (like grocery store workers) but very judgmental about teaching the kids of parents who did "unnecessary" things like visiting the grocery store.

I find these people suggest that it is too dangerous to visit the grocery store. But groceries have to get to the house somehow. This involves either a family member or a friend or a delivery service. In either case, it involves a person taking on risk. I might suggest that it may even be the more moral choice to take on the risk yourself rather than pay someone to take the risk for you.

Yep. You are not morally superior because you let someone else take all the risks for you. You aren't morally superior for not getting your hair cut since March, despite minimal evidence of risk, while your hairdresser tried to live with no income. And no, schools aren't closed because some people grocery shop once per week.

I did have an acquaintance who, at the beginning of the pandemic, claimed moral superiority for starving to protect teachers. Specifically just teachers, weirdly.

[Anonymous]

The grocery store workers aren’t sending their kids in person in droves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The grocery store workers aren’t sending their kids in person in droves.

Ah, since you clearly have the data, can you tell me what percentage of grocery workers are sending their kids to schools?

[Anonymous]

Because surely you wouldn't just blurt something out like that despite lacking evidence. Not on the internet.

[Anonymous]

I might suggest that it may even be the more moral choice to take on the risk yourself rather than pay someone to take the risk for you.

What about paying those shoppers big tips? Isn't that the same as getting a haircut so the hairdresser can get paid? Your statement is not logical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I might suggest that it may even be the more moral choice to take on the risk yourself rather than pay someone to take the risk for you.

What about paying those shoppers big tips? Isn't that the same as getting a haircut so the hairdresser can get paid? Your statement is not logical.

Because there is risk you can take on, and risk you cannot, you limp carrot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I might suggest that it may even be the more moral choice to take on the risk yourself rather than pay someone to take the risk for you.

What about paying those shoppers big tips? Isn't that the same as getting a haircut so the hairdresser can get paid? Your statement is not logical.

Because there is risk you can take on, and risk you cannot, you limp carrot.

Incredibly stupid argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I might suggest that it may even be the more moral choice to take on the risk yourself rather than pay someone to take the risk for you.

What about paying those shoppers big tips? Isn't that the same as getting a haircut so the hairdresser can get paid? Your statement is not logical.

Because there is risk you can take on, and risk you cannot, you limp carrot.

Incredibly stupid argument.

does paying people more make it a more moral choice? can you increase morality through this method?