COVID Lockdowns Were a Giant Experiment. It Was a Failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After (really) old people, Covid was most dangerous for fat and metabolically unhealthy people. I never understood why we didn’t do a full-court press on exercise and healthy eating - heck, maybe free Mounjaro for anyone with a bmi over 27!

Being fat and metabolically unhealthy are still the most preventable conditions Americans die from - hundreds of thousands a year. Why not more attention on that?

I’m fat and metabolically unhealthy, but down 60 pounds in 7 months on Wegovy. My A1c is now 5.1. So, I get that. Practically speaking, the reason is the drugs were several years away from being clinically tested for obesity. And even now, we don’t have the capacity to even begin to meet demand. And, the drugs don’t work well without a nutritious, high protein diet, which many Americans cannot afford.

Plus, do you ever read a newspaper? In 2022-2023, there is an article on some aspect of the the GLP-1/GIP drugs on the main page of the WaPo and or NYT almost every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I
T’s
S

2
0
2
3

M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
E

O
N

You must not be dealing with the aftermath in your family. Also, what about learning from our mistakes? Not so easy to move on when people like you are in DENIAL.

I know four separate families where someone died from Covid. Two of them were parents of young children.

Sit down with your “dealing with the aftermath” bullshit.

I really don’t care that your child has a learning gap or whatever you are on about. They will get over it.

Maybe see a professional for help with your heinously insensitive obsession with this.

And I know 2 separate families with young children, where parents committed suicide due to lockdowns and losing their business. So you can take all the seats.

Sucks to be them. I am sorry they were mentally weak. But that isn’t the fault of lockdowns since … *checks notes* there never were any lockdowns ever anywhere in the USA.

When you own a bar and people weren't allowed to be in your bar, checks notes, the business will likely go under. Let's talk about your comorbities that made you so fearful of Covid, shall we? You are obviously not a healthy low risk person.

That isn’t necessarily true. We’re arguing about inflation and debt now, because we poured so much money into keeping these businesses afloat during COVID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I
T’s
S

2
0
2
3

M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
E

O
N

You must not be dealing with the aftermath in your family. Also, what about learning from our mistakes? Not so easy to move on when people like you are in DENIAL.

I know four separate families where someone died from Covid. Two of them were parents of young children.

Sit down with your “dealing with the aftermath” bullshit.

I really don’t care that your child has a learning gap or whatever you are on about. They will get over it.

Maybe see a professional for help with your heinously insensitive obsession with this.

And I know 2 separate families with young children, where parents committed suicide due to lockdowns and losing their business. So you can take all the seats.

They should have applied for PPP loans (that would be forgiven) instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if this was already posted, but I came across this article from New York magazine that made me question the efficacy of lockdowns, and our whole response to the pandemic. Very much 20/20 hindsight, but the more I think about it, the angrier I get, especially with closing the schools.

Here’s a link, along with a key paragraph arguing that Sweden probably had the right response.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/covid-lockdowns-big-fail-joe-nocera-bethany-mclean-book-excerpt.html

So in attempting to gauge the value of lockdowns, the most appropriate way is to look not just at COVID deaths but at all deaths during the pandemic years. That’s known as the “excess deaths” — a measure of how many more people died than in a normal year. One authoritative accounting was compiled by The Spectator using data gathered by the OECD. It showed that during the first two years of the pandemic — 2020 and 2021 — the U.S. had 19 percent more deaths than it normally saw in two years’ time. For the U.K., there was a 10 percent rise. And for Sweden — one of the few countries that had refused to lock down its society — it was just 4 percent. An analysis by Bloomberg found broadly similar results. In other words, for all the criticism Sweden shouldered from the world’s public health officials for refusing to institute lockdowns, it wound up seeing a lower overall death rate during the pandemic than most peer nations that shut down schools and public gatherings. It is not unreasonable to conclude from the available data that the lockdowns led to more overall deaths in the U.S. than a policy that resembled Sweden’s would have.

This is a stupid take.

That was enlightening. Let me guess, you’re a COVID cultist who’s angry that your extreme precautions proved to be a waste of time and resources.

COVID cultists? OK if you do not believe that COVID in its earliest days was a killer disease, then there is no point in talking to you. You will never believe any precaution or vaccination is a needed reality. And those who believe it was a killer disease think you are delusional. You will never convince the latter that covid precautions were a waste so why are you even bothering? Honest question.

But was it really? That’s what I’m not so sure about. You could *maybe* argue it’s a killer disease for anyone over 75. But certainly not normal, healthy adults.

1.1 Million dead in the US alone. How many millions have to die before a disease is a “killer”?

You do know that saying COVID was a killer in spring 2020 and it no longer a killer in 2023 because we have vaccines and some level of immunity and Paxlovid and knowledge of how to treat are not mutually exclusive, right?

It was a killer. If you mitigate as necessary based on your age and health status and seek treatment when necessary, it is not a killer now.

IMO, the switch happened after the winter 2020-2021 wave, which is when we got vaccines. But, you can argue in either direction for a few months. You cannot argue with any degree of intellectual honesty that it was never a killer.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

It’s not as big of a killer as heart disease, obesity or cancer.

When you say 1.1 million at face value it sounds terrible. It’s truly awful so many people died. But when you compare it to other causes of death it’s not anywhere close to what we were told it would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.

The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.

There was NON STOP questioning of the precautions. It's just that at the time, when the wrong answer had a possible outcome of death, a large number of people were not in support of increasing risk.

I now believe--based on information we now have--that we could have reduced restrictions sooner. I also think it was understandable and appropriate that we didn't do thatat the time--based on limited information. Both of those thing can be true.

I hope we get really, REALLY good long-term studies from this pandemic, and I hope we can take lessons that will help in the next pandemic. But like PP, I see no value in being "angry" about Covid response. I wish people would let go of their anger, or desire to "win" the Covid Debate, so we can all move forward together with lessons learned.

You think it was understandable and appropriate that children could not return to school buildings on a full-time basis until the fall of 2021? Just trying to understand your position.

My DD was in HS in FCPS. Plain ordinary, non-SPED, no special priority. She was in a classroom FT, 4 days a week in March 2021. Now, that was our choice. She could have opted to finish the year virtually. We played the parent card and sent her back. But FCPS kids had that option. And FCPS was very late to return kids vs schools nationally.

In other places, it was 2 days max beginning as late as April 2021. There was nothing more than before March/April and nothing full time until the fall of 2021. There should be at least some discussion as to whether that was necessary and appropriate.

You’re replying to my post. I agree it wasn't necessary in spring 2021. But FCPS was really late to return— hence Youngkin winning. Just because DC is nearby and was dead last in the nation (as it tend to be on all things public education related) doesn’t mean that 90% + of kids were back in a classroom, in some fashion, 2 months after Biden became POTUS. You can’t blame the Biden Admin for the vast majority of school lockdowns, like PP was trying to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.

The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.

There was NON STOP questioning of the precautions. It's just that at the time, when the wrong answer had a possible outcome of death, a large number of people were not in support of increasing risk.

I now believe--based on information we now have--that we could have reduced restrictions sooner. I also think it was understandable and appropriate that we didn't do thatat the time--based on limited information. Both of those thing can be true.

I hope we get really, REALLY good long-term studies from this pandemic, and I hope we can take lessons that will help in the next pandemic. But like PP, I see no value in being "angry" about Covid response. I wish people would let go of their anger, or desire to "win" the Covid Debate, so we can all move forward together with lessons learned.

You think it was understandable and appropriate that children could not return to school buildings on a full-time basis until the fall of 2021? Just trying to understand your position.

My DD was in HS in FCPS. Plain ordinary, non-SPED, no special priority. She was in a classroom FT, 4 days a week in March 2021. Now, that was our choice. She could have opted to finish the year virtually. We played the parent card and sent her back. But FCPS kids had that option. And FCPS was very late to return kids vs schools nationally.

I’m in Arlington and kids were only back 2 days per week from March - June 2021 and for shortened days at that. Because “equity.” I’m not even joking. Since some families would opt not to send their kids full time then no families could have their kids there more days. It was abysmal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I
T’s
S

2
0
2
3

M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
E

O
N

You must not be dealing with the aftermath in your family. Also, what about learning from our mistakes? Not so easy to move on when people like you are in DENIAL.

I know four separate families where someone died from Covid. Two of them were parents of young children.

Sit down with your “dealing with the aftermath” bullshit.

I really don’t care that your child has a learning gap or whatever you are on about. They will get over it.

Maybe see a professional for help with your heinously insensitive obsession with this.

And I know 2 separate families with young children, where parents committed suicide due to lockdowns and losing their business. So you can take all the seats.

So more than a million COVID deaths. For these we have data. Are you saying there were an equal number of suicides because of lockdowns? I'd like to see the link to the data that you are basing that on. Can't imagine that if there were a million extra suicide deaths in the US during the lockdowns that there wouldn't be an article about it. So please give the link.

I'm saying my 2 cancel out PPs two. But let's see the data and all the costs and see if it was worth it. Where's that data? Was it all worth it? How many people missed cancer screenings or other routine health care? Put off that surgery? Suicides? Learning loss? How many of those million deaths were really from Covid and not something else? We'll never have a true accounting either way and some people don't even want us to ask the questions. Because they know they might not like the answers.

In the game of “whose death mattered more” no one wins and everyone who plays looks like an a**hole. You realize that, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if this was already posted, but I came across this article from New York magazine that made me question the efficacy of lockdowns, and our whole response to the pandemic. Very much 20/20 hindsight, but the more I think about it, the angrier I get, especially with closing the schools.

Here’s a link, along with a key paragraph arguing that Sweden probably had the right response.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/covid-lockdowns-big-fail-joe-nocera-bethany-mclean-book-excerpt.html

So in attempting to gauge the value of lockdowns, the most appropriate way is to look not just at COVID deaths but at all deaths during the pandemic years. That’s known as the “excess deaths” — a measure of how many more people died than in a normal year. One authoritative accounting was compiled by The Spectator using data gathered by the OECD. It showed that during the first two years of the pandemic — 2020 and 2021 — the U.S. had 19 percent more deaths than it normally saw in two years’ time. For the U.K., there was a 10 percent rise. And for Sweden — one of the few countries that had refused to lock down its society — it was just 4 percent. An analysis by Bloomberg found broadly similar results. In other words, for all the criticism Sweden shouldered from the world’s public health officials for refusing to institute lockdowns, it wound up seeing a lower overall death rate during the pandemic than most peer nations that shut down schools and public gatherings. It is not unreasonable to conclude from the available data that the lockdowns led to more overall deaths in the U.S. than a policy that resembled Sweden’s would have.

This is a stupid take.

That was enlightening. Let me guess, you’re a COVID cultist who’s angry that your extreme precautions proved to be a waste of time and resources.

COVID cultists? OK if you do not believe that COVID in its earliest days was a killer disease, then there is no point in talking to you. You will never believe any precaution or vaccination is a needed reality. And those who believe it was a killer disease think you are delusional. You will never convince the latter that covid precautions were a waste so why are you even bothering? Honest question.

But was it really? That’s what I’m not so sure about. You could *maybe* argue it’s a killer disease for anyone over 75. But certainly not normal, healthy adults.

1.1 Million dead in the US alone. How many millions have to die before a disease is a “killer”?

You do know that saying COVID was a killer in spring 2020 and it no longer a killer in 2023 because we have vaccines and some level of immunity and Paxlovid and knowledge of how to treat are not mutually exclusive, right?

It was a killer. If you mitigate as necessary based on your age and health status and seek treatment when necessary, it is not a killer now.

IMO, the switch happened after the winter 2020-2021 wave, which is when we got vaccines. But, you can argue in either direction for a few months. You cannot argue with any degree of intellectual honesty that it was never a killer.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

It’s not as big of a killer as heart disease, obesity or cancer.

When you say 1.1 million at face value it sounds terrible. It’s truly awful so many people died. But when you compare it to other causes of death it’s not anywhere close to what we were told it would be.

Maybe that’s because 1.1 largely preventable deaths is terrible. And minimizing those deaths as “only” the elderly, frail, obese, etc. is also terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.

The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.

There was NON STOP questioning of the precautions. It's just that at the time, when the wrong answer had a possible outcome of death, a large number of people were not in support of increasing risk.

I now believe--based on information we now have--that we could have reduced restrictions sooner. I also think it was understandable and appropriate that we didn't do thatat the time--based on limited information. Both of those thing can be true.

I hope we get really, REALLY good long-term studies from this pandemic, and I hope we can take lessons that will help in the next pandemic. But like PP, I see no value in being "angry" about Covid response. I wish people would let go of their anger, or desire to "win" the Covid Debate, so we can all move forward together with lessons learned.

You think it was understandable and appropriate that children could not return to school buildings on a full-time basis until the fall of 2021? Just trying to understand your position.

My DD was in HS in FCPS. Plain ordinary, non-SPED, no special priority. She was in a classroom FT, 4 days a week in March 2021. Now, that was our choice. She could have opted to finish the year virtually. We played the parent card and sent her back. But FCPS kids had that option. And FCPS was very late to return kids vs schools nationally.

I’m in Arlington and kids were only back 2 days per week from March - June 2021 and for shortened days at that. Because “equity.” I’m not even joking. Since some families would opt not to send their kids full time then no families could have their kids there more days. It was abysmal.

Well, you chose to live in Arlington. Brag about living in Arlington. It’s not all upside.

[Anonymous]

Not really a “pandemic” if the government doesn’t notice open borders and a flood of unvaccinated people. Same people who couldn’t figure out it came from a Chinese facility.

We are dealing with really dumb people so it’s important to use discernment and skepticism which education used to develop but no longer has the ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if this was already posted, but I came across this article from New York magazine that made me question the efficacy of lockdowns, and our whole response to the pandemic. Very much 20/20 hindsight, but the more I think about it, the angrier I get, especially with closing the schools.

Here’s a link, along with a key paragraph arguing that Sweden probably had the right response.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/covid-lockdowns-big-fail-joe-nocera-bethany-mclean-book-excerpt.html

So in attempting to gauge the value of lockdowns, the most appropriate way is to look not just at COVID deaths but at all deaths during the pandemic years. That’s known as the “excess deaths” — a measure of how many more people died than in a normal year. One authoritative accounting was compiled by The Spectator using data gathered by the OECD. It showed that during the first two years of the pandemic — 2020 and 2021 — the U.S. had 19 percent more deaths than it normally saw in two years’ time. For the U.K., there was a 10 percent rise. And for Sweden — one of the few countries that had refused to lock down its society — it was just 4 percent. An analysis by Bloomberg found broadly similar results. In other words, for all the criticism Sweden shouldered from the world’s public health officials for refusing to institute lockdowns, it wound up seeing a lower overall death rate during the pandemic than most peer nations that shut down schools and public gatherings. It is not unreasonable to conclude from the available data that the lockdowns led to more overall deaths in the U.S. than a policy that resembled Sweden’s would have.

This is a stupid take.

That was enlightening. Let me guess, you’re a COVID cultist who’s angry that your extreme precautions proved to be a waste of time and resources.

COVID cultists? OK if you do not believe that COVID in its earliest days was a killer disease, then there is no point in talking to you. You will never believe any precaution or vaccination is a needed reality. And those who believe it was a killer disease think you are delusional. You will never convince the latter that covid precautions were a waste so why are you even bothering? Honest question.

But was it really? That’s what I’m not so sure about. You could *maybe* argue it’s a killer disease for anyone over 75. But certainly not normal, healthy adults.

1.1 Million dead in the US alone. How many millions have to die before a disease is a “killer”?

You do know that saying COVID was a killer in spring 2020 and it no longer a killer in 2023 because we have vaccines and some level of immunity and Paxlovid and knowledge of how to treat are not mutually exclusive, right?

It was a killer. If you mitigate as necessary based on your age and health status and seek treatment when necessary, it is not a killer now.

IMO, the switch happened after the winter 2020-2021 wave, which is when we got vaccines. But, you can argue in either direction for a few months. You cannot argue with any degree of intellectual honesty that it was never a killer.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

The switch was when Omicron became the dominant strain at the end of 2021. It has milder symptoms because it targets the upper respiratory system, unlike earlier strains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I
T’s
S

2
0
2
3

M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
E

O
N

You must not be dealing with the aftermath in your family. Also, what about learning from our mistakes? Not so easy to move on when people like you are in DENIAL.

I know four separate families where someone died from Covid. Two of them were parents of young children.

Sit down with your “dealing with the aftermath” bullshit.

I really don’t care that your child has a learning gap or whatever you are on about. They will get over it.

Maybe see a professional for help with your heinously insensitive obsession with this.

And I know 2 separate families with young children, where parents committed suicide due to lockdowns and losing their business. So you can take all the seats.

So more than a million COVID deaths. For these we have data. Are you saying there were an equal number of suicides because of lockdowns? I'd like to see the link to the data that you are basing that on. Can't imagine that if there were a million extra suicide deaths in the US during the lockdowns that there wouldn't be an article about it. So please give the link.

I'm saying my 2 cancel out PPs two. But let's see the data and all the costs and see if it was worth it. Where's that data? Was it all worth it? How many people missed cancer screenings or other routine health care? Put off that surgery? Suicides? Learning loss? How many of those million deaths were really from Covid and not something else? We'll never have a true accounting either way and some people don't even want us to ask the questions. Because they know they might not like the answers.

In the game of “whose death mattered more” no one wins and everyone who plays looks like an a**hole. You realize that, right?

Of course, but I'm not calling some "mentally weak" and blaming them for their death. It's obvious who the a-hole is here. Nobody needs to get over a death because facts are inconvenient to said a-holes who would rather stick their fingers in their ears than have to face the aftermath of the policies they wholeheartedly supported, consequences (like death) be damned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Not really a “pandemic” if the government doesn’t notice open borders and a flood of unvaccinated people. Same people who couldn’t figure out it came from a Chinese facility.

We are dealing with really dumb people so it’s important to use discernment and skepticism which education used to develop but no longer has the ability.

Now people think that the government really has their best interests at heart, failing to recognize that they only want to look good. They don’t care about mental health because it’s hard to attribute mental health to a policy. Yet they care about how many old people die (who would have died anyway sooner rather than later) because a physical cause of death is easily attributable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.

The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.

There was NON STOP questioning of the precautions. It's just that at the time, when the wrong answer had a possible outcome of death, a large number of people were not in support of increasing risk.

I now believe--based on information we now have--that we could have reduced restrictions sooner. I also think it was understandable and appropriate that we didn't do thatat the time--based on limited information. Both of those thing can be true.

I hope we get really, REALLY good long-term studies from this pandemic, and I hope we can take lessons that will help in the next pandemic. But like PP, I see no value in being "angry" about Covid response. I wish people would let go of their anger, or desire to "win" the Covid Debate, so we can all move forward together with lessons learned.

You think it was understandable and appropriate that children could not return to school buildings on a full-time basis until the fall of 2021? Just trying to understand your position.

My DD was in HS in FCPS. Plain ordinary, non-SPED, no special priority. She was in a classroom FT, 4 days a week in March 2021. Now, that was our choice. She could have opted to finish the year virtually. We played the parent card and sent her back. But FCPS kids had that option. And FCPS was very late to return kids vs schools nationally.

I’m in Arlington and kids were only back 2 days per week from March - June 2021 and for shortened days at that. Because “equity.” I’m not even joking. Since some families would opt not to send their kids full time then no families could have their kids there more days. It was abysmal.

We kept our kids in virtual for three years. Not everyone has the luxury of getting sick and not worrying about the consequences. Why was it abysmal that families choose not to return in person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.

The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.

Because it was an EMERGENCY situation.
Having known several people who died or spent months in the hospital with Covid it was not something most of us wanted to just take our chances with.

Questions and dissent are most important during an emergency. No you don’t get to memory hole this.

What do you think should happen today? Are you advocating for anything in particular?

I think laws should be passed that require schools to remain open. Public health authories should be sent to school to understand risks and benefits. Strong protection of 1A rights in the pending Supreme Court case. Fixing the learning loss is going to be a long term project but the new understanding of the importance of phonics is a great step. We need to do the same for math.

I agree with this. What happened in DC public schools and many other schools needs to be addressed. The idea that publicly funded public schools can just close for an entire school year, is insane.

I think we need rules in place linking prolonged school closures with teacher furloughs. You want to keep the schools closed for a year or more? Okay, then we need to furlough the staff and the money saved should be sent to families as a tax rebate that can be used toward private school, tutoring, etc.

DP. I don't know if I agree with that, but we need an urgent and ongoing evaluation of where students stand now and each year going forward to inform future decisions. My primary concern with the way public schools handled COVID is not necessarily that decision-makers were trying to protect the health, particularly the health of adults who would be in school buildings, but how little consideration has been given to the consequences of that protection for students. If unprecedented measures were needed to protect life, why weren't unprecedented options for flexibility or remediation considered (even for a fleeting second) to mitigate harm to children? With the seasonality we have seen, school in the summers and closures around the winter holidays would have mitigated risk and allowed some normalcy, yet that was never on the table.

You want to spend time punishing for past buy what do you want to do for kids on school now? The kids in school on 2023, 2024, at this moment in time, how do you want to serve them? Scoring political points by litigating the past won't.

I don't want to punish anyone. But I will point out that "experts" who lobbied for closed schools offered assurances that kids would be just fine when schools reopened, and they were wrong. I don't even have kids in primary education anymore, but it is clear that what we are doing isn't working, and no one is offering any solutions. All I hear is blame for parents and students. I want to hear ideas for solving these problems that aren't just business as usual.

Yes, parents are ultimately responsible for their kids. Surprised you are now in favor of a nanny state.

No one is going to accept a solution where we defenestrate the teachers who were part of the lockdown during COVID so don't spend precious time waiting for that. We will also not get rid of the concept of public schools. So with that out of the way what are your solutions?

I would start by admitting that there is a problem and the most vulnerable students have been affected the most. Can you admit there is a problem?

The must vulnerable were affected by Covid. This doesn't fall the way you think it does.