The Urgency of Normal

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Also, didn't Tyler Black have some twitter thread recently where he was arguing that CANADIAN suicides went down during lockdown, and therefore there was no mental health crises among children? I get that he's a "suicidologist" so maybe he can ONLY see things through the lens of completed suicides, but he ignores the findings of suicide ATTEMPTS (that may or may not have led to hospital intervention). As well as allllllll of the other literature on mental health impacts that aren't related to suicide.


I'm the PP directly above you: yes, that's the article I referenced. I actually commented on his Twitter thread about it pointing out that hospital visits for non-COVID outcomes are a poor proxy for health status, and he didn't respond. Not that I would expect him to, but I think it's a fundamental limitation of the work.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Not to rain on everyone’s parade here, but some other pretty reputable scientists have torn apart this #urgencyofnormal toolkit, even pointing out what seem like either purposeful or negligent misstatements of studies/facts.

https://mobile.twitter.com/tylerblack32/status/1486111652076527623

For a compilation of the issues:

https://mobile.twitter.com/RMCarpiano/status/1486307145112961026

Re equity:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Lakshmi_RKG/status/1486195421156368388

One more from someone who hasn’t really been of them doom and gloom side:

https://mobile.twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1486319939837259778?cxt=HHwWhMCjyYiHvKApAAAA

She suggests this toolkit should be ignored.








Tyler Black is also an attention-seeking, hyperbolic twitter persona with some sort of agenda (I don't know what, but he seems to need to put things like "hospital associations" in scare quotes), so probably shouldn't be casting around aspersions of attention-seeking.
And let's look at the critique that he is blasting as an "outright lie." The UoN slide said 2400 suicides, and was corrected to 2200 suicides. Obviously, a sign of a conspiracy and not a typo (which, notably was corrected).

Also he wants to review slides on twitter -- dude just WRITE IN A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL. He does all of this, instead, on twitter, so it just seems like he's not serious.



And McBride is not attention seeking? Has she published anything relevant in a peer reviewed journal? There may be problems with the tone of Black’s tweets, but he actually is expert in child mental health. Why would someone like that have an agenda to minimize child mental health issues? And Rasmussen isn’t eloquent, but she is a virologist and not one of the ones who have been constant “world is on fire.” So, gives me pause when people like this are suggesting the McBride thing is a bad idea.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Also, didn't Tyler Black have some twitter thread recently where he was arguing that CANADIAN suicides went down during lockdown, and therefore there was no mental health crises among children? I get that he's a "suicidologist" so maybe he can ONLY see things through the lens of completed suicides, but he ignores the findings of suicide ATTEMPTS (that may or may not have led to hospital intervention). As well as allllllll of the other literature on mental health impacts that aren't related to suicide.


Well, he’s a Canadian child and adolescent psychiatrist and is clinical head of the child and adolescent psychiatry emergency department at British Columbia’s children’s hospital. He’s also a clinical child psychiatry instructor at the University of BC. Seems a lot more qualified to comment on children’s mental health than the urgency of normal people.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Really? In 4 minutes you read all of them including the embedded tweets on the studies, like the Racine one?

They are a lot more solid than McBride, et. al.


I had already read the underlying studies. It is simply not as solid as you want to believe.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Also, didn't Tyler Black have some twitter thread recently where he was arguing that CANADIAN suicides went down during lockdown, and therefore there was no mental health crises among children? I get that he's a "suicidologist" so maybe he can ONLY see things through the lens of completed suicides, but he ignores the findings of suicide ATTEMPTS (that may or may not have led to hospital intervention). As well as allllllll of the other literature on mental health impacts that aren't related to suicide.


Well, he’s a Canadian child and adolescent psychiatrist and is clinical head of the child and adolescent psychiatry emergency department at British Columbia’s children’s hospital. He’s also a clinical child psychiatry instructor at the University of BC. Seems a lot more qualified to comment on children’s mental health than the urgency of normal people.


DP, but then why does he confound presentation at the hospital with children’s mental health, during a pandemic when it’s documented that people are NOT going to the hospital for non-COVID reasons? Plenty of physicians are poor researchers, are attention-seeking, insecure, etc. He may well have good intentions, but I’m not impressed with what I’ve seen thus far. I have a PhD myself and have worked with way too many physicians and scientists to trust them all based solely on their credentials and current jobs.
Anonymous

My local hospital still has a mask mandate for all staff, patients and visitors, including the paediatric wards.

People with actual heath care training and professions agree that masks are necessary to protect themselves and their patients.

On what planet do you think that infection spread in School are any different to hospitals or that the need for masks are less?

How would medical professionals who are trained to treat children be wrong in deciding that children wearing masks in a hospital doesn't harm them?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Not to rain on everyone’s parade here, but some other pretty reputable scientists have torn apart this #urgencyofnormal toolkit, even pointing out what seem like either purposeful or negligent misstatements of studies/facts.

https://mobile.twitter.com/tylerblack32/status/1486111652076527623

For a compilation of the issues:

https://mobile.twitter.com/RMCarpiano/status/1486307145112961026

Re equity:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Lakshmi_RKG/status/1486195421156368388

One more from someone who hasn’t really been of them doom and gloom side:

https://mobile.twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1486319939837259778?cxt=HHwWhMCjyYiHvKApAAAA

She suggests this toolkit should be ignored.








Tyler Black is also an attention-seeking, hyperbolic twitter persona with some sort of agenda (I don't know what, but he seems to need to put things like "hospital associations" in scare quotes), so probably shouldn't be casting around aspersions of attention-seeking.
And let's look at the critique that he is blasting as an "outright lie." The UoN slide said 2400 suicides, and was corrected to 2200 suicides. Obviously, a sign of a conspiracy and not a typo (which, notably was corrected).

Also he wants to review slides on twitter -- dude just WRITE IN A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL. He does all of this, instead, on twitter, so it just seems like he's not serious.



And McBride is not attention seeking? Has she published anything relevant in a peer reviewed journal? There may be problems with the tone of Black’s tweets, but he actually is expert in child mental health. Why would someone like that have an agenda to minimize child mental health issues? And Rasmussen isn’t eloquent, but she is a virologist and not one of the ones who have been constant “world is on fire.” So, gives me pause when people like this are suggesting the McBride thing is a bad idea.


But this isn't JUST Lucy McBride (also, note that Tyler Black just calls her "Lucy", not "Dr. McBride" -- gross). There's a team that put together the toolkit. Are they all just attention-seeking media whores? And what's THEIR purpose? You think it's to kill kids?

Is Lucy McBride trying to fashion herself into a public persona? Idk. I'm not on twitter, where most of this stuff seems to happen. So maybe. But Tyler Black shouldn't be accusing anyone of attention-seeking.

What's Tyler Black's goal? Honestly, he seems like a disgruntled academic that has lost the forest for the trees. The nitpicking (2200 versus 2400) with the claim that he's driven a hole through the conclusion is really "on brand" for such a type. I unfortunately have know many such people in my life. The problems with his conclusions are glaringly obvious, yet he can't seem to address them (e.g., suicides v. suicide attempts, access to hospitals during lockdown).
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
My local hospital still has a mask mandate for all staff, patients and visitors, including the paediatric wards.

People with actual heath care training and professions agree that masks are necessary to protect themselves and their patients.

On what planet do you think that infection spread in School are any different to hospitals or that the need for masks are less?

How would medical professionals who are trained to treat children be wrong in deciding that children wearing masks in a hospital doesn't harm them?


The planet where the studies are from, on masking and schools.

Schools aren't hospitals, and have other goals. I mean, I would hope there aren't bodies being cut open at schools.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Not to rain on everyone’s parade here, but some other pretty reputable scientists have torn apart this #urgencyofnormal toolkit, even pointing out what seem like either purposeful or negligent misstatements of studies/facts.

https://mobile.twitter.com/tylerblack32/status/1486111652076527623

For a compilation of the issues:

https://mobile.twitter.com/RMCarpiano/status/1486307145112961026

Re equity:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Lakshmi_RKG/status/1486195421156368388

One more from someone who hasn’t really been of them doom and gloom side:

https://mobile.twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1486319939837259778?cxt=HHwWhMCjyYiHvKApAAAA

She suggests this toolkit should be ignored.








Tyler Black is also an attention-seeking, hyperbolic twitter persona with some sort of agenda (I don't know what, but he seems to need to put things like "hospital associations" in scare quotes), so probably shouldn't be casting around aspersions of attention-seeking.
And let's look at the critique that he is blasting as an "outright lie." The UoN slide said 2400 suicides, and was corrected to 2200 suicides. Obviously, a sign of a conspiracy and not a typo (which, notably was corrected).

Also he wants to review slides on twitter -- dude just WRITE IN A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL. He does all of this, instead, on twitter, so it just seems like he's not serious.



And McBride is not attention seeking? Has she published anything relevant in a peer reviewed journal? There may be problems with the tone of Black’s tweets, but he actually is expert in child mental health. Why would someone like that have an agenda to minimize child mental health issues? And Rasmussen isn’t eloquent, but she is a virologist and not one of the ones who have been constant “world is on fire.” So, gives me pause when people like this are suggesting the McBride thing is a bad idea.


But this isn't JUST Lucy McBride (also, note that Tyler Black just calls her "Lucy", not "Dr. McBride" -- gross). There's a team that put together the toolkit. Are they all just attention-seeking media whores? And what's THEIR purpose? You think it's to kill kids?

Is Lucy McBride trying to fashion herself into a public persona? Idk. I'm not on twitter, where most of this stuff seems to happen. So maybe. But Tyler Black shouldn't be accusing anyone of attention-seeking.

What's Tyler Black's goal? Honestly, he seems like a disgruntled academic that has lost the forest for the trees. The nitpicking (2200 versus 2400) with the claim that he's driven a hole through the conclusion is really "on brand" for such a type. I unfortunately have know many such people in my life. The problems with his conclusions are glaringly obvious, yet he can't seem to address them (e.g., suicides v. suicide attempts, access to hospitals during lockdown).


DP. I noticed that gross and unnecessary bit of sexism re Mcbride's title as well. It makes him look bad.
Anonymous

The planet where the studies are from, on masking and schools.

Doesn't your critical thinking skills question why this "conclusion" is at odds with literally everything we know about indoor spread?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
The planet where the studies are from, on masking and schools.

Doesn't your critical thinking skills question why this "conclusion" is at odds with literally everything we know about indoor spread?


For a few reasons. First, children are not adults when it comes to COVID. Second, there are specific downsides to children wearing masks all day that most adults do not share, i.e., children are developing foundational skills in emotion recognition and speech and literacy; adults are not. These experts aren’t demanding all masks off now, they’re asserting that we need to think about under what conditions we could remove mask mandates in schools. That’s completely reasonable.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
The planet where the studies are from, on masking and schools.

Doesn't your critical thinking skills question why this "conclusion" is at odds with literally everything we know about indoor spread?


It really isn't at odds with literally everything we know. Maybe it's everything you know?

See: many European countries, studies of low in-school spread, studies on why kids don't seem to spread as much as adults (related to not getting as sick), etc.

Do YOUR critical thinking skills allow you to change your mind when presented with new evidence?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:

DP. I noticed that gross and unnecessary bit of sexism re Mcbride's title as well. It makes him look bad.


And honestly, it suggests that Black may be totally motivated by sexism.
Anonymous
I like how the efficacy of masks need double blind studies that shows conclusively that they stop the spread of COVID but the dangers of mask just need vague hand waving concerns about "development." The double standard reflects motivated thinking.
Anonymous

How many deaf or blind people have deficient emotional recognition or literacy or speech/sign language skills?
That is not a thing! There is no rational reason to believe that wearing masks will cause kids harm.
post reply Forum Index » Schools and Education General Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: