Hunkering down: the long haul

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep thinking that we’re going wrong in believing that returning to our previous before corona lifestyle is the only answer. I totally feel the stress too but that can’t justify just giving up and pretending the virus doesn’t exist.

This. We have to find other ways to live and thrive.

“Other ways to live and thrive”?? Like what? What does this even mean?

Not interacting with other humans?
Not socializing?
Not receiving an education?
It’s Orwellian! And people don’t want it, and I don’t blame them.

NP here and it’s not about what people want!! People didn’t want to go through the Blitz or the rationing during the war. But they didn’t deny it was happening just to get back to normal or because it was too stressful.

Not going back to school, socializing, parties, etc is temporary.

And it’s so far from Orwellian.

+1 to the bold. So much wimpiness all over these boards. Their idea of "temporary" changes means weeks, not months or years. Yet they feel they've made noble sacrifices already and must be set free to "live their lives" and ensure their children get what they think of as "socialization." They actually mean they are tired of having their kids underfoot and want school and playtime back so the kids are occupied and tired out. But they'll be right back to blasting the schools and criticizing the teachers, even as they rush to send their kids back to those teachers in desperation for the babysitting--sorry, the education and socializing.

Total wimps, as well as science deniers who will be so very shocked when the virus continues to spread after the reopenings they insist must happen.

OK, so can I bring my kids over to your house if you think we need to keep society shut down until there's a vaccine? Because it's not like I don't have to work right now. What do you expect dual-income families to do that have small kids?

That’s your family’s problem. Either one of your bosses will have to allow you to continue to work from home, you’ll have to find a job that will, or you will have to change your lifestyle and learn to live on a single income. This is a global crisis. None of us are entitled to the same lifestyle we had before the pandemic.
When you chose to have children, you assumed responsibility for their care. It’s simple.

I love all the people who say we have to be locked down indefinitely, but when you ask about the practical implications of that, and how it would work for the majority of society, you get answers like the above. Completely disconnected from reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People generally have trouble changing (for want of a better word) paradigm. At first, they just think about going back to the way it was and not accepting that it will never be the same again. Eventually, most accept the change and move forward. I have no idea how long it will take most people to accept the change.

I work with parents of children with special needs and there is a very wide range of acceptance timelines after the first diagnosis. I see some similar reactions to the Covid threat.

Yeah, let’s just scramble and undo thousand of years of evolution when people developed a need for belonging to social groups and children required in person interaction with peers for social and emotional development.

No, it means we have to figure out new ways of belonging to social groups and interacting. It means we have to adapt out behavior (like wearing masks and talking 6 feet apart or having a much larger % of the population work from home most of time). It means we have to take on additional risk in our lives. Adaptation to new issues is what has been successful in our evolution.

The shut down was the beginning of the beginning. We know a bit more now. We know was can open up some and not overwhelm the hospitals or industries. We know wearing good masks helps contain the spread. The medical community knows more about how to treat it. We can't go back to the old normal, but we can, with small steps, find our new normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The county isn’t taking anything away from you.

How can you possibly say that? I had daycare. The state said the daycare provider could reopen and watch my kids. Then the county said no.

How is that not the county taking it away?

We could argue over whether that is justifiable, not whether they took it away.

It’s all happening because of a pandemic. If you think the county is responsible for that, or can/should be delivering you a quality of life that exceeds that reality, you’re...mistaken. Mistaken is the kindest way I can say it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People generally have trouble changing (for want of a better word) paradigm. At first, they just think about going back to the way it was and not accepting that it will never be the same again. Eventually, most accept the change and move forward. I have no idea how long it will take most people to accept the change.

I work with parents of children with special needs and there is a very wide range of acceptance timelines after the first diagnosis. I see some similar reactions to the Covid threat.

Yeah, let’s just scramble and undo thousand of years of evolution when people developed a need for belonging to social groups and children required in person interaction with peers for social and emotional development.

No, it means we have to figure out new ways of belonging to social groups and interacting. It means we have to adapt out behavior (like wearing masks and talking 6 feet apart or having a much larger % of the population work from home most of time). It means we have to take on additional risk in our lives. Adaptation to new issues is what has been successful in our evolution.

The shut down was the beginning of the beginning. We know a bit more now. We know was can open up some and not overwhelm the hospitals or industries. We know wearing good masks helps contain the spread. The medical community knows more about how to treat it. We can't go back to the old normal, but we can, with small steps, find our new normal.

DP, but what you describe is exactly what people in this thread are railing against. They’re claiming that any social interaction outside of immediate family is a want, and, therefore, must be foregone in the time of COVID, apparently indefinitely. I’m one of the PPs who is fine with what you describe. What I’m not fine with is zero social interaction for my kids until there’s a vaccine. It’s precisely because I know this thing will be with us for a long time that our family is adapting what social interaction looks like for us. It’s not black and white, but many people find it more comforting to believe that it is. That they attempt to use “science” to make their case, as witnessed in this thread, undermines the actual science on so many facets of this pandemic and its impacts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The county isn’t taking anything away from you.

How can you possibly say that? I had daycare. The state said the daycare provider could reopen and watch my kids. Then the county said no.

How is that not the county taking it away?

We could argue over whether that is justifiable, not whether they took it away.

It’s all happening because of a pandemic. If you think the county is responsible for that, or can/should be delivering you a quality of life that exceeds that reality, you’re...mistaken. Mistaken is the kindest way I can say it.

Again, (many) daycares didn't shut down because of the pandemic. That wasn't a decision made by the virus. It wasn't made by the parents. And it wasn't made by the providers.

It was a decision made by the state. And when the state said they could reopen, it was the county that decided that they could not.

Decisions are, in fact, made by people. Again, we could discuss whether those decisions are sensible, but that's a different issue than who/what is making those decisions. The state, and now the county, leaders are imposing their own risk-based decisions on everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only 30% would choose to send their kids back this summer. 70% will wait 3-12 months or more.

No 70 percent will send their kids back by fall.


There are lots of data indicating that school is not a primary place of transmission and kids largely do not get sick and do not spread COVID. No, the risk isn’t zero but it’s low enough that it’s worth the trade off of parents being able to work and kids getting an education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The county isn’t taking anything away from you.

How can you possibly say that? I had daycare. The state said the daycare provider could reopen and watch my kids. Then the county said no.

How is that not the county taking it away?

We could argue over whether that is justifiable, not whether they took it away.

It’s all happening because of a pandemic. If you think the county is responsible for that, or can/should be delivering you a quality of life that exceeds that reality, you’re...mistaken. Mistaken is the kindest way I can say it.

Again, (many) daycares didn't shut down because of the pandemic. That wasn't a decision made by the virus. It wasn't made by the parents. And it wasn't made by the providers.

It was a decision made by the state. And when the state said they could reopen, it was the county that decided that they could not.

Decisions are, in fact, made by people. Again, we could discuss whether those decisions are sensible, but that's a different issue than who/what is making those decisions. The state, and now the county, leaders are imposing their own risk-based decisions on everyone else.

And many people on here believe that their personal risk based calculations should supersede those of the community/district/county/state. They are wrong. There are people who want to drive 120 mph on the highway but we don’t allow them to. They think that’s a reasonable level of risk. You don’t exist in a vacuum and just because you feel that you personally won’t be killed or disabled by COVID (or a high speed car crash) doesn’t mean that you can force other people to accept that same level of risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The county isn’t taking anything away from you.

How can you possibly say that? I had daycare. The state said the daycare provider could reopen and watch my kids. Then the county said no.

How is that not the county taking it away?

We could argue over whether that is justifiable, not whether they took it away.

It’s all happening because of a pandemic. If you think the county is responsible for that, or can/should be delivering you a quality of life that exceeds that reality, you’re...mistaken. Mistaken is the kindest way I can say it.

Again, (many) daycares didn't shut down because of the pandemic. That wasn't a decision made by the virus. It wasn't made by the parents. And it wasn't made by the providers.

It was a decision made by the state. And when the state said they could reopen, it was the county that decided that they could not.

Decisions are, in fact, made by people. Again, we could discuss whether those decisions are sensible, but that's a different issue than who/what is making those decisions. The state, and now the county, leaders are imposing their own risk-based decisions on everyone else.

And many people on here believe that their personal risk based calculations should supersede those of the community/district/county/state. They are wrong. There are people who want to drive 120 mph on the highway but we don’t allow them to. They think that’s a reasonable level of risk. You don’t exist in a vacuum and just because you feel that you personally won’t be killed or disabled by COVID (or a high speed car crash) doesn’t mean that you can force other people to accept that same level of risk.

Ok, but let's not pretend that that's not one group of people imposing their will on another. That's the part I'm arguing about. I'm not claiming that's not allowed by our system of government.

There should still be accountability over the decisions on what to close and for how long. Because again, those decisions are being made by people, not the virus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep thinking that we’re going wrong in believing that returning to our previous before corona lifestyle is the only answer. I totally feel the stress too but that can’t justify just giving up and pretending the virus doesn’t exist.

People generally have trouble changing (for want of a better word) paradigm. At first, they just think about going back to the way it was and not accepting that it will never be the same again. Eventually, most accept the change and move forward. I have no idea how long it will take most people to accept the change.

I work with parents of children with special needs and there is a very wide range of acceptance timelines after the first diagnosis. I see some similar reactions to the Covid threat.

We also have politicians and corporate entities who want to convince us that it's time to go back to normal, because it's better for business... at least temporarily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DP, but what you describe is exactly what people in this thread are railing against. They’re claiming that any social interaction outside of immediate family is a want, and, therefore, must be foregone in the time of COVID, apparently indefinitely. I’m one of the PPs who is fine with what you describe. What I’m not fine with is zero social interaction for my kids until there’s a vaccine. It’s precisely because I know this thing will be with us for a long time that our family is adapting what social interaction looks like for us. It’s not black and white, but many people find it more comforting to believe that it is. That they attempt to use “science” to make their case, as witnessed in this thread, undermines the actual science on so many facets of this pandemic and its impacts.

I'm the OP and I'm not railing against anything. I accept, with disappointment, that our government isn't capable of acting in the way epidemiologists would endorse, on the basis of what science is available, to appropriately mitigate the ongoing risk of this disease. (You will note that the many of the epidemiologists in that article who say they would or are sending kids back to school now are saying that it's on the basis of there being no better option, not on the basis of thinking that it's actually the best choice from a public or personal health standpoint. Aside: while this may be rational as pertains to kids, the impact on school staff, which one or two mention, is going to be gigantic. Those folks are NOT young and healthy.)

I'm in a situation where I can take on some of that for my household--which, as many here have pointed out, is a really fortunate position to be in. I'm not suggesting that this should be a universal response or that it is "your family's problem" what to do if you're not in that position (PP, that was pretty effed up). I'm trying to figure out how to proceed, personally, with that set of facts.

One factor here is that "actual science" on COVID is constantly evolving. There is a lot that is still unknown--witness this week's fracas about whether asymptomatic (or pre-symptomatic) COVID carriers can transmit it or not. I think the same is very much true on the question of whether kids spread it. There are studies, but those studies are small and not conducted under the conditions that prevail in US schools.

I agree with you that the situation is not black and white, but let's not pretend that is because there is a robust body of "actual science" that says it's all in the gray area. This hasn't been going long enough for that robust body of data and analysis to exist. We barely know what we don't know with respect to some key questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP, but what you describe is exactly what people in this thread are railing against. They’re claiming that any social interaction outside of immediate family is a want, and, therefore, must be foregone in the time of COVID, apparently indefinitely. I’m one of the PPs who is fine with what you describe. What I’m not fine with is zero social interaction for my kids until there’s a vaccine. It’s precisely because I know this thing will be with us for a long time that our family is adapting what social interaction looks like for us. It’s not black and white, but many people find it more comforting to believe that it is. That they attempt to use “science” to make their case, as witnessed in this thread, undermines the actual science on so many facets of this pandemic and its impacts.

I'm the OP and I'm not railing against anything. I accept, with disappointment, that our government isn't capable of acting in the way epidemiologists would endorse, on the basis of what science is available, to appropriately mitigate the ongoing risk of this disease. (You will note that the many of the epidemiologists in that article who say they would or are sending kids back to school now are saying that it's on the basis of there being no better option, not on the basis of thinking that it's actually the best choice from a public or personal health standpoint. Aside: while this may be rational as pertains to kids, the impact on school staff, which one or two mention, is going to be gigantic. Those folks are NOT young and healthy.)

I'm in a situation where I can take on some of that for my household--which, as many here have pointed out, is a really fortunate position to be in. I'm not suggesting that this should be a universal response or that it is "your family's problem" what to do if you're not in that position (PP, that was pretty effed up). I'm trying to figure out how to proceed, personally, with that set of facts.

One factor here is that "actual science" on COVID is constantly evolving. There is a lot that is still unknown--witness this week's fracas about whether asymptomatic (or pre-symptomatic) COVID carriers can transmit it or not. I think the same is very much true on the question of whether kids spread it. There are studies, but those studies are small and not conducted under the conditions that prevail in US schools.

I agree with you that the situation is not black and white, but let's not pretend that is because there is a robust body of "actual science" that says it's all in the gray area. This hasn't been going long enough for that robust body of data and analysis to exist. We barely know what we don't know with respect to some key questions.

Thanks, OP. I appreciate your thoughtfulness on these issues. I think the biggest factor is that the pandemic isn’t solely about virus prevention; we have to consider the effects of these. And because it’s so multi-disciplinary and complex, most of it probably is going to be in the gray areas. The “actual science” I was referring to isn’t strictly epidemiology or virology, but includes the messier social sciences that have so much impact on people’s lives. The biggest problem I see is that in this country, we have no leadership that’s actually considering these myriad components. It’s incredibly disheartening. And, I’ll admit my bias as someone who has researched the long-term impacts of chronic stress and trauma in childhood: I think a lot about that. I know DCUM loves to be glib about those issues, but they’re real and scary.

[Anonymous]

OP again. I hear you about chronic stress in childhood; my spouse experienced it and it was no joke.

On the other hand, speaking as someone with significant medical trauma, having my child or anyone in our household go through the scope of illness coronavirus can create is low on my list of things I want to have happen. Because I am at higher risk, this is a real consideration.

I think what is hard about assessing these other variables is that we don't know what to compare this to. Is it like a war? Is it like a POW camp? Is it like being kidnapped by a crazed anti-human-contact cult? It's just dissimilar enough from many situations that could be points of departure to make the bodies of work that could inform the population-level decision-making....not that informative.

I think this generation is going to be marked by this experience. But other than the basics, I don't think our behavior as parents is going to be driving the bus about the nature and scope of that impact. It's unnerving, but I'm trying to get comfortable with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again. I hear you about chronic stress in childhood; my spouse experienced it and it was no joke.

On the other hand, speaking as someone with significant medical trauma, having my child or anyone in our household go through the scope of illness coronavirus can create is low on my list of things I want to have happen. Because I am at higher risk, this is a real consideration.

I think what is hard about assessing these other variables is that we don't know what to compare this to. Is it like a war? Is it like a POW camp? Is it like being kidnapped by a crazed anti-human-contact cult? It's just dissimilar enough from many situations that could be points of departure to make the bodies of work that could inform the population-level decision-making....not that informative.

I think this generation is going to be marked by this experience. But other than the basics, I don't think our behavior as parents is going to be driving the bus about the nature and scope of that impact. It's unnerving, but I'm trying to get comfortable with it.

I think it depends a bit on the age of your children... mine are preschool/ early elementary. It’s hard not to have the social interaction. But it’s nothing like what older kids are experiencing. The youngest seems happy most of the time, the older one is sometimes frustrated about staying in but mature enough to articulate the good sides of staying home. Both have been having what I would call an old-fashioned childhood. Lots of time outside, gardening, digging in dirt, catching bugs, flying kites, blowing bubbles, hiking, hitting balls around, baking...reading books and chatting with grandparents and friends online. Learning how do chores. It is limiting and lonely at times but I think for another year it is doable. We both work so that has been a lot to juggle. Fortunately I am able to flex my hours and that helps me to keep the kids busy.

Our grandparents on both sides survived bad parts of WWII. Not enough food, death all around, being hunted. That’s trauma. Many families who are hard hit economically are also going through severe stress. But for those with jobs this really isn’t on that scale, let alone trauma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The county isn’t taking anything away from you.

How can you possibly say that? I had daycare. The state said the daycare provider could reopen and watch my kids. Then the county said no.

How is that not the county taking it away?

We could argue over whether that is justifiable, not whether they took it away.

It’s all happening because of a pandemic. If you think the county is responsible for that, or can/should be delivering you a quality of life that exceeds that reality, you’re...mistaken. Mistaken is the kindest way I can say it.

Again, (many) daycares didn't shut down because of the pandemic. That wasn't a decision made by the virus. It wasn't made by the parents. And it wasn't made by the providers.

It was a decision made by the state. And when the state said they could reopen, it was the county that decided that they could not.

Decisions are, in fact, made by people. Again, we could discuss whether those decisions are sensible, but that's a different issue than who/what is making those decisions. The state, and now the county, leaders are imposing their own risk-based decisions on everyone else.

And many people on here believe that their personal risk based calculations should supersede those of the community/district/county/state. They are wrong. There are people who want to drive 120 mph on the highway but we don’t allow them to. They think that’s a reasonable level of risk. You don’t exist in a vacuum and just because you feel that you personally won’t be killed or disabled by COVID (or a high speed car crash) doesn’t mean that you can force other people to accept that same level of risk.

Yes. The level of selfishness because people think that they will personally be fine when everything reopens is astounding. It completely ignores the at risk populations who will die when this spreads more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The county isn’t taking anything away from you.

How can you possibly say that? I had daycare. The state said the daycare provider could reopen and watch my kids. Then the county said no.

How is that not the county taking it away?

We could argue over whether that is justifiable, not whether they took it away.

It’s all happening because of a pandemic. If you think the county is responsible for that, or can/should be delivering you a quality of life that exceeds that reality, you’re...mistaken. Mistaken is the kindest way I can say it.

Again, (many) daycares didn't shut down because of the pandemic. That wasn't a decision made by the virus. It wasn't made by the parents. And it wasn't made by the providers.

It was a decision made by the state. And when the state said they could reopen, it was the county that decided that they could not.

Decisions are, in fact, made by people. Again, we could discuss whether those decisions are sensible, but that's a different issue than who/what is making those decisions. The state, and now the county, leaders are imposing their own risk-based decisions on everyone else.

And many people on here believe that their personal risk based calculations should supersede those of the community/district/county/state. They are wrong. There are people who want to drive 120 mph on the highway but we don’t allow them to. They think that’s a reasonable level of risk. You don’t exist in a vacuum and just because you feel that you personally won’t be killed or disabled by COVID (or a high speed car crash) doesn’t mean that you can force other people to accept that same level of risk.

Yes. The level of selfishness because people think that they will personally be fine when everything reopens is astounding. It completely ignores the at risk populations who will die when this spreads more.

Perhaps those are the people we should focus on protecting then.