Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is America where money and freedom reign. Schools could open safely if 1) the government shut down any other large gatherings in any location 2) the government propped up those families and businesses that are suffering financially. That won’t happen because the almighty dollar and people’s rights come first.

Most schools are open. Just not here and even then, most private and parochial schools are open.

Anonymous wrote:This is America where money and freedom reign. Schools could open safely if 1) the government shut down any other large gatherings in any location 2) the government propped up those families and businesses that are suffering financially. That won’t happen because the almighty dollar and people’s rights come first.

Anonymous wrote:This is America where money and freedom reign. Schools could open safely if 1) the government shut down any other large gatherings in any location 2) the government propped up those families and businesses that are suffering financially. That won’t happen because the almighty dollar and people’s rights come first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the study can’t account for masks/other simple precautions that work, then it’s useless. We know that large groups of people indoors with no precautions spread diseases.

We also know that children spread COVID less than they do other diseases and less than adults spread it. We also know that children rarely fall seriously from COVID. We also know that failing to educate children for a year or more will irreversible harm many of them, especially the most vulnerable.

Many people are starting to think that means closing schools is more dangerous than opening them. That’s doesn’t make us dumb or crazy, even if you weigh the risks differently.

Studies show the exact opposite. Kids in fact carry higher viral loads than adults and contribute more to community spread precisely because they are not adversely effected by the virus.

https://www.jpeds.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0022-3476%2820%2931023-4

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so they spread it. Do we stay in DL for...years? With the associated learning loss and other repercussions to children, particularly those with special needs? Do we think a vaccine will save us?

You really cannot see what needs to happen, PP?

We choose:

Bars, indoor dining in restaurants, non-essential shopping, non-essential travel, vacations "because we're soooo stir-crazy"
Being maskless "because, freedom"
Sports
Visiting everyone we want to visit including grandma and grandpa "because they might not be here much longer"
Creating "pods" because "kids have to socialize or they'll just wither and die"

versus

Schools in person relatively safely
Certain jobs in person relatively safely
Hospitals having adequate capacity and not getting overwhelmed
Everyone masked everywhere

Now comes the squawking about how "we will collapse the economy!" Yes, parts of it will suffer and some of it will close irreversibly. That's why the political will to shore up the economy is essential.

And here comes the yelling about "My child will grow up with no socialization!" Children are more resilient than many DCUM parents can believe, and many parents also refuse to admit that they are just tired of being responsible for their kids 24/7.

Those are the trade-offs if you want in-person education (and manageable health care, and a return to the office for some people). We would not have to make these trade-offs now if we had made them seriously and with commitment earlier.

Are you willing to make those sacrifices and not go to Target and Wal-Mart, not go visit grandma for Thanksgiving, etc., in order to truly ensure kids can be in school in person? Our society isn't willing to make those sacrifices even short-term now. That's why you should learn to embrace DL. Society brought it on itself.

Oh, ok, I see there is no point, as so much nuance is lost here.

We're long past "nuance." Anyone who wanted nuance should have isolated for real back in the spring, for long enough actually to curb the spread. I guess it was a nuanced decision to reopen businesses etc. as early as we did. That worked out just great.

Anonymous wrote:This paper is from the Lancet:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30785-4/fulltext

Here's the key text

790 phases from 131 countries were included in the analysis. A decreasing trend over time in the R ratio was found following the introduction of school closure, workplace closure, public events ban, requirements to stay at home, and internal movement limits; the reduction in R ranged from 3% to 24% on day 28 following the introduction compared with the last day before introduction, although the reduction was significant only for public events ban (R ratio 0·76, 95% CI 0·58–1·00); for all other NPIs, the upper bound of the 95% CI was above 1. An increasing trend over time in the R ratio was found following the relaxation of school closure, bans on public events, bans on public gatherings of more than ten people, requirements to stay at home, and internal movement limits; the increase in R ranged from 11% to 25% on day 28 following the relaxation compared with the last day before relaxation, although the increase was significant only for school reopening (R ratio 1·24, 95% CI 1·00–1·52) and lifting bans on public gatherings of more than ten people (1·25, 1·03–1·51); for all other NPIs, the lower bound of the 95% CI was below 1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the study can’t account for masks/other simple precautions that work, then it’s useless. We know that large groups of people indoors with no precautions spread diseases.

We also know that children spread COVID less than they do other diseases and less than adults spread it. We also know that children rarely fall seriously from COVID. We also know that failing to educate children for a year or more will irreversible harm many of them, especially the most vulnerable.

Many people are starting to think that means closing schools is more dangerous than opening them. That’s doesn’t make us dumb or crazy, even if you weigh the risks differently.

Studies show the exact opposite. Kids in fact carry higher viral loads than adults and contribute more to community spread precisely because they are not adversely effected by the virus.

https://www.jpeds.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0022-3476%2820%2931023-4

DP, but nope. Viral load =/= transmission. I know that's what some people want to believe, but they're not the same thing. One interpretation of the higher viral load findings is that in order for kids to show symptoms, they need to have much higher viral loads than adults with the same symptoms. That still says bupkis about how well they transmit it.

Sure, Jan. Reminds me of the theory in Spring that because kids weren't getting sick they weren't getting Covid at all. When in fact they were just asymptomatic carriers all along.

Is that the best you can do? Call me names and bring up irrelevant rumors from March?

This thread is filled with peer-reviewed studies. Come back when you have more than suppositions and wishful thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so they spread it. Do we stay in DL for...years? With the associated learning loss and other repercussions to children, particularly those with special needs? Do we think a vaccine will save us?

You really cannot see what needs to happen, PP?

We choose:

Bars, indoor dining in restaurants, non-essential shopping, non-essential travel, vacations "because we're soooo stir-crazy"
Being maskless "because, freedom"
Sports
Visiting everyone we want to visit including grandma and grandpa "because they might not be here much longer"
Creating "pods" because "kids have to socialize or they'll just wither and die"

versus

Schools in person relatively safely
Certain jobs in person relatively safely
Hospitals having adequate capacity and not getting overwhelmed
Everyone masked everywhere

Now comes the squawking about how "we will collapse the economy!" Yes, parts of it will suffer and some of it will close irreversibly. That's why the political will to shore up the economy is essential.

And here comes the yelling about "My child will grow up with no socialization!" Children are more resilient than many DCUM parents can believe, and many parents also refuse to admit that they are just tired of being responsible for their kids 24/7.

Those are the trade-offs if you want in-person education (and manageable health care, and a return to the office for some people). We would not have to make these trade-offs now if we had made them seriously and with commitment earlier.

Are you willing to make those sacrifices and not go to Target and Wal-Mart, not go visit grandma for Thanksgiving, etc., in order to truly ensure kids can be in school in person? Our society isn't willing to make those sacrifices even short-term now. That's why you should learn to embrace DL. Society brought it on itself.

PP, I bet you are one of those people who blames the parent if a kid has mental health issues. Also, keep in mind that the families who made and continue the make the sacrifices you mention in the name of the greater good are the ones with children who are likely suffering as a result of their isolation. Sadly, parental love and attention does not replace much needed social interaction and experiences outside of the home.

-Signed, Involved mom who loves the time at home with her kids but is growing increasingly concerned about her kids with each passing day.

Re, the bold: You have some gall to make that kind of nasty assumption. I do not blame the parent if a kid has mental health issues. Real ones. But it see post after post on DCUM where parents are NOT talking about genuine mental health issues (which, YES, can be exacerbated by isolation--I know that, PP). Many parents are only talking about how their kids can't do their sport or whatever and will just wither up. These parents and their whining do a disservice to parents whose children have actual, diagnosed mental and emotional issues. Go over to the special needs forum, PP. Those kids do need to be in school in person -- are you willing to give up freaking nonessential things to help them do so?

DP. She was right, you are blaming parents for children's mental health issues. Huge numbers of children are experiencing anxiety and depression. It's situational, not caused by parents.

And since it's so widespread, does not belong in the SN Forum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so they spread it. Do we stay in DL for...years? With the associated learning loss and other repercussions to children, particularly those with special needs? Do we think a vaccine will save us?

You really cannot see what needs to happen, PP?

We choose:

Bars, indoor dining in restaurants, non-essential shopping, non-essential travel, vacations "because we're soooo stir-crazy"
Being maskless "because, freedom"
Sports
Visiting everyone we want to visit including grandma and grandpa "because they might not be here much longer"
Creating "pods" because "kids have to socialize or they'll just wither and die"

versus

Schools in person relatively safely
Certain jobs in person relatively safely
Hospitals having adequate capacity and not getting overwhelmed
Everyone masked everywhere

Now comes the squawking about how "we will collapse the economy!" Yes, parts of it will suffer and some of it will close irreversibly. That's why the political will to shore up the economy is essential.

And here comes the yelling about "My child will grow up with no socialization!" Children are more resilient than many DCUM parents can believe, and many parents also refuse to admit that they are just tired of being responsible for their kids 24/7.

Those are the trade-offs if you want in-person education (and manageable health care, and a return to the office for some people). We would not have to make these trade-offs now if we had made them seriously and with commitment earlier.

Are you willing to make those sacrifices and not go to Target and Wal-Mart, not go visit grandma for Thanksgiving, etc., in order to truly ensure kids can be in school in person? Our society isn't willing to make those sacrifices even short-term now. That's why you should learn to embrace DL. Society brought it on itself.

PP, I bet you are one of those people who blames the parent if a kid has mental health issues. Also, keep in mind that the families who made and continue the make the sacrifices you mention in the name of the greater good are the ones with children who are likely suffering as a result of their isolation. Sadly, parental love and attention does not replace much needed social interaction and experiences outside of the home.

-Signed, Involved mom who loves the time at home with her kids but is growing increasingly concerned about her kids with each passing day.

Re, the bold: You have some gall to make that kind of nasty assumption. I do not blame the parent if a kid has mental health issues. Real ones. But it see post after post on DCUM where parents are NOT talking about genuine mental health issues (which, YES, can be exacerbated by isolation--I know that, PP). Many parents are only talking about how their kids can't do their sport or whatever and will just wither up. These parents and their whining do a disservice to parents whose children have actual, diagnosed mental and emotional issues. Go over to the special needs forum, PP. Those kids do need to be in school in person -- are you willing to give up freaking nonessential things to help them do so?

DP. She was right, you are blaming parents for children's mental health issues. Huge numbers of children are experiencing anxiety and depression. It's situational, not caused by parents.

And since it's so widespread, does not belong in the SN Forum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, so they spread it. Do we stay in DL for...years? With the associated learning loss and other repercussions to children, particularly those with special needs? Do we think a vaccine will save us?

You really cannot see what needs to happen, PP?

We choose:

Bars, indoor dining in restaurants, non-essential shopping, non-essential travel, vacations "because we're soooo stir-crazy"
Being maskless "because, freedom"
Sports
Visiting everyone we want to visit including grandma and grandpa "because they might not be here much longer"
Creating "pods" because "kids have to socialize or they'll just wither and die"

versus

Schools in person relatively safely
Certain jobs in person relatively safely
Hospitals having adequate capacity and not getting overwhelmed
Everyone masked everywhere

Now comes the squawking about how "we will collapse the economy!" Yes, parts of it will suffer and some of it will close irreversibly. That's why the political will to shore up the economy is essential.

And here comes the yelling about "My child will grow up with no socialization!" Children are more resilient than many DCUM parents can believe, and many parents also refuse to admit that they are just tired of being responsible for their kids 24/7.

Those are the trade-offs if you want in-person education (and manageable health care, and a return to the office for some people). We would not have to make these trade-offs now if we had made them seriously and with commitment earlier.

Are you willing to make those sacrifices and not go to Target and Wal-Mart, not go visit grandma for Thanksgiving, etc., in order to truly ensure kids can be in school in person? Our society isn't willing to make those sacrifices even short-term now. That's why you should learn to embrace DL. Society brought it on itself.

Oh, ok, I see there is no point, as so much nuance is lost here.