|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On August 30 2020 23:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 23:42 Silvanel wrote:
Perhaps a solution would be to create two abstracts: one aimed at pseudo journalist - explaining reasearch in simple words and the other working the way it works now. Not perfect - takes space in publication and time for writing/reviwing, would offer some protection. Instead, they could say "Every single piece of information we have over the last 200 years indicate a mask of any sort will help reduce infection in some non-zero way. Go ahead and everyone wear masks for now while we figure out the specifics." I would like to reiterate: Not a single chemist or microbiologist wondered if masks would be helpful. I was telling my friends to wear masks in ***February*** It was obvious it would help, just a matter of how much. There was never a legitimate argument for the idea that masks would not be effective. But stupid dogshit academic guidelines punched ourselves in the face.
The scientists probably won't communicate like that because they aren't certain about the things you mention. Many scientists are skeptical about the utility of masks (see for example this). Masks aren't recommended by the public health agencies in the Scandinavian countries, for example, and we have almost no spread of the virus anymore.
Scientists usually don't say simplistic things like "Don't open schools its dangerous!" or "Every one wear masks and we'll be OK!" simply because they don't know that. When scientists start producing simplified and politically correct statements they stop being scientists.
|
On August 30 2020 23:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 23:42 Silvanel wrote:
Perhaps a solution would be to create two abstracts: one aimed at pseudo journalist - explaining reasearch in simple words and the other working the way it works now. Not perfect - takes space in publication and time for writing/reviwing, would offer some protection. Let me give an example: "Study shows antibodies last 3 months" Rather than that, during a pandemic, maybe us academic folks can get a few of the sticks out of our ass and make an exception during a pandemic when the public is watching, and instead title a paper: "Great news, antibodies continue to be present in study monitoring long term immunity" ^that title breaks a lot of rules, but are they really rules that matter? Maybe it is ok, during a pandemic, to publish what we mean rather than our general methods. Another example, this time simply messaging rather than publishing: "We do not have data indicating masks are effective against covid" Instead, they could say "Every single piece of information we have over the last 200 years indicate a mask of any sort will help reduce infection in some non-zero way. Go ahead and everyone wear masks for now while we figure out the specifics." I would like to reiterate: Not a single chemist or microbiologist wondered if masks would be helpful. I was telling my friends to wear masks in ***February*** It was obvious it would help, just a matter of how much. There was never a legitimate argument for the idea that masks would not be effective. But stupid dogshit academic guidelines punched ourselves in the face.
When you were saying this in February, one could respond quite truthfully that the consensus of public health authorities said they didn't work and not to use them. That is what they were saying at the time. Hence, the lack of trust moving forward out of this, and ongoing questions to the duration of lockdowns for businesses and schools.
|
On August 30 2020 18:14 pmh wrote:
Off course it will take years before there is hard scientific evidence for long term effects of the virus. And 100% certainty that some effects are caused by the virus will probably never be there. But that doesnt mean policy makers should wait years before taking those potential effects into consideration when it comes to making policy. It would simply be to late to do anything if they would wait for hard scientific evidence,millions of people will already have been effected and the long term effects are irreversable for those people.
As soon as there is at least some indication of long term effects it should be taken into consideration when it comes to making policy even if hard proof is lacking,thats how you stay ahead of the curve. When you wait for the hard evidence you will always be behind.
Sometimes misjudgement will occur wich is inevitable,but i think that is less damaging overall then always waiting till there is 100% scientific proof.
Policy makers shouldnt jump to conclusions obviously. Not act on ever indication no matter how small.
Policy has a huge effect economically and socially so everything has to be weighted very carefully. But the other extreme,waiting years for 100% scientific evidence for long term effects before taking them into consideration when it comes to making policy isnt an option either imo.
You have to go by the data that is available even when its incomplete and not 100% proven. Its the best indication there is right now and ignoring everything that isnt 100% scientifically proven when it comes to making policy is not an option. (and it isnt happening either). You always have uncertaintys in many different areas when you make policy.
I don't disagree with any of this. My comment was largely meant to push back against what Wegandi and Clutz were saying that "there's not much formal data about post-COVID complications so they must be so rare as to be irrelevant". Infrequency of outcomes is not the only reason for which data on these complications is scarce, and if anything, these complications are actually probably MORE common than anecdotal evidence make people perceive them to be simply because many of the potential complications don't have immediately apparent symptoms (e.g. reduced kidney function or increased risk of clotting events). If people aren't visiting their doctors on a regular basis (as is often the case, particularly in the US), many people experiencing these complications could essentially be untracked for years.
|
On August 31 2020 01:56 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 23:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Instead, they could say "Every single piece of information we have over the last 200 years indicate a mask of any sort will help reduce infection in some non-zero way. Go ahead and everyone wear masks for now while we figure out the specifics."
I would like to reiterate: Not a single chemist or microbiologist wondered if masks would be helpful. I was telling my friends to wear masks in ***February*** It was obvious it would help, just a matter of how much. There was never a legitimate argument for the idea that masks would not be effective. But stupid dogshit academic guidelines punched ourselves in the face. Regarding this, the argument used by certain countries is not that masks doesn't work. They are very effective at what they're supposed to do, which is to reduce droplets and particles in the air. No one is saying otherwise. The question however is if they're effective at reducing the spread of a pandemic desease when used by the public and this is where is gets a bit murkier. IF it was such a clear cut case, why don't we see drastic difference in curves and cases in those countries and areas where they don't use them on a wider scale? I don't know, but the countries in Europe with the largest increase in cases are quite mask heavy while other countries with more targeted mask usage don't seem to do any worse. It's not as obvious as some people make it out to be.
Isn't this a simple case of "Where there is no virus, the virus can't spread"?
I think you may be reading the numbers kinda backwards.
I don't know, but the countries in Europe with the largest increase in cases are quite mask heavy
That is exactly WHY they need masks. There already is a lot of virus going on and to mimimize spreading you need masks but obviously with 1000 spreaders you still have 2000 infected the next day.
When you have only 50 spreaders and no mask usage you may have 200 cases the next day.
The media now tells you in this country with masks you have 1000 new cases but in this other country with no masks you have only 150 new cases, ergo masks are useless
|
On August 31 2020 17:14 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2020 01:56 Longshank wrote:On August 30 2020 23:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Instead, they could say "Every single piece of information we have over the last 200 years indicate a mask of any sort will help reduce infection in some non-zero way. Go ahead and everyone wear masks for now while we figure out the specifics."
I would like to reiterate: Not a single chemist or microbiologist wondered if masks would be helpful. I was telling my friends to wear masks in ***February*** It was obvious it would help, just a matter of how much. There was never a legitimate argument for the idea that masks would not be effective. But stupid dogshit academic guidelines punched ourselves in the face. Regarding this, the argument used by certain countries is not that masks doesn't work. They are very effective at what they're supposed to do, which is to reduce droplets and particles in the air. No one is saying otherwise. The question however is if they're effective at reducing the spread of a pandemic desease when used by the public and this is where is gets a bit murkier. IF it was such a clear cut case, why don't we see drastic difference in curves and cases in those countries and areas where they don't use them on a wider scale? I don't know, but the countries in Europe with the largest increase in cases are quite mask heavy while other countries with more targeted mask usage don't seem to do any worse. It's not as obvious as some people make it out to be. Isn't this a simple case of "Where there is no virus, the virus can't spread"? I think you may be reading the numbers kinda backwards. Show nested quote +I don't know, but the countries in Europe with the largest increase in cases are quite mask heavy That is exactly WHY they need masks. There already is a lot of virus going on and to mimimize spreading you need masks but obviously with 1000 spreaders you still have 2000 infected the next day. When you have only 50 spreaders and no mask usage you may have 200 cases the next day. The media now tells you in this country with masks you have 1000 new cases but in this other country with no masks you have only 150 new cases, ergo masks are useless
I believe Sweden and the Netherlands had and still do have the virus.
The argument as I understand it is that while mask are effective when used in a professional setting, such as hospitals and care homes, when used widely by the public they easily become an alternative to social distancing. Just the other day I read a reddit post from a reasonable frenchman who was gobsmacked that his Swedish friend who went to the doctor with symptoms was not adviced to wear a face mask. That's the kind of thinking that is dangerous, the only advice to give someone with symptoms is to isolate. That's it.
|
Also most people are not using masks correctly that they are effective!
If you would do that it would look like this: You put on a mask to go into a shop or similar, do your business, get out, take off the mask ... and throw it into a bin!
Yes, there are masks, that can be washed or something like that. But the same: You shouldn't use your mask again until you actually did that!
That's what "professionals" in a hospital do. Their equipment is basically "one-time-use"!
But what are people doing with their mask after use? Take it off and put it into their bags or pocket to use it again the next time they need one. If there were some droplets with the virus, that the mask stopped, you would just "smear" it all over you! Effectiveness goes done quite significantly!
I'm not sure how many people outside hospitals are doing that!? I'm not one to throw stones either btw...
|
The entire public safety messaging around masks has certainly been quite horrendous. First it wasn't a good idea to wear them, then it's the most important thing in the world and it's going to be our salvation against the virus. First we shouldn't be using disposable masks more than once, but then we have some serious shortages so a lot of those rules go out the window (even medical experts are using N95's for longer than the 8 hours they were originally intended for). Then all these confusions over how to wear them, such as the whole "mask on but nose not covered" situation. And perhaps more upsetting, people who wear a respirator-quality mask such as an N95 but don't even put it on with a proper seal, rendering it completely useless as a respirator. So on and so forth.
The science on how much masks help have been disputed a fair bit throughout this all. We've went between skeptical and "only an idiot would deny how obviously effective masks are" as the common sentiment several times. There's some theoretical strengths of the masks, and plenty of confounding factors that reduce their benefit, so there's absolutely room to take both sides. I suppose there's the "masks are a small effort and they can't hurt" argument, which is valid (the fact that it becomes unpleasant to do anything social whatsoever with masks on is either a small price to pay or an implicit benefit). But if widespread, effective mask usage is now considered to be the answer, several key months of public health authority failure to have a coherent mask strategy have reduced any potential effectiveness it may have had.
At this point masks seem primarily to be a social signal, one that suggests we should keep our distance when possible. Where people refuse to wear masks, there is usually also widespread resistance to all other forms of measures to stop the spread. The other practical benefits of masks have so many confounding factors as to make one wonder how useful they really are in purely technical benefit.
|
On August 31 2020 22:13 Geisterkarle wrote:
Also most people are not using masks correctly that they are effective!
If you would do that it would look like this: You put on a mask to go into a shop or similar, do your business, get out, take off the mask ... and throw it into a bin!
Yes, there are masks, that can be washed or something like that. But the same: You shouldn't use your mask again until you actually did that!
That's what "professionals" in a hospital do. Their equipment is basically "one-time-use"!
But what are people doing with their mask after use? Take it off and put it into their bags or pocket to use it again the next time they need one. If there were some droplets with the virus, that the mask stopped, you would just "smear" it all over you! Effectiveness goes done quite significantly!
I'm not sure how many people outside hospitals are doing that!? I'm not one to throw stones either btw...
While true in a sense, it helps from you yourself spreading virus to others.
|
On September 01 2020 00:53 LegalLord wrote:
The entire public safety messaging around masks has certainly been quite horrendous. First it wasn't a good idea to wear them, then it's the most important thing in the world and it's going to be our salvation against the virus. First we shouldn't be using disposable masks more than once, but then we have some serious shortages so a lot of those rules go out the window (even medical experts are using N95's for longer than the 8 hours they were originally intended for). Then all these confusions over how to wear them, such as the whole "mask on but nose not covered" situation. And perhaps more upsetting, people who wear a respirator-quality mask such as an N95 but don't even put it on with a proper seal, rendering it completely useless as a respirator. So on and so forth.
The science on how much masks help have been disputed a fair bit throughout this all. We've went between skeptical and "only an idiot would deny how obviously effective masks are" as the common sentiment several times. There's some theoretical strengths of the masks, and plenty of confounding factors that reduce their benefit, so there's absolutely room to take both sides. I suppose there's the "masks are a small effort and they can't hurt" argument, which is valid (the fact that it becomes unpleasant to do anything social whatsoever with masks on is either a small price to pay or an implicit benefit). But if widespread, effective mask usage is now considered to be the answer, several key months of public health authority failure to have a coherent mask strategy have reduced any potential effectiveness it may have had.
At this point masks seem primarily to be a social signal, one that suggests we should keep our distance when possible. Where people refuse to wear masks, there is usually also widespread resistance to all other forms of measures to stop the spread. The other practical benefits of masks have so many confounding factors as to make one wonder how useful they really are in purely technical benefit.
Not so sure it makes sense to say its a social signal when we have troves of data showing masks are effective, up to and including minimizing the extent of symptoms in people by decreasing dosage.
This example in South Korea was particularly interesting: https://www.businessinsider.com/56-got-coronavirus-south-korea-starbucks-mask-wearers-did-not-2020-8
Your post effectively argues why the general public still has a hard time with masks. However, most of what you are talking about is coming from health policy professionals, not scientists. As we are seeing in the EPA, the bureaucrat responsible for a policy is not always an expert. People have disputed the science, but not legitimately. There is a big difference between someone disputing something and effectively disputing something.
And this is another sad reality we are seeing from covid. Bureaucrats working in health are not scientists. So long as we know viral dosage tracks with symptoms, and we know cloth filtration reduces dosage, masks will continue to be a net positive, especially in the US.
|
I've been mainly listening to scientists, not health officials. It's of little consequence though who I listen to. If you're confident in how you deal with the virus in the US and how you're effectively keeping your numbers down, who am I to tell you you're wrong. I'm doing the same over here in Scandinavia.
|
On September 01 2020 04:03 Mohdoo wrote:
However, most of what you are talking about is coming from health policy professionals, not scientists.
So, the people whose job it is to inform the public of the proper public health policy, including plenty of science people who should have had their hands on the science, made the call not to recommend masks?
To be honest this sounds a lot like trying to deflect blame off of science people, out of what seems like personal bias. And yet you can find articles like this one that definitively come from science people, that 100% make a sensible point, and that are very lukewarm about the effectiveness of masks. It's possible to find a Business Insider article that points out "interesting" occurrences, but the reality is that there has been plenty of skepticism as to whether or not a universal mask policy is the right choice, including from science people. That may have converged largely in favor of masks since early March, but not entirely because it's considered to be so deeply helpful to wear them.
|
On September 01 2020 05:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 04:03 Mohdoo wrote:
However, most of what you are talking about is coming from health policy professionals, not scientists. So, the people whose job it is to inform the public of the proper public health policy, including plenty of science people who should have had their hands on the science, made the call not to recommend masks? To be honest this sounds a lot like trying to deflect blame off of science people, out of what seems like personal bias. And yet you can find articles like this one that definitively come from science people, that 100% make a sensible point, and that are very lukewarm about the effectiveness of masks. It's possible to find a Business Insider article that points out "interesting" occurrences, but the reality is that there has been plenty of skepticism as to whether or not a universal mask policy is the right choice, including from science people. That may have converged largely in favor of masks since early March, but not entirely because it's considered to be so deeply helpful to wear them.
Plenty of science folks end up as public health people, but that isn't telling the whole story. Its not like once you have a science education, you are suddenly a paragon of scientific knowledge and perspective. And I have been blaming scientists a lot, specifically saying that their language they use when publishing matters of great public interest is, at best, reckless. I would say the scientific community shit the bed with messaging. So did the public health community, but for different reasons.
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with that link, as it is mostly just summarizing various countries' perspectives. It makes the same mistakes a lot of scientists are doing by making it clear that we don't have conclusive evidence regarding exact transmission mechanisms with and without masks. But that is exactly the kind of recklessness I spoke against already in academia. They also use mask shortages as a reason against a mask mandate, which is not relevant for an individual trying to survive. They specifically say "Universal use of face masks could be considered if supplies permit.", which makes sense since this was posted in March. In March, the WHO was still spewing misinformation regarding covid and mask usage. It isn't really relevant or even reputable. The WHO wasn't ready for covid and then shit the bed once it got started. That doesn't mean masks aren't helpful.
Generally, this article is based off of a lot of really old, outdated information and makes references to lack of information that has since been filled in. It may be that I am missing your intention behind this link, but it does not appear to effectively argue against anything I have said. March is years ago in covid land.
|
On September 01 2020 05:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 05:31 LegalLord wrote:On September 01 2020 04:03 Mohdoo wrote:
However, most of what you are talking about is coming from health policy professionals, not scientists. So, the people whose job it is to inform the public of the proper public health policy, including plenty of science people who should have had their hands on the science, made the call not to recommend masks? To be honest this sounds a lot like trying to deflect blame off of science people, out of what seems like personal bias. And yet you can find articles like this one that definitively come from science people, that 100% make a sensible point, and that are very lukewarm about the effectiveness of masks. It's possible to find a Business Insider article that points out "interesting" occurrences, but the reality is that there has been plenty of skepticism as to whether or not a universal mask policy is the right choice, including from science people. That may have converged largely in favor of masks since early March, but not entirely because it's considered to be so deeply helpful to wear them. Plenty of science folks end up as public health people, but that isn't telling the whole story. Its not like once you have a science education, you are suddenly a paragon of scientific knowledge and perspective. And I have been blaming scientists a lot, specifically saying that their language they use when publishing matters of great public interest is, at best, reckless. I would say the scientific community shit the bed with messaging. So did the public health community, but for different reasons. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with that link, as it is mostly just summarizing various countries' perspectives. It makes the same mistakes a lot of scientists are doing by making it clear that we don't have conclusive evidence regarding exact transmission mechanisms with and without masks. But that is exactly the kind of recklessness I spoke against already in academia. They also use mask shortages as a reason against a mask mandate, which is not relevant for an individual trying to survive. They specifically say "Universal use of face masks could be considered if supplies permit.", which makes sense since this was posted in March. In March, the WHO was still spewing misinformation regarding covid and mask usage. It isn't really relevant or even reputable. The WHO wasn't ready for covid and then shit the bed once it got started. That doesn't mean masks aren't helpful. Generally, this article is based off of a lot of really old, outdated information and makes references to lack of information that has since been filled in. It may be that I am missing your intention behind this link, but it does not appear to effectively argue against anything I have said. March is years ago in covid land.
The article was chosen by design to be something out of the very early months, i.e. back at the start of March, when the consensus was far from "yes masks, all the time for everyone." Plenty of other reputable sources from either science people or health officials in the same light from the same time period. It wasn't aggressively anti-mask, but it certainly wasn't all-in in favor of them. The overall tone was merely skeptical, a perfectly reasonable take. Time has passed, so perspectives obviously have time to change as well.
At some point in the middle of the pandemic, it's changed largely towards "always wear masks" and individuals such as yourself go further and assert that anyone who doesn't support mask-wearing is an idiot who should just listen to the science people who say they should be worn. But there was merit behind the initial anti-mask recommendation, flawed though it might be that really didn't change all that much. When you get beyond properly worn respirator masks down into the wide range of cloth coverings, there's plenty more that is questionable about the mask strategy. Sure, maybe it's an overall advantage or at least it "can't hurt" to do it, but how much it actually helps definitely is in dispute. Admittedly I'm not 100% on what "what you argued for" is, but the two items seem to be "science people are right about masks" and "masks are obviously super effective," both of which are stronger statements than can reasonably be acknowledged as valid.
This article from 538 explores the topic in some good detail, providing a lot of both the science and the politics around this. The real answer seems to be that there's a lot of open questions and a lot of nuance to how well masks really work, with respirators like the N95 obviously being a lot better than a homemade cloth covering. I suppose it's worth wearing one, probably, why not.
|
On September 01 2020 06:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 05:59 Mohdoo wrote:On September 01 2020 05:31 LegalLord wrote:On September 01 2020 04:03 Mohdoo wrote:
However, most of what you are talking about is coming from health policy professionals, not scientists. So, the people whose job it is to inform the public of the proper public health policy, including plenty of science people who should have had their hands on the science, made the call not to recommend masks? To be honest this sounds a lot like trying to deflect blame off of science people, out of what seems like personal bias. And yet you can find articles like this one that definitively come from science people, that 100% make a sensible point, and that are very lukewarm about the effectiveness of masks. It's possible to find a Business Insider article that points out "interesting" occurrences, but the reality is that there has been plenty of skepticism as to whether or not a universal mask policy is the right choice, including from science people. That may have converged largely in favor of masks since early March, but not entirely because it's considered to be so deeply helpful to wear them. Plenty of science folks end up as public health people, but that isn't telling the whole story. Its not like once you have a science education, you are suddenly a paragon of scientific knowledge and perspective. And I have been blaming scientists a lot, specifically saying that their language they use when publishing matters of great public interest is, at best, reckless. I would say the scientific community shit the bed with messaging. So did the public health community, but for different reasons. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with that link, as it is mostly just summarizing various countries' perspectives. It makes the same mistakes a lot of scientists are doing by making it clear that we don't have conclusive evidence regarding exact transmission mechanisms with and without masks. But that is exactly the kind of recklessness I spoke against already in academia. They also use mask shortages as a reason against a mask mandate, which is not relevant for an individual trying to survive. They specifically say "Universal use of face masks could be considered if supplies permit.", which makes sense since this was posted in March. In March, the WHO was still spewing misinformation regarding covid and mask usage. It isn't really relevant or even reputable. The WHO wasn't ready for covid and then shit the bed once it got started. That doesn't mean masks aren't helpful. Generally, this article is based off of a lot of really old, outdated information and makes references to lack of information that has since been filled in. It may be that I am missing your intention behind this link, but it does not appear to effectively argue against anything I have said. March is years ago in covid land. The article was chosen by design to be something out of the very early months, i.e. back at the start of March, when the consensus was far from "yes masks, all the time for everyone." Plenty of other reputable sources from either science people or health officials in the same light from the same time period. It wasn't aggressively anti-mask, but it certainly wasn't all-in in favor of them. The overall tone was merely skeptical, a perfectly reasonable take. Time has passed, so perspectives obviously have time to change as well. At some point in the middle of the pandemic, it's changed largely towards "always wear masks" and individuals such as yourself go further and assert that anyone who doesn't support mask-wearing is an idiot who should just listen to the science people who say they should be worn. But there was merit behind the initial anti-mask recommendation, flawed though it might be that really didn't change all that much. When you get beyond properly worn respirator masks down into the wide range of cloth coverings, there's plenty more that is questionable about the mask strategy. Sure, maybe it's an overall advantage or at least it "can't hurt" to do it, but how much it actually helps definitely is in dispute. Admittedly I'm not 100% on what "what you argued for" is, but the two items seem to be "science people are right about masks" and "masks are obviously super effective," both of which are stronger statements than can reasonably be acknowledged as valid. This article from 538 explores the topic in some good detail, providing a lot of both the science and the politics around this. The real answer seems to be that there's a lot of open questions and a lot of nuance to how well masks really work, with respirators like the N95 obviously being a lot better than a homemade cloth covering. I suppose it's worth wearing one, probably, why not.
I think our difference of experience is coming from where we were hanging out and who we were talking to. Since I happen to be married to someone deeply involved in covid and have a lot of my friends from academia, I have had a very non-representative view of mask messaging. At the end of the day, what you are showing is why it isn't right to blame individuals for being victims of misinformation and I agree with that. So while it is true that the correct perspectives were present in March, you are entirely right to point out that the number of supposed authorities speaking against each other was chaotic at best.
In short, the scientific community and the public health community each individually failed the world. I can somewhat forgive the scientific community, because they tend to just send their data to public health people, but more should have been done sooner. The fact that there was a shortage of PPE that REQUIRED the use of disinformation to save lives just made the situation even more fucked. I'm just so isolated in my little bubble I saw significantly more correct information, so it made me judge others more harshly. In reality, I had a very abnormal bubble.
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/09/01/concerns-mental-health-children-covid-19/
One of the arguments coming out in favour of children going back to school. It's brutal for kids to not have social interaction, both from a physical and mental perspective. It has to be balanced against the health of families as well, because they obviously interact with other people, but it's not just as simple as keeping kids home, and having them learn online.
Austin notes the report reveals 57 per cent of children said their mental health is either somewhat or much worse than before the pandemic.
“Suicide is now the leading cause of death for children ages 10 to 14,” she says, adding the frightening statistic is just one of the many concerning facts to come out of this report.
|
On September 02 2020 08:14 Lmui wrote:https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/09/01/concerns-mental-health-children-covid-19/One of the arguments coming out in favour of children going back to school. It's brutal for kids to not have social interaction, both from a physical and mental perspective. It has to be balanced against the health of families as well, because they obvious interact with other people, but it's not just as simple as keeping kids home, and having them learn online. Show nested quote +Austin notes the report reveals 57 per cent of children said their mental health is either somewhat or much worse than before the pandemic.
“Suicide is now the leading cause of death for children ages 10 to 14,” she says, adding the frightening statistic is just one of the many concerning facts to come out of this report.
It's good to remember that keeping kids home until 2021 (and maybe far into 2021) is not automatically the lower-deaths option.
|
On September 02 2020 08:14 Lmui wrote:https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/09/01/concerns-mental-health-children-covid-19/One of the arguments coming out in favour of children going back to school. It's brutal for kids to not have social interaction, both from a physical and mental perspective. It has to be balanced against the health of families as well, because they obviously interact with other people, but it's not just as simple as keeping kids home, and having them learn online. Show nested quote +Austin notes the report reveals 57 per cent of children said their mental health is either somewhat or much worse than before the pandemic.
“Suicide is now the leading cause of death for children ages 10 to 14,” she says, adding the frightening statistic is just one of the many concerning facts to come out of this report.
That's not entirely true. Going back to school and having meaningful social interaction are not the same thing, especially during a pandemic. In fact, in most cases, children wouldn't really be able to play or learn or bond in a classroom, the way they could "normally" in a pre-pandemic setting. Families are slowly realizing the importance of *both* social interaction *and* keeping their children home from school, and finding reasonable compromises like "if my family/child has been isolating and yours have been too, we could set up a controlled playdate on our own time, in our own houses". Small pods of families can work together and play together and even school together (remotely), so that the interactions are limited to the few friends/neighbors you trust in a small group, rather than the hundreds or thousands of unnecessary, risky interactions that would occur if all students went back to school. Reopening schools does not guarantee - and would almost certainly not include - the fun, playful physical interactions that we're accustomed to.
|
On September 02 2020 08:14 Lmui wrote:https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/09/01/concerns-mental-health-children-covid-19/One of the arguments coming out in favour of children going back to school. It's brutal for kids to not have social interaction, both from a physical and mental perspective. It has to be balanced against the health of families as well, because they obviously interact with other people, but it's not just as simple as keeping kids home, and having them learn online. Show nested quote +Austin notes the report reveals 57 per cent of children said their mental health is either somewhat or much worse than before the pandemic.
“Suicide is now the leading cause of death for children ages 10 to 14,” she says, adding the frightening statistic is just one of the many concerning facts to come out of this report.
Kids in my neighborhood still play outside and see their friends. Most parents decided a very long time ago they’d rather die of covid than be stuck inside with their bored children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
