|
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 October 26 2022 23:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2022 23:20 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 23:13 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 23:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 22:27 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 22:14 Gorsameth wrote:On October 26 2022 20:09 BlackJack wrote:
National testing called “The nations report card” that routinely tests 4th and 8th graders shows massive declines in education during the pandemic. Something like only 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 are proficient in math and reading if I remember correctly. It also widened the gaps between white students and black and Latino students with white students being more likely to have access to personal laptops, good internet connections, quiet environments etc.
We are also seeing many medical pediatric groups sound the alarm on a pediatric mental health crisis that has unfolded in the country. Depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts have gone up so much during the pandemic among children that there aren’t enough psychiatric hospitals to handle it. Children are often having to spend several nights sleeping in an Emergency Room while they wait for a bed at a psych hospital to become available.
All around absolutely tragic. Children were asked to sacrifice the most during the pandemic despite to fact that we knew from day 1 that the disease affected children the least. Closing schools has (almost) nothing to do with the actual danger to the child and everything to do with them being prime infection spots, and then the infected child goes home and infects its parents. It was about slowing down the spread. Agreed. Seems like a bad faith attempt at making a point. Sometimes it feels like we speak two different languages on this stuff. What was the alternative to the virtual learning (which depending on area was a relatively short stint). Shove teachers and students into class and tell them tough shit? Sorry how is that a bad faith argument? Children did sacrifice the most and they were affected the least. I’m not sure why you think children sacrificing their educational and developmental upbringing so they don’t become disease vectors for their boomer grandparents is a counterpoint. That’s entirely consistent with the concept of sacrifice. What was your suggestion to avoid this mess? Keep the schools open. This study suggests children in Sweden didn’t have the same drop that students in the USA had https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035522000891 According to your source, they didn't have the usual, annual student reading/math (standardized?) tests in Sweden during covid to compare to scores before/after covid. Here are some key lines/paragraphs from that source which show that the conversation is much more complex and nuanced than just your solution of "Keep the schools open": Show nested quote +In 2020-2021, real-world data on learning during the pandemic from countries where students have experienced school closures have started to get published (for a systematic review including studies published up until April 31, 2021, see Hammerstein et al., 2021). The studies included in Hammerstein et al. (2021) are from different countries (all from the global north including Australia, except for one study from China) investigating the effect of 7-8 week school closures, and report mixed findings regarding loss in reading attainment in primary grades, with effect sizes ranging from -0.37 SD (Switzerland: Tomasik, Helbling, & Moser, 2021) to +0.04 SD (Australia: Gore et al., 2021): i.e. ranging from the worst-case projections to no negative effect at all). The magnitude of effect on reading due to school closures are dependent on what other measures are in place, such as good access to and knowledge of digital and online solutions, economic support for families during the pandemic, etc. and it is therefore not straightforward to compare results between countries. A few studies have confirmed that school closures did have a particularly negative effect on disadvantaged students (Engzell, Frey, & Verhagen, 2021; Maldonado & De Witte, 2021), low-achieving students (Clark et al., 2021), and younger students (Tomasik et al., 2021).
Sweden made the choice to keep pre-schools, primary schools, and lower secondary schools open very early in the pandemic, and even when upper secondary schools and universities closed and went online, schools for the younger students have been kept in-person throughout the whole COVID-19 pandemic. This choice was in stark contrast to most other comparable countries, including the close Nordic neighbours. Open schools did not necessarily mean that the pandemic did not affect the learning of the youngest students in Sweden, however. The Swedish pandemic strategy included strict recommendations to stay home if the slightest symptoms of illness were present. Increased teacher and student absence and the resulting difficulty with continuity in teaching and learning, as well as the anxiety and stress from experiencing a pandemic might still have affected teaching as well as student learning negatively (Sjögren et al., 2021). One group of students that might have been disproportionally affected are those who need more intense and specialized support in school, such as those with weaker reading abilities or slow reading development. Another group is students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. A lower socioeconomic status and/or being a first-generation immigrant from a low- or middle-income country are associated with a higher risk of getting infected with and dying from COVID-19 in Sweden (Drefahl et al., 2020). Drefahl et al. (2020) point out that explanations might include both residential and occupational risk factors, e.g., multigenerational households and no option to work remotely. Thus, Swedish children from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds had a higher risk of being infected with COVID-19 themselves, and also an increased risk of other pandemic-related stress factors, such as sickness and death in the family, more crowding and potential conflicts at home, and less protective social contacts outside the family (Sjögren et al., 2021).
If, and how, the pandemic has affected student learning in Sweden is unknown, however. In many countries, educational data have not been collected and shared during the pandemic. In Sweden national tests in reading and mathematics in grade 3 were cancelled in spring 2020, and in spring 2021, schools did not have to report the results to Statistics Sweden (SCB), to ease the administrative burden on schools. Thus, no official national data on student progress in reading during the pandemic compared to previous years exist. Especially that final paragraph. These are all from the Introduction area of your source.
They have data from before the pandemic and after the pandemic and they conclude that keeping schools open benefited Swedish schoolchildren. They are missing some data during the pandemic because schools weren’t required to report it to ease their administrative burden. Emphasizing that tiny morsel of the study to say “see, there is some ambiguity there!” while ignoring the broader conclusion just shows you aren’t being objective.
I agree there is a more complex conversation to be had. One that doesn’t begin and end with throwing our hands in the air and saying “we had no choice! It was a necessary evil!” while ignoring the fact that some places didn’t close down the schools and the world didn’t end.
|
On October 27 2022 01:34 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2022 23:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 26 2022 23:20 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 23:13 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 23:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 22:27 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 22:14 Gorsameth wrote:On October 26 2022 20:09 BlackJack wrote:
National testing called “The nations report card” that routinely tests 4th and 8th graders shows massive declines in education during the pandemic. Something like only 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 are proficient in math and reading if I remember correctly. It also widened the gaps between white students and black and Latino students with white students being more likely to have access to personal laptops, good internet connections, quiet environments etc.
We are also seeing many medical pediatric groups sound the alarm on a pediatric mental health crisis that has unfolded in the country. Depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts have gone up so much during the pandemic among children that there aren’t enough psychiatric hospitals to handle it. Children are often having to spend several nights sleeping in an Emergency Room while they wait for a bed at a psych hospital to become available.
All around absolutely tragic. Children were asked to sacrifice the most during the pandemic despite to fact that we knew from day 1 that the disease affected children the least. Closing schools has (almost) nothing to do with the actual danger to the child and everything to do with them being prime infection spots, and then the infected child goes home and infects its parents. It was about slowing down the spread. Agreed. Seems like a bad faith attempt at making a point. Sometimes it feels like we speak two different languages on this stuff. What was the alternative to the virtual learning (which depending on area was a relatively short stint). Shove teachers and students into class and tell them tough shit? Sorry how is that a bad faith argument? Children did sacrifice the most and they were affected the least. I’m not sure why you think children sacrificing their educational and developmental upbringing so they don’t become disease vectors for their boomer grandparents is a counterpoint. That’s entirely consistent with the concept of sacrifice. What was your suggestion to avoid this mess? Keep the schools open. This study suggests children in Sweden didn’t have the same drop that students in the USA had https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035522000891 According to your source, they didn't have the usual, annual student reading/math (standardized?) tests in Sweden during covid to compare to scores before/after covid. Here are some key lines/paragraphs from that source which show that the conversation is much more complex and nuanced than just your solution of "Keep the schools open": In 2020-2021, real-world data on learning during the pandemic from countries where students have experienced school closures have started to get published (for a systematic review including studies published up until April 31, 2021, see Hammerstein et al., 2021). The studies included in Hammerstein et al. (2021) are from different countries (all from the global north including Australia, except for one study from China) investigating the effect of 7-8 week school closures, and report mixed findings regarding loss in reading attainment in primary grades, with effect sizes ranging from -0.37 SD (Switzerland: Tomasik, Helbling, & Moser, 2021) to +0.04 SD (Australia: Gore et al., 2021): i.e. ranging from the worst-case projections to no negative effect at all). The magnitude of effect on reading due to school closures are dependent on what other measures are in place, such as good access to and knowledge of digital and online solutions, economic support for families during the pandemic, etc. and it is therefore not straightforward to compare results between countries. A few studies have confirmed that school closures did have a particularly negative effect on disadvantaged students (Engzell, Frey, & Verhagen, 2021; Maldonado & De Witte, 2021), low-achieving students (Clark et al., 2021), and younger students (Tomasik et al., 2021).
Sweden made the choice to keep pre-schools, primary schools, and lower secondary schools open very early in the pandemic, and even when upper secondary schools and universities closed and went online, schools for the younger students have been kept in-person throughout the whole COVID-19 pandemic. This choice was in stark contrast to most other comparable countries, including the close Nordic neighbours. Open schools did not necessarily mean that the pandemic did not affect the learning of the youngest students in Sweden, however. The Swedish pandemic strategy included strict recommendations to stay home if the slightest symptoms of illness were present. Increased teacher and student absence and the resulting difficulty with continuity in teaching and learning, as well as the anxiety and stress from experiencing a pandemic might still have affected teaching as well as student learning negatively (Sjögren et al., 2021). One group of students that might have been disproportionally affected are those who need more intense and specialized support in school, such as those with weaker reading abilities or slow reading development. Another group is students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. A lower socioeconomic status and/or being a first-generation immigrant from a low- or middle-income country are associated with a higher risk of getting infected with and dying from COVID-19 in Sweden (Drefahl et al., 2020). Drefahl et al. (2020) point out that explanations might include both residential and occupational risk factors, e.g., multigenerational households and no option to work remotely. Thus, Swedish children from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds had a higher risk of being infected with COVID-19 themselves, and also an increased risk of other pandemic-related stress factors, such as sickness and death in the family, more crowding and potential conflicts at home, and less protective social contacts outside the family (Sjögren et al., 2021).
If, and how, the pandemic has affected student learning in Sweden is unknown, however. In many countries, educational data have not been collected and shared during the pandemic. In Sweden national tests in reading and mathematics in grade 3 were cancelled in spring 2020, and in spring 2021, schools did not have to report the results to Statistics Sweden (SCB), to ease the administrative burden on schools. Thus, no official national data on student progress in reading during the pandemic compared to previous years exist. Especially that final paragraph. These are all from the Introduction area of your source. They have data from before the pandemic and after the pandemic and they conclude that keeping schools open benefited Swedish schoolchildren. They are missing some data during the pandemic because schools weren’t required to report it to ease their administrative burden. Emphasizing that tiny morsel of the study to say “see, there is some ambiguity there!” while ignoring the broader conclusion just shows you aren’t being objective. I agree there is a more complex conversation to be had. One that doesn’t begin and end with throwing our hands in the air and saying “we had no choice! It was a necessary evil!” while ignoring the fact that some places didn’t close down the schools and the world didn’t end.
Tiny morsel? Your source is filled with accurate, appropriate qualifiers about how it's not proof of your position, and so I'm not convinced of your position yet, even with the hindsight that we now have. Keep in mind that you chose to post that source as your evidence; it's not our fault that you didn't read it in its entirety. Maybe things worked out in Sweden, but that doesn't mean that things would have necessarily worked out in the United States. That simply doesn't logically follow.
This is why the inferences in your third paragraph of your first post on this topic (#12730) were so dangerous. A conversation about the needs of families, schools, and communities - whether or not there's an emergency - is always important, but when you started linking covid responses, you jumped to conclusions and focused only on the negatives instead of also considering the positives (or the hypothetical negatives of your hypothetical alternative).
"some places didn’t close down the schools and the world didn’t end."
Come on. Some people don't get vaccinated and still don't get sick; that doesn't mean their original decision was necessarily the smartest or best informed. Some people don't wear seatbelts and happen to never get into a car accident either. The world not ending does not necessarily justify the original decisions or actions.
|
Its just the same pattern from BJ guys. Hes trying to find any crack of a position to get himself legitimacy regardless of any sort of logic science or reason. The tired "we should have just let kids go to schools because they won't die?" is much worse now than it was then. Children are obvious and well-researched as the most efficient vector for disease. Not just for them, as BJ and his ilk keep asserting, but for their children's families and for the teachers and staff and their families. This is an instance where BJ is literally advocating for letting grandma die so children can go to school.
If we are to believe from drone that BJ isn't anti-vax then he's just as cruel and hateful as any anti-vax is, without the excuse of ignorance even.
And yes I still support the 2021 vaccine mandates. I don't see any less value in them now as they did previously. Governments have obligations to interests of their people that want to die from covid. Its consistent with my positon that normal people use things like science, logic, reasoning, to make decisions and not live in a libertarian hellscape feelings based world.
|
On October 27 2022 01:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2022 01:34 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 23:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 26 2022 23:20 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 23:13 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 23:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 22:27 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 22:14 Gorsameth wrote:On October 26 2022 20:09 BlackJack wrote:
National testing called “The nations report card” that routinely tests 4th and 8th graders shows massive declines in education during the pandemic. Something like only 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 are proficient in math and reading if I remember correctly. It also widened the gaps between white students and black and Latino students with white students being more likely to have access to personal laptops, good internet connections, quiet environments etc.
We are also seeing many medical pediatric groups sound the alarm on a pediatric mental health crisis that has unfolded in the country. Depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts have gone up so much during the pandemic among children that there aren’t enough psychiatric hospitals to handle it. Children are often having to spend several nights sleeping in an Emergency Room while they wait for a bed at a psych hospital to become available.
All around absolutely tragic. Children were asked to sacrifice the most during the pandemic despite to fact that we knew from day 1 that the disease affected children the least. Closing schools has (almost) nothing to do with the actual danger to the child and everything to do with them being prime infection spots, and then the infected child goes home and infects its parents. It was about slowing down the spread. Agreed. Seems like a bad faith attempt at making a point. Sometimes it feels like we speak two different languages on this stuff. What was the alternative to the virtual learning (which depending on area was a relatively short stint). Shove teachers and students into class and tell them tough shit? Sorry how is that a bad faith argument? Children did sacrifice the most and they were affected the least. I’m not sure why you think children sacrificing their educational and developmental upbringing so they don’t become disease vectors for their boomer grandparents is a counterpoint. That’s entirely consistent with the concept of sacrifice. What was your suggestion to avoid this mess? Keep the schools open. This study suggests children in Sweden didn’t have the same drop that students in the USA had https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035522000891 According to your source, they didn't have the usual, annual student reading/math (standardized?) tests in Sweden during covid to compare to scores before/after covid. Here are some key lines/paragraphs from that source which show that the conversation is much more complex and nuanced than just your solution of "Keep the schools open": In 2020-2021, real-world data on learning during the pandemic from countries where students have experienced school closures have started to get published (for a systematic review including studies published up until April 31, 2021, see Hammerstein et al., 2021). The studies included in Hammerstein et al. (2021) are from different countries (all from the global north including Australia, except for one study from China) investigating the effect of 7-8 week school closures, and report mixed findings regarding loss in reading attainment in primary grades, with effect sizes ranging from -0.37 SD (Switzerland: Tomasik, Helbling, & Moser, 2021) to +0.04 SD (Australia: Gore et al., 2021): i.e. ranging from the worst-case projections to no negative effect at all). The magnitude of effect on reading due to school closures are dependent on what other measures are in place, such as good access to and knowledge of digital and online solutions, economic support for families during the pandemic, etc. and it is therefore not straightforward to compare results between countries. A few studies have confirmed that school closures did have a particularly negative effect on disadvantaged students (Engzell, Frey, & Verhagen, 2021; Maldonado & De Witte, 2021), low-achieving students (Clark et al., 2021), and younger students (Tomasik et al., 2021).
Sweden made the choice to keep pre-schools, primary schools, and lower secondary schools open very early in the pandemic, and even when upper secondary schools and universities closed and went online, schools for the younger students have been kept in-person throughout the whole COVID-19 pandemic. This choice was in stark contrast to most other comparable countries, including the close Nordic neighbours. Open schools did not necessarily mean that the pandemic did not affect the learning of the youngest students in Sweden, however. The Swedish pandemic strategy included strict recommendations to stay home if the slightest symptoms of illness were present. Increased teacher and student absence and the resulting difficulty with continuity in teaching and learning, as well as the anxiety and stress from experiencing a pandemic might still have affected teaching as well as student learning negatively (Sjögren et al., 2021). One group of students that might have been disproportionally affected are those who need more intense and specialized support in school, such as those with weaker reading abilities or slow reading development. Another group is students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. A lower socioeconomic status and/or being a first-generation immigrant from a low- or middle-income country are associated with a higher risk of getting infected with and dying from COVID-19 in Sweden (Drefahl et al., 2020). Drefahl et al. (2020) point out that explanations might include both residential and occupational risk factors, e.g., multigenerational households and no option to work remotely. Thus, Swedish children from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds had a higher risk of being infected with COVID-19 themselves, and also an increased risk of other pandemic-related stress factors, such as sickness and death in the family, more crowding and potential conflicts at home, and less protective social contacts outside the family (Sjögren et al., 2021).
If, and how, the pandemic has affected student learning in Sweden is unknown, however. In many countries, educational data have not been collected and shared during the pandemic. In Sweden national tests in reading and mathematics in grade 3 were cancelled in spring 2020, and in spring 2021, schools did not have to report the results to Statistics Sweden (SCB), to ease the administrative burden on schools. Thus, no official national data on student progress in reading during the pandemic compared to previous years exist. Especially that final paragraph. These are all from the Introduction area of your source. They have data from before the pandemic and after the pandemic and they conclude that keeping schools open benefited Swedish schoolchildren. They are missing some data during the pandemic because schools weren’t required to report it to ease their administrative burden. Emphasizing that tiny morsel of the study to say “see, there is some ambiguity there!” while ignoring the broader conclusion just shows you aren’t being objective. I agree there is a more complex conversation to be had. One that doesn’t begin and end with throwing our hands in the air and saying “we had no choice! It was a necessary evil!” while ignoring the fact that some places didn’t close down the schools and the world didn’t end. Tiny morsel? Your source is filled with accurate, appropriate qualifiers about how it's not proof of your position, and so I'm not convinced of your position yet, even with the hindsight that we now have. Keep in mind that you chose to post that source as your evidence; it's not our fault that you didn't read it in its entirety. This is why the inferences in your third paragraph of your first post on this topic (#12730) were so dangerous. A conversation about the needs of families, schools, and communities - whether or not there's an emergency - is always important, but when you started linking covid responses, you jumped to conclusions and focused only on the negatives instead of also considering the positives (or the hypothetical negatives of your hypothetical alternative). "some places didn’t close down the schools and the world didn’t end." Come on. Some people don't get vaccinated and still don't get sick; that doesn't mean their original decision was necessarily the smartest or best informed. Some people don't wear seatbelts and happen to never get into a car accident either. The world not ending does not necessarily justify the original decisions or actions.
Its not proof my position is correct. It’s evidence my position is correct. The way you dwell on the limitations of the studies whose conclusion you disagree with but accept at face value the conclusions of the studies you do agree is evidence that you suffer from confirmation bias. All studies have limitations. You seem to not be aware of this if you think I erred in picking a study that doesn’t only say positive things about my position.
|
On October 27 2022 01:34 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2022 23:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 26 2022 23:20 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 23:13 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 23:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 22:27 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 22:14 Gorsameth wrote:On October 26 2022 20:09 BlackJack wrote:
National testing called “The nations report card” that routinely tests 4th and 8th graders shows massive declines in education during the pandemic. Something like only 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 are proficient in math and reading if I remember correctly. It also widened the gaps between white students and black and Latino students with white students being more likely to have access to personal laptops, good internet connections, quiet environments etc.
We are also seeing many medical pediatric groups sound the alarm on a pediatric mental health crisis that has unfolded in the country. Depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts have gone up so much during the pandemic among children that there aren’t enough psychiatric hospitals to handle it. Children are often having to spend several nights sleeping in an Emergency Room while they wait for a bed at a psych hospital to become available.
All around absolutely tragic. Children were asked to sacrifice the most during the pandemic despite to fact that we knew from day 1 that the disease affected children the least. Closing schools has (almost) nothing to do with the actual danger to the child and everything to do with them being prime infection spots, and then the infected child goes home and infects its parents. It was about slowing down the spread. Agreed. Seems like a bad faith attempt at making a point. Sometimes it feels like we speak two different languages on this stuff. What was the alternative to the virtual learning (which depending on area was a relatively short stint). Shove teachers and students into class and tell them tough shit? Sorry how is that a bad faith argument? Children did sacrifice the most and they were affected the least. I’m not sure why you think children sacrificing their educational and developmental upbringing so they don’t become disease vectors for their boomer grandparents is a counterpoint. That’s entirely consistent with the concept of sacrifice. What was your suggestion to avoid this mess? Keep the schools open. This study suggests children in Sweden didn’t have the same drop that students in the USA had https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035522000891 According to your source, they didn't have the usual, annual student reading/math (standardized?) tests in Sweden during covid to compare to scores before/after covid. Here are some key lines/paragraphs from that source which show that the conversation is much more complex and nuanced than just your solution of "Keep the schools open": In 2020-2021, real-world data on learning during the pandemic from countries where students have experienced school closures have started to get published (for a systematic review including studies published up until April 31, 2021, see Hammerstein et al., 2021). The studies included in Hammerstein et al. (2021) are from different countries (all from the global north including Australia, except for one study from China) investigating the effect of 7-8 week school closures, and report mixed findings regarding loss in reading attainment in primary grades, with effect sizes ranging from -0.37 SD (Switzerland: Tomasik, Helbling, & Moser, 2021) to +0.04 SD (Australia: Gore et al., 2021): i.e. ranging from the worst-case projections to no negative effect at all). The magnitude of effect on reading due to school closures are dependent on what other measures are in place, such as good access to and knowledge of digital and online solutions, economic support for families during the pandemic, etc. and it is therefore not straightforward to compare results between countries. A few studies have confirmed that school closures did have a particularly negative effect on disadvantaged students (Engzell, Frey, & Verhagen, 2021; Maldonado & De Witte, 2021), low-achieving students (Clark et al., 2021), and younger students (Tomasik et al., 2021).
Sweden made the choice to keep pre-schools, primary schools, and lower secondary schools open very early in the pandemic, and even when upper secondary schools and universities closed and went online, schools for the younger students have been kept in-person throughout the whole COVID-19 pandemic. This choice was in stark contrast to most other comparable countries, including the close Nordic neighbours. Open schools did not necessarily mean that the pandemic did not affect the learning of the youngest students in Sweden, however. The Swedish pandemic strategy included strict recommendations to stay home if the slightest symptoms of illness were present. Increased teacher and student absence and the resulting difficulty with continuity in teaching and learning, as well as the anxiety and stress from experiencing a pandemic might still have affected teaching as well as student learning negatively (Sjögren et al., 2021). One group of students that might have been disproportionally affected are those who need more intense and specialized support in school, such as those with weaker reading abilities or slow reading development. Another group is students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. A lower socioeconomic status and/or being a first-generation immigrant from a low- or middle-income country are associated with a higher risk of getting infected with and dying from COVID-19 in Sweden (Drefahl et al., 2020). Drefahl et al. (2020) point out that explanations might include both residential and occupational risk factors, e.g., multigenerational households and no option to work remotely. Thus, Swedish children from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds had a higher risk of being infected with COVID-19 themselves, and also an increased risk of other pandemic-related stress factors, such as sickness and death in the family, more crowding and potential conflicts at home, and less protective social contacts outside the family (Sjögren et al., 2021).
If, and how, the pandemic has affected student learning in Sweden is unknown, however. In many countries, educational data have not been collected and shared during the pandemic. In Sweden national tests in reading and mathematics in grade 3 were cancelled in spring 2020, and in spring 2021, schools did not have to report the results to Statistics Sweden (SCB), to ease the administrative burden on schools. Thus, no official national data on student progress in reading during the pandemic compared to previous years exist. Especially that final paragraph. These are all from the Introduction area of your source. They have data from before the pandemic and after the pandemic and they conclude that keeping schools open benefited Swedish schoolchildren. They are missing some data during the pandemic because schools weren’t required to report it to ease their administrative burden. Emphasizing that tiny morsel of the study to say “see, there is some ambiguity there!” while ignoring the broader conclusion just shows you aren’t being objective. I agree there is a more complex conversation to be had. One that doesn’t begin and end with throwing our hands in the air and saying “we had no choice! It was a necessary evil!” while ignoring the fact that some places didn’t close down the schools and the world didn’t end. "It was ok for Sweden" is meaningless because your ignoring a million other factors that go into the decision.
Everything comes down to the load on healthcare, if your doing well enough that the added infections from keeping schools open doesn't put to much strain on healthcare then keeping schools open is, obviously, the correct solution.
But to then use that argument you don't need to show that Sweden kept their schools open and it was fine, you need to prove that country X could have kept their schools open and that the added pressure would have been no problem.
And your not doing that.
You can't prove to me that I can keep the water running for X minutes without overflowing a specific bucket under it by using a different bucket with different, unknown, dimensions.
|
On October 27 2022 02:10 Sermokala wrote:
Its just the same pattern from BJ guys. Hes trying to find any crack of a position to get himself legitimacy regardless of any sort of logic science or reason. The tired "we should have just let kids go to schools because they won't die?" is much worse now than it was then. Children are obvious and well-researched as the most efficient vector for disease. Not just for them, as BJ and his ilk keep asserting, but for their children's families and for the teachers and staff and their families. This is an instance where BJ is literally advocating for letting grandma die so children can go to school.
If we are to believe from drone that BJ isn't anti-vax then he's just as cruel and hateful as any anti-vax is, without the excuse of ignorance even.
And yes I still support the 2021 vaccine mandates. I don't see any less value in them now as they did previously. Governments have obligations to interests of their people that want to die from covid. Its consistent with my positon that normal people use things like science, logic, reasoning, to make decisions and not live in a libertarian hellscape feelings based world.
It’s the same pattern from Sermokala you guys!! He’s literally advocating for children to sacrifice their education and social lives and become suicidal so that grandma doesn’t get sick.
He’s also so hateful and cruel he wants people to lose their jobs if they won’t get vaccinated just as punishment for not getting vaccinated.
He also thinks he has the “experts” on his side despite the fact that he still supports vaccine mandates in late 2022 when governments the world over, advised by their experts, have dropped their vaccine mandates. I guess they don’t want people to get vaccinated.
Not sure how you get to attack me while offering almost nothing of substance in this thread
|
On October 27 2022 02:35 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2022 02:10 Sermokala wrote:
Its just the same pattern from BJ guys. Hes trying to find any crack of a position to get himself legitimacy regardless of any sort of logic science or reason. The tired "we should have just let kids go to schools because they won't die?" is much worse now than it was then. Children are obvious and well-researched as the most efficient vector for disease. Not just for them, as BJ and his ilk keep asserting, but for their children's families and for the teachers and staff and their families. This is an instance where BJ is literally advocating for letting grandma die so children can go to school.
If we are to believe from drone that BJ isn't anti-vax then he's just as cruel and hateful as any anti-vax is, without the excuse of ignorance even.
And yes I still support the 2021 vaccine mandates. I don't see any less value in them now as they did previously. Governments have obligations to interests of their people that want to die from covid. Its consistent with my positon that normal people use things like science, logic, reasoning, to make decisions and not live in a libertarian hellscape feelings based world. It’s the same pattern from Sermokala you guys!! He’s literally advocating for children to sacrifice their education and social lives and become suicidal so that grandma doesn’t get sick. He’s also so hateful and cruel he wants people to lose their jobs if they won’t get vaccinated just as punishment for not getting vaccinated. He also thinks he has the “experts” on his side despite the fact that he still supports vaccine mandates in late 2022 when governments the world over, advised by their experts, have dropped their vaccine mandates. I guess they don’t want people to get vaccinated. Not sure how you get to attack me while offering almost nothing of substance in this thread You can't even make fun of people properly. That governments dropped the vaccine mandate in 2022 says nothing about their support for the mandate in 2021. In fact I would confidently say that every government that has since stopped a vaccine mandate still supports the decision to introduce said mandate back then, to this day.
|
On October 27 2022 02:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2022 01:34 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 23:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 26 2022 23:20 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 23:13 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 23:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 22:27 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 22:14 Gorsameth wrote:On October 26 2022 20:09 BlackJack wrote:
National testing called “The nations report card” that routinely tests 4th and 8th graders shows massive declines in education during the pandemic. Something like only 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 are proficient in math and reading if I remember correctly. It also widened the gaps between white students and black and Latino students with white students being more likely to have access to personal laptops, good internet connections, quiet environments etc.
We are also seeing many medical pediatric groups sound the alarm on a pediatric mental health crisis that has unfolded in the country. Depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts have gone up so much during the pandemic among children that there aren’t enough psychiatric hospitals to handle it. Children are often having to spend several nights sleeping in an Emergency Room while they wait for a bed at a psych hospital to become available.
All around absolutely tragic. Children were asked to sacrifice the most during the pandemic despite to fact that we knew from day 1 that the disease affected children the least. Closing schools has (almost) nothing to do with the actual danger to the child and everything to do with them being prime infection spots, and then the infected child goes home and infects its parents. It was about slowing down the spread. Agreed. Seems like a bad faith attempt at making a point. Sometimes it feels like we speak two different languages on this stuff. What was the alternative to the virtual learning (which depending on area was a relatively short stint). Shove teachers and students into class and tell them tough shit? Sorry how is that a bad faith argument? Children did sacrifice the most and they were affected the least. I’m not sure why you think children sacrificing their educational and developmental upbringing so they don’t become disease vectors for their boomer grandparents is a counterpoint. That’s entirely consistent with the concept of sacrifice. What was your suggestion to avoid this mess? Keep the schools open. This study suggests children in Sweden didn’t have the same drop that students in the USA had https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035522000891 According to your source, they didn't have the usual, annual student reading/math (standardized?) tests in Sweden during covid to compare to scores before/after covid. Here are some key lines/paragraphs from that source which show that the conversation is much more complex and nuanced than just your solution of "Keep the schools open": In 2020-2021, real-world data on learning during the pandemic from countries where students have experienced school closures have started to get published (for a systematic review including studies published up until April 31, 2021, see Hammerstein et al., 2021). The studies included in Hammerstein et al. (2021) are from different countries (all from the global north including Australia, except for one study from China) investigating the effect of 7-8 week school closures, and report mixed findings regarding loss in reading attainment in primary grades, with effect sizes ranging from -0.37 SD (Switzerland: Tomasik, Helbling, & Moser, 2021) to +0.04 SD (Australia: Gore et al., 2021): i.e. ranging from the worst-case projections to no negative effect at all). The magnitude of effect on reading due to school closures are dependent on what other measures are in place, such as good access to and knowledge of digital and online solutions, economic support for families during the pandemic, etc. and it is therefore not straightforward to compare results between countries. A few studies have confirmed that school closures did have a particularly negative effect on disadvantaged students (Engzell, Frey, & Verhagen, 2021; Maldonado & De Witte, 2021), low-achieving students (Clark et al., 2021), and younger students (Tomasik et al., 2021).
Sweden made the choice to keep pre-schools, primary schools, and lower secondary schools open very early in the pandemic, and even when upper secondary schools and universities closed and went online, schools for the younger students have been kept in-person throughout the whole COVID-19 pandemic. This choice was in stark contrast to most other comparable countries, including the close Nordic neighbours. Open schools did not necessarily mean that the pandemic did not affect the learning of the youngest students in Sweden, however. The Swedish pandemic strategy included strict recommendations to stay home if the slightest symptoms of illness were present. Increased teacher and student absence and the resulting difficulty with continuity in teaching and learning, as well as the anxiety and stress from experiencing a pandemic might still have affected teaching as well as student learning negatively (Sjögren et al., 2021). One group of students that might have been disproportionally affected are those who need more intense and specialized support in school, such as those with weaker reading abilities or slow reading development. Another group is students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. A lower socioeconomic status and/or being a first-generation immigrant from a low- or middle-income country are associated with a higher risk of getting infected with and dying from COVID-19 in Sweden (Drefahl et al., 2020). Drefahl et al. (2020) point out that explanations might include both residential and occupational risk factors, e.g., multigenerational households and no option to work remotely. Thus, Swedish children from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds had a higher risk of being infected with COVID-19 themselves, and also an increased risk of other pandemic-related stress factors, such as sickness and death in the family, more crowding and potential conflicts at home, and less protective social contacts outside the family (Sjögren et al., 2021).
If, and how, the pandemic has affected student learning in Sweden is unknown, however. In many countries, educational data have not been collected and shared during the pandemic. In Sweden national tests in reading and mathematics in grade 3 were cancelled in spring 2020, and in spring 2021, schools did not have to report the results to Statistics Sweden (SCB), to ease the administrative burden on schools. Thus, no official national data on student progress in reading during the pandemic compared to previous years exist. Especially that final paragraph. These are all from the Introduction area of your source. They have data from before the pandemic and after the pandemic and they conclude that keeping schools open benefited Swedish schoolchildren. They are missing some data during the pandemic because schools weren’t required to report it to ease their administrative burden. Emphasizing that tiny morsel of the study to say “see, there is some ambiguity there!” while ignoring the broader conclusion just shows you aren’t being objective. I agree there is a more complex conversation to be had. One that doesn’t begin and end with throwing our hands in the air and saying “we had no choice! It was a necessary evil!” while ignoring the fact that some places didn’t close down the schools and the world didn’t end. "It was ok for Sweden" is meaningless because your ignoring a million other factors that go into the decision. Everything comes down to the load on healthcare, if your doing well enough that the added infections from keeping schools open doesn't put to much strain on healthcare then keeping schools open is, obviously, the correct solution. But to then use that argument you don't need to show that Sweden kept their schools open and it was fine, you need to prove that country X could have kept their schools open and that the added pressure would have been no problem.
And your not doing that.You can't prove to me that I can keep the water running for X minutes without overflowing a specific bucket under it by using a different bucket with different, unknown, dimensions.
And is there a way you recommend doing that or have you just created a catch all where you can never be wrong?
|
On October 27 2022 02:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2022 02:35 BlackJack wrote:On October 27 2022 02:10 Sermokala wrote:
Its just the same pattern from BJ guys. Hes trying to find any crack of a position to get himself legitimacy regardless of any sort of logic science or reason. The tired "we should have just let kids go to schools because they won't die?" is much worse now than it was then. Children are obvious and well-researched as the most efficient vector for disease. Not just for them, as BJ and his ilk keep asserting, but for their children's families and for the teachers and staff and their families. This is an instance where BJ is literally advocating for letting grandma die so children can go to school.
If we are to believe from drone that BJ isn't anti-vax then he's just as cruel and hateful as any anti-vax is, without the excuse of ignorance even.
And yes I still support the 2021 vaccine mandates. I don't see any less value in them now as they did previously. Governments have obligations to interests of their people that want to die from covid. Its consistent with my positon that normal people use things like science, logic, reasoning, to make decisions and not live in a libertarian hellscape feelings based world. It’s the same pattern from Sermokala you guys!! He’s literally advocating for children to sacrifice their education and social lives and become suicidal so that grandma doesn’t get sick. He’s also so hateful and cruel he wants people to lose their jobs if they won’t get vaccinated just as punishment for not getting vaccinated. He also thinks he has the “experts” on his side despite the fact that he still supports vaccine mandates in late 2022 when governments the world over, advised by their experts, have dropped their vaccine mandates. I guess they don’t want people to get vaccinated. Not sure how you get to attack me while offering almost nothing of substance in this thread You can't even make fun of people properly. That governments dropped the vaccine mandate in 2022 says nothing about their support for the mandate in 2021. In fact I would confidently say that every government that has since stopped a vaccine mandate still supports the decision to introduce said mandate back then, to this day.
I interpreted “I don’t see any less value in them now as they did previously” as in “now” aka 2022. I think that’s a reasonable interpretation since he said he supports flu vaccine mandates and I don’t suspect he thinks the flu is worse than COVID. If he wants to clarify he can. But either way he is not “with the experts” because they don’t recommend flu vaccine mandates either.
|
On October 27 2022 02:42 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2022 02:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2022 01:34 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 23:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 26 2022 23:20 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 23:13 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 23:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 22:27 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 22:14 Gorsameth wrote:On October 26 2022 20:09 BlackJack wrote:
National testing called “The nations report card” that routinely tests 4th and 8th graders shows massive declines in education during the pandemic. Something like only 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 are proficient in math and reading if I remember correctly. It also widened the gaps between white students and black and Latino students with white students being more likely to have access to personal laptops, good internet connections, quiet environments etc.
We are also seeing many medical pediatric groups sound the alarm on a pediatric mental health crisis that has unfolded in the country. Depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts have gone up so much during the pandemic among children that there aren’t enough psychiatric hospitals to handle it. Children are often having to spend several nights sleeping in an Emergency Room while they wait for a bed at a psych hospital to become available.
All around absolutely tragic. Children were asked to sacrifice the most during the pandemic despite to fact that we knew from day 1 that the disease affected children the least. Closing schools has (almost) nothing to do with the actual danger to the child and everything to do with them being prime infection spots, and then the infected child goes home and infects its parents. It was about slowing down the spread. Agreed. Seems like a bad faith attempt at making a point. Sometimes it feels like we speak two different languages on this stuff. What was the alternative to the virtual learning (which depending on area was a relatively short stint). Shove teachers and students into class and tell them tough shit? Sorry how is that a bad faith argument? Children did sacrifice the most and they were affected the least. I’m not sure why you think children sacrificing their educational and developmental upbringing so they don’t become disease vectors for their boomer grandparents is a counterpoint. That’s entirely consistent with the concept of sacrifice. What was your suggestion to avoid this mess? Keep the schools open. This study suggests children in Sweden didn’t have the same drop that students in the USA had https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035522000891 According to your source, they didn't have the usual, annual student reading/math (standardized?) tests in Sweden during covid to compare to scores before/after covid. Here are some key lines/paragraphs from that source which show that the conversation is much more complex and nuanced than just your solution of "Keep the schools open": In 2020-2021, real-world data on learning during the pandemic from countries where students have experienced school closures have started to get published (for a systematic review including studies published up until April 31, 2021, see Hammerstein et al., 2021). The studies included in Hammerstein et al. (2021) are from different countries (all from the global north including Australia, except for one study from China) investigating the effect of 7-8 week school closures, and report mixed findings regarding loss in reading attainment in primary grades, with effect sizes ranging from -0.37 SD (Switzerland: Tomasik, Helbling, & Moser, 2021) to +0.04 SD (Australia: Gore et al., 2021): i.e. ranging from the worst-case projections to no negative effect at all). The magnitude of effect on reading due to school closures are dependent on what other measures are in place, such as good access to and knowledge of digital and online solutions, economic support for families during the pandemic, etc. and it is therefore not straightforward to compare results between countries. A few studies have confirmed that school closures did have a particularly negative effect on disadvantaged students (Engzell, Frey, & Verhagen, 2021; Maldonado & De Witte, 2021), low-achieving students (Clark et al., 2021), and younger students (Tomasik et al., 2021).
Sweden made the choice to keep pre-schools, primary schools, and lower secondary schools open very early in the pandemic, and even when upper secondary schools and universities closed and went online, schools for the younger students have been kept in-person throughout the whole COVID-19 pandemic. This choice was in stark contrast to most other comparable countries, including the close Nordic neighbours. Open schools did not necessarily mean that the pandemic did not affect the learning of the youngest students in Sweden, however. The Swedish pandemic strategy included strict recommendations to stay home if the slightest symptoms of illness were present. Increased teacher and student absence and the resulting difficulty with continuity in teaching and learning, as well as the anxiety and stress from experiencing a pandemic might still have affected teaching as well as student learning negatively (Sjögren et al., 2021). One group of students that might have been disproportionally affected are those who need more intense and specialized support in school, such as those with weaker reading abilities or slow reading development. Another group is students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. A lower socioeconomic status and/or being a first-generation immigrant from a low- or middle-income country are associated with a higher risk of getting infected with and dying from COVID-19 in Sweden (Drefahl et al., 2020). Drefahl et al. (2020) point out that explanations might include both residential and occupational risk factors, e.g., multigenerational households and no option to work remotely. Thus, Swedish children from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds had a higher risk of being infected with COVID-19 themselves, and also an increased risk of other pandemic-related stress factors, such as sickness and death in the family, more crowding and potential conflicts at home, and less protective social contacts outside the family (Sjögren et al., 2021).
If, and how, the pandemic has affected student learning in Sweden is unknown, however. In many countries, educational data have not been collected and shared during the pandemic. In Sweden national tests in reading and mathematics in grade 3 were cancelled in spring 2020, and in spring 2021, schools did not have to report the results to Statistics Sweden (SCB), to ease the administrative burden on schools. Thus, no official national data on student progress in reading during the pandemic compared to previous years exist. Especially that final paragraph. These are all from the Introduction area of your source. They have data from before the pandemic and after the pandemic and they conclude that keeping schools open benefited Swedish schoolchildren. They are missing some data during the pandemic because schools weren’t required to report it to ease their administrative burden. Emphasizing that tiny morsel of the study to say “see, there is some ambiguity there!” while ignoring the broader conclusion just shows you aren’t being objective. I agree there is a more complex conversation to be had. One that doesn’t begin and end with throwing our hands in the air and saying “we had no choice! It was a necessary evil!” while ignoring the fact that some places didn’t close down the schools and the world didn’t end. "It was ok for Sweden" is meaningless because your ignoring a million other factors that go into the decision. Everything comes down to the load on healthcare, if your doing well enough that the added infections from keeping schools open doesn't put to much strain on healthcare then keeping schools open is, obviously, the correct solution. But to then use that argument you don't need to show that Sweden kept their schools open and it was fine, you need to prove that country X could have kept their schools open and that the added pressure would have been no problem.
And your not doing that.You can't prove to me that I can keep the water running for X minutes without overflowing a specific bucket under it by using a different bucket with different, unknown, dimensions. And is there a way you recommend doing that or have you just created a catch all where you can never be wrong? Well I imagine you take projections for hospital occupancy for the relevant time slots, compare and cross reference with impact analysis of closing, or not closing, schools and use that date to conclude what the expected (note expected because due to lag time your always working with what you expect the situation to be in 3-4 weeks in the future) load on the healthcare system would be if you do, or do not, close schools.
And if you say you don't have all that information then all I can say is "that is why you don't make these decisions, government healthcare adversary boards who did have access to the information made it for you".
|
On October 27 2022 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2022 02:42 BlackJack wrote:On October 27 2022 02:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2022 01:34 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 23:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 26 2022 23:20 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 23:13 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 23:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 22:27 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 22:14 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Closing schools has (almost) nothing to do with the actual danger to the child and everything to do with them being prime infection spots, and then the infected child goes home and infects its parents.
It was about slowing down the spread.
Agreed. Seems like a bad faith attempt at making a point. Sometimes it feels like we speak two different languages on this stuff. What was the alternative to the virtual learning (which depending on area was a relatively short stint). Shove teachers and students into class and tell them tough shit? Sorry how is that a bad faith argument? Children did sacrifice the most and they were affected the least. I’m not sure why you think children sacrificing their educational and developmental upbringing so they don’t become disease vectors for their boomer grandparents is a counterpoint. That’s entirely consistent with the concept of sacrifice. What was your suggestion to avoid this mess? Keep the schools open. This study suggests children in Sweden didn’t have the same drop that students in the USA had https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035522000891 According to your source, they didn't have the usual, annual student reading/math (standardized?) tests in Sweden during covid to compare to scores before/after covid. Here are some key lines/paragraphs from that source which show that the conversation is much more complex and nuanced than just your solution of "Keep the schools open": In 2020-2021, real-world data on learning during the pandemic from countries where students have experienced school closures have started to get published (for a systematic review including studies published up until April 31, 2021, see Hammerstein et al., 2021). The studies included in Hammerstein et al. (2021) are from different countries (all from the global north including Australia, except for one study from China) investigating the effect of 7-8 week school closures, and report mixed findings regarding loss in reading attainment in primary grades, with effect sizes ranging from -0.37 SD (Switzerland: Tomasik, Helbling, & Moser, 2021) to +0.04 SD (Australia: Gore et al., 2021): i.e. ranging from the worst-case projections to no negative effect at all). The magnitude of effect on reading due to school closures are dependent on what other measures are in place, such as good access to and knowledge of digital and online solutions, economic support for families during the pandemic, etc. and it is therefore not straightforward to compare results between countries. A few studies have confirmed that school closures did have a particularly negative effect on disadvantaged students (Engzell, Frey, & Verhagen, 2021; Maldonado & De Witte, 2021), low-achieving students (Clark et al., 2021), and younger students (Tomasik et al., 2021).
Sweden made the choice to keep pre-schools, primary schools, and lower secondary schools open very early in the pandemic, and even when upper secondary schools and universities closed and went online, schools for the younger students have been kept in-person throughout the whole COVID-19 pandemic. This choice was in stark contrast to most other comparable countries, including the close Nordic neighbours. Open schools did not necessarily mean that the pandemic did not affect the learning of the youngest students in Sweden, however. The Swedish pandemic strategy included strict recommendations to stay home if the slightest symptoms of illness were present. Increased teacher and student absence and the resulting difficulty with continuity in teaching and learning, as well as the anxiety and stress from experiencing a pandemic might still have affected teaching as well as student learning negatively (Sjögren et al., 2021). One group of students that might have been disproportionally affected are those who need more intense and specialized support in school, such as those with weaker reading abilities or slow reading development. Another group is students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. A lower socioeconomic status and/or being a first-generation immigrant from a low- or middle-income country are associated with a higher risk of getting infected with and dying from COVID-19 in Sweden (Drefahl et al., 2020). Drefahl et al. (2020) point out that explanations might include both residential and occupational risk factors, e.g., multigenerational households and no option to work remotely. Thus, Swedish children from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds had a higher risk of being infected with COVID-19 themselves, and also an increased risk of other pandemic-related stress factors, such as sickness and death in the family, more crowding and potential conflicts at home, and less protective social contacts outside the family (Sjögren et al., 2021).
If, and how, the pandemic has affected student learning in Sweden is unknown, however. In many countries, educational data have not been collected and shared during the pandemic. In Sweden national tests in reading and mathematics in grade 3 were cancelled in spring 2020, and in spring 2021, schools did not have to report the results to Statistics Sweden (SCB), to ease the administrative burden on schools. Thus, no official national data on student progress in reading during the pandemic compared to previous years exist. Especially that final paragraph. These are all from the Introduction area of your source. They have data from before the pandemic and after the pandemic and they conclude that keeping schools open benefited Swedish schoolchildren. They are missing some data during the pandemic because schools weren’t required to report it to ease their administrative burden. Emphasizing that tiny morsel of the study to say “see, there is some ambiguity there!” while ignoring the broader conclusion just shows you aren’t being objective. I agree there is a more complex conversation to be had. One that doesn’t begin and end with throwing our hands in the air and saying “we had no choice! It was a necessary evil!” while ignoring the fact that some places didn’t close down the schools and the world didn’t end. "It was ok for Sweden" is meaningless because your ignoring a million other factors that go into the decision. Everything comes down to the load on healthcare, if your doing well enough that the added infections from keeping schools open doesn't put to much strain on healthcare then keeping schools open is, obviously, the correct solution. But to then use that argument you don't need to show that Sweden kept their schools open and it was fine, you need to prove that country X could have kept their schools open and that the added pressure would have been no problem.
And your not doing that.You can't prove to me that I can keep the water running for X minutes without overflowing a specific bucket under it by using a different bucket with different, unknown, dimensions. And is there a way you recommend doing that or have you just created a catch all where you can never be wrong? Well I imagine you take projections for hospital occupancy for the relevant time slots, compare and cross reference with impact analysis of closing, or not closing, schools and use that date to conclude what the expected (note expected because due to lag time your always working with what you expect the situation to be in 3-4 weeks in the future) load on the healthcare system would be if you do, or do not, close schools. And if you say you don't have all that information then all I can say is "that is why you don't make these decisions, government healthcare adversary boards who did have access to the information made it for you".
I don’t think Sweden had that information either when they chose a deliberate strategy to keep schools open.
I’m also curious of what your definition of “no problem” is in terms of added burden to the healthcare system. The fewer restrictions you have the more deaths. So is there a specific number of deaths you are acceptable with or is there some other metric you would look at?
|
On October 27 2022 02:18 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2022 01:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2022 01:34 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 23:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 26 2022 23:20 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 23:13 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 23:07 BlackJack wrote:On October 26 2022 22:27 Sadist wrote:On October 26 2022 22:14 Gorsameth wrote:On October 26 2022 20:09 BlackJack wrote:
National testing called “The nations report card” that routinely tests 4th and 8th graders shows massive declines in education during the pandemic. Something like only 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 are proficient in math and reading if I remember correctly. It also widened the gaps between white students and black and Latino students with white students being more likely to have access to personal laptops, good internet connections, quiet environments etc.
We are also seeing many medical pediatric groups sound the alarm on a pediatric mental health crisis that has unfolded in the country. Depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts have gone up so much during the pandemic among children that there aren’t enough psychiatric hospitals to handle it. Children are often having to spend several nights sleeping in an Emergency Room while they wait for a bed at a psych hospital to become available.
All around absolutely tragic. Children were asked to sacrifice the most during the pandemic despite to fact that we knew from day 1 that the disease affected children the least. Closing schools has (almost) nothing to do with the actual danger to the child and everything to do with them being prime infection spots, and then the infected child goes home and infects its parents. It was about slowing down the spread. Agreed. Seems like a bad faith attempt at making a point. Sometimes it feels like we speak two different languages on this stuff. What was the alternative to the virtual learning (which depending on area was a relatively short stint). Shove teachers and students into class and tell them tough shit? Sorry how is that a bad faith argument? Children did sacrifice the most and they were affected the least. I’m not sure why you think children sacrificing their educational and developmental upbringing so they don’t become disease vectors for their boomer grandparents is a counterpoint. That’s entirely consistent with the concept of sacrifice. What was your suggestion to avoid this mess? Keep the schools open. This study suggests children in Sweden didn’t have the same drop that students in the USA had https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883035522000891 According to your source, they didn't have the usual, annual student reading/math (standardized?) tests in Sweden during covid to compare to scores before/after covid. Here are some key lines/paragraphs from that source which show that the conversation is much more complex and nuanced than just your solution of "Keep the schools open": In 2020-2021, real-world data on learning during the pandemic from countries where students have experienced school closures have started to get published (for a systematic review including studies published up until April 31, 2021, see Hammerstein et al., 2021). The studies included in Hammerstein et al. (2021) are from different countries (all from the global north including Australia, except for one study from China) investigating the effect of 7-8 week school closures, and report mixed findings regarding loss in reading attainment in primary grades, with effect sizes ranging from -0.37 SD (Switzerland: Tomasik, Helbling, & Moser, 2021) to +0.04 SD (Australia: Gore et al., 2021): i.e. ranging from the worst-case projections to no negative effect at all). The magnitude of effect on reading due to school closures are dependent on what other measures are in place, such as good access to and knowledge of digital and online solutions, economic support for families during the pandemic, etc. and it is therefore not straightforward to compare results between countries. A few studies have confirmed that school closures did have a particularly negative effect on disadvantaged students (Engzell, Frey, & Verhagen, 2021; Maldonado & De Witte, 2021), low-achieving students (Clark et al., 2021), and younger students (Tomasik et al., 2021).
Sweden made the choice to keep pre-schools, primary schools, and lower secondary schools open very early in the pandemic, and even when upper secondary schools and universities closed and went online, schools for the younger students have been kept in-person throughout the whole COVID-19 pandemic. This choice was in stark contrast to most other comparable countries, including the close Nordic neighbours. Open schools did not necessarily mean that the pandemic did not affect the learning of the youngest students in Sweden, however. The Swedish pandemic strategy included strict recommendations to stay home if the slightest symptoms of illness were present. Increased teacher and student absence and the resulting difficulty with continuity in teaching and learning, as well as the anxiety and stress from experiencing a pandemic might still have affected teaching as well as student learning negatively (Sjögren et al., 2021). One group of students that might have been disproportionally affected are those who need more intense and specialized support in school, such as those with weaker reading abilities or slow reading development. Another group is students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. A lower socioeconomic status and/or being a first-generation immigrant from a low- or middle-income country are associated with a higher risk of getting infected with and dying from COVID-19 in Sweden (Drefahl et al., 2020). Drefahl et al. (2020) point out that explanations might include both residential and occupational risk factors, e.g., multigenerational households and no option to work remotely. Thus, Swedish children from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds had a higher risk of being infected with COVID-19 themselves, and also an increased risk of other pandemic-related stress factors, such as sickness and death in the family, more crowding and potential conflicts at home, and less protective social contacts outside the family (Sjögren et al., 2021).
If, and how, the pandemic has affected student learning in Sweden is unknown, however. In many countries, educational data have not been collected and shared during the pandemic. In Sweden national tests in reading and mathematics in grade 3 were cancelled in spring 2020, and in spring 2021, schools did not have to report the results to Statistics Sweden (SCB), to ease the administrative burden on schools. Thus, no official national data on student progress in reading during the pandemic compared to previous years exist. Especially that final paragraph. These are all from the Introduction area of your source. They have data from before the pandemic and after the pandemic and they conclude that keeping schools open benefited Swedish schoolchildren. They are missing some data during the pandemic because schools weren’t required to report it to ease their administrative burden. Emphasizing that tiny morsel of the study to say “see, there is some ambiguity there!” while ignoring the broader conclusion just shows you aren’t being objective. I agree there is a more complex conversation to be had. One that doesn’t begin and end with throwing our hands in the air and saying “we had no choice! It was a necessary evil!” while ignoring the fact that some places didn’t close down the schools and the world didn’t end. Tiny morsel? Your source is filled with accurate, appropriate qualifiers about how it's not proof of your position, and so I'm not convinced of your position yet, even with the hindsight that we now have. Keep in mind that you chose to post that source as your evidence; it's not our fault that you didn't read it in its entirety. This is why the inferences in your third paragraph of your first post on this topic (#12730) were so dangerous. A conversation about the needs of families, schools, and communities - whether or not there's an emergency - is always important, but when you started linking covid responses, you jumped to conclusions and focused only on the negatives instead of also considering the positives (or the hypothetical negatives of your hypothetical alternative). "some places didn’t close down the schools and the world didn’t end." Come on. Some people don't get vaccinated and still don't get sick; that doesn't mean their original decision was necessarily the smartest or best informed. Some people don't wear seatbelts and happen to never get into a car accident either. The world not ending does not necessarily justify the original decisions or actions. Its not proof my position is correct. It’s evidence my position is correct. The way you dwell on the limitations of the studies whose conclusion you disagree with but accept at face value the conclusions of the studies you do agree is evidence that you suffer from confirmation bias. All studies have limitations. You seem to not be aware of this if you think I erred in picking a study that doesn’t only say positive things about my position.
No, it isn't. As I wrote in the previous post: Maybe things worked out in Sweden, but that doesn't mean that things would have necessarily worked out in the United States. That simply doesn't logically follow.
Your position was that the United States should have stayed open, not that Sweden's decision to stay open appears to have benefitted Sweden. These are not the same thing.
"The way you dwell on the limitations of the studies"
Limitations like the study saying to not draw the conclusion you drew, and that different countries are different.
|
On October 26 2022 22:58 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2022 21:12 Artisreal wrote:On October 26 2022 20:09 BlackJack wrote:
National testing called “The nations report card” that routinely tests 4th and 8th graders shows massive declines in education during the pandemic. Something like only 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 are proficient in math and reading if I remember correctly. It also widened the gaps between white students and black and Latino students with white students being more likely to have access to personal laptops, good internet connections, quiet environments etc.
We are also seeing many medical pediatric groups sound the alarm on a pediatric mental health crisis that has unfolded in the country. Depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts have gone up so much during the pandemic among children that there aren’t enough psychiatric hospitals to handle it. Children are often having to spend several nights sleeping in an Emergency Room while they wait for a bed at a psych hospital to become available.
All around absolutely tragic. Children were asked to sacrifice the most during the pandemic despite to fact that we knew from day 1 that the disease affected children the least. What do you think should be done regarding the mental health challenges and minority disadvantages? + Show Spoiler [some graphs from the study] +its a tragedy, absolutely. The part about us knowing about children to be less susceptible early on is rubbish though We definitely knew children were less susceptible very early on. Not sure where you’re getting that from. Edit: to answer your question we should have not closed schools to begin with except in the most dire of circumstances, for example early spring of 2020. We saw virtual learning continue all the way into 2022. Where I live the SF school board paid the price for this ridiculousness when several lost their positions in recall elections. https://www.unicef.org/rosa/press-releases/no-excuses-keep-schools-open-children-cant-wait
All I see here is conjecture.
whats the 2022 unicef link meant to say? Something about 2020? What I take from the article is the impetus to vaccinate.
Give me a study that looked at the risk of c19 infections in children, especially the long term risks involved that were so important to you when vaccines were rolled out.
What I found was a mid February publication citing little cases of children catching covid. Thats like 3 months in. Clearly day 1.
But setting aside the snark, do you agree, that not knowing the effects of something does not equate something not having effects?
(this concept seemed to work perfectly when historically talking about vaccine risk but ostensibly stopped working for you when considering the cautionary principle in public health decisions)
re: your suggestions. You cant change the past. What is your vision for going forward? Playing captain hindsight gives those disadvantaged children nothing,
|
|
|
Without having read your links, I will take your bait. This is just something that is absolutely "normal" in many countries.
As a doctor, if you knowingly harm your patients, knowingly invalidate your oath to help people, or at least not to harm people, you either get fined, or lose your approbation / medical license, either temporarily, or forever.
I wonder if we will ever gain control over the narrative again, not only COVID related, but these bad faith arguments, taking minor things and blowing them up, just to "own the libs" is spreading all over the world, whether there are libs to own or not. It is very exhausting.
|
I don't like posting on this discussion much as I feel most of what can be said on the topic has been said and people are mostly talking in circles at this point. However, "California passes medical malpractice law" is not the own you think it is. Having ethical and legal standards for licensed professions is the norm and for very good reason. People trust the words of their personal doctor or their attorney because of their relationship with their doctor/lawyer and because so much time, effort, and schooling must go into these professions to even be mildly competent at these professions. Because these types of fields hold the lives and well-beings of their clients in the palm of their hands and because they are so specialized and require a ton of extra education, it is the ethical obligation of the state to hold these people to higher standards and enact laws and regulations regarding what they can say, do, and practice.
I probably won't reply to any responses to this post, seeing as you either understand the basics of ethics or you don't. There's not much to discuss with something as open and shut as this and I'm not going to fall for the bait any more than I already have by replying in the first place.
|
On October 27 2022 15:20 Symplectos wrote:
Without having read your links, I will take your bait. This is just something that is absolutely "normal" in many countries.
As a doctor, if you knowingly harm your patients, knowingly invalidate your oath to help people, or at least not to harm people, you either get fined, or lose your approbation / medical license, either temporarily, or forever.
I wonder if we will ever gain control over the narrative again, not only COVID related, but these bad faith arguments, taking minor things and blowing them up, just to "own the libs" is spreading all over the world, whether there are libs to own or not. It is very exhausting.
If you have read the links you would have known that this bill goes beyond that.
As for bolded: this is true and I would guess that this is already in every country/state law. Why this bill then?
Here it is explained why it is not a good idea:
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2022/10/new-california-bill-attempts-to-prevent-doctors-from-spreading-covid-misinformation/
Just for some mental exercise: What would you say if such bill passed in Florida?
On October 27 2022 16:48 StasisField wrote:
I don't like posting on this discussion much as I feel most of what can be said on the topic has been said and people are mostly talking in circles at this point. However, "California passes medical malpractice law" is not the own you think it is. Having ethical and legal standards for licensed professions is the norm and for very good reason. People trust the words of their personal doctor or their attorney because of their relationship with their doctor/lawyer and because so much time, effort, and schooling must go into these professions to even be mildly competent at these professions. Because these types of fields hold the lives and well-beings of their clients in the palm of their hands and because they are so specialized and require a ton of extra education, it is the ethical obligation of the state to hold these people to higher standards and enact laws and regulations regarding what they can say, do, and practice.
I probably won't reply to any responses to this post, seeing as you either understand the basics of ethics or you don't. There's not much to discuss with something as open and shut as this and I'm not going to fall for the bait any more than I already have by replying in the first place.
Bolded: Great you were here then... I guess
Italic: Seems like understanding ethics and understanding, if something is ethical, are 2 different things.
|
Why would you NOT be in full approval of a bill that says "doctors can't lie to or mislead their patients"?
Fairly sure that's a common law literally everywhere.
On October 27 2022 19:02 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2022 15:20 Symplectos wrote:
Without having read your links, I will take your bait. This is just something that is absolutely "normal" in many countries.
As a doctor, if you knowingly harm your patients, knowingly invalidate your oath to help people, or at least not to harm people, you either get fined, or lose your approbation / medical license, either temporarily, or forever.
I wonder if we will ever gain control over the narrative again, not only COVID related, but these bad faith arguments, taking minor things and blowing them up, just to "own the libs" is spreading all over the world, whether there are libs to own or not. It is very exhausting. If you have read the links you would have known that this bill goes beyond that. As for bolded: this is true and I would guess that this is already in every country/state law. Why this bill then? Here it is explained why it is not a good idea: https://www.davisvanguard.org/2022/10/new-california-bill-attempts-to-prevent-doctors-from-spreading-covid-misinformation/Just for some mental exercise: What would you say if such bill passed in Florida?Show nested quote +On October 27 2022 16:48 StasisField wrote:
I don't like posting on this discussion much as I feel most of what can be said on the topic has been said and people are mostly talking in circles at this point. However, "California passes medical malpractice law" is not the own you think it is. Having ethical and legal standards for licensed professions is the norm and for very good reason. People trust the words of their personal doctor or their attorney because of their relationship with their doctor/lawyer and because so much time, effort, and schooling must go into these professions to even be mildly competent at these professions. Because these types of fields hold the lives and well-beings of their clients in the palm of their hands and because they are so specialized and require a ton of extra education, it is the ethical obligation of the state to hold these people to higher standards and enact laws and regulations regarding what they can say, do, and practice.
I probably won't reply to any responses to this post, seeing as you either understand the basics of ethics or you don't. There's not much to discuss with something as open and shut as this and I'm not going to fall for the bait any more than I already have by replying in the first place. Bolded: Great you were here then... I guess Italic: Seems like understanding ethics and understanding, if something is ethical, are 2 different things.
Assuming the standard is the actual science, and not "what DeSantis happens to think is correct", the exact same thing?
|
School closures certainly did reduce transmissions.
Study published November 2021
For COVID-19, the reduction in morbidity and mortality conferred by school closure would depend on the baseline R0 as well as the timing and duration of school closure (figure 3). If the baseline R0 was around 2.5 (e.g. the epidemic was largely unmitigated), implementing school closure throughout the epidemic would reduce peak prevalence in high-income and other populations by 5–17% and 4–28%, respectively (figure 3a for uncertainty levels). The reductions would be higher for school children (because they are the target group of school closure) and slightly lower for older adults (because physical interactions among children and the elderly are relatively weak in general). By contrast, if the baseline R0 was around 1.5 (e.g. school closure was implemented as a complementary measure in addition to other NPIs such as the use of facemasks), implementing school closure throughout the epidemic would reduce peak prevalence by 9–27% and 7–52% in high-income and other populations, respectively (figure 4a for uncertainty levels). The reduction in final IAR would be lower than that for peak prevalence. For example, the overall IAR would be reduced by 6–19% and 5–33% in high-income and other populations if R0 = 1.5 (figure 4b); the corresponding reductions were 5–14% and 4–16% if R0 = 2.5 (figure 3b). Reducing infectious contacts in workplace and community settings by 3–28% would achieve the reduction in IAR under 18 conferred by school closure if R0 = 1.5; the corresponding reduction requirement would increase to 10–44% if R0 = 2.5.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2021.0124#RSTA20210124F4
Thoughts: it is unclear if other measures like distancing rules and hygiene measures in schools may've had the same or a similar effect as school closures. It can certainly be concluded that school closures were significantly more impactful than not taking any measures in school. It can't be concluded that school closures have led to an overall "better" outcome for society, as that is not a scientific question and it's also practically impossible to compare the long-term impact of lost education to the short-term impact of the pandemic.
Study published February 2022
Prolonged school closures around the world have not been based on compelling analyses of their costs and benefits. Instead, decisions have been driven by common tendencies and confirmation bias in crisis management. Short-term solutions that are based on linear thinking still dominate the decision-making process [41]. As a result, most authorities tend to prioritize measures that are likely to work in the short-term (e.g., the B loop in Figure 3), but can backfire in the long-term (e.g., the three R loops in Figure 3). These shortsighted measures, which are also known in the literature as “fix that fails” [42], are yet most popular and thus the first choice for most politicians.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8909310/
Thoughts: by the by there can be no definitive conclusion made about the overall (positive/negative) impact of school closures on society at large despite clear evidence that they work as intended as a policy to reduce hospitalizations and deaths short-term. I'd argue that we'll be well advised to reject this measure until it can be scientifically proven to save lives/life-years overall and not just short-term.
|
On October 27 2022 19:02 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2022 15:20 Symplectos wrote:
Without having read your links, I will take your bait. This is just something that is absolutely "normal" in many countries.
As a doctor, if you knowingly harm your patients, knowingly invalidate your oath to help people, or at least not to harm people, you either get fined, or lose your approbation / medical license, either temporarily, or forever.
I wonder if we will ever gain control over the narrative again, not only COVID related, but these bad faith arguments, taking minor things and blowing them up, just to "own the libs" is spreading all over the world, whether there are libs to own or not. It is very exhausting. If you have read the links you would have known that this bill goes beyond that. As for bolded: this is true and I would guess that this is already in every country/state law. Why this bill then? Here it is explained why it is not a good idea: https://www.davisvanguard.org/2022/10/new-california-bill-attempts-to-prevent-doctors-from-spreading-covid-misinformation/Just for some mental exercise: What would you say if such bill passed in Florida? Show nested quote +On October 27 2022 16:48 StasisField wrote:
I don't like posting on this discussion much as I feel most of what can be said on the topic has been said and people are mostly talking in circles at this point. However, "California passes medical malpractice law" is not the own you think it is. Having ethical and legal standards for licensed professions is the norm and for very good reason. People trust the words of their personal doctor or their attorney because of their relationship with their doctor/lawyer and because so much time, effort, and schooling must go into these professions to even be mildly competent at these professions. Because these types of fields hold the lives and well-beings of their clients in the palm of their hands and because they are so specialized and require a ton of extra education, it is the ethical obligation of the state to hold these people to higher standards and enact laws and regulations regarding what they can say, do, and practice.
I probably won't reply to any responses to this post, seeing as you either understand the basics of ethics or you don't. There's not much to discuss with something as open and shut as this and I'm not going to fall for the bait any more than I already have by replying in the first place. Bolded: Great you were here then... I guess Italic: Seems like understanding ethics and understanding, if something is ethical, are 2 different things.
From that piece it seems the main (only) issue people have with it is that our understanding and policy on Covid is evolving and what may not be misinformation today may be misinformation tomorrow. I don't really see that as a problem? The wording clearly stated *contemporary* scientific consensus.
Scientific consensus seems a bit vague though. But that's only really a problem if people are being taken to court over some nitty gritty details. For the most egregious offenses, such as ivermectin as a medicine for Covid or the myocarditis hysteria around vaccines, it seems pretty easily defined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/mathematics/2022/assets/2022_MainNAEP_Math.svg)
![[image loading]](https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2022/assets/2022_MainNAEP_Reading.svg)
