|
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 27 2022 02:47 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2022 02:42 Gorsameth wrote: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.
I do support mandates if they are necessary. I decide when that is necessary based on the facts and science I have in front of me. The experts are with me on this because governments are run by experts and have been making the same choices.
And they do recommend flu vaccine mandates for the workforces that are most susceptible for spreading the flu.
You would be able to make these interpretations if you were able to work with facts and logic instead of just your emotions. Do you think no one noticed you substituted out "grandmas dieing" to "grandmas getting sick"? Beacuse we didn't miss that.
I'm not attacking you I'm explaining why what you are saying is hateful and cruel, that you operate based on those emotions instead of for the benefit of anyone but yourself. If I was attacking you I would ask if you only got the vaccine because you were afraid for your own life, but now that you feel that you're safe you don't think other people should get the benefit you did. But I'm not asking that.
|
On October 27 2022 19:19 Magic Powers wrote:+ Show Spoiler +School closures certainly did reduce transmissions. Study published November 2021For 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#RSTA20210124F4Thoughts: 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. 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. + Show Spoiler +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.
Yep, exactly. There's quite a lot of confidence from those that have decided that it was necessary for schools to be closed and remain closed for as long as they did. Of course they don't provide any evidence to support their beliefs either, they just decide that it's the default position and then handwave away any evidence to the contrary.
Let's see... there are hundreds of countries in the world, and a lot of countries have different states/provinces, and different states/provinces have different different cities/counties, etc. A lot of these decisions of when to reopen schools or to not close them at all are done all the way down to the local level. There have probably been thousands of decisions on when to reopen schools (or not close them) and they were done on probably many many different timelines.
So logically with all these varying decisions of when to reopen schools you're going to have some schools where the decision to reopen was made too late which resulted in further education/developmental losses than was optimal and you're going to have some schools where the decision was made too early which resulted in a load on the healthcare system that was unable to manage.
So naturally there should be many many many examples that can be pointed to where the decision to reopen schools was made too early and it led to a catastrophe in the healthcare system. So maybe some users here can point to some of those many examples.
|
@Sermokala
You know I think the first time I ever interacted with you in this thread was when you made this post
On October 15 2021 13:14 Sermokala wrote:
Getting rid of teachers who don't believe in science medical professionals that don't believe in medicine and armed defenders of the public who don't believe in defending the public is a good thing.
This isn't a right/left thing its a basic competency thing at this point. Some people want to be part of the solution and some people want to be part of the problem.
and I responded that that wasn't really fair because lots of human beings have all kinds of dumb beliefs and you can't really say they're incompetent at their job based on a single wrong belief like not wanting to get a vaccine.
Then you responded that people not believing in the vaccine in and of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them.
But that has literally nothing to do with competency which was your point. And no matter how much I tried to explain that to you you just couldn't seem to grasp it. So I just shrugged my shoulders and gave up arguing with someone that doesn't seem to even be aware of the argument they made in order to defend it.
Anyway, days later I found that the original post of yours was something that you just copy pasted from multiple viral tweets that were spread around, for example, this one
Then it made sense to me why you seemed unaware of how to defend your own argument - because you weren't even the one making it and it was just something you ripped off twitter. You didn't actually care to think about whether a teacher that doesn't take a vaccine is competent at their job - you just wanted to jerk off to the knowledge that they are losing their job.
Anyway, I'm sharing this anecdote to say that I wished I was smart enough to realize then that engaging with you is a huge waste of time.
|
Just like teachers who aren't against science just because of one unscientific belief, neither are governments incompetent just because of one unscientific policy - especially not retroactively.
The majority of decisions the governments made were backed by valid science. With hindsight it's easy to argue that this or that single policy could've been improved or in some cases was even a failure, but during the crisis it's important to avert the crisis and only take care of the specifics when the time and resources are available - and correct information is among those resources; sometimes we don't have sufficient access to it and we must act regardless.
For example I was against the mask mandate in 2020 not because the mandate was a bad idea, but because it wasn't improved with additional information about FFP2 masks, which at that time was the only type of mask that was proven to work, unlike surgical masks. We only later learned that surgical masks also had the desired effect, although significantly less than FFP2. So who was right? I think the governments were mostly right, but not entirely, and they could've done better by changing the policy sooner. Such imperfection doesn't negate the correctness of the decisions they made, it only means the people in power have flaws just like everyone else. It could also mean that there was not enough access to FFP2 masks at that time (although I'm not sure that that was still true late 2020).
Likewise I'm against school closures now in 2022 not because they were a bad idea in 2020, but because I believe that it would be a bad idea today. Back in 2020 we had to avert a much bigger crisis than the loss of education, and there's a high chance that at that time it was the optimal decision due to incomplete information.
We aren't retroactively proven right if our information updates - unless we had that information all along. If we're right in the moment, then we were simply right. Even when more information comes out. We can't be right first but then later be wrong retroactively just because our understanding improves - we didn't have the same understanding before, so our decision must be weighed according to that uncertainty.
|
Norway28674 Posts
BJ also stated support for closing schools back in the early months of 2020. But I'm guessing he thinks some states were much too slow reopening - not that he is opposed to the concept of closing schools during a pandemic, and that this is part of an overall impression on his behalf that quite a few people are underestimating the external costs of some measures taken to combat covid - this one arguably being the most costly.
I'm not going to attempt to make a precise calculation here, but I will state that I'd accept a very mild increase in mortality in exchange for keeping schools operating like normal. To what degree keeping schools open would have contributed to more or fewer deaths than what I deem 'acceptable' is something I suspect varies greatly based on time and region, I think it sounds difficult to get precise data here, and I'm generally okay with erring on the side of caution regarding deaths. But if I were to design anti covid policy all over again, knowing what we know today, closing schools and shutting down children's sports/activities would be the very last measure I'd enact. I do believe there were places with open bars but remote learning at the same time - and that's a sort of prioritizing I definitely oppose.
|
The issue regarding school closures isn't that of saving lives/life years as opposed to risking lives/life years. If that were the question, the choice would be clear from a democratic point of view. We don't let people die to make other people's lives better, it's an immoral choice. If someone opposes school closures because it's too costly for the kids, while in exchange willfully accepting needless death and suffering of mostly older people, then that position is strictly untenable morally speaking. The young do not have a privilege over the old. We all get old eventually.
The real issue in that regard is that it can't be proven that school closures were the best choice as opposed to other measures like distancing measures and hygiene where possible. For comparison, we fully accept that people should be allowed to enter various kinds of businesses, even cinemas, while the pandemic is ongoing and sometimes close to peaking. Such business is not anywhere near as essential as education. It is therefore not possible to argue that school closures are morally required or even beneficial, unless we first close business like cinemas.
|
On October 28 2022 13:31 Magic Powers wrote:
Just like teachers who aren't against science just because of one unscientific belief, neither are governments incompetent just because of one unscientific policy - especially not retroactively.
The majority of decisions the governments made were backed by valid science. With hindsight it's easy to argue that this or that single policy could've been improved or in some cases was even a failure, but during the crisis it's important to avert the crisis and only take care of the specifics when the time and resources are available - and correct information is among those resources; sometimes we don't have sufficient access to it and we must act regardless.
For example I was against the mask mandate in 2020 not because the mandate was a bad idea, but because it wasn't improved with additional information about FFP2 masks, which at that time was the only type of mask that was proven to work, unlike surgical masks. We only later learned that surgical masks also had the desired effect, although significantly less than FFP2. So who was right? I think the governments were mostly right, but not entirely, and they could've done better by changing the policy sooner. Such imperfection doesn't negate the correctness of the decisions they made, it only means the people in power have flaws just like everyone else. It could also mean that there was not enough access to FFP2 masks at that time (although I'm not sure that that was still true late 2020).
Likewise I'm against school closures now in 2022 not because they were a bad idea in 2020, but because I believe that it would be a bad idea today. Back in 2020 we had to avert a much bigger crisis than the loss of education, and there's a high chance that at that time it was the optimal decision due to incomplete information.
We aren't retroactively proven right if our information updates - unless we had that information all along. If we're right in the moment, then we were simply right. Even when more information comes out. We can't be right first but then later be wrong retroactively just because our understanding improves - we didn't have the same understanding before, so our decision must be weighed according to that uncertainty.
Bolded is either poorly worded or just wrong. As a matter of fact it is quite common that something is proven wrong/right retroactively. For example if you tossed a coin, cover it with your hand and ask people what side it landed on, then after you reveal result some of them will be retroactively proven right and some wrong.
Ethically it would open can of worms.
On October 28 2022 07:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2022 02:47 BlackJack wrote:On October 27 2022 02:42 Gorsameth wrote: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. I do support mandates if they are necessary. I decide when that is necessary based on the facts and science I have in front of me. The experts are with me on this because governments are run by experts and have been making the same choices. And they do recommend flu vaccine mandates for the workforces that are most susceptible for spreading the flu. You would be able to make these interpretations if you were able to work with facts and logic instead of just your emotions. Do you think no one noticed you substituted out "grandmas dieing" to "grandmas getting sick"? Beacuse we didn't miss that. I'm not attacking you I'm explaining why what you are saying is hateful and cruel, that you operate based on those emotions instead of for the benefit of anyone but yourself. If I was attacking you I would ask if you only got the vaccine because you were afraid for your own life, but now that you feel that you're safe you don't think other people should get the benefit you did. But I'm not asking that.
The ego of bolded part  .
"I decide when that is necessary" - no you dont
"The experts are with me on this" - I dont think a single one even heard of you.
"governments are run by experts" - debatable, at the very least
"have been making the same choices" - no, they chose, you obliged.
What is funny, is that you dare say later:
"You would be able to make these interpretations if you were able to work with facts and logic instead of just your emotions."
|
On October 28 2022 14:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ also stated support for closing schools back in the early months of 2020. But I'm guessing he thinks some states were much too slow reopening
While he may have made a post back in 2020 supporting the closing of schools (as we were all trying to make correct predictions on what we ought to do, given the novel situation), keep in mind that he has since updated his position (assuming 20/20 hindsight) that the better move would have ended up being to keep schools completely open, not merely to reopen faster.
That was his most recent set of controversial posts - that "Keeping schools open" in the United States would have been the best move, in retrospect, thanks to some data about Sweden... not the position that schools closing would have been ideal as long as they had just reopened faster. No nuance, no accounting for schools or regions or hospitals that may have been hit particularly hard, no accounting for the covid strain or whether or not there was a vaccine at the time.
He was asked "What was your suggestion to avoid this mess?" His response: "Keep the schools open." Obviously, he received a lot of pushback.
No "guessing" is involved with this one; whether an American school was remotely learning for two weeks, two months, or two years, BJ thinks that zero days of switching to remote learning would have been the best move (if we had known then, what we know now). That's his current position, as of a page or two ago. If, instead, his updated position was something more measured, like "As soon as overburdened hospitals had things under control + the vaccine was widely available, schools should have started to try opening up in small amounts more quickly, perhaps with like 25% capacity to test the waters and see if things were safe", he might not be criticized so harshly.
|
Norway28674 Posts
On October 28 2022 15:37 Magic Powers wrote:
The issue regarding school closures isn't that of saving lives/life years as opposed to risking lives/life years. If that were the question, the choice would be clear from a democratic point of view. We don't let people die to make other people's lives better, it's an immoral choice. If someone opposes school closures because it's too costly for the kids, while in exchange willfully accepting needless death and suffering of mostly older people, then that position is strictly untenable morally speaking. The young do not have a privilege over the old. We all get old eventually.
The real issue in that regard is that it can't be proven that school closures were the best choice as opposed to other measures like distancing measures and hygiene where possible. For comparison, we fully accept that people should be allowed to enter various kinds of businesses, even cinemas, while the pandemic is ongoing and sometimes close to peaking. Such business is not anywhere near as essential as education. It is therefore not possible to argue that school closures are morally required or even beneficial, unless we first close business like cinemas.
I disagree, in my opinion it's still a numbers game. If closing schools makes one million children receive a significantly worse education but saves one life, there's no question in my mind that the better policy is accepting that one loss of life. I can't say where I draw the line - but similarly to how one I think saving life is clearly not enough, I also think that if giving worse education to one million children saves 100000 lives, there's absolutely no question that saving those lives gets priority. Society and health care must make these priorities quite often - not just during years of a pandemic, in that treatment of certain rare illnesses that affect a very small number of people, where treatment is extremely expensive, ends up getting axed. I think there's no question that closing down society and enforcing aggressive social distancing works as a measure to limit infection and thus also lives lost, I just think that a disease needs to be more dangerous than covid - especially omicron in a vaccinated population - has turned out to be, to warrant extreme measures.
As a related side note, I recently read that the city of Milan was special during the black death in Europe, because they lost far fewer people than most other comparable cities. The reason cited for this was extremely harsh anti-plague measures, like bricking up homes where one infection was noticed, ignoring that this would necessarily lead to the death (either by disease or starvation) of the entire family living there.
(If you want, you can turn this into a question of 'lives or life years lost by x amounts of money not funding x, I guess, but I think that's an impossible calculation, and honestly, I think quality of life is a significant metric, not just years of life period. If the choice has to be made between giving a cancer patient two years of a relatively normal life or five years of staying in a hospital bed, I'm inclined to favor two years of relatively normal life, although I'd be happy to see the individual in question make the choice.)
|
Norway28674 Posts
On October 28 2022 18:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2022 14:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ also stated support for closing schools back in the early months of 2020. But I'm guessing he thinks some states were much too slow reopening While he may have made a post back in 2020 supporting the closing of schools (as we were all trying to make correct predictions on what we ought to do, given the novel situation), keep in mind that he has since updated his position (assuming 20/20 hindsight) that the better move would have ended up being to keep schools completely open, not merely to reopen faster. That was his most recent set of controversial posts - that "Keeping schools open" in the United States would have been the best move, in retrospect, thanks to some data about Sweden... not the position that schools closing would have been ideal as long as they had just reopened faster. No nuance, no accounting for schools or regions or hospitals that may have been hit particularly hard, no accounting for the covid strain or whether or not there was a vaccine at the time. He was asked "What was your suggestion to avoid this mess?" His response: "Keep the schools open." Obviously, he received a lot of pushback. No "guessing" is involved with this one; whether an American school was remotely learning for two weeks, two months, or two years, BJ thinks that zero days of switching to remote learning would have been the best move (if we had known then, what we know now). That's his current position, as of a page or two ago. If, instead, his updated position was something more measured, like "As soon as overburdened hospitals had things under control + the vaccine was widely available, schools should have started to try opening up in small amounts more quickly, perhaps with like 25% capacity to test the waters and see if things were safe", he might not be criticized so harshly.
On October 26 2022 22:58 BlackJack wrote:
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
Two days ago he issued support for closing schools during early spring 2020.
|
On October 28 2022 18:33 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2022 13:31 Magic Powers wrote:
Just like teachers who aren't against science just because of one unscientific belief, neither are governments incompetent just because of one unscientific policy - especially not retroactively.
The majority of decisions the governments made were backed by valid science. With hindsight it's easy to argue that this or that single policy could've been improved or in some cases was even a failure, but during the crisis it's important to avert the crisis and only take care of the specifics when the time and resources are available - and correct information is among those resources; sometimes we don't have sufficient access to it and we must act regardless.
For example I was against the mask mandate in 2020 not because the mandate was a bad idea, but because it wasn't improved with additional information about FFP2 masks, which at that time was the only type of mask that was proven to work, unlike surgical masks. We only later learned that surgical masks also had the desired effect, although significantly less than FFP2. So who was right? I think the governments were mostly right, but not entirely, and they could've done better by changing the policy sooner. Such imperfection doesn't negate the correctness of the decisions they made, it only means the people in power have flaws just like everyone else. It could also mean that there was not enough access to FFP2 masks at that time (although I'm not sure that that was still true late 2020).
Likewise I'm against school closures now in 2022 not because they were a bad idea in 2020, but because I believe that it would be a bad idea today. Back in 2020 we had to avert a much bigger crisis than the loss of education, and there's a high chance that at that time it was the optimal decision due to incomplete information.
We aren't retroactively proven right if our information updates - unless we had that information all along. If we're right in the moment, then we were simply right. Even when more information comes out. We can't be right first but then later be wrong retroactively just because our understanding improves - we didn't have the same understanding before, so our decision must be weighed according to that uncertainty. Bolded is either poorly worded or just wrong. As a matter of fact it is quite common that something is proven wrong/right retroactively. For example if you tossed a coin, cover it with your hand and ask people what side it landed on, then after you reveal result some of them will be retroactively proven right and some wrong. Ethically it would open can of worms.
That is an absurd example. The policy question I was talking about isn't a question of "does the coin show heads or tails?" but instead "is it wiser to bet on heads or tails given that we don't know what side the coin is showing?" If you bet on either heads or tails given that you know both sides are equally likely, you can't be wrong betting on either side. It's not about being right or wrong about which outcome is true, it's about being right or wrong in betting which outcome is likely. That's why you can literally never be wrong in betting on a coin toss, you can only be wrong in claiming that you know what the outcome of the coin toss will be.
|
On October 28 2022 18:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2022 18:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2022 14:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ also stated support for closing schools back in the early months of 2020. But I'm guessing he thinks some states were much too slow reopening While he may have made a post back in 2020 supporting the closing of schools (as we were all trying to make correct predictions on what we ought to do, given the novel situation), keep in mind that he has since updated his position (assuming 20/20 hindsight) that the better move would have ended up being to keep schools completely open, not merely to reopen faster. That was his most recent set of controversial posts - that "Keeping schools open" in the United States would have been the best move, in retrospect, thanks to some data about Sweden... not the position that schools closing would have been ideal as long as they had just reopened faster. No nuance, no accounting for schools or regions or hospitals that may have been hit particularly hard, no accounting for the covid strain or whether or not there was a vaccine at the time. He was asked "What was your suggestion to avoid this mess?" His response: "Keep the schools open." Obviously, he received a lot of pushback. No "guessing" is involved with this one; whether an American school was remotely learning for two weeks, two months, or two years, BJ thinks that zero days of switching to remote learning would have been the best move (if we had known then, what we know now). That's his current position, as of a page or two ago. If, instead, his updated position was something more measured, like "As soon as overburdened hospitals had things under control + the vaccine was widely available, schools should have started to try opening up in small amounts more quickly, perhaps with like 25% capacity to test the waters and see if things were safe", he might not be criticized so harshly. Show nested quote +On October 26 2022 22:58 BlackJack wrote:
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
Two days ago he issued support for closing schools during early spring 2020.
So then it's not an updated position of his, but rather, a contradiction or a significant miscommunication on his part, because two days ago he also said this (note no exceptions or qualifiers in this entire conversation string from him):
On October 26 2022 23:20 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
Norway28674 Posts
Again, not too interested in this devolving into a 'what did BJ say' discussion. 
+ Show Spoiler +On October 28 2022 19:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2022 18:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 28 2022 18:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2022 14:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ also stated support for closing schools back in the early months of 2020. But I'm guessing he thinks some states were much too slow reopening While he may have made a post back in 2020 supporting the closing of schools (as we were all trying to make correct predictions on what we ought to do, given the novel situation), keep in mind that he has since updated his position (assuming 20/20 hindsight) that the better move would have ended up being to keep schools completely open, not merely to reopen faster. That was his most recent set of controversial posts - that "Keeping schools open" in the United States would have been the best move, in retrospect, thanks to some data about Sweden... not the position that schools closing would have been ideal as long as they had just reopened faster. No nuance, no accounting for schools or regions or hospitals that may have been hit particularly hard, no accounting for the covid strain or whether or not there was a vaccine at the time. He was asked "What was your suggestion to avoid this mess?" His response: "Keep the schools open." Obviously, he received a lot of pushback. No "guessing" is involved with this one; whether an American school was remotely learning for two weeks, two months, or two years, BJ thinks that zero days of switching to remote learning would have been the best move (if we had known then, what we know now). That's his current position, as of a page or two ago. If, instead, his updated position was something more measured, like "As soon as overburdened hospitals had things under control + the vaccine was widely available, schools should have started to try opening up in small amounts more quickly, perhaps with like 25% capacity to test the waters and see if things were safe", he might not be criticized so harshly. On October 26 2022 22:58 BlackJack wrote:
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
Two days ago he issued support for closing schools during early spring 2020. So then it's not an updated position of his, but rather, a contradiction or a significant miscommunication on his part, because two days ago he also said this (note no exceptions or qualifiers in this entire conversation string from him): 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 But imo the fact that this post is 30 minutes after the one I quoted to me makes it fair to assume from his behalf that the previous post is also read, and thus that he shouldn't have to add the same qualifier twice.
|
On October 28 2022 19:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:Again, not too interested in this devolving into a 'what did BJ say' discussion. + Show Spoiler +On October 28 2022 19:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2022 18:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 28 2022 18:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2022 14:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ also stated support for closing schools back in the early months of 2020. But I'm guessing he thinks some states were much too slow reopening While he may have made a post back in 2020 supporting the closing of schools (as we were all trying to make correct predictions on what we ought to do, given the novel situation), keep in mind that he has since updated his position (assuming 20/20 hindsight) that the better move would have ended up being to keep schools completely open, not merely to reopen faster. That was his most recent set of controversial posts - that "Keeping schools open" in the United States would have been the best move, in retrospect, thanks to some data about Sweden... not the position that schools closing would have been ideal as long as they had just reopened faster. No nuance, no accounting for schools or regions or hospitals that may have been hit particularly hard, no accounting for the covid strain or whether or not there was a vaccine at the time. He was asked "What was your suggestion to avoid this mess?" His response: "Keep the schools open." Obviously, he received a lot of pushback. No "guessing" is involved with this one; whether an American school was remotely learning for two weeks, two months, or two years, BJ thinks that zero days of switching to remote learning would have been the best move (if we had known then, what we know now). That's his current position, as of a page or two ago. If, instead, his updated position was something more measured, like "As soon as overburdened hospitals had things under control + the vaccine was widely available, schools should have started to try opening up in small amounts more quickly, perhaps with like 25% capacity to test the waters and see if things were safe", he might not be criticized so harshly. On October 26 2022 22:58 BlackJack wrote:
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
Two days ago he issued support for closing schools during early spring 2020. So then it's not an updated position of his, but rather, a contradiction or a significant miscommunication on his part, because two days ago he also said this (note no exceptions or qualifiers in this entire conversation string from him): 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 But imo the fact that this post is 30 minutes after the one I quoted to me makes it fair to assume from his behalf that the previous post is also read, and thus that he shouldn't have to add the same qualifier twice.
I think discussing what schools should have done during covid is relevant, and one of his posts is not a qualifier of the other; Keeping schools open vs. Temporarily closing schools are literally different positions. I'm not saying BJ is a terrible person, just that criticism of his posts is sometimes warranted.
|
Norway28674 Posts
I agree that it's an interesting discussion, and I agree that he could do a better job fleshing out his pov. However, I'm confident his actual position is 'closing down schools in early spring 2020 was fine, but they should have reopened them much, much sooner', not 'closing down schools was the wrong choice period'.
|
On October 28 2022 19:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I agree that it's an interesting discussion, and I agree that he could do a better job fleshing out his pov. However, I'm confident his actual position is 'closing down schools in early spring 2020 was fine, but they should have reopened them much, much sooner', not 'closing down schools was the wrong choice period'.
I would hope so, but then I'd wonder why he said what he said, and cared so much about using Swedish data - schools remaining open in a completely different country - instead of trying to find more applicable sources from American schools that merely reopened earlier (rural America, urban America, etc.). Either way, I think you and I are largely in agreement here.
|
On October 28 2022 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2022 18:33 Razyda wrote:On October 28 2022 13:31 Magic Powers wrote:
Just like teachers who aren't against science just because of one unscientific belief, neither are governments incompetent just because of one unscientific policy - especially not retroactively.
The majority of decisions the governments made were backed by valid science. With hindsight it's easy to argue that this or that single policy could've been improved or in some cases was even a failure, but during the crisis it's important to avert the crisis and only take care of the specifics when the time and resources are available - and correct information is among those resources; sometimes we don't have sufficient access to it and we must act regardless.
For example I was against the mask mandate in 2020 not because the mandate was a bad idea, but because it wasn't improved with additional information about FFP2 masks, which at that time was the only type of mask that was proven to work, unlike surgical masks. We only later learned that surgical masks also had the desired effect, although significantly less than FFP2. So who was right? I think the governments were mostly right, but not entirely, and they could've done better by changing the policy sooner. Such imperfection doesn't negate the correctness of the decisions they made, it only means the people in power have flaws just like everyone else. It could also mean that there was not enough access to FFP2 masks at that time (although I'm not sure that that was still true late 2020).
Likewise I'm against school closures now in 2022 not because they were a bad idea in 2020, but because I believe that it would be a bad idea today. Back in 2020 we had to avert a much bigger crisis than the loss of education, and there's a high chance that at that time it was the optimal decision due to incomplete information.
We aren't retroactively proven right if our information updates - unless we had that information all along. If we're right in the moment, then we were simply right. Even when more information comes out. We can't be right first but then later be wrong retroactively just because our understanding improves - we didn't have the same understanding before, so our decision must be weighed according to that uncertainty. Bolded is either poorly worded or just wrong. As a matter of fact it is quite common that something is proven wrong/right retroactively. For example if you tossed a coin, cover it with your hand and ask people what side it landed on, then after you reveal result some of them will be retroactively proven right and some wrong. Ethically it would open can of worms. That is an absurd example. The policy question I was talking about isn't a question of "does the coin show heads or tails?" but instead "is it wiser to bet on heads or tails given that we don't know what side the coin is showing?" If you bet on either heads or tails given that you know both sides are equally likely, you can't be wrong betting on either side. It's not about being right or wrong about which outcome is true, it's about being right or wrong in betting which outcome is likely. That's why you can literally never be wrong in betting on a coin toss, you can only be wrong in claiming that you know what the outcome of the coin toss will be.
Let me try again:
"We aren't retroactively proven right if our information updates"
"If we're right in the moment, then we were simply right."
" We can't be right first but then later be wrong retroactively just because our understanding improves"
This are the parts I had issue with. My example is actually correct - result was predefined and question wasnt about odds but about result. However lets try with another:
Lets go with the good old earth/sun.
According to the information people had they believed sun circles around earth - they thought they were right
Turns out earth circles around sun - their understanding improves - they are proven wrong retroactively and no, they weren't "simply right"
bolded: This I agree with.
|
On October 28 2022 20:02 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2022 18:57 Magic Powers wrote:On October 28 2022 18:33 Razyda wrote:On October 28 2022 13:31 Magic Powers wrote:
Just like teachers who aren't against science just because of one unscientific belief, neither are governments incompetent just because of one unscientific policy - especially not retroactively.
The majority of decisions the governments made were backed by valid science. With hindsight it's easy to argue that this or that single policy could've been improved or in some cases was even a failure, but during the crisis it's important to avert the crisis and only take care of the specifics when the time and resources are available - and correct information is among those resources; sometimes we don't have sufficient access to it and we must act regardless.
For example I was against the mask mandate in 2020 not because the mandate was a bad idea, but because it wasn't improved with additional information about FFP2 masks, which at that time was the only type of mask that was proven to work, unlike surgical masks. We only later learned that surgical masks also had the desired effect, although significantly less than FFP2. So who was right? I think the governments were mostly right, but not entirely, and they could've done better by changing the policy sooner. Such imperfection doesn't negate the correctness of the decisions they made, it only means the people in power have flaws just like everyone else. It could also mean that there was not enough access to FFP2 masks at that time (although I'm not sure that that was still true late 2020).
Likewise I'm against school closures now in 2022 not because they were a bad idea in 2020, but because I believe that it would be a bad idea today. Back in 2020 we had to avert a much bigger crisis than the loss of education, and there's a high chance that at that time it was the optimal decision due to incomplete information.
We aren't retroactively proven right if our information updates - unless we had that information all along. If we're right in the moment, then we were simply right. Even when more information comes out. We can't be right first but then later be wrong retroactively just because our understanding improves - we didn't have the same understanding before, so our decision must be weighed according to that uncertainty. Bolded is either poorly worded or just wrong. As a matter of fact it is quite common that something is proven wrong/right retroactively. For example if you tossed a coin, cover it with your hand and ask people what side it landed on, then after you reveal result some of them will be retroactively proven right and some wrong. Ethically it would open can of worms. That is an absurd example. The policy question I was talking about isn't a question of "does the coin show heads or tails?" but instead "is it wiser to bet on heads or tails given that we don't know what side the coin is showing?" If you bet on either heads or tails given that you know both sides are equally likely, you can't be wrong betting on either side. It's not about being right or wrong about which outcome is true, it's about being right or wrong in betting which outcome is likely. That's why you can literally never be wrong in betting on a coin toss, you can only be wrong in claiming that you know what the outcome of the coin toss will be. Let me try again: "We aren't retroactively proven right if our information updates" "If we're right in the moment, then we were simply right." " We can't be right first but then later be wrong retroactively just because our understanding improves" This are the parts I had issue with. My example is actually correct - result was predefined and question wasnt about odds but about result. However lets try with another: Lets go with the good old earth/sun. According to the information people had they believed sun circles around earth - they thought they were right Turns out earth circles around sun - their understanding improves - they are proven wrong retroactively and no, they weren't "simply right" bolded: This I agree with.
Lets drop this, it's irrelevant and we won't agree with one another.
|
On October 28 2022 19:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:Again, not too interested in this devolving into a 'what did BJ say' discussion. + Show Spoiler +On October 28 2022 19:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2022 18:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 28 2022 18:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2022 14:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ also stated support for closing schools back in the early months of 2020. But I'm guessing he thinks some states were much too slow reopening While he may have made a post back in 2020 supporting the closing of schools (as we were all trying to make correct predictions on what we ought to do, given the novel situation), keep in mind that he has since updated his position (assuming 20/20 hindsight) that the better move would have ended up being to keep schools completely open, not merely to reopen faster. That was his most recent set of controversial posts - that "Keeping schools open" in the United States would have been the best move, in retrospect, thanks to some data about Sweden... not the position that schools closing would have been ideal as long as they had just reopened faster. No nuance, no accounting for schools or regions or hospitals that may have been hit particularly hard, no accounting for the covid strain or whether or not there was a vaccine at the time. He was asked "What was your suggestion to avoid this mess?" His response: "Keep the schools open." Obviously, he received a lot of pushback. No "guessing" is involved with this one; whether an American school was remotely learning for two weeks, two months, or two years, BJ thinks that zero days of switching to remote learning would have been the best move (if we had known then, what we know now). That's his current position, as of a page or two ago. If, instead, his updated position was something more measured, like "As soon as overburdened hospitals had things under control + the vaccine was widely available, schools should have started to try opening up in small amounts more quickly, perhaps with like 25% capacity to test the waters and see if things were safe", he might not be criticized so harshly. On October 26 2022 22:58 BlackJack wrote:
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
Two days ago he issued support for closing schools during early spring 2020. So then it's not an updated position of his, but rather, a contradiction or a significant miscommunication on his part, because two days ago he also said this (note no exceptions or qualifiers in this entire conversation string from him): 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 But imo the fact that this post is 30 minutes after the one I quoted to me makes it fair to assume from his behalf that the previous post is also read, and thus that he shouldn't have to add the same qualifier twice.
Yes, one would think that I wouldn't have to carefully add the same qualifiers to every single post here for the sake of eliminating wordiness, but obviously that's wrong and I'll take the blame for that since I should have known better by now.
The main problem with posting here is that everyone really just wants an ideological driven person they can punch down to. Just like being open to the idea of closing schools if the situation calls for it, I've also said numerous times in this thread that I'm not fundamentally opposed to vaccine mandates, only that I don't think they are necessary for COVID when everyone has the opportunity to vaccinate themselves. It's a lot easier to criticize the guy that doesn't want schools closed because they don't believe COVID exists and the guy that opposes vaccine mandates because they believe the vaccine implants microchips in you. So 1% of their effort is spent trying to interpret my posts in good faith and 99% of their effort is spent trying to interpret my posts in the least charitable way so they can create that villain to punch down to and stand up for truth, justice, and the scientific way.
I think it was Mikau that told me if I say something unflattering about the vaccines but also don't state in the same post that the vaccines are good at reducing death/hospitalization, etc. then I'm spreading misinformation. In other words, if someone says "The vaccines are fantastic at preventing infection/transmission against the Omicron variant" I can't just say "That's not true because of ABC." I also have to say in the same post that vaccines are wonderful because XYZ. I even joked that I should just make it my signature so that it's in every post. But really I think it's pretty fucking nuts here. It feels like speaking with a cult. You must praise our glorious supreme leader King Pfizer in every post otherwise you are an outsider! Off to Mohdoo Island with you! The reason they want an ideological person to punch down to is because they are all ideological driven themselves.
|
On October 28 2022 22:24 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2022 19:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:Again, not too interested in this devolving into a 'what did BJ say' discussion. + Show Spoiler +On October 28 2022 19:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2022 18:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 28 2022 18:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2022 14:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ also stated support for closing schools back in the early months of 2020. But I'm guessing he thinks some states were much too slow reopening While he may have made a post back in 2020 supporting the closing of schools (as we were all trying to make correct predictions on what we ought to do, given the novel situation), keep in mind that he has since updated his position (assuming 20/20 hindsight) that the better move would have ended up being to keep schools completely open, not merely to reopen faster. That was his most recent set of controversial posts - that "Keeping schools open" in the United States would have been the best move, in retrospect, thanks to some data about Sweden... not the position that schools closing would have been ideal as long as they had just reopened faster. No nuance, no accounting for schools or regions or hospitals that may have been hit particularly hard, no accounting for the covid strain or whether or not there was a vaccine at the time. He was asked "What was your suggestion to avoid this mess?" His response: "Keep the schools open." Obviously, he received a lot of pushback. No "guessing" is involved with this one; whether an American school was remotely learning for two weeks, two months, or two years, BJ thinks that zero days of switching to remote learning would have been the best move (if we had known then, what we know now). That's his current position, as of a page or two ago. If, instead, his updated position was something more measured, like "As soon as overburdened hospitals had things under control + the vaccine was widely available, schools should have started to try opening up in small amounts more quickly, perhaps with like 25% capacity to test the waters and see if things were safe", he might not be criticized so harshly. On October 26 2022 22:58 BlackJack wrote:
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
Two days ago he issued support for closing schools during early spring 2020. So then it's not an updated position of his, but rather, a contradiction or a significant miscommunication on his part, because two days ago he also said this (note no exceptions or qualifiers in this entire conversation string from him): 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 But imo the fact that this post is 30 minutes after the one I quoted to me makes it fair to assume from his behalf that the previous post is also read, and thus that he shouldn't have to add the same qualifier twice. Yes, one would think that I wouldn't have to carefully add the same qualifiers to every single post here for the sake of eliminating wordiness, but obviously that's wrong and I'll take the blame for that since I should have known better by now. The main problem with posting here is that everyone really just wants an ideological driven person they can punch down to. Just like being open to the idea of closing schools if the situation calls for it, I've also said numerous times in this thread that I'm not fundamentally opposed to vaccine mandates, only that I don't think they are necessary for COVID when everyone has the opportunity to vaccinate themselves. It's a lot easier to criticize the guy that doesn't want schools closed because they don't believe COVID exists and the guy that opposes vaccine mandates because they believe the vaccine implants microchips in you. So 1% of their effort is spent trying to interpret my posts in good faith and 99% of their effort is spent trying to interpret my posts in the least charitable way so they can create that villain to punch down to and stand up for truth, justice, and the scientific way. I think it was Mikau that told me if I say something unflattering about the vaccines but also don't state in the same post that the vaccines are good at reducing death/hospitalization, etc. then I'm spreading misinformation. In other words, if someone says "The vaccines are fantastic at preventing infection/transmission against the Omicron variant" I can't just say "That's not true because of ABC." I also have to say in the same post that vaccines are wonderful because XYZ. I even joked that I should just make it my signature so that it's in every post. But really I think it's pretty fucking nuts here. It feels like speaking with a cult. You must praise our glorious supreme leader King Pfizer in every post otherwise you are an outsider! Off to Mohdoo Island with you! The reason they want an ideological person to punch down to is because they are all ideological driven themselves.
If you're going to refer to something I said, the least you can do is to not grossly misrepresent what I said.
The disingenuous way you treat others' position while at the same time complaining you're not being taken seriously is taking the piss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
