|
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 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'.
Yes, like you said, there were many places where bars were open and schools were closed, particularly where I live in the Bay Area of California. It's backwards. The CDC director said schools should be the first place to reopen and the last place to close. That should be an obvious truth to anyone paying attention during the pandemic. As much as people want to parade around that keeping schools closed was a "necessary evil" without providing any evidence for that, we can see that many of the decisions regarding schools were not based on the science of COVID infection rates and hospital capacities etc. but rather on the strength of the teacher's union in that particular area. San Francisco fared fantastically against COVID during the pandemic, I think something like 2-3x more people died from Fentanyl than COVID. But it was still one of the last places to reopen - which again is why some of the school board members lost their jobs in recall elections.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/democrats-balance-keeping-schools-open-against-confronting-teachers-unions
But to really give you an impression of just how absurd things are where I live - here's a story where police were called regarding a 4 year old that wouldn't wear his mask at school. The father says the kid has sensory issues that makes mask wearing difficult.
https://reason.com/2022/08/23/elementary-school-calls-cops-on-4-year-old-for-violating-mask-mandate/
Just to be clear, this happened in August of 2022. This happened after it was already well understood that cloth masks provide no protection against Omicron but this 4 year old was denied schooling because he wasn't wearing a cloth mask that doesn't do anything. If people want to relish in teachers losing their job for being "incompetent" because they don't want the vaccine they should really be demanding that these teachers lose their job for being incompetent in thinking cloth masks will protect them. Or rather for refusing to teach the child which really seems like more of a core tenet to teacher competency than their beliefs in either of those other things.
+ Show Spoiler +Edit: and I should make it clear I'm not trying to have a go at teacher's unions. Serving their members best interests is exactly what they ought to be doing. The point is to highlight the political/partisanship that also played a role in school closures to people under the illusion that only "science" and "the experts" were making these decisions.
|
On October 28 2022 22:38 Mikau313 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2022 22:24 BlackJack wrote: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.
Here I found the post, it was actually talking about vaccine-induced myocarditis.
https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=627#12527
The context is Magic Powers said nobody had been hospitalized from myocarditis after taking the vaccine and I corrected him by linking a study that showed a few hundred people that were hospitalized for vaccine-induced myocarditis.
Seemingly no big deal, I simple corrected something that was said that was untrue. Wrong. Apparently because while correcting that people were indeed hospitalized for vaccine-induced myocarditis I also neglected to mention:
+ Show Spoiler +* The amount of people who were hospitalised with myocarditis was almost statistically insignificant;
* The vast majority of people who got myocarditis after the vaccine were fine;
* Chances of somebody getting myocarditis are astronomically higher from contracting Covid than they are from taking the vaccine even if a causal link between the vaccine and myocarditis were to be established;
* Taking the vaccine reduces your chance of contracting myocarditis as a result of Covid to almost 0.
* If your goal is to minimize your chance of getting myocarditis taking the vaccine is the objectively correct choice.
I was therefore spreading misinformation, according to you.
So basically exactly as I said - I'm not allowed to correct a simple untruth without dropping heaps of praise to supreme leader Pfizer.
|
Come on BlackJack, you aren't stupid. You know exactly why my actual quote is massively different from the way you described it in post 12789.
Don't play dumb.
|
On October 28 2022 22:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +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'. Yes, like you said, there were many places where bars were open and schools were closed, particularly where I live in the Bay Area of California. It's backwards. The CDC director said schools should be the first place to reopen and the last place to close. That should be an obvious truth to anyone paying attention during the pandemic. As much as people want to parade around that keeping schools closed was a "necessary evil" without providing any evidence for that, we can see that many of the decisions regarding schools were not based on the science of COVID infection rates and hospital capacities etc. but rather on the strength of the teacher's union in that particular area. San Francisco fared fantastically against COVID during the pandemic, I think something like 2-3x more people died from Fentanyl than COVID. But it was still one of the last places to reopen - which again is why some of the school board members lost their jobs in recall elections. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/democrats-balance-keeping-schools-open-against-confronting-teachers-unionsBut to really give you an impression of just how absurd things are where I live - here's a story where police were called regarding a 4 year old that wouldn't wear his mask at school. The father says the kid has sensory issues that makes mask wearing difficult. https://reason.com/2022/08/23/elementary-school-calls-cops-on-4-year-old-for-violating-mask-mandate/Just to be clear, this happened in August of 2022. This happened after it was already well understood that cloth masks provide no protection against Omicron but this 4 year old was denied schooling because he wasn't wearing a cloth mask that doesn't do anything. If people want to relish in teachers losing their job for being "incompetent" because they don't want the vaccine they should really be demanding that these teachers lose their job for being incompetent in thinking cloth masks will protect them. Or rather for refusing to teach the child which really seems like more of a core tenet to teacher competency than their beliefs in either of those other things. + Show Spoiler +Edit: and I should make it clear I'm not trying to have a go at teacher's unions. Serving their members best interests is exactly what they ought to be doing. The point is to highlight the political/partisanship that also played a role in school closures to people under the illusion that only "science" and "the experts" were making these decisions. a great story but that is not the point you made.
If you start with 'closing schools while bars are open is dumb' you would find a lot of agreement. But you didn't, you jumped strait to 'we should not have closed schools' and no bar has been mentioned until now. And you keep speaking in broad terms when your actually, apparently, talking about specific issues.
So talk about the specific issues if that is what you want to do.
|
On October 28 2022 22:24 BlackJack wrote:
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
Wording things clearly and carefully is pretty important, but your entire approach was flawed from the start of that new set of posts (#12730 onward). Your argument was that the United States should have just kept their schools open, because covid doesn't severely affect children anyway, so all we were getting out of school closures were students failing math and a bunch of kids wanting to commit suicide. And your evidence was data from Sweden.
What you didn't say - which is a huge difference - was: Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah.
Or, if you really wanted to talk about Sweden: Sweden's decision to not close down schools during the pandemic seemed risky, but appears to have paid off, at least academically. Did they just get lucky, or were they in a particularly favorable position to try out this approach (perhaps because of their medical infrastructure or school/community environments or something else)? And if there were indeed key, beneficial factors that helped Sweden persist through this crazy period, is it possible for other countries to learn from Sweden, so that we all may be better prepared for the next pandemic?
Do you see how those two approaches are more neutral, and probably would have been received a lot better?
|
On October 28 2022 12:12 BlackJack wrote:@Sermokala You know I think the first time I ever interacted with you in this thread was when you made this post Show nested quote +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.
This is wild that you think this is an insult. You literally ignore the things you quote. You've gone from not reading other peoples posts to not reading your own posts now.
I said that they weren't competent to teach be police or be doctors. Having "Dumb Beliefs" is one thing but having them teach those to children is another thing handle peoples health or defend peoples lives. It has everything to do with competency if they fail to do the basic premise of their job.
Just because someone else makes a point doesn't mean that you can't agree with that point. Its also literally not a copy paste. I do care about a teacher being competent at their job that's why I don't want them to be at their job if they're incompetent. I really don't get why you're tripping up on basic things like you making a statement and expecting everyone to suddenly treat it like the truth.
I am aware of the arguments that I'm making, I after all am the one making them. I believe you are aware of the arguments you are making, after all you are the one making them. these are not hard concepts. If you struggle at them then you interacting with others is a waste of time.
|
On October 29 2022 00:57 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2022 12:12 BlackJack wrote:@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 https://twitter.com/mbeisen/status/1443201806272643073Then 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. This is wild that you think this is an insult. You literally ignore the things you quote. You've gone from not reading other peoples posts to not reading your own posts now. I said that they weren't competent to teach be police or be doctors. Having "Dumb Beliefs" is one thing but having them teach those to children is another thing handle peoples health or defend peoples lives. It has everything to do with competency if they fail to do the basic premise of their job. Just because someone else makes a point doesn't mean that you can't agree with that point. Its also literally not a copy paste. I do care about a teacher being competent at their job that's why I don't want them to be at their job if they're incompetent. I really don't get why you're tripping up on basic things like you making a statement and expecting everyone to suddenly treat it like the truth. I am aware of the arguments that I'm making, I after all am the one making them. I believe you are aware of the arguments you are making, after all you are the one making them. these are not hard concepts. If you struggle at them then you interacting with others is a waste of time.
You do know there is a difference between not taking the vaccine and teaching children not to take a vaccine, right?? You didn't say teachers should be fired for teaching children vaccines are bad, you said they should be fired for not taking a vaccine. Period. Very poor attempt at deflecting and obfuscating.
In fact you actually said it wasn't about not believing in the vaccine but about not taking the vaccine and spreading COVID.
On October 16 2021 07:17 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2021 06:35 BlackJack wrote:On October 16 2021 06:18 Simberto wrote:On October 16 2021 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On October 15 2021 21:10 Sermokala wrote:On October 15 2021 14:14 BlackJack wrote: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. Can't we just ship them to re-education camps? Or do you think all hope is lost. Maybe we can cordon off a section of Mohdoo Island to use for the camps until they are permitted to re-enter society. No I think stripping groups of people from jobs they clearly don't want and are incapable of competently preforming is something that capitalism loves to do. They can try and find some job they acomidates their desire to trust misinformation over not killing people. Have you ever talked to people? Almost everyone believes some kind of anti-science bullshit. Even smart people like Steve Jobs thought he could cure his cancer with all kinds of bullshit alternative medicine. If you think holding irrational opinions makes you incompetent to do your job, good luck at getting rid of 90%+ of the workforce. Not generally, but some irrational opinions do make you incompetent in some jobs. For example, if steve jobs believed that orgon crystals are really good for computing and pushed lots of apple research money into that direction, he would be bad at his job. Similarly, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine, that makes them a bad doctor, because they will try to prescribe those pointless placebo pills to people as if they actually help. If the doctor thinks that he is really good at rap battles when all evidence points to the contrary, that does not hinder his performance as a doctor. And if a judge doesn't believe in the law, that makes him bad at his job. If a judge believes that crystal healing is totally a real thing, that usually doesn't hinder him a lot. Lots of working class people irrationally believe that they know really well what would be the best course of action for a specific sports team. That doesn't hinder them in their job. But if a construction worker started to belief that he is immune to damage from falling rocks due to his superior skull structure and thus stop wearing hard hats, he would be out of a job pretty soon. Some irrational beliefs immediately impact your job, usually if those beliefs are linked to central stuff you do at your job. Other irrational beliefs only impact your private life, usually if those beliefs don't have anything to do with your job. No, if a doctor believes in homeopathic medicine it does not make him a bad doctor. If he tries to prescribe homeopathic medicine instead of real medicine then it does make him a bad doctor. If a teacher holds some stupid beliefs it does not make them a bad teacher. If they try to push those stupid beliefs onto their students then it does make them a bad teacher. Don't conflate acts of incompetence with thoughts of incompetence as an excuse to herald in the thought police. I think you defeated your own argument with this. By not vaccinating they're pushing their opinions about being pro covid on other people around them. People not believing in the vaccine in it of itself isn't the issue the problem is not taking the vaccine and killing themselves and other people around them.
Like I said, has nothing to do with job proficiency or competency. So you couldn't even properly defend the argument you ripped off Twitter.
|
On October 29 2022 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2022 22:24 BlackJack wrote:
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 Wording things clearly and carefully is pretty important, but your entire approach was flawed from the start of that new set of posts (#12730 onward). Your argument was that the United States should have just kept their schools open, because covid doesn't severely affect children anyway, so all we were getting out of school closures were students failing math and a bunch of kids wanting to commit suicide. And your evidence was data from Sweden. What you didn't say - which is a huge difference - was: Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah. Or, if you really wanted to talk about Sweden: Sweden's decision to not close down schools during the pandemic seemed risky, but appears to have paid off, at least academically. Did they just get lucky, or were they in a particularly favorable position to try out this approach (perhaps because of their medical infrastructure or school/community environments or something else)? And if there were indeed key, beneficial factors that helped Sweden persist through this crazy period, is it possible for other countries to learn from Sweden, so that we all may be better prepared for the next pandemic? Do you see how those two approaches are more neutral, and probably would have been received a lot better?
This conversation started by me posting data that showed children's education was heavily impacted during the pandemic and opining that children paid the biggest sacrifice during the pandemic despite the fact that they are least affected by the disease itself.
The first person to make a claim of the necessity of school closures was you who immediately called it a "necessary evil" without providing any data to support this claim.
But go ahead and lecture me about my need to remain neutral and use better data while you get to make whatever claims you want while offering zero data yourself. That's some next-level hypocrisy.
|
Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly.
What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again.
For those who want to confirm for themselves that BJ is lying, these are all my forum posts containing the word "myocarditis":
https://tl.net/forum/search.php?q=myocarditis&t=c&f=-1&u=Magic Powers&gb=date&d=
It should become clear that BJ somehow has a strong record of falsely representing other people's words. The majority of users is against BJ because they're right about him, not because they're misrepresenting him.
|
On October 29 2022 01:31 Magic Powers wrote:
Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly.
What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again.
First of all, I was responding to your statement in this post
https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=472#9422
"Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either."
You clearly use the word "after" there so my bad if you actually meant "because of" and I didn't correctly mind-read that. So apologies for misrepresenting you by accurately quoting you.
Second, regardless of whether you meant "after" or "because of", you're wrong either way.
Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known but very rare side effect of the mRNA vaccinations and it's accepted by every serious body. For example the CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.html
Data from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna).
|
On October 29 2022 01:46 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2022 01:31 Magic Powers wrote:
Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly.
What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again. First of all, I was responding to your statement in this post https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=472#9422"Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either." You clearly use the word "after" there so my bad if you actually meant "because of" and I didn't correctly mind-read that. So apologies for misrepresenting you by accurately quoting you. Second, regardless of whether you meant "after" or "because of", you're wrong either way. Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known but very rare side effect of the mRNA vaccinations and it's accepted by every serious body. For example the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.htmlShow nested quote +Data from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna).
I gave up debating you on this (if you remember) because you were adament that "as a result of" = "after".
In my dictionary "as a result of" = "because of".
I will not debate this with you another time. I'm glad people are seeing through your BS.
Edit: oh and by the way, thesaurus.com clearly disagrees with you, too. I'm not going to enhance the images this time because I don't want to clutter the thread as this is an irrelevant matter that only you care about.
https://i.gyazo.com/61749c0fc6364544804b2451abdd5f06.png
https://i.gyazo.com/7d74f5b4af77f3b58c334312adc71fcf.png
https://i.gyazo.com/3cfeeb9361d92d3d8bb1e85c374d6430.png
|
On October 29 2022 01:17 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2022 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2022 22:24 BlackJack wrote:
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 Wording things clearly and carefully is pretty important, but your entire approach was flawed from the start of that new set of posts (#12730 onward). Your argument was that the United States should have just kept their schools open, because covid doesn't severely affect children anyway, so all we were getting out of school closures were students failing math and a bunch of kids wanting to commit suicide. And your evidence was data from Sweden. What you didn't say - which is a huge difference - was: Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah. Or, if you really wanted to talk about Sweden: Sweden's decision to not close down schools during the pandemic seemed risky, but appears to have paid off, at least academically. Did they just get lucky, or were they in a particularly favorable position to try out this approach (perhaps because of their medical infrastructure or school/community environments or something else)? And if there were indeed key, beneficial factors that helped Sweden persist through this crazy period, is it possible for other countries to learn from Sweden, so that we all may be better prepared for the next pandemic? Do you see how those two approaches are more neutral, and probably would have been received a lot better? This conversation started by me posting data that showed children's education was heavily impacted during the pandemic and opining that children paid the biggest sacrifice during the pandemic despite the fact that they are least affected by the disease itself. The first person to make a claim of the necessity of school closures was you who immediately called it a "necessary evil" without providing any data to support this claim. But go ahead and lecture me about my need to remain neutral and use better data while you get to make whatever claims you want while offering zero data yourself. That's some next-level hypocrisy.
You didn't post data first; you didn't even post a link to your source. You paraphrased a few results in three sentences, without accounting for a variety of influential factors, and then talked about other things. After that, several people (Artisreal, then me, then Gorsameth, etc.) asked you questions about different parts of your first post. When I responded to your #12730 with my #12733 post, I clearly outlined which parts I was fine with, and which were problematic for me. Then you said that we should have kept American schools open, and pivoted to Sweden, which several people rightly criticized.
Feel free to completely ignore my advice about wording things more productively, but there's a reason why people are not only disagreeing with your arguments, but also literally having a meta discussion about your sincerity and underlying agenda. I wrote out those two alternative paragraphs in an effort to lead you to water, but it's up to you to drink.
|
On October 29 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2022 01:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2022 22:24 BlackJack wrote:
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 Wording things clearly and carefully is pretty important, but your entire approach was flawed from the start of that new set of posts (#12730 onward). Your argument was that the United States should have just kept their schools open, because covid doesn't severely affect children anyway, so all we were getting out of school closures were students failing math and a bunch of kids wanting to commit suicide. And your evidence was data from Sweden. What you didn't say - which is a huge difference - was: Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah. Or, if you really wanted to talk about Sweden: Sweden's decision to not close down schools during the pandemic seemed risky, but appears to have paid off, at least academically. Did they just get lucky, or were they in a particularly favorable position to try out this approach (perhaps because of their medical infrastructure or school/community environments or something else)? And if there were indeed key, beneficial factors that helped Sweden persist through this crazy period, is it possible for other countries to learn from Sweden, so that we all may be better prepared for the next pandemic? Do you see how those two approaches are more neutral, and probably would have been received a lot better? This conversation started by me posting data that showed children's education was heavily impacted during the pandemic and opining that children paid the biggest sacrifice during the pandemic despite the fact that they are least affected by the disease itself. The first person to make a claim of the necessity of school closures was you who immediately called it a "necessary evil" without providing any data to support this claim. But go ahead and lecture me about my need to remain neutral and use better data while you get to make whatever claims you want while offering zero data yourself. That's some next-level hypocrisy. You didn't post data first; you didn't even post a link to your source. You paraphrased a few results in three sentences, without accounting for a variety of influential factors, and then talked about other things. After that, several people (Artisreal, then me, then Gorsameth, etc.) asked you questions about different parts of your first post. When I responded to your #12730 with my #12733 post, I clearly outlined which parts I was fine with, and which were problematic for me. Then you said that we should have kept American schools open, and pivoted to Sweden, which several people rightly criticized. Feel free to completely ignore my advice about wording things more productively, but there's a reason why people are not only disagreeing with your arguments, but also literally having a meta discussion about your sincerity and underlying agenda. I wrote out those two alternative paragraphs in an effort to lead you to water, but it's up to you to drink.
So are you going to acknowledge that you were the first one to make a claim on the necessity of schools being closed while providing zero data to support your claim?
|
On October 29 2022 01:47 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2022 01:46 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 01:31 Magic Powers wrote:
Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly.
What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again. First of all, I was responding to your statement in this post https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=472#9422"Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either." You clearly use the word "after" there so my bad if you actually meant "because of" and I didn't correctly mind-read that. So apologies for misrepresenting you by accurately quoting you. Second, regardless of whether you meant "after" or "because of", you're wrong either way. Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known but very rare side effect of the mRNA vaccinations and it's accepted by every serious body. For example the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.htmlData from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna). I gave up debating you on this (if you remember) because you were adament that "as a result of" = "after". In my dictionary "as a result of" = "because of". I will not debate this with you another time. I'm glad people are seeing through your BS.
Don't debate it with me, go debate it with the CDC, or WHO, or American Heart Association or whoever else.
|
God this is so pointlessly disingenuous.
I get that BlackJack is smart. That's not part of the question, but the consistency in just shitty fucking arguments and then trying to 180 into GOTCHA-ing people is just tiring. There's no point to the GOTCHA, it just turns into "A-HA, SO YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE" because someone biffed it on something minor that BJ is doing consistently anyways.
|
On October 29 2022 02:05 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2022 01:47 Magic Powers wrote:On October 29 2022 01:46 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 01:31 Magic Powers wrote:
Yet again BJ is misrepresenting what I said either because he misremembers it or because he doesn't take proper care to represent my words correctly.
What I said was that there's not a single case of myocarditis because of covid vaccines. He either still doesn't understand the (very important) difference between "because of" and "after" or he is deliberately lying, again. First of all, I was responding to your statement in this post https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=472#9422"Furthermore, no hospitalizations or deaths have occured as a result of myocarditis after vaccination. No chronic cases either." You clearly use the word "after" there so my bad if you actually meant "because of" and I didn't correctly mind-read that. So apologies for misrepresenting you by accurately quoting you. Second, regardless of whether you meant "after" or "because of", you're wrong either way. Vaccine-induced myocarditis is a known but very rare side effect of the mRNA vaccinations and it's accepted by every serious body. For example the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/myocarditis.htmlData from multiple studies show a rare risk for myocarditis and/or pericarditis following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. These rare cases of myocarditis or pericarditis have occurred most frequently in adolescent and young adult males, ages 16 years and older, within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna). I gave up debating you on this (if you remember) because you were adament that "as a result of" = "after". In my dictionary "as a result of" = "because of". I will not debate this with you another time. I'm glad people are seeing through your BS. Don't debate it with me, go debate it with the CDC, or WHO, or American Heart Association or whoever else.
No, you go debate it with dictionaries. They apparently know English better than you do. And apparently so do I, as a born and raised Austrian who was never in the US or the UK or any other English speaking country.
Stop cluttering the thread with your nonsense.
|
On October 29 2022 02:00 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2022 01:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2022 22:24 BlackJack wrote:
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 Wording things clearly and carefully is pretty important, but your entire approach was flawed from the start of that new set of posts (#12730 onward). Your argument was that the United States should have just kept their schools open, because covid doesn't severely affect children anyway, so all we were getting out of school closures were students failing math and a bunch of kids wanting to commit suicide. And your evidence was data from Sweden. What you didn't say - which is a huge difference - was: Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah. Or, if you really wanted to talk about Sweden: Sweden's decision to not close down schools during the pandemic seemed risky, but appears to have paid off, at least academically. Did they just get lucky, or were they in a particularly favorable position to try out this approach (perhaps because of their medical infrastructure or school/community environments or something else)? And if there were indeed key, beneficial factors that helped Sweden persist through this crazy period, is it possible for other countries to learn from Sweden, so that we all may be better prepared for the next pandemic? Do you see how those two approaches are more neutral, and probably would have been received a lot better? This conversation started by me posting data that showed children's education was heavily impacted during the pandemic and opining that children paid the biggest sacrifice during the pandemic despite the fact that they are least affected by the disease itself. The first person to make a claim of the necessity of school closures was you who immediately called it a "necessary evil" without providing any data to support this claim. But go ahead and lecture me about my need to remain neutral and use better data while you get to make whatever claims you want while offering zero data yourself. That's some next-level hypocrisy. You didn't post data first; you didn't even post a link to your source. You paraphrased a few results in three sentences, without accounting for a variety of influential factors, and then talked about other things. After that, several people (Artisreal, then me, then Gorsameth, etc.) asked you questions about different parts of your first post. When I responded to your #12730 with my #12733 post, I clearly outlined which parts I was fine with, and which were problematic for me. Then you said that we should have kept American schools open, and pivoted to Sweden, which several people rightly criticized. Feel free to completely ignore my advice about wording things more productively, but there's a reason why people are not only disagreeing with your arguments, but also literally having a meta discussion about your sincerity and underlying agenda. I wrote out those two alternative paragraphs in an effort to lead you to water, but it's up to you to drink. So are you going to acknowledge that you were the first one to make a claim on the necessity of schools being closed while providing zero data to support your claim?
Plenty of us have provided data showing that closing schools helped reduce the spread and helped communities/hospitals manage their cases, including me, throughout this thread. That's why businesses were also closed, and why social distancing was stressed. Remember that one of our main criticisms of your #12730 post is that you conveniently ignored that important benefit of closing schools, which was shocking to a lot of us because we already covered that, several times, and it had appeared (at least, to me) that that benefit was also worthy of recognition to you, in the past... yet your recent set of posts seems to no longer take that into consideration.
If you're pointing out that that specific post of mine didn't repeat the data that has already been established, then you're correct. If you don't think that closing schools reduced the spread of infection, then we can definitely post more data about the importance of social distancing and closing down areas where large groups congregate, but I think this is something you already know, so I don't know why you're deflecting with this line of reasoning. Seems like you're trying to score a weird semantics point against me, right as I'm trying to help you smooth things over in the thread. You and I have disagreed on plenty of points in this thread, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching conversations between you and other people constantly devolve into mudslinging.
|
On October 29 2022 02:09 Fleetfeet wrote:
God this is so pointlessly disingenuous.
I get that BlackJack is smart. That's not part of the question, but the consistency in just shitty fucking arguments and then trying to 180 into GOTCHA-ing people is just tiring. There's no point to the GOTCHA, it just turns into "A-HA, SO YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE" because someone biffed it on something minor that BJ is doing consistently anyways.
Yeah, no shit I'm doing the same thing. I'm just conjecturing on the necessity of opening/closing schools just as much as anyone else. The difference is I'm not demanding that my position be the default position and then demanding that data be provided the refute my position while offering no data myself. It's not a fucking "gotcha". It's asking someone to be considerate enough to not lecture someone on providing data to support their position while offering zero data yourself just because you can get a posse of 5 other people to agree that your position is the correct "default" one that needs to be disproven.
|
On October 29 2022 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2022 02:00 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2022 01:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2022 22:24 BlackJack wrote:
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 Wording things clearly and carefully is pretty important, but your entire approach was flawed from the start of that new set of posts (#12730 onward). Your argument was that the United States should have just kept their schools open, because covid doesn't severely affect children anyway, so all we were getting out of school closures were students failing math and a bunch of kids wanting to commit suicide. And your evidence was data from Sweden. What you didn't say - which is a huge difference - was: Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah. Or, if you really wanted to talk about Sweden: Sweden's decision to not close down schools during the pandemic seemed risky, but appears to have paid off, at least academically. Did they just get lucky, or were they in a particularly favorable position to try out this approach (perhaps because of their medical infrastructure or school/community environments or something else)? And if there were indeed key, beneficial factors that helped Sweden persist through this crazy period, is it possible for other countries to learn from Sweden, so that we all may be better prepared for the next pandemic? Do you see how those two approaches are more neutral, and probably would have been received a lot better? This conversation started by me posting data that showed children's education was heavily impacted during the pandemic and opining that children paid the biggest sacrifice during the pandemic despite the fact that they are least affected by the disease itself. The first person to make a claim of the necessity of school closures was you who immediately called it a "necessary evil" without providing any data to support this claim. But go ahead and lecture me about my need to remain neutral and use better data while you get to make whatever claims you want while offering zero data yourself. That's some next-level hypocrisy. You didn't post data first; you didn't even post a link to your source. You paraphrased a few results in three sentences, without accounting for a variety of influential factors, and then talked about other things. After that, several people (Artisreal, then me, then Gorsameth, etc.) asked you questions about different parts of your first post. When I responded to your #12730 with my #12733 post, I clearly outlined which parts I was fine with, and which were problematic for me. Then you said that we should have kept American schools open, and pivoted to Sweden, which several people rightly criticized. Feel free to completely ignore my advice about wording things more productively, but there's a reason why people are not only disagreeing with your arguments, but also literally having a meta discussion about your sincerity and underlying agenda. I wrote out those two alternative paragraphs in an effort to lead you to water, but it's up to you to drink. So are you going to acknowledge that you were the first one to make a claim on the necessity of schools being closed while providing zero data to support your claim? Plenty of us have provided data showing that closing schools helped reduce the spread and helped communities/hospitals manage their cases, including me, throughout this thread. That's why businesses were also closed, and why social distancing was stressed. Remember that one of our main criticisms of your #12730 post is that you conveniently ignored that important benefit of closing schools, which was shocking to a lot of us because we already covered that, several times, and it had appeared (at least, to me) that that benefit was also worthy of recognition to you, in the past... yet your recent set of posts seems to no longer take that into consideration. If you're pointing out that that specific post of mine didn't repeat the data that has already been established, then you're correct. If you don't think that closing schools reduced the spread of infection, then we can definitely post more data about the importance of social distancing and closing down areas where large groups congregate, but I think this is something you already know, so I don't know why you're deflecting with this line of reasoning. Seems like you're trying to score a weird semantics point against me, right as I'm trying to help you smooth things over in the thread. You and I have disagreed on plenty of points in this thread, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching conversations between you and other people constantly devolve into mudslinging.
Closing schools was one of the most shocking mesures of the pandemic, nobody had any documentation it was effective. Regardless of its effectiveness, it did terrible mental, social and educational damage to a whole generation of youth.
Sweden never closed their schools, and Norway and Denmark opened theirs way earlier than Spain, for example.
You have to dig very deep to find solid data for supporting school closures, and countries not closing schools did remarkably well.
|
On October 29 2022 02:32 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2022 02:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2022 02:00 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2022 01:17 BlackJack wrote:On October 29 2022 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 28 2022 22:24 BlackJack wrote:
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 Wording things clearly and carefully is pretty important, but your entire approach was flawed from the start of that new set of posts (#12730 onward). Your argument was that the United States should have just kept their schools open, because covid doesn't severely affect children anyway, so all we were getting out of school closures were students failing math and a bunch of kids wanting to commit suicide. And your evidence was data from Sweden. What you didn't say - which is a huge difference - was: Within the United States, different states and districts had different policies regarding when (and for how long) schools needed to close and switch to remote learning, during the covid pandemic. I found a few studies that compared student test scores / covid cases between American schools that were closed for a short amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by short closing periods) and American schools that were closed for a much longer amount of time (how changes in test scores / covid cases may be influenced by long closing periods). The studies account for some other important, potentially-confounding factors, such as the fact that schools from both groups were near each other and/or generally share similar amounts of funding and socioeconomic status and demographics and whatnot. The data seems to show that blah blah blah blah blah. Or, if you really wanted to talk about Sweden: Sweden's decision to not close down schools during the pandemic seemed risky, but appears to have paid off, at least academically. Did they just get lucky, or were they in a particularly favorable position to try out this approach (perhaps because of their medical infrastructure or school/community environments or something else)? And if there were indeed key, beneficial factors that helped Sweden persist through this crazy period, is it possible for other countries to learn from Sweden, so that we all may be better prepared for the next pandemic? Do you see how those two approaches are more neutral, and probably would have been received a lot better? This conversation started by me posting data that showed children's education was heavily impacted during the pandemic and opining that children paid the biggest sacrifice during the pandemic despite the fact that they are least affected by the disease itself. The first person to make a claim of the necessity of school closures was you who immediately called it a "necessary evil" without providing any data to support this claim. But go ahead and lecture me about my need to remain neutral and use better data while you get to make whatever claims you want while offering zero data yourself. That's some next-level hypocrisy. You didn't post data first; you didn't even post a link to your source. You paraphrased a few results in three sentences, without accounting for a variety of influential factors, and then talked about other things. After that, several people (Artisreal, then me, then Gorsameth, etc.) asked you questions about different parts of your first post. When I responded to your #12730 with my #12733 post, I clearly outlined which parts I was fine with, and which were problematic for me. Then you said that we should have kept American schools open, and pivoted to Sweden, which several people rightly criticized. Feel free to completely ignore my advice about wording things more productively, but there's a reason why people are not only disagreeing with your arguments, but also literally having a meta discussion about your sincerity and underlying agenda. I wrote out those two alternative paragraphs in an effort to lead you to water, but it's up to you to drink. So are you going to acknowledge that you were the first one to make a claim on the necessity of schools being closed while providing zero data to support your claim? Plenty of us have provided data showing that closing schools helped reduce the spread and helped communities/hospitals manage their cases, including me, throughout this thread. That's why businesses were also closed, and why social distancing was stressed. Remember that one of our main criticisms of your #12730 post is that you conveniently ignored that important benefit of closing schools, which was shocking to a lot of us because we already covered that, several times, and it had appeared (at least, to me) that that benefit was also worthy of recognition to you, in the past... yet your recent set of posts seems to no longer take that into consideration. If you're pointing out that that specific post of mine didn't repeat the data that has already been established, then you're correct. If you don't think that closing schools reduced the spread of infection, then we can definitely post more data about the importance of social distancing and closing down areas where large groups congregate, but I think this is something you already know, so I don't know why you're deflecting with this line of reasoning. Seems like you're trying to score a weird semantics point against me, right as I'm trying to help you smooth things over in the thread. You and I have disagreed on plenty of points in this thread, but that doesn't mean I enjoy watching conversations between you and other people constantly devolve into mudslinging. Closing schools was one of the most shocking mesures of the pandemic, nobody had any documentation it was effective. Regardless of its effectiveness, it did terrible mental, social and educational damage to a whole generation of youth. Sweden never closed their schools, and Norway and Denmark opened theirs way earlier than Spain, for example. You have to dig very deep to find solid data for supporting school closures, and countries not closing schools did remarkably well. Did the countries that not closed schools do remarkably well despite not closing schools or did they do well, and therefor not have to close schools?
Saying a country did well in handling Covid and didn't close their schools doesn't prove anything since closing schools should only be considered when the country is not handling it well and healthcare is in danger of being overwhelmed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
