Mega-Thread: Coronavirus Pandemic

[Forogil]

If that is the case, then I really don't get the fuss about this whole thing.
Problem is: we don't know for sure.

True, but WHO has now made a somewhat similar estimate as I did: 10% of world population or about 800 million have been infected.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-54422023

Still not clear, but it now seems likely that we are in that ball-park.

- - - Updated - - -

At this point, it's sufficiently well established that there is little or no risk to children that it's safe to assume that anyone denying it has absolute no interest in learning anything about the topic. The responses will just be endless, pointless fear mongering and claims that it could be bad even though there's not any evidence to support it. People that are still pulling "think of the children" bullshit are morons or liars.

Agreed, scary stories of children sells.

That children are not drivers seems consistent with the large contact tracing in India - and when you actually think about children:

Almost 6 months into the pandemic, accumulating evidence and collective experience argue that children, particularly school-aged children, are far less important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 transmission than adults. Therefore, serious consideration should be paid toward strategies that allow schools to remain open, even during periods of COVID-19 spread. In doing so, we could minimize the potentially profound adverse social, developmental, and health costs that our children will continue to suffer until an effective treatment or vaccine can be developed and distributed or, failing that, until we reach herd immunity

From: "Transmission and Children: The Child Is Not to Blame"
https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...e2=tf_ipsecsha

[Elegiac]

Agreed, scary stories of children sells.

That children are not drivers seems consistent with the large contact tracing in India - and when you actually think about children:

From: "Transmission and Children: The Child Is Not to Blame"
https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...e2=tf_ipsecsha

I'm curious why these "potentially" profound adverse effects are more of an issue than the known profound adverse effects of a lethal infection being transmitted freely.

It's hilarious to watch you lot criticise others as coming from a place of 'think of the children' when what you are literally doing here is fearmongering that "if we don't exit lockdown, children will be scarred forever". Ignoring the health and safety of educators and school administrators on top of that of kids doesn't make you a champion of children's welfare, it just telegraphs a belief that personal inconvenience is the worst thing imaginable.

Your privilege, check it.

[Edge-]

From: "Transmission and Children: The Child Is Not to Blame"
https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...e2=tf_ipsecsha

Another possibility is that because school closures occurred in most locations along with or before widespread physical distancing orders, most close contacts became limited to households, reducing opportunities for children to become infected in the community and present as index cases.

This too. Because we're already seeing school transmissions in the US, and we've seen repeat outbreaks at children's summer camps in states that rushed to re-open things in the US.

That the virus seems to have hit hardest while children were on summer break for the most part seems to be peeing in this data pool quite a bit.

And I agree with the pediatricians about the importance of in-person education and socialization for the development of children. Which is also why I'm so fuckin pissed that, at least in the US, state and federal governments didn't work harder to make use of the summer to prepare for them to be able to return to schools safely.

[Zantos]

At this point, it's sufficiently well established that there is little or no risk to children that it's safe to assume that anyone denying it has absolute no interest in learning anything about the topic. The responses will just be endless, pointless fear mongering and claims that it could be bad even though there's not any evidence to support it. People that are still pulling "think of the children" bullshit are morons or liars.

Actually, you're factually wrong on all accounts. There is massive evidence showing that children are at risk And are able to spread it quite easily. Not only that, we just had our 8th teacher die from it. Thus again, all evidence is pointing to it being bad and getting worse.

So you are factually and unequivocally wrong on your asinine assumptions and have nothing to back it with since the proof and evidence is all against your falsely guided assertions.

[Katchii]

The Great Barrington Declaration is an interesting development. The punch line to it:


I'll be looking forward to people who have gone all-in on lockdowns explaining why Martin Kulldorff is just an idiot that wants to kill people.

This seems to ignore something pretty major: Every single one of those businesses it's pushing to open have to be staffed and maintained by people who ARE at risk.

In-person teaching requires teachers, who are at risk.

Restaurants require patrons, who are at risk to the staff and to each other.

"Other businesses" also require staffing, and most of the staff are at risk.

It's a nice thought, but things can't go on as normal if most "normal" people are at risk.

Schools aren't staffed and run by "young" people, those people are the students.... Most other businesses aren't run by "young people" either.

IF this were possible, I'd advocate for it. But it's completely unrealistic and fails to actually consider the logistics of what it's proposing. Like one of those people that thinks they should be a millionaire because they have so many good ideas, with absolutely zero idea for how to actually make any of them happen.

[Forogil]

I'm curious why these "potentially" profound adverse effects are more of an issue than the known profound adverse effects of a lethal infection being transmitted freely.

The answer from people who know, like paediatricians and experts on public health, is that that the lack of education and socialization in school will damage children for life.

Due to how brains develop they cannot just catch up next year.

That's why many countries prioritize having kids in school, even during the pandemic. Obviously it's also inconvenient for adults to work from home, having limitations of restaurants/pubs (or just closing them) and not being allowed to go to sport stadium with thousands of others, but that's a trade-off.

[Elegiac]

The answer from people who know, like paediatricians and experts on public health, is that that the lack of education and socialization in school will damage children for life.

As opposed to the damage of seeing friends, teachers, or family members fall victim to a lethal infection they may be responsible for transmitting by attending school in person. 'Kay.

Something tells me neither you nor these pediatricians actually give a shit about kids and are more interested in making declarative statements of your expertise.

[Forogil]

This too. Because we're already seeing school transmissions in the US, and we've seen repeat outbreaks at children's summer camps in states that rushed to re-open things in the US.

The camps are not typical of schools. Kids don't sleep in dormitories in most schools, and schools don't have to have long daily choir singing practices indoors.

And I agree with the pediatricians about the importance of in-person education and socialization for the development of children. Which is also why I'm so fuckin pissed that, at least in the US, state and federal governments didn't work harder to make use of the summer to prepare for them to be able to return to schools safely.

Obviously, having schools open needs some form of plan that is trusted and followed, which seems missing in the US.

[Elegiac]

The camps are not typical of schools. Kids don't sleep in dormitories in most schools, and schools don't have to have long daily choir singing practices indoors.

Indeed; summer camps are in many ways less dangerous than schools because most of their activities are outdoors.

Are you even remotely familiar with the state of the average American school building, by the way.

[Easo]

To answer your prior question, Trump's joyride was apparently a compromise offered by doctors to get him to stay at the hospital when he was insisting on leaving.

In a really screwed up way man's got an amazing ego.

He can.

So once more, everything revolves around his huge ego as he could just not give unreasonable orders. As the saying goes "Not if you can, but if you should".

[Forogil]

As opposed to the damage of seeing friends, teachers, or family members fall victim to a lethal infection they may be responsible for transmitting by attending school in person. 'Kay.

Something tells me neither you nor these pediatricians actually give a shit about kids and are more interested in making declarative statements of your expertise.

Have you considered the possibility that their expertise actually is useful, and you should listen to them?

[Edge-]

Obviously, having schools open needs some form of plan that is trusted and followed, which seems missing in the US.

Yup. I'm all for kids returning to school, all the pediatricians are rightfully concerned about social development which is crucial for these children.

And I mourn that my country can't be bothered to take this serious enough to protect the god-damned kids while ensuring they're getting the necessary education and development through school. But if we can't guarantee that, I'd prioritize the health and safety of the community. It's sad and depressing as fuck though.

[Forogil]

Indeed; summer camps are in many ways less dangerous than schools because most of their activities are outdoors.

Even if all activities were outdoors they would still spend 8 hours indoors together per day.

[Elegiac]

Have you considered the possibility that their expertise actually is useful, and you should listen to them?

No more than you've considered the possibility of the experts telling you that opening schools is a bad idea.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if all activities were outdoors they would still spend 8 hours indoors together per day.

And they wouldn't be doing this at school? Lol?

Why should I listen to you or the supposed experts supporting you when it's clear you don't even know what the average school looks like from an operational standpoint.

[Forogil]

No more than you've considered the possibility of the experts telling you that opening schools is a bad idea.

I contrast to you I considered the possibility that they would say that - and they didn't.

And they wouldn't be doing this at school? Lol?

I meant the 8 hours they would be sleeping in the same rooms at those camps, even if every activity was outdoors. I wasn't aware that kids sleep together for 8 hours per day at the schools in the US.

And as far as I know we still don't know whether the children spread the disease at that camp, or whether they were just infected.

However, you seem to be stuck in your ways and no amount of facts will persuade you.

[Katchii]

No more than you've considered the possibility of the experts telling you that opening schools is a bad idea.

- - - Updated - - -



And they wouldn't be doing this at school? Lol?

Why should I listen to you or the supposed experts supporting you when it's clear you don't even know what the average school looks like from an operational standpoint.

You are talking about two different sets of experts, or at least two different mind sets from experts in their field. One is entirely focused on the children and their well being, primarily emotionally and developmentally and one is more focused on the overall health of the entire community. The reason the decision is so difficult and why so many people are polarized on it is because different people prioritize those two sides differently.

There's a trade off to prioritizing one over the other. And most people can't agree on which is most important, because both of those things are incredibly important.

[Forogil]

You are talking about two different sets of experts, or at least two different mind sets from experts in their field. One is entirely focused on the children and their well being, primarily emotionally and developmentally and one is more focused on the overall health of the entire community. The reason the decision is so difficult and why so many people are polarized on it is because different people prioritize those two sides differently.

You are correct that there are different set of experts, but even the ones prioritizing overall health of the entire community generally favor the children being in school.

There are, of course, another set of "experts" that only care about the economy in the short term.

[Elegiac]

You are talking about two different sets of experts, or at least two different mind sets from experts in their field. One is entirely focused on the children and their well being, primarily emotionally and developmentally and one is more focused on the overall health of the entire community. The reason the decision is so difficult and why so many people are polarized on it is because different people prioritize those two sides differently.

There's a trade off to prioritizing one over the other. And most people can't agree on which is most important, because both of those things are incredibly important.

I wasn't aware that the choice with the lower fatality rate wasn't the obvious one, but okay. The stock market needs priming I guess.

[Katchii]

You are correct that there are different set of experts, but even the ones prioritizing overall health of the entire community generally favor the children being in school.

Which is true, but the experts aren't the ones making the decisions, it's the politicians who are beholden to the people and "the people," are fucking stupid or have no idea what they actually want. Hence the indecision and lack of direction and leadership.

There are, of course, another set of "experts" that only care about the economy in the short term.

I can't say I blame the people focusing on the economy, but in no discussion or decision should anyone ever say money is more important than the lives of the people. But, they do have a point. If the economy tanks and shit gets really bad, lives will be lost as well for a variety of reasons all caused by the chain reaction and connections between jobs, money, poverty and the ability for people to earn a living to survive.

I wasn't aware that the choice with the lower fatality rate wasn't the obvious one, but okay. The stock market needs priming I guess.

You're obviously in the camp that prioritizes the health of the overall community. I'm on that side too, but there are those that prioritize differently. And they're not wrong, they just have different priorities, and I honestly can't disagree with them either. That's the problem.

[Easo]

Trump is leaving hospital today and will "continue medical care in White House"

P.S.
BBC has nice picture from the rally with people who were inficted and where they sat.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54427390