Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers
Keep believing you have the winning argument haha
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
When I express concern for kids, you acted like I'm defying science for no good reason.
First, all the data I have seen, says pretty clearly that covid isn't spreading like crazy in schools, especially in elementary schools. I don't know why that is, you'd think that would be one of the hottest places for it to spread, but it's not.
Second, young kids are not at high risk for getting really sick. This is one of the very items related to covid, on which there's sort of a consensus.
Third, there has to be a psychological price for kids to pay, when we remove them from school, isolate them from their friends, eliminate all of their activities, and have them pend even less time connecting with people, and even more time online, which is the last thing they need.
My wife plays tennis with a pediatric psychiatrist at Connecticut Childrens Medical Center. She told my wife they have never seen nearly this many cases of parents seeking behavioral healthcare for young children.
The Hartford Courant ran an article today...
https://www.courant.com/coronavirus/...6ya-story.html
GS, kids need to have normal experiences to be functional. This is why they call childhood "the formative years".
When I do a cost benefit analysis of taking normal experiences away from a generation of kids who are already not spending enough time connecting with people in a physical/intimate way thanks to the Internet, I see data that says there's not as much benefit to locking young kids down as there is to locking older people down. In addition, there may be a steep cost these kids have to pay.
You can respond by saying "oh, so you're saying we should let kids ride in pickup beds on the highway and smoke cigarettes, blah blah blah". But what I'm actually saying, is pretty logical, and based on the science and data that I see.