Coronavirus in Massachusetts (institute, weekends, walking)

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Just wondering- do you know how many children die per year of any number of any other causes? It's quite a lot more, I hate to say. If this is really your logic, you should have NEVER left your home your entire life. And even then, you aren't doing enough, because kids die in the thousands every year regardless.

You’re mixing this with a pandemic where we need to keep the transmission rate below 1.0. If we all wash our stinking hands frequently and practice some moderate social distancing with a mask when that is impossible, we can achieve that and turn the economy back on. This isn’t hard.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

You’re mixing this with a pandemic where we need to keep the transmission rate below 1.0. If we all wash our stinking hands frequently and practice some moderate social distancing with a mask when that is impossible, we can achieve that and turn the economy back on. This isn’t hard.

My point is that 100 children dying is a statistical rounding error. You might think that sounds harsh but it's just simply true. I think people just don't realize how many tragedies occur nationwide daily that they just have been unaware of.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Just wondering- do you know how many children die per year of any number of any other causes? It's quite a lot more, I hate to say. If this is really your logic, you should have NEVER left your home your entire life. And even then, you aren't doing enough, because kids die in the thousands every year regardless.

Claiming how many kids die of other causes isn't relevant, in fact it's a disgusting excuse. We do a great deal to protect children. Would you say it would be ok if a company that sells baby car seats offered a cheap model that would only protect 50% of kids in car accidents? Would you take those odds and buy one for your baby in order to save a few bucks that you could spend at the barber shop or movies? Some things have to come first in order for us to call ourselves moral, it can't always be money or selfish pleasures.

But hey go enjoy your 'freedoms' So what if this virus comes back with a vengeance in the fall and takes down millions instead of a hundred thousand or so, at least you had a good time over the summer huh?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

My point is that 100 children dying is a statistical rounding error. You might think that sounds harsh but it's just simply true. I think people just don't realize how many tragedies occur nationwide daily that they just have been unaware of.

And that you would consider 100 children a statistical rounding error makes me very sad. I wonder what you would say if your child was part of the 'rounding error'.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Just wondering- do you know how many children die per year of any number of any other causes? It's quite a lot more, I hate to say. If this is really your logic, you should have NEVER left your home your entire life. And even then, you aren't doing enough, because kids die in the thousands every year regardless.

You might want to read this:More than 100 million people in China face new lockdown as 2nd wave of COVID-19 cases emerge

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

And that you would consider 100 children a statistical rounding error makes me very sad. I wonder what you would say if your child was part of the 'rounding error'.

This is a terrible and unworkable argument. There is no such thing as no risk. The “no child’s life is worth any risk” stance looks great on paper but it doesn’t actually work.

How many kids die in car crashes every year? About 700. We could cut that number down to almost zero by factory limiting all vehicles to 5mph. And yet we don’t. Not because we hate kids or want them to die or even that we just don’t care about other people’s kids. The ability to travel meaningful distances is worth the small risk.

There has to be acceptable risk. Every time you strap your kid in a car seat and drive them somewhere you are taking a risk. Maybe you know that and maybe you don’t. Same as when you send them to school or give them a pop tart, or some broccoli, or put them in a bathtub.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

This is a terrible and unworkable argument. There is no such thing as no risk. The “no child’s life is worth any risk” stance looks great on paper but it doesn’t actually work.

How many kids die in car crashes every year? About 700. We could cut that number down to almost zero by factory limiting all vehicles to 5mph. And yet we don’t. Not because we hate kids or want them to die or even that we just don’t care about other people’s kids. The ability to travel meaningful distances is worth the small risk.

There has to be acceptable risk. Every time you strap your kid in a car seat and drive them somewhere you are taking a risk. Maybe you know that and maybe you don’t. Same as when you send them to school or give them a pop tart, or some broccoli, or put them in a bathtub.

You are posing an "apples to oranges" argument. A number of countries have basically ZERO covid cases because they employed large scale testing, contact tracing and lockdowns until they were sure the numbers had gone down.

We still have people dying every day and we are opening freaking tattoo parlors? Maybe your could tell me what we are doing RIGHT now to protect children, the elderly and the immune compromised from catching this virus.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You are posing an "apples to oranges" argument. A number of countries have basically ZERO covid cases because they employed large scale testing, contact tracing and lockdowns until they were sure the numbers had gone down.

We still have people dying every day and we are opening freaking tattoo parlors? Maybe your could tell me what we are doing RIGHT now to protect children, the elderly and the immune compromised from catching this virus.

My kids haven’t been within 10 feet of someone from outside our house in 10 weeks. No school. No daycare. No friends. Nothing. That’s what we’re doing right now. The data seems to suggest this is for societies benefit, not directly theirs. Kids are not the risk group, they are possibly a carrier group. Yes, there are complications, and yes they affect kids, but we tolerate bigger risks even for kids.

You’re setting the risk tolerance at zero. That’s unworkable. If you want to say kids should stay out of school for one or two or five more years until there is a vaccine or total containment to prevent a very low risk of death, that’s your risk tolerance. Just don’t think a rare syndrome is going to be enough to convince most people.

Preventing the spread of a disease that could kill their parents or grandparents is more compelling. I don’t think schools are more effective at spreading disease than other social institutions (see reference about 100 pages back if you care), so my main gripe is that schools seem to close first and open last.

[yesmaybe]

Yesterday I went by Lowes. It looked extremely busy.

Originally Posted by jayrandom

My kids haven’t been within 10 feet of someone from outside our house in 10 weeks. No school. No daycare. No friends. Nothing. That’s what we’re doing right now. The data seems to suggest this is for societies benefit, not directly theirs. Kids are not the risk group, they are possibly a carrier group. Yes, there are complications, and yes they affect kids, but we tolerate bigger risks even for kids.

The kids must be super fat by now. You know obesity is allegedly a risk factor for the virus.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by yesmaybe

Yesterday I went by Lowes. It looked extremely busy.



The kids must be super fat by now. You know obesity is allegedly a risk factor for the virus.

Not sure why you think that. Kids are getting as much exercise as before. It's easy to stay > 10 feet from everyone else when you live in a neighborhood with 1 acre lots.

Even on rainy days there's GoNoodle and the boundless, never stop fidgeting energy of small kids.