1 hour ago, eagle45 said:

People are underestimating both the short and long term impact of erasing a year of development outside the home for all kids in the country aged 3-18.  Social, intellectual, physical, everything.  

Sounds harsh, but it may turn out to be a heck of a lot more damaging than the deaths of 150k people who were already in the last 5 years of their life.

 

Before 1945, there wasn’t a ton of social interaction as most kids were isolated on family farms. They went to school in one room schoolhouses, grades first through eighth. 

5 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

The evidence is accumulating, but there isn't a whole lot of proof out there for any COVID claims.

Step up your game beyond google if you want to educate yourself on it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=covid+years+of+potential+life+lost

There’s a link to the study right in the article. All you have to do is press the link. 
 

Also the first study from the link you gave me doesn’t even support your claim...

Just now, BigEFly said:

Before 1945, there wasn’t a ton of social interaction as most kids were isolated on family farms. They went to school in one room schoolhouses, grades first through eighth. 

Given the racial discussion in the country, some other social issues before 1945 suggest that may not be a model for saying all will be OK.

It would be naive to assume there is not a cost to sheltering developing minds and bodies in place at home for a year.

4 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

The evidence is accumulating, but there isn't a whole lot of proof out there for any COVID claims.

Step up your game beyond google if you want to educate yourself on it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=covid+years+of+potential+life+lost

This is more an article on tweaking methodology of using a higher upper age limit (70, 75, vs 80) when calculating potential life years lost, than anything super definitive on the actual data.  Even still it's not exactly a ringing endorsement that the US is in a position to start opening up again

4 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Given the racial discussion in the country, some other social issues before 1945 suggest that may not be a model for saying all will be OK.

It would be naive to assume there is not a cost to sheltering developing minds and bodies in place at home for a year.

I don’t think you understand how much the internet is utilized in the classroom these days. There’s obviously the social aspect of it all, but you can certainly develop your mind at home. 

33 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

You're right, this isn't some great thing.  What do parents who both still work essential jobs can't be home for the child?  What about parents who work high stress jobs remote but have to help the kids now?  Just shooting off some concerns that a lot of people probably have.  

That’s when we step up as neighbors, families and friends.  My neighbors with school aged kids know all they have to do is ask and we will figure out how to,be there for their kids.  We would follow protocols for safety.  I haven’t been taken up on this but do spend time helping my older neighbors. 

11 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

There’s a link to the study right in the article. All you have to do is press the link. 
 

Also the first study from the link you gave me doesn’t even support your claim...

I was just encouraging you to use pubmed instead of google.  There, you will find a wealth of information on the subject.  Note that your study did not survive peer review and was not published in a pub-med indexed journal.

I'm not arguing that everyone needs to go back to school and forget about COVID, far from it.  I don't even pretend to know the right course of action.  But people are glossing over the fact that the burden of disease is centered on a population was already vulnerable to similar outcomes from other causes...and they are understating the cost of shutting down the lives of kids for a year.

9 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I was just encouraging you to use pubmed instead of google.  There, you will find a wealth of information on the subject.  Note that your study did not survive peer review and was not published in a pub-med indexed journal.

I'm not arguing that everyone needs to go back to school and forget about COVID, far from it.  I don't even pretend to know the right course of action.  But people are glossing over the fact that the burden of disease is centered on a population was already vulnerable to similar outcomes from other causes...and they are understating the cost of shutting down the lives of kids for a year.

Even under the assumption that this only affects seniors and people below 65 will be fine, you’re willing to sacrifice those lives rather than help students learn from home?

1 minute ago, WentzFan11 said:

Even under the assumption that this only affects seniors and those below 65 will be fine, you’re willing to sacrifice those lives rather than help students learn from home?

Just trying to respect both sides of the equation.  

And yes...it's a harsh reality that there is an exchange rate between lives, dollars, healthcare resources, education, and everything else.  Students learning from home, small businesses failing, jobs lost, mortgage defaults, larger business failing, developmental issues with kids not socialized...yes...that does hold some weight on a scale against lives lost.

12 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Given the racial discussion in the country, some other social issues before 1945 suggest that may not be a model for saying all will be OK.

It would be naive to assume there is not a cost to sheltering developing minds and bodies in place at home for a year.

JFC. Racial discussion?  Sheltering of developing minds?  I was merely pointing out that significant contact with others of their age is something that tags to my generation (Baby Boomers) and not before in America.  I used telecommunication tools to interact in business globally for twenty years, including lots of training. My sister pioneered online courses at her college and developed the courses over fifteen years ago.  We would both tell you that there was as much interaction socially as experienced at the one room schoolhouse my dad attended in the 1930s. 

4 minutes ago, BigEFly said:

JFC. Racial discussion?  Sheltering of developing minds?  I was merely pointing out that significant contact with others of their age is something that tags to my generation (Baby Boomers) and not before in America.  I used telecommunication tools to interact in business globally for twenty years, including lots of training. My sister pioneered online courses at her college and developed the courses over fifteen years ago.  We would both tell you that there was as much interaction socially as experienced at the one room schoolhouse my dad attended in the 1930s. 

Thanks for your 3 family anecdotes to prove that it's OK to be locked up in the house.

9 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Just trying to respect both sides of the equation.  

And yes...it's a harsh reality that there is an exchange rate between lives, dollars, healthcare resources, education, and everything else.  Students learning from home, small businesses failing, jobs lost, mortgage defaults, larger business failing, developmental issues with kids not socialized...yes...that does hold some weight on a scale against lives lost.

You're being purposefully dramatic with this.  Yes going to school is an important part of early socialization, but there is no reason to believe that a year of no in person school is not going to cause some kind of irreparable harm to most kids emotional development.  

There are so many factors that people ignore.  Obesity has been universally identified as a risk factor for bad outcomes with COVID.  No one mentions that the incidence of obesity in the US is basically a standard deviation to the right of most other populated & developed countries.  We point a lot of fingers for our dire national COVID situation, but no one likes to look at this as a factor in the USA's relative failures.  

Maybe the fact that we celebrate people like Lizzo and have turned into a nation of the people in the Wall-E movie has been as destructive as social distancing failures, the possibility of returning to school, healthcare shortcomings, political response, etc.

Just now, DEagle7 said:

You're being purposefully dramatic with this.  Yes going to school is an important part of early socialization, but there is no reason to believe that a year of no in person school is not going to cause some kind of irreparable harm to most kids emotional development.  

I'm not assuming that.  But is there a reason to assume it's NOT going to cause harm?  We don't know.  Everyone is learning on the fly here.  

Unpopular take: 

People admiring Joe Kelly for throwing at the Astros players is pathetic. Yeah the Astros cheated but throwing at guys doesn’t make you tough, let alone a "hero” like so many moral high ground keyboard warriors are calling him. He’s just a clown. 

5 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Just trying to respect both sides of the equation.  

And yes...it's a harsh reality that there is an exchange rate between lives, dollars, healthcare resources, education, and everything else.  Students learning from home, small businesses failing, jobs lost, mortgage defaults, larger business failing, developmental issues with kids not socialized...yes...that does hold some weight on a scale against lives lost.

Harsh but some truth to this statement. But we have to weigh options and maximize the inclusive as opposed to the either/or approach.  Grandma dies or you go to school, (where you may also infect other students and result in more dead grandparents) seem suboptimal.  Wear a mask, social distance, stay home when possible and help those in need while really pushing to control the virus seems more optimal to me.  Take my wife and my next $2,400 and spend that on helping those that really need the help. Reminds me, time for my monthly checks to the food banks.  

6 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

There are so many factors that people ignore.  Obesity has been universally identified as a risk factor for bad outcomes with COVID.  No one mentions that the incidence of obesity in the US is basically a standard deviation to the right of most other populated & developed countries.  We point a lot of fingers for our dire national COVID situation, but no one likes to look at this as a factor in the USA's relative failures.  

Maybe the fact that we celebrate people like Lizzo and have turned into a nation of the people in the Wall-E movie has been as destructive as social distancing failures, the possibility of returning to school, healthcare shortcomings, political response, etc.

Can I get a recording of this and post it on my Gym’s social media?!?! 

4 minutes ago, EaglePhan1986 said:

Unpopular take: 

People admiring Joe Kelly for throwing at the Astros players is pathetic. Yeah the Astros cheated but throwing at guys doesn’t make you tough, let alone a "hero” like so many moral high ground keyboard warriors are calling him. He’s just a clown. 

It doesn’t help Kelly’s case that he played on a Red Sox team that was also penalized for their cheating incidents and won a World Series  

https://www.si.com/mlb/2020/04/22/red-sox-sign-stealing-scandal

9 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I'm not assuming that.  But is there a reason to assume it's NOT going to cause harm?  We don't know.  Everyone is learning on the fly here.  

When you say things like

"developmental issues with kids not socialized...yes...that does hold some weight on a scale against lives lost"

and

"People are underestimating both the short and long term impact of erasing a year of development outside the home for all kids in the country aged 3-18.  Social, intellectual, physical, everything.  

Sounds harsh, but it may turn out to be a heck of a lot more damaging than the deaths of 150k people who were already in the last 5 years of their life."

then yes you are making it out as if it is a given.  If it's completely unknown then why even bring it up?  Not to mention there are plenty of reasons to believe it's not going to cause long term harm. There are plenty of kids are homeschooled.  There are kids who have families that go on mission trips etc taking them away from traditional school for a year or more.  It's not ideal but there is nothing to suggest that it causes long term "social, intellectual, physical" harm.  None.  So please stop stating it as if it's fact.

11 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Thanks for your 3 family anecdotes to prove that it's OK to be locked up in the house.

I suspect my sister and I have way more experience in online teaching than you.  Don’t really think that is anecdotal but rather years of experience.  

3 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

When you say things like

"developmental issues with kids not socialized...yes...that does hold some weight on a scale against lives lost"

and

"People are underestimating both the short and long term impact of erasing a year of development outside the home for all kids in the country aged 3-18.  Social, intellectual, physical, everything.  

Sounds harsh, but it may turn out to be a heck of a lot more damaging than the deaths of 150k people who were already in the last 5 years of their life."

then yes you are making it out as if it is a given.  If it's completely unknown then why even bring it up?  Not to mention there are plenty of reasons to believe it's not going to cause long term harm. There are plenty of kids are homeschooled.  There are kids who have families that go on mission trips etc taking them away from traditional school for a year or more.  It's not ideal but there is nothing to suggest that it causes long term "social, intellectual, physical" harm.  None.  So please stop stating it as if it's fact.

I never stated it as fact.  It’s not.  I simply said it’s being overlooked.  You, on the other hand, seem pretty comfortable assuming it won’t be a problem.

Holy crap....I've been trying to keep my mouth shut but some of you make it hard as hell.

1 minute ago, BigEFly said:

I suspect my sister and I have way more experience in online teaching than you.  Don’t really think that is anecdotal but rather years of experience.  

You certainly do.  

Much like any contentious issue, you’ll find plenty of elementary school teachers strongly supportive of online learning at home and plenty who are strongly against it.

Just now, eagle45 said:

You certainly do.  

Much like any contentious issue, you’ll find plenty of elementary school teachers strongly supportive of online learning at home and plenty who are strongly against it.

From our experience (my sister’s and mine) part of resistance to online learning can be a familiarity with how to make the process work.  As you have pointed out there are a lot of views we need to consider.

BTW as a fat person, I absolutely agree with your comment about how our lifestyle impacts our morbidity. 

11 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I never stated it as fact.  It’s not.  I simply said it’s being overlooked.  You, on the other hand, seem pretty comfortable assuming it won’t be a problem.

Again here's a direct quote from you: "People are underestimating both the short and long term impact of erasing a year of development outside the home for all kids in the country aged 3-18.  Social, intellectual, physical, everything...it may turn out to be a heck of a lot more damaging than the deaths of 150k people with 5 years left to live"  That is clearly implying that there is likely to be a significant impact.  Spare me the "I'm just trying to look at all the angles" schtick. 

Meanwhile there are literally millions of kids homeschooled at baseline in the US without any evidence that they're developmentally stunted.