Vaclac wrote:Kevin Willis wrote:
Come on now, this was exactly what I was talking about. We all know that this is a disease that attacks the elderly so bringing up children is pointless. Also many with COVID-19 are asymptomatic carriers. If you get the flu, you know it. The only way to get a better assessment on true numbers is testing for antibodies on a national level which won't happen for awhile. Statistically there is too high of a possible deviation to be considered reliable. You have to wait...
The risk to children is relevant in some ways, such as regarding decisions about what we should do with our children... And we're still being told that children need to be forced to stay home, for their safety, which is idiotic. But if you call out politicians who are repeatedly saying that because they apparently think it sells better and makes it seem like they care deeply about children, you are called "obtuse". I am well aware of the somewhat better reason to keep kids home - that they might be carriers and then get more parents sick if they went to school. That is theoretically plausible, but turns out not to be the case in the many studies around the world that have looked at how those they were able to trace the source got Covid, and these studies were done before those places closed schools. But no one cares about actual evidence, people are scared and so just demanding more restrictions without regard to efficacy and anyone who wants to restrict less is assumed to just want to see people die - basically the moral equivalent of a murderer. For the record, but not that I think it actually changes anyone's opinion, I don't believe it's some kind of conspiracy theory and do accept that in aggregate it is significantly more serious than the flu, and, unrestrained, spreads much more quickly.
I do think that we have collectively gotten so scared that we have lost the ability to take rational proportionate responses. It's gotten to the point that if any leader opens things up and there are infections that follow, it's considered that leader's fault that those Covid patients died, but all the horrible consequences affecting everyone else from excessively harsh and long lockdowns can never be blamed on leaders who over do it. If this is the standard, it will never be 100% safe to open, and so we don't so unless there's another change in the overall narrative.
As to antibody testing, that would be helpful if our goal was the originally stated one of trying to make sure we had sufficient hospital capacity when people got sick. The advantage of antibody testing is that it could give you a better idea of how high the ultimate peak could be if you didn't try to hold it back and therefore plan hospital capacity increases accordingly. But since our narrative has shifted completely from making sure hospital capacity isn't exceeded to attempting to prevent infections from ever occurring, I really don't see the relevance of antibody testing anymore. I don't think the discovery that 25% of people in NYC have antibodies has changed a thing in terms of their response.
It is only theoretically plausible because no one is dumb enough to test it because the consequences might actually be pretty bad.
No you will never see good studies on the effect of opening schools during a pandemic...but it doesn't mean that the theory isn't sound.
There aren't studies on whether our kids should play on the highway. Theoretically it would be bad...but there aren't any good studies on it. Should be ok for them to do...right?
Another guy I know who worked at a bank told he would sometimes be in charge of transactions worth millions and he made $15/hour.
