31–40 of 348 posts
At this point in the pandemic we've should have come up with models that factor in the externalities of lockdown and factor that into policy decisions. That somehow still hasn't happened. People say "things are pretty much back to normal" but parents with kids in school know this is not true.
Another outsize impact of overreaching quarantine restrictions. Why do we let politicians rather than epidemologists make these decisions?
Epidemiologists look only at the pandemic aspect. Politicians should look at the economy, the welfare, the general health, the strategic issues, and more. If you really think that an epidemiologist's response will account for things like mental health of toddlers you are mistaken.
I know that politicians have a bad name today but they are still elected officials who have an incentive (elections) to do what's best for the country as a whole.
Just to clarify- it was epidemiologists who pushed, understandably from their point of view, for the same lockdowns you define overreaching. It was mostly politicians who were the most reluctant to apply them. And the pressure in this direction was mostly from populism (Trump, Bolsonaro...), and from the finance/treasure ministries which feared the economy crisis.
How the toddlers of today growing up with fully masked teachers during their institutionalized education will manage to develop normal social skills without being able to see people’s faces is beyond me.
They will manage just fine, because they are exposed to enough maskless people at home and in other social settings. And even in schools, kids often don't follow mask mandates, especially when the teacher steps out, or sets an example by wearing a chin diaper during class.
The wealthy kids have that opportunity. Kids with natural social skills may be fine too.
However, kids with two parents that are working 4 jobs won't reach their full potential. Many kids already have issues from this; and it's awful that their voices and their parents voices - and their psychologists voices - aren't being heard.
Myself, I find it abhorrent that people are casually brushing aside a clear major developmental impact on an entire generation of growing children. The cost benefit ratio seems awfully bad.
People who support lockdowns aren't interested in facts; their viewpoints are shaped by marketing. It's been blindingly obvious from the moment we knew that coronavirus had a 1% IFR pre-vaccine that all of the restrictions have been net negative. We're now over 2% of our lives into this _by any definition_, which makes it utterly incontrovertible. That's why we have constant "reminders" everywhere; it's an attempt to…
Long covid is a thing, and affects a staggeringly large percentage of people who get covid and do not die, significantly affecting the rest of their lives. One recent study claims an infection impaired-quality-of-life ratio of over 50% (https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/how-many-people-get-...).
And in the other direction, we have lived over 2% of our lives in the pandemic living our lives, certainly not as well as any of us would have hoped, but living them nonetheless.
So either the math needs to take into account the reduced quality of life from those affected by covid (not to mention those affected by losing family members, caretakers, etc., those affected by knock-on effects like delayed surgeries, and so forth), or it needs to say, well, we haven't died from the so-called "lockdowns," so if any lives at all were saved, that outweighs the 0% of time we spent dead during them.
It is certainly still possible that the interventions were still net negative, but it's not as simple as 1% of the population dying from covid < 2% of people's lives spent in "lockdowns."
People who support lockdowns aren't interested in facts; their viewpoints are shaped by marketing. It's been blindingly obvious from the moment we knew that coronavirus had a 1% IFR pre-vaccine that all of the restrictions have been net negative. We're now over 2% of our lives into this _by any definition_, which makes it utterly incontrovertible. That's why we have constant "reminders" everywhere; it's an attempt to…
> People who support lockdowns aren't interested in facts; their viewpoints are shaped by marketing. Sweeping generalizations aren't really adding to the discussion here. Please assume the best of others. We're all trying to find the best way forward with incomplete information. And tying ideas too closely to ones identity, or that of others, won't help us adapt as more evidence come to light.
People who call for authoritarian measures such as using force in order to prevent people from leaving their homes, from associating with friends and family, and from engaging in business, should not have the best assumed of them.
They have malicious intentions a priori because they treat controlling others with the same level of discipline as they would choosing which flavour of jam to put on their toast in the morning.
They are enemies of freedom and democracy; I'd argue they are truly terrorists, in that they seek to use fear and terror to control others' behaviours.
People who _explain and convince_ are interested in what you call discussion. People who use force against you unless you do exactly what they tell you are not engaging in discussion, they're engaging in an attempt at control.
i know some people said that covid-19 infection can cause brain fog in adults months after they recovered. there were also people saying that the vaccines may cause this as well. not saying i know exactly the reason for this, just pointing out arguments/news articles i read. i will say that fear or how we handle fear can mess up learning, it’s kind of hard to take the basics seriously when the message being sent out…
At this point in the pandemic we've should have come up with models that factor in the externalities of lockdown and factor that into policy decisions. That somehow still hasn't happened. People say "things are pretty much back to normal" but parents with kids in school know this is not true.
Quoted post unavailable.
CDQ is designed to correlate with age[1] and it's expected that the most recently born children have lower scores. Just treating age as a model covariate seems wrong? Shouldn't they do some kind of propensity score matching (match equally old childs with comparable maternal education, weight, etc.)? instead?
I also really doubt that a verbal development assessment already makes sense for children born after March 2020 (or you would have to limit the sample to children born in March/April 2020 and assessed just now)?
Would be nice if someone who is more experienced with this data + methodology can comment on that...
At this point in the pandemic we've should have come up with models that factor in the externalities of lockdown and factor that into policy decisions. That somehow still hasn't happened. People say "things are pretty much back to normal" but parents with kids in school know this is not true.
People who support lockdowns aren't interested in facts; their viewpoints are shaped by marketing. It's been blindingly obvious from the moment we knew that coronavirus had a 1% IFR pre-vaccine that all of the restrictions have been net negative. We're now over 2% of our lives into this _by any definition_, which makes it utterly incontrovertible. That's why we have constant "reminders" everywhere; it's an attempt to…
Not to mention that the IFR is dramatically skewed by age and obesity. Yes, early indications were that COVID was a serious, deadly pandemic, but we've had more than enough time and data at this point to recognize that this is not the plague that it is being treated as.