Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Way to Grow Up

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 714 posts

Re: No Way to Grow Up

#201

Post by downWidOutaFite »

cm2187 wrote: post #94
animal_spirits wrote: post #5

> For the past two years, Americans have accepted more harm to children in exchange for less harm to adults. At first we didn't know how much harm the virus would cause to children. But now that we see it is much less dangerous for them we shouldn't be preventing them from learning because we are afraid of getting sick. The children are the future, and in order to secure a positive growth in society it is our obligat…

Chinese deaths stats by age were available from March 2020. It is just the media decided to ignore them.

We've all heard about the children numbers, no one is ignoring anything.

I find it offensive to use "the media" when describing other's positions in a debate. You're basically saying your opponents are brainwashed by evil media while you are completely objective. And ignoring all the media that you consume that backs up your position.

Re: No Way to Grow Up

#202

Post by jdminhbg »

btown wrote: post #186
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also the abnormally high ratio of people who die within 1 year of catching Covid from other reasons: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-survivors... 233% increase in chance of death for people less than 65... 183% increase for people 65+: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.77843...

The article actually says it's 233% increase in chance of death for people younger than 65, which is even scarier: > For people younger than 65 who were hospitalized with COVID-19, the risk of death in the 12 months after the infection was 233% higher than it was for people who did not have the disease, results published in the journal Frontiers in Medicine have shown. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fme…

This is comparing the risk of death for people who are hospitalized to the risk for their age group, which is missing the major confounding factor that those who are hospitalized for Covid (especially in younger cohorts) are very disproportionately sick (from diabetes, obesity, immune issues from transplants, etc).

Re: No Way to Grow Up

#203

Post by CountDrewku »

yupper32 wrote: post #99

Honest question: At what point do we give up? I'm in the Bay Area and it'll be coming up on 2 years soon of what basically amounts to a social shut down. -- Many social groups are just not getting together anymore, including most of mine. -- Concerts, sporting events, parties of most sizes, crowded bars/clubs just seem off the table at this point. -- Masks for the majority of it, which makes gym going and working out…

No post body was provided.

Re: No Way to Grow Up

#204

Post by asdff »

vitro wrote: post #156
_jal wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There appears to be a weird blind-spot when discussing COVID outcomes - anything short of death appears to be discounted or ignored. So hospital issues, long COVID, etc. just don't exist, so catching it either didn't matter or you're dead. On a planet where that was true, that sort of reasoning would make sense. (As it does if you're trying to encourage other people to ignore risks.) What I don't understand is why so…

The quora answer [1] by Franklin Veaux to question "How can a disease with 1% mortality shut down the United States?" explains nicely that it is not binary live/die at all. Mind though that this was written in the beginning of the pandemic when we didn't have the same information as now, so numbers may be imprecise, but the explanation still stands. https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-disease-with-1-mortality-shu...

Even if no one died and people only went to the hospital, a huge issue is that they are there in the hospital in need of care and there are finite trained hands in the hospital. Not to mention you still have everyone else coming in with their car accidents and heart attacks at the same time.

Better questions to think about are why the U.S. medical system supporting the words largest economy can't trivially expand its capacity to treat a relatively benign respiratory virus on top of its usual duties, or why there is a shortage in the training pipeline, or why people need ER care for other things in the first place.

Re: No Way to Grow Up

#205

Post by robga »

superfrank wrote: post #18

I'm not sure I like this article. They seems to overstate what the sources they link to claim. For example the article says > Some researchers are skeptical that school closures reduce Covid cases in most instances. But when you go to the study they link, it says > Although school closures reduce the number of contacts children have, and may decrease transmission, a study of 12 million adults in the UK found no diffe…

My view is there is a strong “anchoring effect” at play. Because so many vulnerable actually died at the outset, and indeed since, it’s become a yardstick for damage.

Even the qualifiers of long covid and life altering conditions seems a heavy bar to set. A new rapidly spreading severe flu with low death risk is damaging enough to families and economies to take broad action.

With schools, there has been a strange preoccupation on only the health of the child. For many (like me), the risk is to the child’s parents and family where it is a major vector. I’d say 95%+ of my risk comes from the school risk. Maybe there are not enough of us to show in stats? But the logic is sound. The lack of any improvement in school ventilation in my country has been so terribly disappointing.

Re: No Way to Grow Up

#206

Post by adam_arthur »

gengelbro wrote: post #164
jdminhbg wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> kids with long covid ... physically disable them potentially for life At what point do we decide that totally evidence-free hysterical claims like this are as much misinformation as anti-vaxx posting is?

I wonder how we'll look back at this in 10 years.

Given that evidence of Post Viral syndrome exists for most other viruses, probably about the same as we look at those today.

Not that we have lingering/longer term effects of other viruses to observe though..

Re: No Way to Grow Up

#207

Post by shmel »

mithr wrote: post #111

It's amazing to me that this article presents the "hard choices" as mostly "should we trade off harming children against harming adults ?", rather than "should we trade off not harming anyone against people's freedom to choose to go about their normal lives while unvaccinated ?" and only mentions the unvaccinated offhandedly. It's less that the US has chosen to prioritize adults over children and thus children are su…

Will it even help? In what country did it help? France mandated vaxx passports literally everywhere (pretty much like you suggest) and yet they reported, what, 270k cases just today? Why do you expect a different result in the US from the very same policy?

Re: No Way to Grow Up

#208

Post by ModernMech »

datavirtue wrote: post #138
animal_spirits wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our taxation system is already set up for these kinds of transactions, and we definitely should be putting more money into teacher salaries and education.

No we should not. They all get a pension. Do you know how much pensions cost? There are people on waiting lists to fill teacher positions. The benefits make up for the low bank deposit.

My district is short on teachers. Here, it takes 10 years of service to vest into a pension, and most teachers burn out way before then. I’d love to see an example of the waiting list you’re talking about. Maybe my district can advertise there to find help.

Re: No Way to Grow Up

#209

Post by animal_spirits »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #85
superfrank wrote: post #18

I'm not sure I like this article. They seems to overstate what the sources they link to claim. For example the article says > Some researchers are skeptical that school closures reduce Covid cases in most instances. But when you go to the study they link, it says > Although school closures reduce the number of contacts children have, and may decrease transmission, a study of 12 million adults in the UK found no diffe…

Welcome to link "citations". Journalists use links as a way to back up their statements because almost no one will click on a the link and even less will actually read it. Link "citations" are used a lot.

It worked though. OP clicked on the link and proceeded to talk about it here on this forum. Would you have seen that study otherwise? I would not. Regardless if it doesn't work on everyone, that shouldn't be the goal. The links should be there for those of us who click on them.

Re: No Way to Grow Up

#210

Post by cortesoft »

animal_spirits wrote: post #5

> For the past two years, Americans have accepted more harm to children in exchange for less harm to adults. At first we didn't know how much harm the virus would cause to children. But now that we see it is much less dangerous for them we shouldn't be preventing them from learning because we are afraid of getting sick. The children are the future, and in order to secure a positive growth in society it is our obligat…

How are we so sure that the declines these years won't be easily made back up after they return to normal schooling in the coming years? Also, are these test results really indicative of important value that the kids aren't getting?
Post reply on HN