121–130 of 348 posts
They didn’t test these children for antibodies. They just assume that infection is not the cause of the differences they see. And all the commenters seem to be blaming lockdowns.
Even "Long Covid" sounds a lot like undiagnosed depression or chronic fatigue syndrome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is possible that people who support(ed) lockdowns are not motivated solely by marketing. The original quote calls out people, not views.
I disagree. It is not possible because it is not possible to arrive at the stance via logic. If not for the marketing campaign; certainly if not for the "original sin" of Italy's lockdown; we wouldn't even be speaking about this. If coronavirus were highly transmissible ebola it would make sense. It's just not, most of us know tens or hundreds of people who've had it at this point (the UK has a _confirmed_ case rate…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good to know. Which country? Why are they implementing lockdowns? The other problem is that just hitting the % isn’t good enough. You need to keep up to date if boosters are required. So definitely not easy.
Maybe portugal and the likely reason in any answer will be hospitalisation rates.
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/15/1063830104/portugal-covid-vac...
Another outsize impact of overreaching quarantine restrictions. Why do we let politicians rather than epidemologists make these decisions?
Precisely because of things like this. 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 ince…
Those aren't the same. The vast majority of politicians will almost always favor short-term "free candy!" decisions that they know will be popular with their base come election time, rather than make difficult decisions that would actually improve the quality of life for their constituents over even the slightly-longer term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you prefer society just ignores this inconvenient fact? The risk of developmental issues was obvious to many people at the beginning of the lockdowns. Now we have some data. It will help us make better decisions in the future. Every choice has consequences.
The inconvenient fact incontrovertibly established by a non-peer reviewed paper that most of HN probably just read the abstract of anyways? I "love" how you and the comment below can take a "be gentle with each other" comment and turn it into a springboard for your anti-lockdown rhetoric. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
You don't even need a study for this, it's just common sense for people who have interacted with a toddler in their life before and after nursery (after 2-3 years old, I wouldn't recommend sending them before - they tend to not be ready for social life and not having one dedicated adult to them)
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. It is not possible because it is not possible to arrive at the stance via logic. If not for the marketing campaign; certainly if not for the "original sin" of Italy's lockdown; we wouldn't even be speaking about this. If coronavirus were highly transmissible ebola it would make sense. It's just not, most of us know tens or hundreds of people who've had it at this point (the UK has a _confirmed_ case rate…
The original “lockdowns” were literally good for some businesses. Conventions and restaurants would have failed (they can’t survive on 10% attendance) but can’t get out of their vendor contracts without the government canceling for them.
I was there, remember? The pubs were rammed, Boris started saying "don't do X", numbers decreased a lot, he said "we make this legal now", the world stopped.
I'm bored of debating this now so whatever, all I get online is a stream of trolls. Good luck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Half the problem is no one has actually expressed a goal we're working towards. Yeah I don’t think the goals have been clear, even if they have been changing over time. I think the clearest goal now should be a 90% vaccination rate to turn Covid into the common cold, and then going back to life as normal, but as long as huge swathes of the population refuse to get vaccinated this goal is unattainable. Edit: I belie…
Some antivaxxers are just afraid of needles, so if we had a nasal spray vaccine they’d take it.
Would love to see the raw data, but from their own plots you can see that 2017, 2018 and 2019 show a trend that would make the 2020 and 2021 data consistent with the trend. As they show data comparing 2020 and 2021 to the previous years, they could have shown a matrix to compare year over year across the data. I will wait for someone to look at the raw data and peer review the paper before jumping to conclusions. I'm…
Appreciate the caution.
We took a different approach.
Unlimited screen time.
Our daughter’s rate of learning is incredible.
She willingly explores IRL play. No battles when we ask her to put down her iPad.
Roblox and Minecraft are our shared playtime.
I was homeschooled with no TV. My experience of her development is similar to what I experienced with my siblings.
A healthy dose of skepticism is warranted when new tech is the explanation for diminishing returns in our existing systems. Children are in aggressively structured, impoverished educational systems nationwide - bankrupt in both their pedagogy and their budgets. Teachers & administrators have raised the warning that as many as 80% of children have not engaged at all with their schooling in the past two years.
Maybe iPads aren’t the problem.
Maybe they are one reason cognitive decline in children isn’t dramatically worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They will manage just fine because they are exposed to enough maskless people at home and in other social settings 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…
Yes, times are tough for everyone, including children. I find it even more abhorrent to single out masks because "you can't see people's faces", while ignoring what their purpose is and what can they prevent. We've seen enough idiots decimate their family and friends while repeating this exact same argument.