News:


Main Menu

Coronavirus news

Started by J. Eriksson, February 28, 2020, 09:18:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Matt Hummel

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 17, 2023, 04:30:43 PM
Quote from: MaddogLutheran on January 17, 2023, 04:22:07 PM

Sigh. Schools do not exist for the benefit of the teachers.


Well, without teachers, we're back to at-home learning. Some folks have just argued how poorly that went.

There is a difference between homeschooling and at-home learning.  If we as a society pivot to homeschooling, some of the issues about which I have written would be resolved.
Matt Hummel


"The chief purpose of life, for any of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks."

― J.R.R. Tolkien

Charles Austin

James Rustad:
The company I work for did not shut down to protect the adults.  It remained open with manufacturing going full tilt throughout the pandemic.  Precautions were taken, but no total shutdown like you think was needed for schools.

Me:
Yep. Can't let a little thing like a pandemic get in the way of making a profit.
Sorry, there's not more profit in public schools, maybe they could've been kept open. And again, the point is not necessarily the children. Infected children go home to parents and/or grandparents.
Companies can exercise considerable control over who works there and working conditions. Schools are open to everyone, there are fewer controls on what the conditions are or on conditions where the children and/or the teachers live.

Iowa-born. Long-time in NY/New Jersey, former LWF staff in Geneva.
ELCA PASTOR, ordained 1967. Former journalist. Retired in Minneapolis. Often critical of the ELCA, but more often a defender of its mission. Ignoring the not-so-subtle rude insults which often appear here.

peter_speckhard

Quote from: Charles Austin on January 18, 2023, 09:25:09 AM
James Rustad:
The company I work for did not shut down to protect the adults.  It remained open with manufacturing going full tilt throughout the pandemic.  Precautions were taken, but no total shutdown like you think was needed for schools.

Me:
Yep. Can't let a little thing like a pandemic get in the way of making a profit.
Sorry, there's not more profit in public schools, maybe they could've been kept open. And again, the point is not necessarily the children. Infected children go home to parents and/or grandparents.
Companies can exercise considerable control over who works there and working conditions. Schools are open to everyone, there are fewer controls on what the conditions are or on conditions where the children and/or the teachers live.
Wrong. Companies were kept open or closed depending on whether the rulers deemed them "essential." Heady stuff, that, getting to declare whose jobs matter and whose don't.

Dan Fienen

#6468
Quote from: Charles Austin on January 18, 2023, 09:25:09 AM
James Rustad:
The company I work for did not shut down to protect the adults.  It remained open with manufacturing going full tilt throughout the pandemic.  Precautions were taken, but no total shutdown like you think was needed for schools.

Me:
Yep. Can't let a little thing like a pandemic get in the way of making a profit.
Sorry, there's not more profit in public schools, maybe they could've been kept open. And again, the point is not necessarily the children. Infected children go home to parents and/or grandparents.
Companies can exercise considerable control over who works there and working conditions. Schools are open to everyone, there are fewer controls on what the conditions are or on conditions where the children and/or the teachers live.
Charles, your sarcasm is noted. There are some who gouge the public and their workers for excessive profits, but working for a living is not dishonorable. Both you and I have done it. Should we have, when the pandemic first struck, immediately shut down all manufacturing, including manufacturers of ventilators, pharmaceuticals, food products? What about cooks, nurses, and maintenance staff for senior citizen housing? Not only did they interact with the public, but they were around vulnerable senior citizens. In New York, Governor Cuomo was so concerned to protect the older population that he insisted that Covid positive patients be speedily returned to their nursing homes.


Proper precautions needed to be taken. But those precautions cost. Money was the least of the cost. Although when you consider the number of working stiffs who lost their jobs, small business people who were not rolling in profits but making a living by their businesses (that distasteful profit put food on their tables and roofs over their heads) lost not only profits but their businesses and their life savings. Are they not worthy of consideration? The creative community, performers, musicians, actors, stagehands, were immediately out of work. The service and hospitality industry workers, most of them already living paycheck to paycheck were out. Do those people not matter?

You and Brian talk about acting out of an overabundance of caution as though the measures imposed by that caution was merely a matter of minor inconvenience. Statistically speaking, those measures cost lives. Or do you only believe the statistics that support your position? Was that cost necessary. Perhaps. To some degree, certainly. But you speak as though even questioning the necessity of some of the measures or the degree to which they were imposed should be forbidden.


Many conspiracy theories were floated which had no basis in fact, and many resisted necessary precautions because they were inconvenient or cut into profits. But not all who questioned the edicts that floated down from on high were so foolish, gullible, or short sighted.

Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

RF

Whimsy here, whimsy there, o wait, here and there seem to emerge from a common there.

Facts here, facts there, facts everywhere but there.

What is one to do?  O the llama drama.

James S. Rustad

It's becoming even more obvious that some people live in a fantasy world.  Since I'm closing in on retirement, I sure hope that isn't the cause.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -Thomas Jefferson

Donald_Kirchner

#6471
Quote from: Charles Austin on January 18, 2023, 09:25:09 AM
Yep. Can't let a little thing like a pandemic get in the way of making a profit.
Sorry, there's not more profit in public schools, maybe they could've been kept open.

So, it was the money-hungry Dem rulers, with Fauci as their puppet, who closed the schools due to lack of financial gain and usefulness. Got it.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Donald_Kirchner

Quote from: Charles Austin on January 17, 2023, 05:26:22 AM
The point Brian and I are trying to make is that "learning" comes in different ways and that our children, if they are adversely affected by pandemic situations, are just facing the rigors of Life. Our cozy, untroubled world got shaken up. Deal with it.

That's the most hard-hearted, uncompassionate post I've read this year, but we're only 20 days in.  ::)

Hey, bombs aren't falling on you, so buck up kids!  :o
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it's not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Charles Austin

Yeah, it's a good message, I think. The world can be a tough place. Even for pampered over-protected isolated and well-off kids in the USA. And the message about perspective and global understanding is also a good thing to learn. When you didn't want to eat your broccoli as a kid, didn't your parents remind you that children in China were starving? (I always offered to send them my broccoli.)
Iowa-born. Long-time in NY/New Jersey, former LWF staff in Geneva.
ELCA PASTOR, ordained 1967. Former journalist. Retired in Minneapolis. Often critical of the ELCA, but more often a defender of its mission. Ignoring the not-so-subtle rude insults which often appear here.

James S. Rustad

Quote from: Charles Austin on January 20, 2023, 06:25:50 PM
When you didn't want to eat your broccoli as a kid, didn't your parents remind you that children in China were starving? (I always offered to send them my broccoli.)

My Mom said she tried that once when she was young.  It did not end well.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -Thomas Jefferson

James S. Rustad

One fourth-grade teacher said that at the beginning of this school year her students seemed more like second graders.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/02/1153936515/covids-impact-on-classrooms-will-linger-and-must-be-addressed-according-to-teach
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -Thomas Jefferson

James S. Rustad

It turns out that the CDC was right.  Too bad they changed to be wrong.

Quote from: https://reason.com/2023/02/08/a-scientific-review-shows-the-cdc-grossly-exaggerated-the-evidence-supporting-mask-mandates/?utm_medium=email
After questioning the value of general mask wearing early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) decided the practice was so demonstrably effective that it should be legally mandated even for 2-year-olds. A new review of the evidence suggests the CDC had it right the first time.

That review, published by the Cochrane Library, an authoritative collection of scientific databases, analyzed 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that aimed to measure the impact of surgical masks or N95 respirators on the transmission of respiratory viruses. It found that wearing a mask in public places "probably makes little or no difference" in the number of infections.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -Thomas Jefferson

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: James S. Rustad on February 08, 2023, 09:12:40 PM
It turns out that the CDC was right.  Too bad they changed to be wrong.

Quote from: https://reason.com/2023/02/08/a-scientific-review-shows-the-cdc-grossly-exaggerated-the-evidence-supporting-mask-mandates/?utm_medium=email
After questioning the value of general mask wearing early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) decided the practice was so demonstrably effective that it should be legally mandated even for 2-year-olds. A new review of the evidence suggests the CDC had it right the first time.

That review, published by the Cochrane Library, an authoritative collection of scientific databases, analyzed 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that aimed to measure the impact of surgical masks or N95 respirators on the transmission of respiratory viruses. It found that wearing a mask in public places "probably makes little or no difference" in the number of infections.


Any study that uses "probably" is not a good study. Proper scientific research would have a number, e.g., 80% effective or 5% effective.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

MaddogLutheran

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 08, 2023, 10:23:16 PM
Quote from: James S. Rustad on February 08, 2023, 09:12:40 PM
It turns out that the CDC was right.  Too bad they changed to be wrong.

Quote from: https://reason.com/2023/02/08/a-scientific-review-shows-the-cdc-grossly-exaggerated-the-evidence-supporting-mask-mandates/?utm_medium=email
After questioning the value of general mask wearing early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) decided the practice was so demonstrably effective that it should be legally mandated even for 2-year-olds. A new review of the evidence suggests the CDC had it right the first time.

That review, published by the Cochrane Library, an authoritative collection of scientific databases, analyzed 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that aimed to measure the impact of surgical masks or N95 respirators on the transmission of respiratory viruses. It found that wearing a mask in public places "probably makes little or no difference" in the number of infections.


Any study that uses "probably" is not a good study. Proper scientific research would have a number, e.g., 80% effective or 5% effective.

LOL (AKA why some of us have been critiquing past studies, and/or people's conclusions from them.  That actual data in favor of masks to date has not been decisive--no there there.)
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

pearson

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on February 08, 2023, 10:23:16 PM

Any study that uses "probably" is not a good study. Proper scientific research would have a number, e.g., 80% effective or 5% effective.


I'm not sure what kind of studies you're referring to.  Science is grounded in probabilities.  To use your example, if a piece of "proper scientific research" concluded that a given result was 80% effective, that would mean it is "probably" effective, no?

Tom Pearson

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk