Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Holy cow California is screwed...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/14/us/california-orange-county-reopen-school-no-masks-trnd/index.html
Looks like Sweden did it right again, in regards to keeping smaller children in school.
-
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Holy cow California is screwed...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/14/us/california-orange-county-reopen-school-no-masks-trnd/index.html
Looks like Sweden did it right again, in regards to keeping smaller children in school.
That's an old article and goes against everything we've been hearing about the spread of the virus. So much so, that in fact that group has now been identified as a new, even higher risk, because new diseases in young children have been identified coming from COVID infected groups.
Do you have any information on a report that upholds that claim? It goes against all logic (that we know of) because it basically claims that children's bodies can't spread something that we know is spread in the air, on surfaces, etc. But they are claiming that children's bodies kill it on contact, to the point that they make it safer than having no contact at all?
At some point, we have to say, that just sounds insane.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Holy cow California is screwed...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/14/us/california-orange-county-reopen-school-no-masks-trnd/index.html
Looks like Sweden did it right again, in regards to keeping smaller children in school.
That's an old article and goes against everything we've been hearing about the spread of the virus. So much so, that in fact that group has now been identified as a new, even higher risk, because new diseases in young children have been identified coming from COVID infected groups.
Do you have any information on a report that upholds that claim? It goes against all logic (that we know of) because it basically claims that children's bodies can't spread something that we know is spread in the air, on surfaces, etc. But they are claiming that children's bodies kill it on contact, to the point that they make it safer than having no contact at all?
At some point, we have to say, that just sounds insane.
I've only seen other articles claiming very low numbers in young children, younger than 10 for example, and even those are questionable given that so many of the U.S. COVID-19 "confirmed" cases are fake. I've yet to see anything different.
-
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/10/coronavirus-why-kids-arent-the-germbags-and-grownups-are/
There's also a lot of articles and some studies on how bad this is for children, keeping them home and out of school, etc.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7156857/coronavirus-physical-emotional-impact-children/
This may be news to the U.S., but has long been known here how bad this whole situation has been for the kids.
-
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Holy cow California is screwed...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/14/us/california-orange-county-reopen-school-no-masks-trnd/index.html
Looks like Sweden did it right again, in regards to keeping smaller children in school.
That's an old article and goes against everything we've been hearing about the spread of the virus. So much so, that in fact that group has now been identified as a new, even higher risk, because new diseases in young children have been identified coming from COVID infected groups.
Do you have any information on a report that upholds that claim? It goes against all logic (that we know of) because it basically claims that children's bodies can't spread something that we know is spread in the air, on surfaces, etc. But they are claiming that children's bodies kill it on contact, to the point that they make it safer than having no contact at all?
At some point, we have to say, that just sounds insane.
I've only seen other articles claiming very low numbers in young children, younger than 10 for example, and even those are questionable given that so many of the U.S. COVID-19 "confirmed" cases are fake. I've yet to see anything different.
Um, what?
-
@Grey Wow, so much hate. It's not good for the mind nor body. Not saying you are right or wrong. Doesn't matter. Seriously. Examine where it is coming from. Your family will love you for it. They deserve it.
-
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
There's also a lot of articles and some studies on how bad this is for children, keeping them home and out of school, etc.
Keeping them home, yes. However, how much of that is parental issues? When people homeschool we talk about the opposite, how it is so healthy for them. Now suddenly people having to homeschool is mentally hard on kids? Something doesn't add up. It's not the lack of school, it's how badly families are handling it or what the schools are doing as alternatives or whatever.
That doesn't mean that school isn't the blanket "we give up" option, but it's obviously not having kids at home that's the issue. It's lots of kids with bad environments, or as we've seen from lots of parents, schools finding ways to torture families instead of giving them healthy ways to be at home.
-
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
This one, for example, we have to be wary, because they did the study before they could get results. They are ignoring the reporting time, which is a minimum of three weeks to see anything, and doing studies before the data comes back and using the lack of time to falsify the results.
It's like firing an arrow at someone, and then studying the health effects of the person being shot before the arrow hits them and concluding that arrows aren't dangerous.
-
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
There's also a lot of articles and some studies on how bad this is for children, keeping them home and out of school, etc.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7156857/coronavirus-physical-emotional-impact-children/I think this article is reasonable, but we have to take it in context. Here is what it says: "“(It’s) a result of a loss of routine. They’re no longer in class, they’re no longer seeing their friends, their teachers, and it’s really having a negative impact on them.”"
Great. They don't see their friends, their routines have been messed up, etc. Kids need friends, routines, etc. That doesn't mean that going back to school is smart. It does suggest that seeing friends matters and total lock down might be bad for kids. However, loads of kids see their friends more now because they aren't in school where you are not allowed to socialize. I know my kids get tons more "other kid" time now, because of COVID sending the kids at school home.
Now if parents take away the ability to use social media or whatever, we have an issue of parents causing these problems. Now we are saying that schools should reopen to take parenting out of the hands of parents because children should be overseen by the state, not the family (and I'm not arguing that they shouldn't, just saying what that means.) But it's not school being closed that's the problem, it's the home life.
Same with the routine. It's been long enough that kids have a new routine. Returning to school would actually be breaking the routine now, especially for younger kids. This is the "new normal." So while taking school away was bad, we've absorbed that bad, now sending them back can do the same thing again.
-
@scottalanmiller You say this as if all U.S. families/parents/guardians of children are equally able to home school, that the parents don't need to go to work and have all the time and ability to home school their children. Not all families have a SAHM or Dad, or jobs that allow for WFH, or etc...
There's a ton of variables.
-
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller You say this as if all U.S. families/parents/guardians of children are equally able to home school, that the parents don't need to go to work and have all the time and ability to home school their children. Not all families have a SAHM or Dad, or jobs that allow for WFH, or etc...
There's a ton of variables.
There are, but it's more complex than that. One, it's not the government's job to take over parenting and especially not forcibly. And just because people don't, don't mean can't. A huge number of people simply are unwilling to do so, rather than not being able to.
In many countries, it's just the parents' responsibilities and "can" or not is not considered. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't. But Americans tend to treat "the government raising their kids" as an entitlement rather than an option benefit.
-
@Grey said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Maybe if we get vaccines all the time
Then, that would be a vaccine similar to the flu shot. Not all vaccines are a full efficacy forever.
Flu is like annually, though. This would be a lot more.
Is it though? You get the shot normally in what November? and it lasts until March, maybe April? I mean I just don't know - but it doesn't need to last the whole year for normal flu because the heat of summer really dampens it.
Now, of course, that said - Covid-19 has clearly shown to not give a shit about heat. So quarterly inoculations could become a normal thing - damn, someone's making a mint.The goal is to eliminate the virus, just like smallpox. I suppose the cost of that is greater than a funeral, but then, what's the cost of losing a child? After all, it was only alive for months, maybe a couple years? You couldn't have invested more than a hundred grand in that time. Compared to the cost of a vaccine, and the 7 billion already spent, that's nothing.
Are you just as heartless as our narcissistic moron of a president who'd rather divide the country than lead it, who'd rather claim that the world is out to get him personally because he listens to conspiracies from qanon, and who's golfed more in his first term than any other first term president while also having been critical of those same previous presidents' time off? I don't understand why anyone would listen to an administration that is saying, "some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
The government is run by the very people that he's allowing to die by his inaction, his stupidity, and plain attitude. It's gross negligence. If you want to really listen, look at his actions: everyone coming in to contact with him is contact checked and covid tested. The administration knows how to combat the virus; they just don't fucking care.
Science has already given us the answers. No one is listening. You'd rather join the army of Karens and carry a card from a fake company, claiming you have ADA issues that prevent you from wearing the same mask that you'd demand that your surgeon wear for that 8 hour operation to remove your head from your ass. If everyone did that in the beginning, if Dear Leader had actually required it, then you'd be looking at a much different US economy, and the country might not be banned from EU travel.
But, yes, let's talk about cost and economy. Let's discuss convenience of a vaccine. I'll be over here checking out the receipts from my father's 2004 burial so I can compare to the current supply/demand economy for half my family that's over 60 years old. You know, the present rate of death is more than 9/11 every day? I'd think scump would know that, considering he had some experience cleaning up at ground zero. right?
Nice pidgen hole there - oh and also - nice soap box.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
There's also a lot of articles and some studies on how bad this is for children, keeping them home and out of school, etc.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7156857/coronavirus-physical-emotional-impact-children/I think this article is reasonable, but we have to take it in context. Here is what it says: "“(It’s) a result of a loss of routine. They’re no longer in class, they’re no longer seeing their friends, their teachers, and it’s really having a negative impact on them.”"
Great. They don't see their friends, their routines have been messed up, etc. Kids need friends, routines, etc. That doesn't mean that going back to school is smart. It does suggest that seeing friends matters and total lock down might be bad for kids. However, loads of kids see their friends more now because they aren't in school where you are not allowed to socialize. I know my kids get tons more "other kid" time now, because of COVID sending the kids at school home.
Now if parents take away the ability to use social media or whatever, we have an issue of parents causing these problems. Now we are saying that schools should reopen to take parenting out of the hands of parents because children should be overseen by the state, not the family (and I'm not arguing that they shouldn't, just saying what that means.) But it's not school being closed that's the problem, it's the home life.
Same with the routine. It's been long enough that kids have a new routine. Returning to school would actually be breaking the routine now, especially for younger kids. This is the "new normal." So while taking school away was bad, we've absorbed that bad, now sending them back can do the same thing again.
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller You say this as if all U.S. families/parents/guardians of children are equally able to home school, that the parents don't need to go to work and have all the time and ability to home school their children. Not all families have a SAHM or Dad, or jobs that allow for WFH, or etc...
There's a ton of variables.
There are, but it's more complex than that. One, it's not the government's job to take over parenting and especially not forcibly. And just because people don't, don't mean can't. A huge number of people simply are unwilling to do so, rather than not being able to.
In many countries, it's just the parents' responsibilities and "can" or not is not considered. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't. But Americans tend to treat "the government raising their kids" as an entitlement rather than an option benefit.
Everything you just said literally had nothing at all to do with my point.
-
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller You say this as if all U.S. families/parents/guardians of children are equally able to home school, that the parents don't need to go to work and have all the time and ability to home school their children. Not all families have a SAHM or Dad, or jobs that allow for WFH, or etc...
There's a ton of variables.
There are, but it's more complex than that. One, it's not the government's job to take over parenting and especially not forcibly. And just because people don't, don't mean can't. A huge number of people simply are unwilling to do so, rather than not being able to.
In many countries, it's just the parents' responsibilities and "can" or not is not considered. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't. But Americans tend to treat "the government raising their kids" as an entitlement rather than an option benefit.
Everything you just said literally had nothing at all to do with my point.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say, I think Scott is talking to your point - he's seemingly disagreeing with you saying that many can work from home and choose not to.
Now he says that, and I suppose from a pure ability - sure they can. But they can also starve to death because they have no money from not working, because many companies, especially small ones, aren't paying people to stay home. Sure Uncle Sam is paying people unemployment, but only if furloughed/laid off/fired - if you quit, which is what many of these people would have to do - i.e. I can't work because I have to take care of my kids as they are now at home and I have no baby sitter/money to pay daycare - that's tantamount to walking off the job... now the employer can likely treat this either way - as quitting, or fire them for no show. It's in the company's interest to treat it as quit, because that puts a huge delay in paying unemployment benefits.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller You say this as if all U.S. families/parents/guardians of children are equally able to home school, that the parents don't need to go to work and have all the time and ability to home school their children. Not all families have a SAHM or Dad, or jobs that allow for WFH, or etc...
There's a ton of variables.
There are, but it's more complex than that. One, it's not the government's job to take over parenting and especially not forcibly. And just because people don't, don't mean can't. A huge number of people simply are unwilling to do so, rather than not being able to.
In many countries, it's just the parents' responsibilities and "can" or not is not considered. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't. But Americans tend to treat "the government raising their kids" as an entitlement rather than an option benefit.
Everything you just said literally had nothing at all to do with my point.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say, I think Scott is talking to your point - he's seemingly disagreeing with you saying that many can work from home and choose not to.
Now he says that, and I suppose from a pure ability - sure they can. But they can also starve to death because they have no money from not working, because many companies, especially small ones, aren't paying people to stay home. Sure Uncle Sam is paying people unemployment, but only if furloughed/laid off/fired - if you quit, which is what many of these people would have to do - i.e. I can't work because I have to take care of my kids as they are now at home and I have no baby sitter/money to pay daycare - that's tantamount to walking off the job... now the employer can likely treat this either way - as quitting, or fire them for no show. It's in the company's interest to treat it as quit, because that puts a huge delay in paying unemployment benefits.
No, most jobs are not jobs that allow remote work. You simply cannot shut down all jobs, as many of them require physical work. You just can't, it's not sustainable. You'll run out of food, as one example. Important services like police, fire fighters, road workers, people behind closed networks running nuclear power plants, etc.... it's a fucking HUGE list of people who simply cannot do their job from home. In addition to that, not every place allows all workers to work from home.
And then in a single mom/dad scenario, not every job will allow you to be with the kids all day while you are supposed to be working and getting things done. Kids can't be expected to sit quietly all day and help themselves. There's 0-8 year olds for example, that's just too young to basically let be home alone (and no I don't care about people's perfect kids who are <10 and act like they are 30... that's not the majority). Not everyone can quit their job for 2 years to take care of their kids.
Mom & Dad homes or dual guardian homes, then it has the potential to be easier, but not necessarily. There are FAR TOO MANY variables at play, and the "Scott's World" ideology of "everyone should be able to be home and school their kids perfectly" just isn't what happens in practice. What "should be" isn't at all and is rarely what "is".
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller You say this as if all U.S. families/parents/guardians of children are equally able to home school, that the parents don't need to go to work and have all the time and ability to home school their children. Not all families have a SAHM or Dad, or jobs that allow for WFH, or etc...
There's a ton of variables.
There are, but it's more complex than that. One, it's not the government's job to take over parenting and especially not forcibly. And just because people don't, don't mean can't. A huge number of people simply are unwilling to do so, rather than not being able to.
In many countries, it's just the parents' responsibilities and "can" or not is not considered. Maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't. But Americans tend to treat "the government raising their kids" as an entitlement rather than an option benefit.
Everything you just said literally had nothing at all to do with my point.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say, I think Scott is talking to your point - he's seemingly disagreeing with you saying that many can work from home and choose not to.
Now he says that, and I suppose from a pure ability - sure they can. But they can also starve to death because they have no money from not working, because many companies, especially small ones, aren't paying people to stay home. Sure Uncle Sam is paying people unemployment, but only if furloughed/laid off/fired - if you quit, which is what many of these people would have to do - i.e. I can't work because I have to take care of my kids as they are now at home and I have no baby sitter/money to pay daycare - that's tantamount to walking off the job... now the employer can likely treat this either way - as quitting, or fire them for no show. It's in the company's interest to treat it as quit, because that puts a huge delay in paying unemployment benefits.
My case, I fully work from home and do my job well this way. My wife is a stay at home mom, so yes in my case it works out perfectly. She could easily even homeschool our children no problem. But my son isn't in school yet, and my daughter goes to school as normal (except now for summer vacation I mean). But here, home schooling isn't allowed except in extraordinarily rare cases. But in the U.S., it'd not be an issue.
Excluding my case, and Scott's case, I know that not everyone has the same situation as us and can't necessarily stay at home, work from home, and home school.... and I know that not all parents are qualified enough teachers and may not necessarily be able to home school well. Regardless of the parent's situation, maybe they aren't mentally able to do it, whatever, just because they should have made better choices in life, doesn't mean the kids should have to suffer.
-
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
Mom & Dad homes or dual guardian homes, then it has the potential to be easier, but not necessarily. There are FAR TOO MANY variables at play, and the "Scott's World" ideology of "everyone should be able to be home and school their kids perfectly" just isn't what happens in practice. What "should be" isn't at all and is rarely what "is".
So what I said was many, not all. And the whole school concept disregards all those people who can't work the same schedule as school. Work overnights? Screwed... now you work AND have to deal with your kids at school.
School isn't some silver bullet. The government taking over the care and education of kids isn't a silver bullet. Governments are often exerting this control, people have given in to it because it feels nice to not have as much responsibility or they feel trapped, and society has conformed because it had to. Skip school in this manner, and society will adapt to that new normal. Make school be centralized but online, we'll adapt. Make school be at night, we'll adapt. Different people get benefits or screwed in different scenarios. You are using "people have already adapted" as if school changing wouldn't need to result in jobs changing. But it changed in the twentieth century, and the system is garbage, so why not make people adjust again, but to something actually good?
-
Color me not surprised...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/15/politics/kevin-stitt-oklahoma-governor-coronavirus/index.html
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
Mom & Dad homes or dual guardian homes, then it has the potential to be easier, but not necessarily. There are FAR TOO MANY variables at play, and the "Scott's World" ideology of "everyone should be able to be home and school their kids perfectly" just isn't what happens in practice. What "should be" isn't at all and is rarely what "is".
So what I said was many, not all. And the whole school concept disregards all those people who can't work the same schedule as school. Work overnights? Screwed... now you work AND have to deal with your kids at school.
School isn't some silver bullet. The government taking over the care and education of kids isn't a silver bullet. Governments are often exerting this control, people have given in to it because it feels nice to not have as much responsibility or they feel trapped, and society has conformed because it had to. Skip school in this manner, and society will adapt to that new normal. Make school be centralized but online, we'll adapt. Make school be at night, we'll adapt. Different people get benefits or screwed in different scenarios. You are using "people have already adapted" as if school changing wouldn't need to result in jobs changing. But it changed in the twentieth century, and the system is garbage, so why not make people adjust again, but to something actually good?
solid point - at least I currently think so - how long has the modern school setup been in place? i.e. k-12 go to school m-f 7'ish to 3:30ish?
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
solid point - at least I currently think so - how long has the modern school setup been in place? i.e. k-12 go to school m-f 7'ish to 3:30ish?
I think since around the 1930s. It's more recent than you'd think. And it's not universal and still changing. The ages, times, length, purpose, keeps evolving. School today is nothing like when I was a kid, for example.
