Coronavirus UK: Only 10% parents happy to send kids back to school

First topic message reminder :

Most parents do not want their children to return to school as soon as the coronavirus lockdown is ended, with some happy to wait as long as 18 months, a survey has today revealed.

Just one in ten parents said they would happily send their children back to school as soon as the lockdown ends, results from the survey suggests.

A quarter of parents said the would feel comfortable with a September return date if it was confirmed now, while 7 per cent favoured July, according to data from the survey by charity Parentkind.

One in ten parents said they would only be happy to send their children back when staff and pupils had been vaccinated against Covid-19 - even if this took up to 18 months.

The figures come as union bosses today warned that teachers in fear of catching coronavirus are being asked to come back to schools, including for face-to-face meetings, to prepare for the return of students.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8296605/Teachers-risk-catching-coronavirus-asked-return-schools-prepare-reopening.html

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Because the laws don't seem to be very effective.

Compare the draconian measures taken by the UK and the far less restrictive ones  of Sweden and compare results.  

You're saying the laws worked based on the hearsay of the people that instituted them.

If the lockdown and social distancing hadn't been put in place the death toll would have been much higher....estimates were as high as 250 thousand at this point.

Sweden and the Uk are very different and cant really be comparable.
We have many more built up cities and international airports, we house 66 million people as opposed to their 10 million.

Sweden has seemed to lockdown less than most other countries though.....time will tell if they have made the right decision.

There's always "estimates" used to legislate more restrictions.

Governments can (and have throughout history) provided estimates to legitimize all manner of nonsense.

That's why they rightfully deserve our skepticism.

Remember the "estimates" from the Iraq War.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
If the lockdown and social distancing hadn't been put in place the death toll would have been much higher....estimates were as high as 250 thousand at this point.

Sweden and the Uk are very different and cant really be comparable.
We have many more built up cities and international airports, we house 66 million people as opposed to their 10 million.

Sweden has seemed to lockdown less than most other countries though.....time will tell if they have made the right decision.

There's always "estimates" used to legislate more restrictions.

Governments can (and have throughout history) provided estimates to legitimize all manner of nonsense.

That's why they rightfully deserve our skepticism.

Remember the "estimates" from the Iraq War.  

You're so full of shit, you redneck honkie. 86,000 deaths--dare I say, murders--is enough. You've got a losing cause.

When you're catching flak from the left and the right, it must mean you're over the target.

Maddog wrote:When you're catching flak from the left and the right, it must mean you're over the target.  

Either that, or both of them know you are full of trash.

Maddog wrote:When you're catching flak from the left and the right, it must mean you're over the target.  

I'm not throwing flak, I am just debating the issue.

A phone in on local radio this morning from a cross section of people, seemed heavily in favour of not sending their children back to school in 2 weeks time. Unions are against it, and parents wont be penalised if they decide to keep their children away....so it's a choice not an order, which is a good thing imo.

Teachers especially doubted the decision was the correct one, especially for reception who would instinctively not be able to keep the social distancing from their friends.They would find it confusing and upsetting, even if the school did have the space to keep classes down to a bare minimum.

Just as an aside, it seems to me that young kids today hug and kiss their friends and family members a lot more than my generation, even my sons generation did.

Syl wrote:A phone in on local radio this morning from a cross section of people, seemed heavily in favour of not sending their children back to school in 2 weeks time. Unions are against it, and parents wont be penalised if they decide to keep their children away....so it's a choice not an order, which is a good thing imo.

Teachers especially doubted the decision was the correct one, especially for reception who would instinctively not be able to keep the social distancing from their friends.They would find it confusing and upsetting, even if the school did have the space to keep classes down to a bare minimum.

Just as an aside, it seems to me that young kids today hug and kiss their friends and family members a lot more than my generation, even my sons generation did.

See, people are skeptical of the government. If its OK to be a skeptic when the government says it's safe, its OK to be a skeptic when they say its dangerous.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:A phone in on local radio this morning from a cross section of people, seemed heavily in favour of not sending their children back to school in 2 weeks time. Unions are against it, and parents wont be penalised if they decide to keep their children away....so it's a choice not an order, which is a good thing imo.

Teachers especially doubted the decision was the correct one, especially for reception who would instinctively not be able to keep the social distancing from their friends.They would find it confusing and upsetting, even if the school did have the space to keep classes down to a bare minimum.

Just as an aside, it seems to me that young kids today hug and kiss their friends and family members a lot more than my generation, even my sons generation did.

See, people are skeptical of the government. If its OK to be a skeptic when the government says it's safe, its OK to be a skeptic when they say its dangerous.

I think the death figures of a virus that has swept the globe is proof enough that it's dangerous don't you?

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

See, people are skeptical of the government. If its OK to be a skeptic when the government says it's safe, its OK to be a skeptic when they say its dangerous.

I think the death figures of a virus that has swept the globe is proof enough that it's dangerous don't you?

Spot-on. It's an empirical question, not one of political theory. You wouldn't jump off a cliff just to be free of government interference in the form of a "Do Not Approach the Edge' sign. Why? Because danger is a real factor, regardless of who agrees or disagrees.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:A phone in on local radio this morning from a cross section of people, seemed heavily in favour of not sending their children back to school in 2 weeks time. Unions are against it, and parents wont be penalised if they decide to keep their children away....so it's a choice not an order, which is a good thing imo.

Teachers especially doubted the decision was the correct one, especially for reception who would instinctively not be able to keep the social distancing from their friends.They would find it confusing and upsetting, even if the school did have the space to keep classes down to a bare minimum.

Just as an aside, it seems to me that young kids today hug and kiss their friends and family members a lot more than my generation, even my sons generation did.

See, people are skeptical of the government. If its OK to be a skeptic when the government says it's safe, its OK to be a skeptic when they say its dangerous.

As long as you reflexively distrust the government without looking into the issue for yourself, right?

Because as long as enough people think the government never tells the truth about anything, it will never be a serious-enough threat to the power of Big Money, and that's all that really matters, right?

Tommy Monk wrote:

My point was that if we are all supposed to be equal and all in it together... And as plenty of other people have been going to work and kids going to school throughout all this... Everybody else can do so too... Unless you can tell me why you think you are more important than all the others I just mentioned...!?

I don't think I'm more important than anybody -- the point is that the people who AREN'T essential, like myself, should be avoiding contact with the public as much as possible.

The R rate of the virus has been estimated by your Tory government to be about 3 percent under normal conditions. Now it's down to about .71. In London, it's down to .4, with only 24 new cases reported yesterday.

Getting that R rate down to below 1 has not been achieved through alchemy or magic -- it's the lockdown that has done it. It's worked.

Eddie's not working and that's fucked our visa process -- do you think I want that? My stepkids' education has been disrupted -- do you think I want that?

No, we're not lazy. I'd love to be working to bring more money into the house, so that we didn't have to worry every time something breaks down or the rent is due. Eddie and I would love to be counting down the days until I can become a legal resident of this country.

But we'd rather take all the necessary measures to ensure that we're all around to enjoy that day when it comes then risk our lives to hasten that day's arrival. Can't you understand that?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

See, people are skeptical of the government. If its OK to be a skeptic when the government says it's safe, its OK to be a skeptic when they say its dangerous.

As long as you reflexively distrust the government without looking into the issue for yourself, right?

Because as long as enough people think the government never tells the truth about anything, it will never be a serious-enough threat to the power of Big Money, and that's all that really matters, right?

I'm reflexively skeptical, and with good reason.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

See, people are skeptical of the government. If its OK to be a skeptic when the government says it's safe, its OK to be a skeptic when they say its dangerous.

I think the death figures of a virus that has swept the globe is proof enough that it's dangerous don't you?

Of course it's dangerous.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

See, people are skeptical of the government. If its OK to be a skeptic when the government says it's safe, its OK to be a skeptic when they say its dangerous.

As long as you reflexively distrust the government without looking into the issue for yourself, right?

Because as long as enough people think the government never tells the truth about anything, it will never be a serious-enough threat to the power of Big Money, and that's all that really matters, right?

I'm reflexively skeptical, and with good reason.  

Would you care to start a thread about your skeptisism, outlining all your thoughts etc?
I’d like to read it. I have some thoughts about it too.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

See, people are skeptical of the government. If its OK to be a skeptic when the government says it's safe, its OK to be a skeptic when they say its dangerous.

As long as you reflexively distrust the government without looking into the issue for yourself, right?

Because as long as enough people think the government never tells the truth about anything, it will never be a serious-enough threat to the power of Big Money, and that's all that really matters, right?

I'm reflexively skeptical, and with good reason.  

I'm skeptical of every claim that crosses my brain, whether it's from the government or from an anarchist, but I will then research it and decide for myself what I think.

I think reflexively believing that the government always lies is a bit teenage, to be honest. For a grown adult to do it, it's just lazy-brained.

But it does happen to serve the libertarian agenda quite well.

Syl wrote:A phone in on local radio this morning from a cross section of people, seemed heavily in favour of not sending their children back to school in 2 weeks time. Unions are against it, and parents wont be penalised if they decide to keep their children away....so it's a choice not an order, which is a good thing imo.

Teachers especially doubted the decision was the correct one, especially for reception who would instinctively not be able to keep the social distancing from their friends.They would find it confusing and upsetting, even if the school did have the space to keep classes down to a bare minimum.

Just as an aside, it seems to me that young kids today hug and kiss their friends and family members a lot more than my generation, even my sons generation did.

1. Yes because fear has gripped them and not based on any real facts. Two children have died under the age of 14 in the UK. The infection rate is basically even between the age groups and yet children have by far the lowest risk here in regards to fatalities.

2. Teachers have not the first clue and neither do parents when they are being led by emotional fear and not the scientific data. The fact is they see the total number of deaths and go off this with fear. Failing to grasp that in reality the risk to children is so minuscule. They have a far greater chance of dying in a road accident and yet I doubt you will see the same parents. Refrain from taking their children to school in cars or walking

3. This people are in fear based off the death of two children under 14, who both had underlining health issues. They do this off the total number of deaths of all people

4. So here is what you do to minimise the risk. If a child has any sibling or parent that has underlining health issues. Then they should not attend school. If a child have a family without underlining health issues. Then they should go back to school. In regards to teachers. Well the number of deaths of people between 14-44 in the uk as of the beginning of May was 382 and 95% of these had underlining health issues. Which basically means less than 20 died, who were otherwise healthy. So what are the risks for teachers here and even more if they are under 65 and have no underlining heath issues? That they should return to work. Only those who do have underlining health issues. Which include many things like asthma. Should refrain from returning to work.

Many people are doing placing themselves at risk everyday like I do. If some teachers want to work, who have underling health issues. Then they should have the choice t do so..Placing every teacher and child in the same risk bracket is ridiculous and absurd

5. The reality is many kids could and should return to school. Being as the life threading risk to them if they have no underling health issues. Is so minuscule. It shows how badly people are not looking at the data or scientists but playing off the fears peddled by teacher unions and teachers themselves. The vast majority of which have no expertise. They are playing off around the fears of harm to children, when that fear is near non-existent in healthy children

6. So that phone in shows how many people are being controlled by a fear that is being sadly and fundamentally exaggerated, by people who have little to no expertise. We have seen many other countries allow children to go back to school and yet its only here, where because people have been fed a diet of fear on this. They become emotionally compromised

7. I saw today someone going off about how the death total is now over 300,000 globally. Well over 1.4 million people are killed in road accidents each here and I bet these same people never fear getting back behind the whee everyday and there is a good reason for that. As if they had a daily mass of media stories around the world, constantly telling the stories of fatal road accidents. You would also see a fear arise in people to the point, people would be so afraid to simple walk out their doors, in case they got run over. That is the reality of how a fear can grip people.

8. I am not taking anything away from how serious this virus is, but people are not placing this into perspective at all. Especially when all age groups have evenly caught the virus. Yet they fail to see which age groups really are at risk and of those who are at a minuscule risk of fatality. They only go off a death total with a mass does of media stories that instil further fear off this. Failing to weigh up the actual mathematical risks

The reality is the Uk could possible have had already 19 million people infected and recovered. If the new antibody test shows that many have had and recovered. Then we are very close to herd immunity. Which would over night basically end the lockdown

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-19-million-uk-infected-study-antibody-test-cases-a9515886.html

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm reflexively skeptical, and with good reason.  

I'm skeptical of every claim that crosses my brain, whether it's from the government or from an anarchist, but I will then research it and decide for myself what I think.

I think reflexively believing that the government always lies is a bit teenage, to be honest. For a grown adult to do it, it's just lazy-brained.

But it does happen to serve the libertarian agenda quite well.

So being skeptical is good.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm reflexively skeptical, and with good reason.  

I'm skeptical of every claim that crosses my brain, whether it's from the government or from an anarchist, but I will then research it and decide for myself what I think.

I think reflexively believing that the government always lies is a bit teenage, to be honest. For a grown adult to do it, it's just lazy-brained.

But it does happen to serve the libertarian agenda quite well.

So being skeptical is good.  

Being uniformly skeptical is good. Being skeptical but biased won't help you.

The libertarian agenda was essentially a mid-seventh century philosophy. Its foremost exponent was Jean Jacques Rousseau. See, Rousseay, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. It expresses faith in the 'goodness' of man, whereas on the other side of the English Channel they were writing laws that express faith in the 'evil' of man.

We have both in our founding documents: the Declaration of Independence espouses a belief in the fundamental righteousness of man. The United States Constitution espouses checks and balances, and every sort of law, to frustrate the direct action of any man.

As we see right at present, the Constitution works to the frustration of the will of any one person. Trump is breaking the rules because, essentially, he wants the power of direct action.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So being skeptical is good.  

Being uniformly skeptical is good. Being skeptical but biased won't help you.

You have no biases?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:A phone in on local radio this morning from a cross section of people, seemed heavily in favour of not sending their children back to school in 2 weeks time. Unions are against it, and parents wont be penalised if they decide to keep their children away....so it's a choice not an order, which is a good thing imo.

Teachers especially doubted the decision was the correct one, especially for reception who would instinctively not be able to keep the social distancing from their friends.They would find it confusing and upsetting, even if the school did have the space to keep classes down to a bare minimum.

Just as an aside, it seems to me that young kids today hug and kiss their friends and family members a lot more than my generation, even my sons generation did.

1. Yes because fear has gripped them and not based on any real facts. Two children have died under the age of 14 in the UK. The infection rate is basically even between the age groups and yet children have by far the lowest risk here in regards to fatalities.

2. Teachers have not the first clue and neither do parents when they are being led by emotional fear and not the scientific data. The fact is they see the total number of deaths and go off this with fear. Failing to grasp that in reality the risk to children is so minuscule. They have a far greater chance of dying in a road accident and yet I doubt you will see the same parents. Refrain from taking their children to school in cars or walking

3. This people are in fear based off the death of two children under 14, who both had underlining health issues. They do this off the total number of deaths of all people

4. So here is what you do to minimise the risk. If a child has any sibling or parent that has underlining health issues. Then they should not attend school. If a child have a family without underlining health issues. Then they should go back to school. In regards to teachers. Well the number of deaths of people between 14-44 in the uk as of the beginning of May was 382 and 95% of these had underlining health issues. Which basically means less than 20 died, who were otherwise healthy. So what are the risks for teachers here and even more if they are under 65 and have no underlining heath issues? That they should return to work. Only those who do have underlining health issues. Which include many things like asthma. Should refrain from returning to work.

Many people are doing placing themselves at risk everyday like I do. If some teachers want to work, who have underling health issues. Then they should have the choice t do so..Placing every teacher and child in the same risk bracket is ridiculous and absurd

5. The reality is many kids could and should return to school. Being as the life threading risk to them if they have no underling health issues. Is so minuscule. It shows how badly people are not looking at the data or scientists but playing off the fears peddled by teacher unions and teachers themselves. The vast majority of which have no expertise. They are playing off around the fears of harm to children, when that fear is near non-existent in healthy children

6. So that phone in shows how many people are being controlled by a fear that is being sadly and fundamentally exaggerated, by people who have little to no expertise. We have seen many other countries allow children to go back to school and yet its only here, where because people have been fed a diet of fear on this. They become emotionally compromised

7. I saw today someone going off about how the death total is now over 300,000 globally. Well over 1.4 million people are killed in road accidents each here and I bet these same people never fear getting back behind the whee everyday and there is a good reason for that. As if they had a daily mass of media stories around the world, constantly telling the stories of fatal road accidents. You would also see a fear arise in people to the point, people would be so afraid to simple walk out their doors, in case they got run over. That is the reality of how a fear can grip people.

8. I am not taking anything away from how serious this virus is, but people are not placing this into perspective at all. Especially when all age groups have evenly caught the virus. Yet they fail to see which age groups really are at risk and of those who are at a minuscule risk of fatality. They only go off a death total with a mass does of media stories that instil further fear off this. Failing to weigh up the actual mathematical risks

The reality is the Uk could possible have had already 19 million people infected and recovered. If the new antibody test shows that many have had and recovered. Then we are very close to herd immunity. Which would over night basically end the lockdown

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-19-million-uk-infected-study-antibody-test-cases-a9515886.html

Every parent should read this Syl

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-what-are-the-coronavirus-risks-to-children

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Being uniformly skeptical is good. Being skeptical but biased won't help you.

You have no biases?

René Descartes.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/china-braces-wave-covid-19-200513143043833.html

Second lockdown in a city in China.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So being skeptical is good.  

Being uniformly skeptical is good. Being skeptical but biased won't help you.

You have no biases?

Of course I have biases -- plenty of them!

What I don't do is let myself fall prey to confirmation bias -- believing something only because it makes me feel better, or because it makes me right.

For example, when I read a quote that makes Trump look like an idiot, etc., I always fact-check it and want to know the context in which it was said before I accept it. Even though, and especially because, I'm already inclined to believe that Trump is an idiot or worse.

“Be ready for second wave of coronavirus to strike UK, scientist tells country”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-must-be-ready-for-second-wave-of-coronavirus-leading-scientist-warns-jsvrlmchq

I guess it all depends on what scientist you believe.
Like I always say, people will believe whatever link or expert backs their view.

True dat.

Only after New York City passed its current coronavirus peak did pediatricians notice a striking, new pattern: Dozens of kids who had been exposed to COVID-19 were coming in sick, but they weren’t coughing. They didn’t have severe respiratory distress. Instead, they had sky-high inflammation and some combination of fever, rashes on their hands and feet, diarrhea, vomiting, and very low blood pressure. When ICU doctors around the world gathered for a weekly online COVID-19 call on May 2, doctors elsewhere began sharing similar observations. “The tenor of the meeting completely changed,” says Steven Kernie, the chief of critical-care medicine at New York–Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital, who was on the call.

Until then, the news about children and COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, had been largely good: Kids can get seriously sick, but they rarely do. They can spread the disease, but they do it less than adults. Study after study—in China, Iceland, Australia, Italy, and the Netherlands—has found that children get less sick and are less contagious.

But a very small number of children seem to have a delayed reaction to the novel coronavirus —one that takes many weeks to manifest. What pediatricians first saw in Europe and New York is now named “pediatric multi-system inflammatory syndrome” (PMIS) or, per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.” Since the New York City Health Department issued an alert on May 4, 82 such cases have been confirmed in the city. Most patients have recovered or are recovering, but one child has died. Across the country, doctors are finding similar cases. PMIS does seem to be a phenomenon unique to kids.

But the virus is the same, whether it infects adult or child. The question is, why does COVID-19 affect them so differently? Both striking patterns in kids—the fact that most do not get very sick but a small number still end up with a delayed inflammation syndrome—may be rooted in a child’s still-developing immune system. And although COVID-19 is a new disease, these patterns are seen with other viruses too.


https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/05/covid-19-kids/611728/

Now do not get me wrong I certainly understand how and why many people fear first and foremost children in regards to safety. Its human nature, that we vastly place the protection and safety of children first.

However, what is blatantly clear is this fear around children in regards to this virus. Has been grossly and basically imagined. Not based off any children dying but off the large numbers of adults dying

If anything and if kids rarely suffer from this. It allows for a vast number of children to provide herd immunity when attending school after they have recovered. The anti-body tests will further help bring more children to school in regards to those who have recovered It protects not only other teachers but other children, from those who ave already been infected and who have developed  anti-bodies

So I can grasp the paranoia this does instil in parents, because of human nature. In how we place a higher level of protection over children and rightly so. Yet this paranoia is sorely misplaced with children and people need to start looking at this rationally

This virus has mutated into 30 different strains.

The first mutation that mattered to us was when it mutated to be able to infect humans.

If enough children are allowed to mix when the virus is still pandemic, it's nearly inevitable that a child with an underlying health condition will become infected, and that some of the millions of viruses that replicate inside his/her body will mutate into a strain that has an easier time infecting children.

That's not fearmongering, it's just fairly basic science.

Ben Reilly wrote:This virus has mutated into 30 different strains.

The first mutation that mattered to us was when it mutated to be able to infect humans.

If enough children are allowed to mix when the virus is still pandemic, it's nearly inevitable that a child with an underlying health condition will become infected, and that some of the millions of viruses that replicate inside his/her body will mutate into a strain that has an easier time infecting children.

That's not fearmongering, it's just fairly basic science.

Actually its complete gobbledegook, being as many studies show that kids may be likely to become as infected as everyone else. Yet the evidence  points to them being less likely to be the cause of spreading the virus

You never read a thing I posted and this shows up how again you are rule by fear and not actually looking at the science Ben

So being as a child has a greater risk of dying of Influenza (which we have never introduced social distancing for by the way) and a car crash/road accident in this country. Than covid 19, are you going to keep your daughter perpetually wrapped up in cotton wool?

What did I say earlier about children or children with family members with underlining health issues?

That they should not attend school

However, being as we have seen over and over again studies showing children are less likely to suffer from this. Then the safest place for a child with underlining health issues. Is Around those who have been effected and have recovered from this

Seriously, how do you think vaccines work in regards to herd immunity Ben?

eddie wrote:“Be ready for second wave of coronavirus to strike UK, scientist tells country”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-must-be-ready-for-second-wave-of-coronavirus-leading-scientist-warns-jsvrlmchq

I guess it all depends on what scientist you believe.
Like I always say, people will believe whatever link or expert backs their view.

True dat.

Still true dat.

eddie wrote:

eddie wrote:“Be ready for second wave of coronavirus to strike UK, scientist tells country”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-must-be-ready-for-second-wave-of-coronavirus-leading-scientist-warns-jsvrlmchq

I guess it all depends on what scientist you believe.
Like I always say, people will believe whatever link or expert backs their view.

True dat.

Still true dat.

Indeed we should be ready Eddie but if this study proves to be correct, we have little to fear and worry about

As we will have gone a long way to having heard immunity

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-19-million-uk-infected-study-antibody-test-cases-a9515886.html

Why didn’t we just use herd immunity in the first place then?

I keep talking about the potential for the virus to mutate into a strain that is more harmful to children; you keep going back to the strains we're dealing with now.

I keep saying that putting children into close contact with one another will potentially allow the virus to mutate into a strain that is more harmful to children; you keep talking about the strains we're dealing with now.

I'm not over-worried about what the current strains do to kids.

I'm worried about how easily the virus could mutate into a strain more harmful to children if we allow children to mix freely at the present moment.

Please don't accuse me of not reading what you're posting when you have no response to my reasoned argument besides "you're being guided by fear."

If what I say is going over your head, just admit it and I'll try to explain it better.

Ben Reilly wrote:I keep talking about the potential for the virus to mutate into a strain that is more harmful to children; you keep going back to the strains we're dealing with now.

I keep saying that putting children into close contact with one another will potentially allow the virus to mutate into a strain that is more harmful to children; you keep talking about the strains we're dealing with now.

I'm not over-worried about what the current strains do to kids.

I'm worried about how easily the virus could mutate into a strain more harmful to children if we allow children to mix freely at the present moment.

Please don't accuse me of not reading what you're posting when you have no response to my reasoned argument besides "you're being guided by fear."

If what I say is going over your head, just admit it and I'll try to explain it better.

1) Based on what scientific evidence and actual maths?

2) Yet globally and the virus has mutated 30 times. It still has not become lethal to children, because again. The lung cells of children regenerate and continue to grow new air-sacks in their lungs. Which is more than likely a major reason why kids are far less effected by this.

The fact that kids are still developing the cells for the air sacks in their lungs is no doubt a major factor in how kids over come this very well.

3. So in what way could this virus to be so harmful to children?

You are not presenting any scientific view for this to be the case. You simple keep invoking a hypothetical premise, not based on any actual scientific date around the development of children lungs

4) I am certainly accusing you of being blind and ignoring what I have posted. Its blatantly obvious that you have Ben

5) So is your worry actually grounded in science and the evidence known so far?

No

Its based on a a fear that you have allowed to grow yourself, because:. 

You have become a parent now and love your daughter. That I can very much understand and again you wish to protect her from any harm. That I can very much understand, but your fears are based or grounded in what science?

eddie wrote:Why didn’t we just use herd immunity in the first place then?

How can we use herd immunity Eddie, if nobody has caught the virus and recovered to develop antibodies in the first place?

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I keep talking about the potential for the virus to mutate into a strain that is more harmful to children; you keep going back to the strains we're dealing with now.

I keep saying that putting children into close contact with one another will potentially allow the virus to mutate into a strain that is more harmful to children; you keep talking about the strains we're dealing with now.

I'm not over-worried about what the current strains do to kids.

I'm worried about how easily the virus could mutate into a strain more harmful to children if we allow children to mix freely at the present moment.

Please don't accuse me of not reading what you're posting when you have no response to my reasoned argument besides "you're being guided by fear."

If what I say is going over your head, just admit it and I'll try to explain it better.

1) Based on what scientific evidence and actual maths?

2) Yet globally and the virus has mutated 30 times. It still has not become lethal to children, because again. The lung cells of children regenerate and continue to grow new air-sacks in their lungs. Which is more than likely a major reason why kids are far less effected by this.

The fact that kids are still developing the cells for the air sacks in their lungs is no doubt a major factor in how kids over come this very well.

3. So in what way could this virus to be so harmful to children?

You are not presenting any scientific view for this to be the case. You simple keep invoking a hypothetical premise, not based on any actual scientific date around the development of children lungs

4) I am certainly accusing you of being blind and ignoring what I have posted. Its blatantly obvious that you have Ben

5) So is your worry actually grounded in science and the evidence known so far?

No

Its based on a a fear that you have allowed to grow yourself, because:. 

You have become a parent now and love your daughter. That I can very much understand and again you wish to protect her from any harm. That I can very much understand, but your fears are based or grounded in what science?

On the science that this virus has a proven ability to mutate quickly and infect organisms that would have been safe from earlier generations.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:

1) Based on what scientific evidence and actual maths?

2) Yet globally and the virus has mutated 30 times. It still has not become lethal to children, because again. The lung cells of children regenerate and continue to grow new air-sacks in their lungs. Which is more than likely a major reason why kids are far less effected by this.

The fact that kids are still developing the cells for the air sacks in their lungs is no doubt a major factor in how kids over come this very well.

3. So in what way could this virus to be so harmful to children?

You are not presenting any scientific view for this to be the case. You simple keep invoking a hypothetical premise, not based on any actual scientific date around the development of children lungs

4) I am certainly accusing you of being blind and ignoring what I have posted. Its blatantly obvious that you have Ben

5) So is your worry actually grounded in science and the evidence known so far?

No

Its based on a a fear that you have allowed to grow yourself, because:. 

You have become a parent now and love your daughter. That I can very much understand and again you wish to protect her from any harm. That I can very much understand, but your fears are based or grounded in what science?

On the science that this virus has a proven ability to mutate quickly and infect organisms that would have been safe from earlier generations.

The above makes very little sense

We know the virus mutates, just as influenza does, of which has been around for a very long time. Around 2,400 years

So you have a long time frame here Ben

Where is the science to back your claim, when it mutates every year?

Just think it's common sense to say that if this virus found away to make the mutative leap from infecting animals to infecting humans, it could mutate to infect children more severely than we've seen thus far.

I'm not saying it will definitely happen. I hope it doesn't. But it seems that the best way to prevent that from happening in the present moment is to keep kids from mixing as much as possible.

Ben Reilly wrote:Just think it's common sense to say that if this virus found away to make the mutative leap from infecting animals to infecting humans, it could mutate to infect children more severely than we've seen thus far.

I'm not saying it will definitely happen. I hope it doesn't. But it seems that the best way to prevent that from happening in the present moment is to keep kids from mixing as much as possible.

Eh?

How is it common sense?

What are you basing this to claim common sense from?

We see mutations in cells with cancer

What is the likelihood of children developing cancer compared to adults?

How can a virus that we know effects vastly the elderly, change path to then vastly effect children?

Intelligent design|?

That is the realms you are entering

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:Why didn’t we just use herd immunity in the first place then?

How can we use herd immunity Eddie, if nobody has caught the virus and recovered to develop antibodies in the first place?

Many people have recovered? Huh???

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How can we use herd immunity Eddie, if nobody has caught the virus and recovered to develop antibodies in the first place?

Many people have recovered? Huh???

I truly despair when reading such replies

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:Why didn’t we just use herd immunity in the first place then?

How can we use herd immunity Eddie, if nobody has caught the virus and recovered to develop antibodies in the first place?

Many people have recovered? Huh???

Hell, MOST people who've been infected have recovered. There's even been discussion of using the antibodies of survivors to create a serum against C-19.

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


How can we use herd immunity Eddie, if nobody has caught the virus and recovered to develop antibodies in the first place?

Many people have recovered? Huh???

I truly despair when reading such replies

I don’t understand. Many thousands of people have had it and recovered?

And Didge, as far as intelligent design goes, well -- was it intelligent design when C-19 mutated to infect people, instead of animals?

I sense that you're digging in your heels on this subject. Just listen with an open mind and you'll see the logic that a virus that could leap from animals to humans should not have much difficulty mutating into a strain that could infect healthy young people as well.

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I truly despair when reading such replies

I don’t understand. Many thousands of people have had it and recovered?

Yes Eddie, many hundreds of thousands if not millions have contracted this and recovered

Ben Reilly wrote:And Didge, as far as intelligent design goes, well -- was it intelligent design when C-19 mutated to infect people, instead of animals?

I sense that you're digging in your heels on this subject. Just listen with an open mind and you'll see the logic that a virus that could leap from animals to humans should not have much difficulty mutating into a strain that could infect healthy young people as well.

That is not intelligent design, its actually evolution

You are asking me to have an open minded, when you are being close-minded to the science I am presenting to you?

Seriously?

wow

I am always open minded, but as of yet Ben, you have not presented any scientific evidence for your claim

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:And Didge, as far as intelligent design goes, well -- was it intelligent design when C-19 mutated to infect people, instead of animals?

I sense that you're digging in your heels on this subject. Just listen with an open mind and you'll see the logic that a virus that could leap from animals to humans should not have much difficulty mutating into a strain that could infect healthy young people as well.

That is not intelligent design, its actually evolution

You are asking me to have an open minded, when you are being close-minded to the science I am presenting to you?

Seriously?

wow

I am always open minded, but as of yet Ben, you have not presented any scientific evidence for your claim

I am bored now, but when you make the remarks above to claim I am not opened minded, the debate is over when you make such an immature claim

Show me over history of many viruses. That something went from targeting a group on older age, to then evolve to targeting younger people. Though social interaction

I am not going to waste my time with such petty immaturity on your part Ben

Enjoy being a paranoid, because if you are like this now. Then you will forever never allow your daughter to be truly free

Goodnight

There are no freer people in my life than my kids.
I’m far less into science and hype than you are didge.

I choose to keep my daughter at home for the four weeks that is left of school. And I’m okay with that.

Do I need a scientist or an expert to tell me what to do (a la you) or will I go with my own feelings and thoughts?

Guess I’m more “free” than you...huh?

Goodnight. And stay informed! Whatever that means to you in any given link or opinion....

eddie wrote: There are no freer people in my life than my kids.
I’m far less into science and hype than you are didge.

I choose to keep my daughter at home for the four weeks that is left of school. And I’m okay with that.

Do I need a scientist or an expert to tell me what to do (a la you) or will I go with my own feelings and thoughts?

Guess I’m more “free” than you...huh?

Goodnight. And stay informed! Whatever that means to you in any given link or opinion....

How is that being more free Eddie?

Its your choice and decisions.

What are your decisions based on?

If you go by your thoughts and not evidence, then you are constrained by your beliefs

That in no way is being free

Its based on how you perceive something and believe you know better than people who spend their lives studying something that you have not the first clue about

So how are you staying informed here Eddie?

Is your information a group of parents in how paranoia has allowed this to control their thinking?

Is that being free?

The fact you admit you are not into science is the issue here and it boils down to one factor. 

You do not trust science

Give me a break, you and Ben are proving that freedom is being curtailed and by your beliefs in regards to you children

Oh you’re right didge. Will you sleep better now?

Stay safe mate.

eddie wrote:Oh you’re right didge. Will you sleep better now?

Stay safe mate.

wow and yet more immaturity

The fact that you and Ben take this personally says what exactly? That you believe this is an attack on your parenting

Its not, I think you are both great parents, but being a parent can and does allow emotions to cloud judgement on critical issues. Which is very normal when people care and love for their children

This is a criticism of your beliefs around this and not your love and care for your children

Have I made myself clear here?

If I am wrong or end up being wrong here, I would happily admit

The fact is it is a paranoia that is driving how you and Ben think here

This is evident, when Ben goes off an improbable scenario around this virus.That it would mutate to suddenly effect children fatally as it does with those in a higher age bracket or with underlining health issues. It shows he is ignoring the science around this and known information

If I end up being wrong, I will happily admit to this, but would either of you do, if I am right?