Inflicting on all children the certain damage of social isolation, screen learning, and further economic precarity, to avoid theoretical and undemonstrated long-term effects (of a perhaps serious but not crippling nature) to a small percentage of them, does not strike me as societal wisdom in any way.

Also, do you know what else has unknown long-term effects in children?

I'm not arguing that children should be kept out of in-person school. In fact, I'm against it, and was against it even when the pandemic was raging last year. I agree with you that children have been silent victims of schoolteachers' refusal to do in-person school. I do, however, strongly support reasonable precautions including masking and physical distancing, which can be achieved with children (not very young children, but certainly 2nd grade and up) with continual reinforcement until it becomes a habit.

> I agree with you that children have been silent victims of schoolteachers' refusal to do in-person school

What should a schoolteacher do then, die? I'm not going to ask them to do that.

They should be put in one of the top priority categories for vaccination, and THEN we can expect them to go in classrooms (but we shouldn't be doing that anyway unless all kids are also vaccinated - otherwise they will keep the virus in circulation. They tend to have extremely mild or completely asymptomatic cases, but they DO catch it and spread it further)

> What should a schoolteacher do then, die?

Feudal traditions aside, no one has the right to draw an income from a position where they are not doing the job. So, if teachers don't want to teach, then they can find another occupation which they are comfortable doing.

> What should a schoolteacher do then

Why not the same thing a grocery clerk is expected to do? Or do you not consider primary education to be “essential” ?

I’m not sure your reading of the political climate is accurate. A lot of places have already reopened schools, and I’ve heard a lot of politicians explicitly say that they’re willing to pay the price because it’s not a big deal if kids get it. Maybe they’re wrong, but if you expect that there’ll be public support behind keeping things closed when the death and hospitalization rates start plummeting, I think you’d better readjust.

> it’s not a big deal if kids get it

The Academy of Pediatrics says this. It's not just some politicans who don't know anything about epidemology and likely have never even taken a college-level biology course.

I'm not saying that places will be shut down completely. I was talking specifically about masking and physical distancing mandates and other such restrictions. I don't think big business and the public will tolerate losing another season of attending (in-person) Football, Baseball, Ice Hockey, <insert favorite sport here> games.

> I don't think big business and the public will tolerate losing another season

The whole "COVID fatigue" thing is one of the craziest things I keep hearing with regard to this pandemic. The virus doesn't care if you're bored of the disease and "won't tolerate" staying home from more football games. It's not like it's just going to go away because we're tired of it! I sincerely hope governments aren't going to just open things up because 2021 is a different year and everyone's just really bummed of it all. Surely we have better sense than that.

Avoiding getting Covid is not the only thing that matters in life. As the cost (in months of normal life lost) of the lockdown increases, it may be perfectly rational for people to think it’s no longer worth the decreased risk of catching the virus. Seen in this light, “Covid fatigue” makes perfect sense.

Said another way: imagine an alternate reality where none of the vaccines worked, and we kept getting winter flare-ups of Covid year after year - would you think we should continue the restrictions _forever_ ? If not, why not?

Assuming also that immunization did not emerge some other way also (like from getting the disease once) then yes I’d expect we would permanently change our way of life. What’s the alternative? Just accept the casualties year after year? For what? So we can eat at Olive Garden and go to football games?

How can you reduce all of human social and cultural life to “Olive Garden and football” ?

And yes, of course it’d be worth a slightly lower life expectancy in order to not live under permanent lockdown. If you don’t agree with that, we probably have such a fundamentally different worldview that we will never see eye-to-eye.

Since we're doing scenarios, what do we do when a hypothetical COVID-21 comes along which is 20x deadlier and kills uniformly across age ranges? Do we simply ignore it because we're tired of stay-at-home and we all gotta live our (now potentially shorter) lives?

Yes, if there were a virus that killed 10% of people of all ages and was as contagious as Covid-19, it would be a civilization-level threat and it would be worth extreme measures to attempt to stop its spread (I'm not optimistic that it _could_ be stopped, but it'd at least be worth trying). What's your point?

It's that fundamentally, our opinions are similar: There exists some point beyond which the threat is great enough to change our lifestyle permanently. We simply disagree about exactly where that point is.