This helps you be more cautious and careful (e.g. I'm saving your life here). Companies may get complain and let people work from home. It's a win for me and for you.
Apple employees: when Tim Cook is around, just fake a cough politely.
No need to invest in a blood capsule.
Even with vaccine, there is 1-2% to contract covid. Even you can't die, you will still be scared to give it to your kids.
No matter how low the risk is, most people wouldn't gamble their kids' lives over "commute to office".
Please help me cough.
Subject: You're a subhuman, worthless, imbecile maskie
> Wear it forever, you worthless, subhuman animal who doesn't deserve to live.
This culture war is getting out of hand. Imagine sending something like this to a stranger because of their clothing choices.
There's a man in Romania who did three different vaccines (by lying) and wanted to do more before he was arrested.
So, 50% of the kids don’t want the socialization.
Part of childhood is doing things that adults insist is good for you even if you don't want to.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4235829/
There are plenty of people who have found remote work much more productive and others who are really wishing they could be back in the office. I hope that employers take the pandemic as an opportunity to learn about different working styles and create more flexible working arrangements that can accommodate all types of people.
But my parent comment was specifically with respect to the business about part of school being the socialization stuff, and if it's relevant whether or not your kids "want" that.
Though part of it is definitely also that our parents all boiled them, and bitter or otherwise, they're just plain better when broiled or pan-fried.
My comment was about this mythical socializing that kids presumably needs so much.
Not all of them do.
School as an institution exists to free up housewives to participate in the workforce and maximize employers’ profit while preparing cheap workforce by giving a minimal education to the kids. Any benefits for the children are secondary - let’s not buy in too much into the PR.
also, you point at Iceland. Do you understand that the people there don’t have the generic diversity you normally have in other places? How would you feel if the parent of another kid at your school died of covid as a result of your little one passing it around?
Since this will take a long time, the government can kill two birds with one stone by bulldozing every school in the country and building 130-story skyscrapers full of affordable housing on their sites, solving both the school question and the housing problem at the same time.
Minuscule (if we just take it at face value) is not the same as none. If a kid dies then there is a risk. Plus it depends on what I consider to be high risk. If a kid dies from preventable causes then for me that’s high risk environment.
Kids also spread the disease even we ignore the risk for them. So that means that it’s an increase of the risk for everyone else. Kids also interact with their grandparents in a lot of cultures quite frequently which is the highest risk group.
Mask decrease the probability of spreading or contracting COVID.
This isn't a useful classification; literally everything we do has some risk. 300 Americans under 18 have died from Covid (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...), which is insignificant when compared to deaths from accidents, and not much higher than pre-Covid flu deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2019-2020/2019-20-pediatr...).
Kids also interact with their grandparents in a lot of cultures quite frequently which is the highest risk group.
At least in the US, their grandparents should have been vaccinated months ago.
San Francisco sits at 60% fully vaccinated with most of the Bay Area in the same range; only Solano County lags very far behind at 39% fully vaccinated.
If between now and September, we can’t get society vaccinated to the point that kids can attend school 5 days a week without a mask, then we either need to do some full on Union busting or it’s time to start leaving the unvaccinated behind and let them take their lives into their own hands. Will that suck for those that for some reason can’t? Yes, but we can’t keep society in a holding pattern for them forever.
The risks are lower, not miniscule. Some are also vulnerable to MIS-C. Masks do not stop covid for adults either, should adults stop wearing masks? (No.) Children are also potentially infectious.
Especially with children, learning non verbal communication is very important.
You're right. There's absolutely no way kids could learn non-verbal communication if they had to wear a mask for several hours a day. It's not like literally everyone in Japan and China has been wearing face masks for 20 years.
Most of my Japanese coworkers take their masks off at their desks these days. People don't like wearing masks all day, even when it was already part of the local culture they grew up in.
I don't know how masks will affect non verbal communication. I imagine the next generation will come out of this having adapted more to detect expressions in the eyes and shifts in the corners of the face. For children with severe ASD I would expect it to seriously impede their growth in interpreting facial expressions.
you're totally right, let's just never trust any vaccine or medical developments due to anomalous chance of failure. in accordance to this, i pledge to never leave my home until i leave this barren earth.
Besides, measures like masks also affect many other diseases; this recent winter they were effective enough to reduce influenza-related deaths by over 95% compared to the year before.
A little hard to chalk that up to masking alone given all the other drastic societal changes. What about WFH and distancing?
The COVID vaccines really are so good there’s not much reason to take extra precautions as long as you’ve gotten one. Variants don’t even matter since it’s not the flu.
[1] Table 1b. Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccination Against Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection in https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
In fact, my first actual exposure to wearing a mask was less than 3 weeks ago when I traveled to Sydney. TBH, I don't know what the big fuss is about.
"Routine childhood immunization: 2 doses of any measles-containing (MMR or MMRV) vaccine. The first dose of measles-containing vaccine should be administered at 12 to 15 months of age and the second dose at 18 months of age or any time thereafter, but no later than around school entry."
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications...
Many school boards require it, along with DPTP, hep-b, and others. Maybe it's a socialized medicine thing?
Of course it's not binary, and it shouldn't be binary... but comments like this are hellbent on making it that way. I understand why you feel this way, but the hyperbole doesn't help anyone.
Nevertheless, I 100% agree with that post, and think "religion" is the most accurate word to describe the situation, especially in the US.
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."[1]
I actually think atheistic faith is pretty scary: its sortof a psychopathic version of theism, where instead of a supreme being that generally has a conscious and can be reasoned with (within the religious mythology), atheistic faith presents itself as some kind of objective fact, with no central leader or responsible parties.
which is a very Western/Abrahamic view of religion.
Belief is always scary to the Observer, and comforting to the Believer. the more sure the Believer is, the more scared the Observer gets, because they perceive more threat. theist and atheist Believers are more alike than they are different.
I personally can't wait until the two weeks after my final vaccine shot ends so I can stop wearing a mask and not care anymore. I had a heck of an immune response so I'm pretty hopeful I'm in the now immune category.
I was one of the most scientifically literate people in my friend group and now I’m an outcast because I don’t always “trust the science”.
And just 2 years ago we were seeing all manner of stories on HN about experiment reproducibility, the issues with the peer review system, etc.
I have been completely demoralized by the past year.
Unless you're an expert in a field, you are not scientifically literate in that field.
Being able to read a couple conclusions isn't scientific literacy. It's the same slapdash stuff that conspiracy theorists do. Find a couple publicized studies. Read the conclusions. Repeat as though you're an expert.
Even in your comment, the majority of your points are political, because I suspect you're not actually scientifically literate.
Really? There's nothing in between expert level and being able to judge if data was shoehorned or was a natural fit? Only an expert in a specific field can determine if logical flaws exist? If there's possibly hidden variables impacting readings, or incomplete models?
Has the scientific world become that black and white? You're either an expert or your opinion is not worthy of discussion?
I'm glad that of the many things I want to rant about, one I chose was the PCR cycles. Because the creator of that technology, Kary Mulis, specifically warned about it's misuse in that manner. Now for anyone just wandering into this mess going to search him for the first time - be warned, he did hold a very controversial opinion about another disease. But I don't think anyone could appeal to a higher authority on PCR testing at its core.
>Even in your comment, the majority of your points are political, because I suspect you're not actually scientifically literate.
Thank you
Generally, yes. If you don't work in the field, I doubt you can even read a single paper, let alone identify errors.
> Has the scientific world become that black and white? You're either an expert or your opinion is not worthy of discussion?
That's always been the case. But yes, if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic, your opinion generally does not mean anything. I know this is hard for people to hear.
> I'm glad that of the many things I want to rant about, one I chose was the PCR cycles. Because the creator of that technology, Kary Mulis, specifically warned about it's misuse in that manner. Now for anyone just wandering into this mess going to search him for the first time - be warned, he did hold a very controversial opinion about another disease. But I don't think anyone could appeal to a higher authority on PCR testing at its core.
Kary Mulis can have an opinion. You not just being an expert is repeating something you don't understand.
I doubt you have enough knowledge about sciences and the process of learning in general to discuss this matter, let alone to make bold claims on other people's ability to reason about findings of various papers.
> That's always been the case. But yes, if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic, your opinion generally does not mean anything. I know this is hard for people to hear.
It's fun to watch how quickly you switched from the original "unless you're an expert in a field" to "if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic", and yet you are stil unable to admit that you said a silly thing in the first place.
Also, what you are saying has never been the case in scientific circles. It's been the case in the circles around them, among the people with less intelligence yet unjustified ambition: "expert" is the same phony concept as "prestige" - a token of a social climber who is seeking a stamp of committee approval, and who couldn't care less about the actual knowledge in the field and the pursuit of truth.
That's fine. You can have your opinions on whatever you want. I still don't think you can read papers from most fields :shrug:.
> It's fun to watch how quickly you switched from the original "unless you're an expert in a field" to "if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic", and yet you are stil unable to admit that you said a silly thing in the first place.
I don't choose my words that carefully, so this isn't the point you think it is. I said knowledgable as some wiggle room. Don't read too much into it.
> Also, what you are saying has never been the case in scientific circles. It's been the case in the circles around them, among the people with less intelegence yet unjustified ambition: "expert" is the same phony concept as "prestige" - a token of a social climber who is seeking a stamp of committee approval, and who couldn't care less about the actual knowledge in the field and the pursuit of truth.
This is an insecurity you have with yourself, creating some weird definition of expert. Like I said, people hate to hear that their opinions don't matter.
That wasn't an argument in your original comment. You specifically said that people were not scientifically literate unless they were "experts".
> I don't choose my words that carefully, so this isn't the point you think it is.
One day you will discover that before you are able to make a point you need to learn to choose your words carefully first. Words, like science, have an exact meaning too.
> I said knowledgable as some wiggle room. Don't read too much into it.
Don't worry, I'm not taking you seriously yet, at least not until you define what precisely does "expert" mean. Nevertheless, it's fun to see how far you are willing to go with your comments without admitting your mistake.
> This is an insecurity you have with yourself, creating some weird definition of expert. Like I said, people hate to hear that their opinions don't matter.
Which insecurity? Please be specific about your words here too.
And let's finally check your premises. What's your definition of an "expert"?
One day you will discover that comments on HN don't matter. Also words do not have exact meanings. I suspect you're not an expert in linguistics, are you? ;).
I mean it's kinda funny that you got one of the basic tenants of lingustics wrong, in trying to argue that non-experts opinions matter, lol.
> And let's finally check your premises. What's your definition of an "expert"?
I don't find debating definitions to be interesting. It's just an arbitrary line, and you'll argue with whatever line I pick.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. You can fool yourself on social media. It fits in line with the anti-intellectualism of half the country, that think they can read a single study and then cock off about it.