I have heard some vague encouraging news from various podcasts. Researchers are trying to pin down whether young children are little C19 disease vectors or not.
I am hopeful that day care & K-8 will re-open in the fall with some good studies to show it’s relatively safe to do so.
Just thought this might be worth repeating:
Another gem I like - retyping it from our local newspaper, though it was a reporter who wrote it, not the editor:
"Changing scientific understanding of the virus isn’t a flaw. It’s a virtue.
Good science by definition is based upon the latest information. The whole point of research is to uncover previously unknown facts. Only bad science clings to an old point of view in the face of strong new evidence.
So, “the scientists are saying something different now” shouldn’t be a complaint. It actually means more has been learned.
…
In terms of public policy, it is simply common sense to act according to the current consensus of scientific understanding. If most experts agree on something, it is unreasonable for non-experts to reject the majority view.
If my car wouldn’t start, and nine out of ten mechanics recommended a new alternator, I wouldn’t hand my vehicle over to the one person who said I just needed a new battery.
Of course on the Internet you can always find a few voices willing to argue in favor of a new battery - or in favor of putting water in the gas tank because of the evil anti-water, pro-alternator conspiracy.
In short, expertise matters, and it evolves."
To anyone wanting to look these up, they come from the Gettysburg Times 5/23 edition. I’m not sure how much one can see without a subscription, but I want to give credit where credit is due and most folks know I live in south central PA anyway - though not Gettysburg itself.
Ummm, no. Kinda remember being told by a top US government official that the 15 cases we had in late February were going to go down to zero within a couple of days. I certainly questioned this authority!
It is just the authority you choose to question that is at issue. Me, I’ll stick with esteemed scientists and data in this debate.
What is the thinking surrounding the notion that children could not be as infectious as adults? Are they seeing lower viral loads or what? I get how children could be less impacted personally when infected, but I haven’t seen the rationale for the thought they might be less able to infect others. Not saying at all that I don’t think that’s possible, just wondering what the science of the hypothesis is.
Article in CT news today…very likely there will be at least 45,000 less day care spots in this state. This means that some folks won’t even be able to find day care when they return to work. Another trickle down of this situation.
and read the National Enquirer? FOX News? New York Post?
Is anyone here being “anti-retailer”? I assume you are trying to be inflammatory with that word choice.
Links to an article/reference would be helpful.
I don’t think anyone is happy about violence inflicted on retail workers.
Did you miss that word “infamous”? Hint, infamous because discredited.
From Columbia University: “The real scandal is why did anyone ever listen to this guy”
This thread was an experiment to see if the CC community could engage in civil discussion without dragging the moderators into repetitive arguments by a handful of posters. We don’t know how many flags there have been because a very few of you cannot stop attacking another very few. The vast majority just want to learn what is being observed and learned now, not rehash endless arguments and conspiracy theories.
I volunteered to start this thread (which will be closed at the end of May) but someone else can start the June thread. Although it seems the experiment has failed.
I bought Germ-X a few weeks ago at Target. I was surprised to see it, but happy to pick up an 8-oz bottle for $1.99.
I disagree. Lots and lots of valuable information is still being disseminated in this thread. Even some of the snark doesn’t seem to actually violate TOS.
I haven’t seen any name calling, harassment or the like, unless posts have been deleted that I haven’t seen. I don’t know what is going on behind the scenes as to posts being reported though.
Thank you @TatinG do you have any suggestions for the process? Is it still worthwhile to be seen online?
It wasn’t an article. It was a business call I was on. Yes- on this very thread a couple of days ago the retailers who were not willing to risk the lives of their employees by enforcing customer mask policies in the face of belligerent refusal were slammed. It was said that they should enforce the policy no matter what the cost or danger.
I’m no doctor, but unless the ‘spot’ is very easy to identify as not a skin cancer, you’ll have to be seen in person. I photographed my spot as best I could and sent it to him, but in the office,the dermatologist looked at it under magnification and still needed to biopsy it to be sure what it was.
Ok thank you!
Day cares are opening here next week to all in need of them, in groups of 10 (presumably including the teacher). Obviously we are going to see a lot of data from that in about a month’s time. It could give us some clues about how things will look in the fall.
Having said that, there should be at least some data out there already, from the day care centers that have been kept open in our area to help “front of the line” workers.
Unfortunately, name calling happens all the time, and not just on this thread. Terms like idiot, moron, jerk, scum, stupid, “if it weren’t for TOS”, etc.
Those who cite that a tiny % of the population dying isn’t a concern, what % of the population would have to die for you to feel this is a concern? I asked before but did not see a response. Our country has over 328,000,000 people. The earth has almost 7,800,000,000 people. Even a small % of this many people will be a great number.
Creekland, not sure your conclusion follows from your premise. Yes, science is always evolving, and that’s a good thing. But for science to evolve, it takes someone else asking a different question or the same question a different way. And yes, that evolution results in a a majority view, but by definition, there will also be a minority scientific view. (not speaking of whack jobs, but bona fide scientists that conclude something else.)
So why is it “unreasonable” prima facie for non-experts to not accept the minority scientific view?
I think the point is that we can do better in any future responses to this or other pandemics. This will likely have a second if not also a 3rd wave and we can be better prepared to minimize the impact on the economy and minimize fatalities. It doesn’t make sense to me to not try to do that. It is something that our actions can impact greatly. I think it is most unfortunate we didn’t have a better response in the first place but that isn’t a good reason to not try to have a better one going forward.