Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by wing-_-nuts 917 days ago
It wasn't just the elderly. Pretty much anyone over 50 was at higher risk.

I'll point out again, covid killed over 1 million people in the US alone. That doesn't even account for the ~ 10% of infected who got stuck with the lingering effects of long covid.

Yeah, we asked kids to attend school remotely from home. Some didn't have parents that kept them on task, and suffered. The pandemic was hard on everyone, but even in places that didn't lock down, loved ones getting sick and dying takes a toil. I felt like I was rolling the dice every time I visited my grandmother.

2 comments

My child's classmate has a mother who has only one lung, and that one lung is barely functional. If she catches COVID, she will certainly be in the ICU. As a class, we all worried about her mother during the entire pandemic.
So we should paralyze a generation? You work to keep the mother safe. You don't sacrifice the well-being of children and whoever else at the altar of her well-being.

The same goes for the elderly. You don't lock down the world to keep them safe (which in NY was a disaster under Cuomo anyway). You take measures to secure their well-being without paralyzing everyone else. And FWIW, there are plenty in that age group who would rather risk COVID to see their grandchildren than live out their remaining years in isolation.

If anything is irrational, it's the ridiculous priorities that were imposed by the lockdown.

I think you're letting a bit of emotion get in the way of logic, take a step back and just breath for a second.

Given the information we had at the time, and how violent the virus was ripping through communities it was the best, worst choice we had at the time. Sure it meant you didn't get to go to your social functions or parties you craved, but we kept the curve down and allowed medical facilities and practitioners brace for the infection wave.

It wasn't irrational at all, and if you found wearing a mask a "ridiculous priority" you were part of the problem. Sometimes someone higher up than you needs to impose a restriction or law to protect others.

> Sure it meant you didn't get to go to your social functions or parties you craved

I have to say this is ridiculously callous. My grandmother cried every day until she passed. I would like to see an investigation into pandemic preparedness. I don’t think we have been getting our money’s worth.

>>So we should paralyze a generation?

A generation was paralyzed because it had 1 year remote school instead of in person? Kids are just fine. I think they rather got a much more valuable lesson on how to act in a crisis.

I don't believe that COVID "paralyzed" a generation. The acute non-vaccine phase in the US was what - 18 months tops? Hyperbole does not help.

People still got paid. Business got done. My kid learned. People got married. People got divorced. Children were born, people died. No evidence of a "paralyzed generation".

My youngest kid has incredibly strong math and verbal skills compared to my older kid, and I suspect that's because the youngest sat and listened to the online instruction along with his sibling.

Absolving all culpability and foisting it on "the government" or "shutdowns" is just as weak as using hyperbole to make misleading claims about how a generation was "paralyzed". Difficult to get shit done? Sure. Not paralyzed.

So maybe students in that situation can do remote education and then everyone else does normal, more effective, in-person education?
I don't generally agree with parent's needless reduction to 'protect 90 years old to get to 91', but can't we agree that whole schooling from home was pretty badly mishandled literally everywhere?

Not sure how we can isolate and measure just school-from-home effect on kids across age groups, various places etc. but I strongly believe there was some harm and it was not tiny. How much, and if not temporary again I can't say (but maybe some huge long term stats on things like grades, counseling frequency, suicides, BMI etc. can, but who knows if they won't show just 2nd order effect of parents suffering too).