So coronavirus is definitely going to kill a few of us.

[country978]

gimmick are you in favor of respirators when spending more than a few minutes in a crowded, indoor space? Would you want the state to provide one to all the people and for them to be required? And Druff, you say masking a child is harmful but not abusive. Isn't knowingly causing harm to a child the definition of child abuse? If we now know that masking of kids is not necessary and also that the masks cause harm is it not at least open for debate that we are currently engaged in the systematic abuse of children in our schools?

Ummm no, they don't. JFC

Even if masking does bring some small degree of additional safety, the cost of doing so -- uncomfortableness, declined social development for kids, mask-related respiratory issues, and false-sense-of-security risk taking -- makes mask mandates useless at best, and more likely overall harmful.

That's what Druff said in an earlier post. I'm just asking questions. I realize it must be difficult to have a young child as you do and to even question whether or not what you're allowing to be done to your child is harmful but there is a debate about that taking place.

[Sanlmar]

Now you’re going back to arguments Druff and I used to have a dozen years ago before Obamacare. I always advocated for a fat tax. I said why are we charging people more for life insurance but not health insurance?.

The fat tax is your health insurance premium

Blue Cross Blue Shield - Healthy Actions

The Wellness Program that Pays to be Healthy . Healthy Actions is the wellness program that rewards you and your employees for living healthier. You can earn back up to 7.5% of your premium when your employees engage and complete the program and earn the $300 reward. ..

.

Blue Cross cuts the employee a check and people get pretty excited by that. The employer saves money so the business promotes participation

The downside is the forms that track progress need to be filled out by a nurse so the employee is taking time off work to get their waist measured or whatever. You can’t get mad about that cause you are whipping and driving the program.

Ironically, Obamacare does none of this - I would be certain.

Nevertheless, it literally pays to not be a fat ass.

[nightmarefish]

Ummm no, they don't. JFC

Even if masking does bring some small degree of additional safety, the cost of doing so -- uncomfortableness, declined social development for kids, mask-related respiratory issues, and false-sense-of-security risk taking -- makes mask mandates useless at best, and more likely overall harmful.

That's what Druff said in an earlier post. I'm just asking questions. I realize it must be difficult to have a young child as you do and to even question whether or not what you're allowing to be done to your child is harmful but there is a debate about that taking place.

This is a complete flat Earth myth.

My oldest son was 4 when this started and is now 6. He's worn a mask to school the entire time, I've seen ZERO negative impacts to wearing the mask. It's like putting shoes on in the morning at this point, couldn't be less of an issue. Also, during the pandemic I've never observed any other kids in his classrooms having problems with masks. There was even a time were masks were required outside. During that time, going to the park was a big thing to do because many businesses were closed. I witnessed countless kids wear masks without issue. I talked to many parents, never once did one say their child was having negative impacts wearing a mask. My neighborhood leans right BTW.

You started the anti mask discussions with the admission that you just don't want to be told what to do. While I think that's strange, there's many people like you so I understand it's a thing. This whole, masks are the devil thing, is just making shit up to cover up the fact you don't want government telling you what do to.

Druff has a young kid. You ever witnessed / heard of a kid your child knows that has had negative impacts from wearing masks?

[gimmick]

Infections don't work like "tag, you're it" with cov2. It's more like a threshold. Say as a complete random number an average person gets infected when they get hit with 100 particles in a day. Less than that you're completely fine and you recover some ability to resist infection the next day. It's very unlikely you could keep getting hit with 95 particles everyday for a week and still be fine, but getting hit with 30 everyday you're likely fine for weeks.

At this point almost all people have been getting hit with cov2 particles. With small amounts your immune system just deals with it before they have time to replicate. The immune system does that with everything it doesn't recognize and finds.

Let's take that 15 mins to get infected number as baseline, with no reasonable ventilation or distance and 1 infected person in the room. If we assume kids are 10x less likely to transmit, when none of them wear a mask they can sit next to a infected kid for 150 mins. With shitty cloth masks we're at 260 mins and 600 mins with surgical masks.

Recess/lunch and decent ventilation usually means that just cloth masks are enough. No masks is cutting it close with just 1 infected kid. With poor ventilation and more than 1 infected kid even cloth masks start to struggle. To stop this schools do a lot more than just masks. After a certain point it spirals out of control.

[BCR]

The fat tax is your health insurance premium

Blue Cross Blue Shield - Healthy Actions

The Wellness Program that Pays to be Healthy . Healthy Actions is the wellness program that rewards you and your employees for living healthier. You can earn back up to 7.5% of your premium when your employees engage and complete the program and earn the $300 reward. ..

.

Blue Cross cuts the employee a check and people get pretty excited by that. The employer saves money so the business promotes participation

The downside is the forms that track progress need to be filled out by a nurse so the employee is taking time off work to get their waist measured or whatever. You can’t get mad about that cause you are whipping and driving the program.

Ironically, Obamacare does none of this - I would be certain.

Nevertheless, it pays to not be a fat ass.

At the time, there was none of that. Or at least none that I had ever seen. We just had increasing premiums every year where there was no distinction. I actually am self insured through Obamacare with my history and just a set premium and deductibles everywhere, so was unaware of employee benefits. Back then it was all about trying to control premiums while people just got fatter every year and people paid more for auto insurance based on zip code and higher life premiums for obvious reasons, but was considered impolite to charge for people likely to create preventable problems.

Does it save you any money or just them? Does anyone not pass when you’re talking about personal trainers and fitness?

[nightmarefish]

Infections don't work like "tag, you're it" with cov2. It's more like a threshold. Say as a complete random number an average person gets infected when they get hit with 100 particles in a day. Less than that you're completely fine and you recover some ability to resist infection the next day. It's very unlikely you could keep getting hit with 95 particles everyday for a week and still be fine, but getting hit with 30 everyday you're likely fine for weeks.

At this point almost all people have been getting hit with cov2 particles. With small amounts your immune system just deals with it before they have time to replicate. The immune system does that with everything it doesn't recognize and finds.

Let's take that 15 mins to get infected number as baseline, with no reasonable ventilation or distance and 1 infected person in the room. If we assume kids are 10x less likely to transmit, when none of them wear a mask they can sit next to a infected kid for 150 mins. With shitty cloth masks we're at 260 mins and 600 mins with surgical masks.

Recess/lunch and decent ventilation usually means that just cloth masks are enough. No masks is cutting it close with just 1 infected kid. With poor ventilation and more than 1 infected kid even cloth masks start to struggle. To stop this schools do a lot more than just masks. After a certain point it spirals out of control.

Masks are just one part of the mitigation strategy. For example, at my son's school, they kind of use a pod system of 4-5 students even though the classroom is full. My kid sits at a table with 4 other kids, eats lunch, and goes to recess with the same kids. The playground is divided into several different stations setup so they rotate where they play. Anyway, this "pod" approach makes it so he only has the within 6 feet for more than 15 minutes exposure with a couple kids. This way if a kid gets covid only the other kids in his pod have to stay home.

All of these little things add up to a simple mitigation plan. It's not a big fucking deal. Anyone arguing otherwise is acting on emotion instead of thinking logically.

[country978]

Even if masking does bring some small degree of additional safety, the cost of doing so -- uncomfortableness, declined social development for kids, mask-related respiratory issues, and false-sense-of-security risk taking -- makes mask mandates useless at best, and more likely overall harmful.

That's what Druff said in an earlier post. I'm just asking questions. I realize it must be difficult to have a young child as you do and to even question whether or not what you're allowing to be done to your child is harmful but there is a debate about that taking place.

This is a complete flat Earth myth.

My oldest son was 4 when this started and is now 6. He's worn a mask to school the entire time, I've seen ZERO negative impacts to wearing the mask. It's like putting shoes on in the morning at this point, couldn't be less of an issue. Also, during the pandemic I've never observed any other kids in his classrooms having problems with masks. There was even a time were masks were required outside. During that time, going to the park was a big thing to do because many businesses were closed. I witnessed countless kids wear masks without issue. I talked to many parents, never once did one say their child was having negative impacts wearing a mask. My neighborhood leans right BTW.

You started the anti mask discussions with the admission that you just don't want to be told what to do. While I think that's strange, there's many people like you so I understand it's a thing. This whole, masks are the devil thing, is just making shit up to cover up the fact you don't want government telling you what do to.

Druff has a young kid. You ever witnessed / heard of a kid your child knows that has had negative impacts from wearing masks?

what you're saying is anecdotal druff is referring to studies and all I did was ask questions. I did not start the discussion and I've stayed out of it lately but since the forum owner is making the case that the mask is harmful to the child and citing studies I don't feel the question is out of line or strange. I'm trying my best not to insert my own feelings in the discussion because in my participation in this I do realize that I am an outlier in some ways and even strange as you say. My point of view on some things has changed as a result of the discussions we've had and as a result of the great points you and bcr and gimmick and everyone else has made. On the issue of masking a child or forcing a mask on an adult I'm never going to see things the way you do. It doesn't mean I think you're a bad parent or that I think its even my place to judge. I do think the discussion and debate about masking kids is valid and should not be dismissed just because your child has not exhibited any signs to suggest negative impact.

[nightmarefish]

This is a complete flat Earth myth.

My oldest son was 4 when this started and is now 6. He's worn a mask to school the entire time, I've seen ZERO negative impacts to wearing the mask. It's like putting shoes on in the morning at this point, couldn't be less of an issue. Also, during the pandemic I've never observed any other kids in his classrooms having problems with masks. There was even a time were masks were required outside. During that time, going to the park was a big thing to do because many businesses were closed. I witnessed countless kids wear masks without issue. I talked to many parents, never once did one say their child was having negative impacts wearing a mask. My neighborhood leans right BTW.

You started the anti mask discussions with the admission that you just don't want to be told what to do. While I think that's strange, there's many people like you so I understand it's a thing. This whole, masks are the devil thing, is just making shit up to cover up the fact you don't want government telling you what do to.

Druff has a young kid. You ever witnessed / heard of a kid your child knows that has had negative impacts from wearing masks?

what you're saying is anecdotal druff is referring to studies and all I did was ask questions. I did not start the discussion and I've stayed out of it lately but since the forum owner is making the case that the mask is harmful to the child and citing studies I don't feel the question is out of line or strange. I'm trying my best not to insert my own feelings in the discussion because in my participation in this I do realize that I am an outlier in some ways and even strange as you say. My point of view on some things has changed as a result of the discussions we've had and as a result of the great points you and bcr and gimmick and everyone else has made. On the issue of masking a child or forcing a mask on an adult I'm never going to see things the way you do. It doesn't mean I think you're a bad parent or that I think its even my place to judge. I do think the discussion and debate about masking kids is valid and should not be dismissed just because your child has not exhibited any signs to suggest negative impact.

Where has Druff posted studies?

I believe it's possible masks could have a negative impact on younger kids who are learning to talk but my 2 year old has never be required to wear one.

[dwai]

Infections don't work like "tag, you're it" with cov2. It's more like a threshold. Say as a complete random number an average person gets infected when they get hit with 100 particles in a day. Less than that you're completely fine and you recover some ability to resist infection the next day. It's very unlikely you could keep getting hit with 95 particles everyday for a week and still be fine, but getting hit with 30 everyday you're likely fine for weeks.

At this point almost all people have been getting hit with cov2 particles. With small amounts your immune system just deals with it before they have time to replicate. The immune system does that with everything it doesn't recognize and finds.

Let's take that 15 mins to get infected number as baseline, with no reasonable ventilation or distance and 1 infected person in the room. If we assume kids are 10x less likely to transmit, when none of them wear a mask they can sit next to a infected kid for 150 mins. With shitty cloth masks we're at 260 mins and 600 mins with surgical masks.

Recess/lunch and decent ventilation usually means that just cloth masks are enough. No masks is cutting it close with just 1 infected kid. With poor ventilation and more than 1 infected kid even cloth masks start to struggle. To stop this schools do a lot more than just masks. After a certain point it spirals out of control.

Masks are just one part of the mitigation strategy. For example, at my son's school, they kind of use a pod system of 4-5 students even though the classroom is full. My kid sits at a table with 4 other kids, eats lunch, and goes to recess with the same kids. The playground is divided into several different stations setup so they rotate where they play. Anyway, this "pod" approach makes it so he only has the within 6 feet for more than 15 minutes exposure with a couple kids. This way if a kid gets covid only the other kids in his pod have to stay home.

All of these little things add up to a simple mitigation plan. It's not a big fucking deal. Anyone arguing otherwise is acting on emotion instead of thinking logically.

[country978]

what you're saying is anecdotal druff is referring to studies and all I did was ask questions. I did not start the discussion and I've stayed out of it lately but since the forum owner is making the case that the mask is harmful to the child and citing studies I don't feel the question is out of line or strange. I'm trying my best not to insert my own feelings in the discussion because in my participation in this I do realize that I am an outlier in some ways and even strange as you say. My point of view on some things has changed as a result of the discussions we've had and as a result of the great points you and bcr and gimmick and everyone else has made. On the issue of masking a child or forcing a mask on an adult I'm never going to see things the way you do. It doesn't mean I think you're a bad parent or that I think its even my place to judge. I do think the discussion and debate about masking kids is valid and should not be dismissed just because your child has not exhibited any signs to suggest negative impact.

Where has Druff posted studies?

He was referring to one earlier today and also made the point that I copied in a response to you. Again, all I did was ask questions in response.

[gut]

Even if masking does bring some small degree of additional safety, the cost of doing so -- uncomfortableness, declined social development for kids, mask-related respiratory issues, and false-sense-of-security risk taking -- makes mask mandates useless at best, and more likely overall harmful.

That's what Druff said in an earlier post. I'm just asking questions. I realize it must be difficult to have a young child as you do and to even question whether or not what you're allowing to be done to your child is harmful but there is a debate about that taking place.

This is a complete flat Earth myth.

My oldest son was 4 when this started and is now 6. He's worn a mask to school the entire time, I've seen ZERO negative impacts to wearing the mask. It's like putting shoes on in the morning at this point, couldn't be less of an issue. Also, during the pandemic I've never observed any other kids in his classrooms having problems with masks. There was even a time were masks were required outside. During that time, going to the park was a big thing to do because many businesses were closed. I witnessed countless kids wear masks without issue. I talked to many parents, never once did one say their child was having negative impacts wearing a mask. My neighborhood leans right BTW.

You started the anti mask discussions with the admission that you just don't want to be told what to do. While I think that's strange, there's many people like you so I understand it's a thing. This whole, masks are the devil thing, is just making shit up to cover up the fact you don't want government telling you what do to.

Druff has a young kid. You ever witnessed / heard of a kid your child knows that has had negative impacts from wearing masks?

You are not going to see the problem now, only later. Especially at that impressionable age of your son. You make the comparison of putting on his shoes. Putting on shoes is a good routine to have ingrained into a child, as obviously throughout life 99% of the time you need to put on shoes before going outside.

If mask mandates continue for another 2+ years or so, kids around your sons age (probably the worst would be if you are age 6-9 at start of pandemic, I would guess) are going to assume it is normal, and may continue to want to do so after. They might develop anxiety when not wearing one in public, much like most of us would if we weren't wearing pants.

Of course, kids are even more adaptable than adults, and I think this will probably only affect a small percentage of kids who will already possibly have mental health issues anyway. But, like Druff, I don't really see any benefit at all to the kids wearing them, thus any potential negative would make me want to eliminate it.

[Sloppy Joe]

This is a complete flat Earth myth.

My oldest son was 4 when this started and is now 6. He's worn a mask to school the entire time, I've seen ZERO negative impacts to wearing the mask. It's like putting shoes on in the morning at this point, couldn't be less of an issue. Also, during the pandemic I've never observed any other kids in his classrooms having problems with masks. There was even a time were masks were required outside. During that time, going to the park was a big thing to do because many businesses were closed. I witnessed countless kids wear masks without issue. I talked to many parents, never once did one say their child was having negative impacts wearing a mask. My neighborhood leans right BTW.

You started the anti mask discussions with the admission that you just don't want to be told what to do. While I think that's strange, there's many people like you so I understand it's a thing. This whole, masks are the devil thing, is just making shit up to cover up the fact you don't want government telling you what do to.

Druff has a young kid. You ever witnessed / heard of a kid your child knows that has had negative impacts from wearing masks?

You are not going to see the problem now, only later. Especially at that impressionable age of your son. You make the comparison of putting on his shoes. Putting on shoes is a good routine to have ingrained into a child, as obviously throughout life 99% of the time you need to put on shoes before going outside.

If mask mandates continue for another 2+ years or so, kids around your sons age (probably the worst would be if you are age 6-9 at start of pandemic, I would guess) are going to assume it is normal, and may continue to want to do so after. They might develop anxiety when not wearing one in public, much like most of us would if we weren't wearing pants.

Of course, kids are even more adaptable than adults, and I think this will probably only affect a small percentage of kids who will already possibly have mental health issues anyway. But, like Druff, I don't really see any benefit at all to the kids wearing them, thus any potential negative would make me want to eliminate it.

Any faggot kid who develops issues from wearing a mask deserves to have the shit kicked out of them and will have issues down the road regardless.

What kind of emotional snowflakes are Team Retard raising? The next incel cuck Team Retard mass shooter won't be going postal over a fucking mask.

[nightmarefish]

This is a complete flat Earth myth.

My oldest son was 4 when this started and is now 6. He's worn a mask to school the entire time, I've seen ZERO negative impacts to wearing the mask. It's like putting shoes on in the morning at this point, couldn't be less of an issue. Also, during the pandemic I've never observed any other kids in his classrooms having problems with masks. There was even a time were masks were required outside. During that time, going to the park was a big thing to do because many businesses were closed. I witnessed countless kids wear masks without issue. I talked to many parents, never once did one say their child was having negative impacts wearing a mask. My neighborhood leans right BTW.

You started the anti mask discussions with the admission that you just don't want to be told what to do. While I think that's strange, there's many people like you so I understand it's a thing. This whole, masks are the devil thing, is just making shit up to cover up the fact you don't want government telling you what do to.

Druff has a young kid. You ever witnessed / heard of a kid your child knows that has had negative impacts from wearing masks?

You are not going to see the problem now, only later. Especially at that impressionable age of your son. You make the comparison of putting on his shoes. Putting on shoes is a good routine to have ingrained into a child, as obviously throughout life 99% of the time you need to put on shoes before going outside.

If mask mandates continue for another 2+ years or so, kids around your sons age (probably the worst would be if you are age 6-9 at start of pandemic, I would guess) are going to assume it is normal, and may continue to want to do so after. They might develop anxiety when not wearing one in public, much like most of us would if we weren't wearing pants.

Of course, kids are even more adaptable than adults, and I think this will probably only affect a small percentage of kids who will already possibly have mental health issues anyway. But, like Druff, I don't really see any benefit at all to the kids wearing them, thus any potential negative would make me want to eliminate it.

Anything is possible I guess. There is no proof of it course. I could say even though kids seem unaffected by covid that it still could have significate long term effects that we won't see for years.

I honestly think there's just a large group of people that doesn't want to be told what to do and thus make shit up to act like they have a leg to stand on.

Also, there's a huge percentage of our population that will disagree with anything the other political party says. When Trump said he wanted a wall and border security, all of a sudden Dems thought a wall was racist even though every prior Dem President was for border security. If Dems had been saying don't wear a mask these last 18 months, sure as shit there would be a bunch of far right people wearing masks.

[Walter Sobchak]

Masks are just one part of the mitigation strategy. For example, at my son's school, they kind of use a pod system of 4-5 students even though the classroom is full. My kid sits at a table with 4 other kids, eats lunch, and goes to recess with the same kids. The playground is divided into several different stations setup so they rotate where they play. Anyway, this "pod" approach makes it so he only has the within 6 feet for more than 15 minutes exposure with a couple kids. This way if a kid gets covid only the other kids in his pod have to stay home.

All of these little things add up to a simple mitigation plan. It's not a big fucking deal. Anyone arguing otherwise is acting on emotion instead of thinking logically.

You forgot the dick spinning one. Not sure if we still have that

[BCR]

Infections don't work like "tag, you're it" with cov2. It's more like a threshold. Say as a complete random number an average person gets infected when they get hit with 100 particles in a day. Less than that you're completely fine and you recover some ability to resist infection the next day. It's very unlikely you could keep getting hit with 95 particles everyday for a week and still be fine, but getting hit with 30 everyday you're likely fine for weeks.

At this point almost all people have been getting hit with cov2 particles. With small amounts your immune system just deals with it before they have time to replicate. The immune system does that with everything it doesn't recognize and finds.

Let's take that 15 mins to get infected number as baseline, with no reasonable ventilation or distance and 1 infected person in the room. If we assume kids are 10x less likely to transmit, when none of them wear a mask they can sit next to a infected kid for 150 mins. With shitty cloth masks we're at 260 mins and 600 mins with surgical masks.

Recess/lunch and decent ventilation usually means that just cloth masks are enough. No masks is cutting it close with just 1 infected kid. With poor ventilation and more than 1 infected kid even cloth masks start to struggle. To stop this schools do a lot more than just masks. After a certain point it spirals out of control.

Masks are just one part of the mitigation strategy. For example, at my son's school, they kind of use a pod system of 4-5 students even though the classroom is full. My kid sits at a table with 4 other kids, eats lunch, and goes to recess with the same kids. The playground is divided into several different stations setup so they rotate where they play. Anyway, this "pod" approach makes it so he only has the within 6 feet for more than 15 minutes exposure with a couple kids. This way if a kid gets covid only the other kids in his pod have to stay home.

All of these little things add up to a simple mitigation plan. It's not a big fucking deal. Anyone arguing otherwise is acting on emotion instead of thinking logically.

Having responsible parents who aren’t idiots plus sound policy seems to be working well. Just basic common sense

Saw this article about California schools. Here, with all the tards, a bunch of schools opened up without any restriction and were passing up last years numbers after a month. We had school closures, mask mandates put in, and a number of schools in Columbus have to straight go back to homeschooling as they started without any restriction.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...sures.amp.html

California Accounts for 12% of U.S. Students, but Only 1% of Covid School Closures

The state has done remarkably well limiting outbreaks, even before its student vaccine mandate has been put into place.

[Dan Druff]

Infections don't work like "tag, you're it" with cov2. It's more like a threshold. Say as a complete random number an average person gets infected when they get hit with 100 particles in a day. Less than that you're completely fine and you recover some ability to resist infection the next day. It's very unlikely you could keep getting hit with 95 particles everyday for a week and still be fine, but getting hit with 30 everyday you're likely fine for weeks.

At this point almost all people have been getting hit with cov2 particles. With small amounts your immune system just deals with it before they have time to replicate. The immune system does that with everything it doesn't recognize and finds.

Let's take that 15 mins to get infected number as baseline, with no reasonable ventilation or distance and 1 infected person in the room. If we assume kids are 10x less likely to transmit, when none of them wear a mask they can sit next to a infected kid for 150 mins. With shitty cloth masks we're at 260 mins and 600 mins with surgical masks.

Recess/lunch and decent ventilation usually means that just cloth masks are enough. No masks is cutting it close with just 1 infected kid. With poor ventilation and more than 1 infected kid even cloth masks start to struggle. To stop this schools do a lot more than just masks. After a certain point it spirals out of control.

This is a lot of speculation with no evidence.

The only thing I can agree with here is that infection time matters. However, it's a lot more complicated than that, and not backed by any known real world outbreaks n the US.

Keep in mind that there's still a lot of big holes in knowledge regarding COVID transmission. You are making a huge leap here by stating that masks are just barely holding back a big outbreak, when combined with ventilation. You're just making wild guesses.

There should be plenty of real world examples of masks making a big difference with kids if they're as essential as you claim. There simply aren't. There's no getting around that.

[BartHanson]

[Dan Druff]

Infections don't work like "tag, you're it" with cov2. It's more like a threshold. Say as a complete random number an average person gets infected when they get hit with 100 particles in a day. Less than that you're completely fine and you recover some ability to resist infection the next day. It's very unlikely you could keep getting hit with 95 particles everyday for a week and still be fine, but getting hit with 30 everyday you're likely fine for weeks.

At this point almost all people have been getting hit with cov2 particles. With small amounts your immune system just deals with it before they have time to replicate. The immune system does that with everything it doesn't recognize and finds.

Let's take that 15 mins to get infected number as baseline, with no reasonable ventilation or distance and 1 infected person in the room. If we assume kids are 10x less likely to transmit, when none of them wear a mask they can sit next to a infected kid for 150 mins. With shitty cloth masks we're at 260 mins and 600 mins with surgical masks.

Recess/lunch and decent ventilation usually means that just cloth masks are enough. No masks is cutting it close with just 1 infected kid. With poor ventilation and more than 1 infected kid even cloth masks start to struggle. To stop this schools do a lot more than just masks. After a certain point it spirals out of control.

Masks are just one part of the mitigation strategy. For example, at my son's school, they kind of use a pod system of 4-5 students even though the classroom is full. My kid sits at a table with 4 other kids, eats lunch, and goes to recess with the same kids. The playground is divided into several different stations setup so they rotate where they play. Anyway, this "pod" approach makes it so he only has the within 6 feet for more than 15 minutes exposure with a couple kids. This way if a kid gets covid only the other kids in his pod have to stay home.

All of these little things add up to a simple mitigation plan. It's not a big fucking deal. Anyone arguing otherwise is acting on emotion instead of thinking logically.

If this were true, then schools WITHOUT such a mitigation strategy should be getting slammed with student-transmitted COVID cases.

They haven't. It's not happening. We're two months in, and it's not happening.

I'm glad you feel good about these stupid pods. They're likely not helping, and are just socially isolating your kids away from most of the school population. What if COVID continues as it presently is, which is a realistic possibility? Will they be in "pods" until they graduate high school?

If it were happening, it wouldn't be difficult to point to a school where student-transmitted COVID outbreaks took place. This can be easily deduced by looking at infection patterns, community transmission, and whether or not teachers in contact with the kids had COVID. We simply haven't seen it. The rare classroom COVID outbreak has always been traced to a teacher who brought it in, and got a ton of kids sick. As I said earlier, even that is uncommon because most teachers are vaxxed.

[Dan Druff]

Here's a paper from a University of Minnesota research group -- definitely not right-wing -- which calls out recent high profile "masks are safe" studies as pseudo-scientific crap:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...y-and-why-most

I liked this part near the end:




Owned.

I expect the researchers of this paper to be blackballed from the left-wing scientific cult community very shortly.

Sure...

"Again, at the outset, we underscore that we are not "anti-mask." Rather, we are in favor of wearing the most protective type of facepiece for the setting—such as a non-fit tested respirator when spending more than a few minutes in a crowded, indoor space—and only in combination with other interventions."

...owned. Get fucked while you're at it.

Was that the main point of their piece?

Or was their point that the pro-masking "studies" frequently cited by the left and media are full of holes, and that people are happily going along with it in order to make a political point?

I never said the authors were anti-mask. In fact, I stated that they're likely on the left, given their university affiliation.

However, if you're willing to state that you agree with their assessment that the US left/media has greatly exaggerated the usefulness of cloth masks, to the point of actually doing harm, then I think we're making some progress.

[dwai]

Masks are just one part of the mitigation strategy. For example, at my son's school, they kind of use a pod system of 4-5 students even though the classroom is full. My kid sits at a table with 4 other kids, eats lunch, and goes to recess with the same kids. The playground is divided into several different stations setup so they rotate where they play. Anyway, this "pod" approach makes it so he only has the within 6 feet for more than 15 minutes exposure with a couple kids. This way if a kid gets covid only the other kids in his pod have to stay home.

All of these little things add up to a simple mitigation plan. It's not a big fucking deal. Anyone arguing otherwise is acting on emotion instead of thinking logically.

If this were true, then schools WITHOUT such a mitigation strategy should be getting slammed with student-transmitted COVID cases.

They haven't. It's not happening. We're two months in, and it's not happening.

I'm glad you feel good about these stupid pods. They're likely not helping, and are just socially isolating your kids away from most of the school population. What if COVID continues as it presently is, which is a realistic possibility? Will they be in "pods" until they graduate high school?

If it were happening, it wouldn't be difficult to point to a school where student-transmitted COVID outbreaks took place. This can be easily deduced by looking at infection patterns, community transmission, and whether or not teachers in contact with the kids had COVID. We simply haven't seen it. The rare classroom COVID outbreak has always been traced to a teacher who brought it in, and got a ton of kids sick. As I said earlier, even that is uncommon because most teachers are vaxxed.

why are you arguing with these idiots? they've been wrong about everything for 2 years, they're not gonna change

call them faggots and move on