Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
JD Coffey III | 4* 2021 S | Kennedale, TX (HS) | (Offered)
Comments
-
Fair enough, but the first bullet point is the primary reason they are closing. It's the primary reason everything is closing. Everyone is in CYA mode.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway. -
That's pretty cynical, but maybe you're right. I like to think that--especially at the local level, where school superintendents are members of the community and actually care--those second reasons are major drivers.dnc said:
Fair enough, but the first bullet point is the primary reason they are closing. It's the primary reason everything is closing. Everyone is in CYA mode.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway. -
I hope you are correct.1to392831weretaken said:
That's pretty cynical, but maybe you're right. I like to think that--especially at the local level, where school superintendents are members of the community and actually care--those second reasons are major drivers.dnc said:
Fair enough, but the first bullet point is the primary reason they are closing. It's the primary reason everything is closing. Everyone is in CYA mode.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway.
-
You saw that yesterday when places like Disneyland were going to stay open and golf was going to keep golfing but they got shouted down and gave in. Nobody in public has yet to go against it. You'd get slaughtered if you are any kind of public figurednc said:
Fair enough, but the first bullet point is the primary reason they are closing. It's the primary reason everything is closing. Everyone is in CYA mode.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway.
LAUSD schools are still open as of now. -
By the way Casinos are open for bidness on the Rez and in Las Wages
-
There'll be more adverse outcomes for the bands of feral children roaming ourº streets than if they had been kept in school.dnc said:
I hope you are correct.1to392831weretaken said:
That's pretty cynical, but maybe you're right. I like to think that--especially at the local level, where school superintendents are members of the community and actually care--those second reasons are major drivers.dnc said:
Fair enough, but the first bullet point is the primary reason they are closing. It's the primary reason everything is closing. Everyone is in CYA mode.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway. -
Yes because Americans have a monopoly on optics.Emoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/ -
18-35 year old males no longer have the Soma of sports to keep them under controlGrundleStiltzkin said:
There'll be more adverse outcomes for the bands of feral children roaming ourº streets than if they had been kept in school.dnc said:
I hope you are correct.1to392831weretaken said:
That's pretty cynical, but maybe you're right. I like to think that--especially at the local level, where school superintendents are members of the community and actually care--those second reasons are major drivers.dnc said:
Fair enough, but the first bullet point is the primary reason they are closing. It's the primary reason everything is closing. Everyone is in CYA mode.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway.
What is the worst that can happen? -
#MeToo part 2 Electric BoogalooRaceBannon said:
18-35 year old males no longer have the Soma of sports to keep them under controlGrundleStiltzkin said:
There'll be more adverse outcomes for the bands of feral children roaming ourº streets than if they had been kept in school.dnc said:
I hope you are correct.1to392831weretaken said:
That's pretty cynical, but maybe you're right. I like to think that--especially at the local level, where school superintendents are members of the community and actually care--those second reasons are major drivers.dnc said:
Fair enough, but the first bullet point is the primary reason they are closing. It's the primary reason everything is closing. Everyone is in CYA mode.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway.
What is the worst that can happen? -
Why do I suddenly feel like all of HCH turned into a giant tug.
FYFMFE -
I'm thinking the schools are closed due to the fact that kids are the cute and lovable Typhoid Maries of the virus. They are less sanitary than adults and the "at risk" grandparents of the little carriers just can't keep their hands off their infected progeny. If the kids aren't at school giving it to each other, then maybe the community can stem the tide of the young and strong infecting the old and sick.dnc said:
I hope you are correct.1to392831weretaken said:
That's pretty cynical, but maybe you're right. I like to think that--especially at the local level, where school superintendents are members of the community and actually care--those second reasons are major drivers.dnc said:
Fair enough, but the first bullet point is the primary reason they are closing. It's the primary reason everything is closing. Everyone is in CYA mode.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway. -
theknowledge said:
I'm thinking the schools are closed due to the fact that kids are the cute and lovable Typhoid Maries of the virus. They are less sanitary than adults and the "at risk" grandparents of the little carriers just can't keep their hands off their infected progeny. If the kids aren't at school giving it to each other, then maybe the community can stem the tide of the young and strong infecting the old and sick.dnc said:
I hope you are correct.1to392831weretaken said:
That's pretty cynical, but maybe you're right. I like to think that--especially at the local level, where school superintendents are members of the community and actually care--those second reasons are major drivers.dnc said:
Fair enough, but the first bullet point is the primary reason they are closing. It's the primary reason everything is closing. Everyone is in CYA mode.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway.
Everyone got tested in Korea, they're only testing those with symptoms in Italy. Plenty of young Typhoid Marys who are equally contagious.
🤔 -
Doubly Retarded
-
I honestly don't disagree.theknowledge said:
I'm thinking the schools are closed due to the fact that kids are the cute and lovable Typhoid Maries of the virus. They are less sanitary than adults and the "at risk" grandparents of the little carriers just can't keep their hands off their infected progeny. If the kids aren't at school giving it to each other, then maybe the community can stem the tide of the young and strong infecting the old and sick.dnc said:
I hope you are correct.1to392831weretaken said:
That's pretty cynical, but maybe you're right. I like to think that--especially at the local level, where school superintendents are members of the community and actually care--those second reasons are major drivers.dnc said:
Fair enough, but the first bullet point is the primary reason they are closing. It's the primary reason everything is closing. Everyone is in CYA mode.1to392831weretaken said:
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...dnc said:
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing toEmoterman said:
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.dnc said:
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.Emoterman said:
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.dnc said:
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.insinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said:
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/10/coronavirus-is-mysteriously-sparing-kids-killing-elderly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway. -
what is this the tug now?
-
Inslee has ordered emergency seizure of all boreds & threads thereof.WilburHooksHands said:what is this the tug now?
-
Right, firstGrundleStiltzkin said:
Inslee has ordered emergency seizure of all boreds & threads thereof.WilburHooksHands said:what is this the tug now?
-
It’s all that is going on because the whole fucking world shuts down if a couple thousand Americans die.WilburHooksHands said:what is this the tug now?
-
#CoronaFriday?Neighbor2972 said:
He visited Oregon too, plausible deniabilityinsinceredawg said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.dnc said:
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.insinceredawg said:
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of usGrundleStiltzkin said: -
-
so nothin' dropped is what you're saying.KrunkJuice said:
-
-
He's going to need to learn how to secure the football a bit better...
-
Crystal donged to Oregon buy a guy named Demetrice Warren
-
That dude just throws shit at the wall to see what sticks.bananasnblondes said:Crystal donged to Oregon buy a guy named Demetrice Warren
-
Wiltfong CB to Texas
-
They just need to offer Ceyair Wright already, but they might've missed the opportunity at this point. Spears, Burke, and one of Wright/Coffey/Riley...
-
NOGAF, but in spirit of completeness
-
-
