(12-03-2020 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 08:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 02:23 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 01:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am actually at the tip of the spear (or not, as the case may be).

I'm a participant in a vaccine trial --- had the first round 'video questionnaire' and slated for the first round this coming Tuesday. Of course, I dont know if I am vaccine shot or placebo man.

The trial organizer says that after 6 mos they will notify the placebo recipients for their option to be immediately inoculated if the trial is a success.

If I am a placebo man or if the trial is not a success, I plan on getting inoculated asaic (as soon as I can); but if the trial is not a success I am very aware I am in the lastie type group, and have zero issue with medical frontliners, first responders, and others in high contact situations (grocery store personnel, waitstaff, cooks, etc) being ahead in the queue. I'll wait patiently for the proper life boat in that case.

Good for you, Tang. I truly have great admiration for you and all of the other vaccine trial volunteers.

Yes. sir. Interesting that the most disliked (by the lefties) person is the guy stepping up.

Ah, truly nice to keep up a thread where this isn't arguing, bickering, or really any annoyance with each other.

It would be a change, but we cannot all be in agreement 100% of the time, can we? This forum is to air differences, not similarities. You have Vox for that.

I agree... I don't come here for an echo chamber, though I do sometimes find all sorts of commonality.

I'm actually a bit surprised that we don't have ONE single person on here concerned about a new, rushed vaccine?? Especially in that I'm betting that probably 1/3 of the Rice population and alumni who aren't required to do so, don't get flu shots??

I could have decided to play devil's advocate (as many Rice people do from time to time) and talked about my concerns... I absolutely have them... but because I take care of my parents who will get this vaccine long before I will, and will therefore return to normal life long before I will... they may actually become MY risk point.

I'd say there is at least some risk that as the vulnerable populations who have been most isolated get vaccinated, and then re-engage with family that has been avoiding them for a large portion of what is a continually declining remaining life... that people like me get infected. Add in the riskiest front-line workers, say janitors at a hospital... who now have immunity, but can still spread spit...

(12-03-2020 11:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 08:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-02-2020 02:23 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  Good for you, Tang. I truly have great admiration for you and all of the other vaccine trial volunteers.

Yes. sir. Interesting that the most disliked (by the lefties) person is the guy stepping up.

Ah, truly nice to keep up a thread where this isn't arguing, bickering, or really any annoyance with each other.

It would be a change, but we cannot all be in agreement 100% of the time, can we? This forum is to air differences, not similarities. You have Vox for that.

I agree... I don't come here for an echo chamber, though I do sometimes find all sorts of commonality.

I'm actually a bit surprised that we don't have ONE single person on here concerned about a new, rushed vaccine?? Especially in that I'm betting that probably 1/3 of the Rice population and alumni who aren't required to do so, don't get flu shots??

I could have decided to play devil's advocate (as many Rice people do from time to time) and talked about my concerns... I absolutely have them... but because I take care of my parents who will get this vaccine long before I will, and will therefore return to normal life long before I will... they may actually become MY risk point.

I'd say there is at least some risk that as the vulnerable populations who have been most isolated get vaccinated, and then re-engage with family that has been avoiding them for a large portion of what is a continually declining remaining life... that people like me get infected. Add in the riskiest front-line workers, say janitors at a hospital... who now have immunity, but can still spread spit...

Thank you for posting that, Ham. In fact, part of the reason I started the thread was to gauge the interest in the vaccine among a group of highly educated and aware individuals from varied backgrounds...elderly, young, non-medical, physicians,etc. My world view is heavily influenced by my local sphere which is made up almost entirely of medical people..not one of which has said that they wouldn’t get the vaccine.
However, if we are honest, we have to admit that there are some risks in approving these EUAs. And the people on the independent board reviewing the data, as well as the FDA recognize that. At this stage it’s going to be very difficult to determine exactly what the risk is. The data that’s been put out there seems to indicate that the risk in the vaccinated population for developing serious complications is very low. But even if a serious complication occurring in less than 1% could happen and it has escaped detection in these first few trials it can mean serious problems for thousands of people once millions get the vaccine. I’m hoping that’s not the case. But that’s what these boards are facing in the next 10-12 days.

(12-03-2020 11:52 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 11:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 08:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes. sir. Interesting that the most disliked (by the lefties) person is the guy stepping up.

Ah, truly nice to keep up a thread where this isn't arguing, bickering, or really any annoyance with each other.

It would be a change, but we cannot all be in agreement 100% of the time, can we? This forum is to air differences, not similarities. You have Vox for that.

I agree... I don't come here for an echo chamber, though I do sometimes find all sorts of commonality.

I'm actually a bit surprised that we don't have ONE single person on here concerned about a new, rushed vaccine?? Especially in that I'm betting that probably 1/3 of the Rice population and alumni who aren't required to do so, don't get flu shots??

I could have decided to play devil's advocate (as many Rice people do from time to time) and talked about my concerns... I absolutely have them... but because I take care of my parents who will get this vaccine long before I will, and will therefore return to normal life long before I will... they may actually become MY risk point.

I'd say there is at least some risk that as the vulnerable populations who have been most isolated get vaccinated, and then re-engage with family that has been avoiding them for a large portion of what is a continually declining remaining life... that people like me get infected. Add in the riskiest front-line workers, say janitors at a hospital... who now have immunity, but can still spread spit...

Thank you for posting that, Ham. In fact, part of the reason I started the thread was to gauge the interest in the vaccine among a group of highly educated and aware individuals from varied backgrounds...elderly, young, non-medical, physicians,etc. My world view is heavily influenced by my local sphere which is made up almost entirely of medical people..not one of which has said that they wouldn’t get the vaccine.
However, if we are honest, we have to admit that there are some risks in approving these EUAs. And the people on the independent board reviewing the data, as well as the FDA recognize that. At this stage it’s going to be very difficult to determine exactly what the risk is. The data that’s been put out there seems to indicate that the risk in the vaccinated population for developing serious complications is very low. But even if a serious complication occurring in less than 1% could happen and it has escaped detection in these first few trials it can mean serious problems for thousands of people once millions get the vaccine. I’m hoping that’s not the case. But that’s what these boards are facing in the next 10-12 days.

I guess vicariously we've answered Lad's question and unveiled the TRUE purpose of (especially) this Rice political board as opposed to say the Spin Room on the Memphis site...

Where relatively educated and informed people can disagree and discuss real issues... avoiding at least SOME of the ad hom attacks.

This just happens to be an issue that isn't particularly political.... or at least doesn't generally align strongly with one party but not the other.

These vaccines are not without risk. I'd say the risks are much less than COVID itself, but look how many precautions and effort and dollars we're putting into addressing those COVID risks. We're putting MUCH less into addressing COVID vaccine risks... though we're pretty informed on vaccines in general. And as I said, I think the greater risk is the initial crossover point where some people feel bullet proof because they are vaccinated while others are still waiting.

My question is (and some may know) is if this is more like Swine in that we will essentially eliminate this disease in its human form and it will have to once again make the jump from bats to humans for this to become an issue again, or if it will become more like Flu-A where remnants of it continue to pass around and mutate, though at a much lower level for perhaps generations. I'm not a scientist so I don't know, and haven't kept up much on the life-cycle issues.

I indicated that I would not jump at the first chance to get the vac.

That is because it has been a bit rushed, and I am not so panicked as to not be able to wait a few more weeks to see how it works. I just saw Fauci speaking about the UK rushing it.

Of course, if I was a little farther back in line, like the "normies', I would have a different viewpoint. But from wait I have seen on the news, I will be one of the front liners. I just compare this to some investing advice I once received: better to miss the boat than to catch one that sinks.

Certainly, I will be taking a little risk to delay. I may be taking a little risk to not delay, too. It is a choice that is up to me. I will play the odds as I see them.

It very well could be that more lives will be saved by the fact of the vaccine being available -- thus allowing life to return to normal -- than by the actual inoculations.

I wish there was a way to prioritize vaccinating by severity of one's neurosis and how insistent one has been that others must suffer to appease one's irrationally low tolerance for risk. Schoolteachers who through their unions have refused to teach in person should, in particular, be at the front of the line. Where is the most painful place to get a shot? If only that were part of the deal as well.

To answer the question, I'm 50, a former D-I athlete in good but no longer great health, and obviously think there has been a lot of unjustified overreach and a lot of use of COVID as a stalking horse for political opportunism. I'll get the vaccine, but I'm not camping out for days like it's for Pearl Jam tickets or the opening of an In-N-Out Burger. It's not a life-and-death matter -- getting the vaccine will not meaningfully statistically alter my life expectancy, and I will calibrate my urgency about the matter accordingly.

(12-03-2020 06:19 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  It very well could be that more lives will be saved by the fact of the vaccine being available -- thus allowing life to return to normal -- than by the actual inoculations.

I wish there was a way to prioritize vaccinating by severity of one's neurosis and how insistent one has been that others must suffer to appease one's irrationally low tolerance for risk. Schoolteachers who through their unions have refused to teach in person should, in particular, be at the front of the line. Where is the most painful place to get a shot? If only that were part of the deal as well.

What puts you in a position to comment on how rational or irrational other people are being in their approach to risk tolerance when it comes to the pandemic? How can you comment on teachers who don't want to be surrounded by kids in a classroom without knowing their specific situations? Perhaps they have a kid with poorly controlled asthma at home, or an overweight husband with diabetes, or a mother who is receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.

(12-03-2020 06:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 06:19 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  It very well could be that more lives will be saved by the fact of the vaccine being available -- thus allowing life to return to normal -- than by the actual inoculations.

I wish there was a way to prioritize vaccinating by severity of one's neurosis and how insistent one has been that others must suffer to appease one's irrationally low tolerance for risk. Schoolteachers who through their unions have refused to teach in person should, in particular, be at the front of the line. Where is the most painful place to get a shot? If only that were part of the deal as well.

What puts you in a position to comment on how rational or irrational other people are being in their approach to risk tolerance when it comes to the pandemic? How can you comment on teachers who don't want to be surrounded by kids in a classroom without knowing their specific situations? Perhaps they have a kid with poorly controlled asthma at home, or an overweight husband with diabetes, or a mother who is receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Read, please. I'm talking about teachers unions that have stayed out en masse, as they have in my area and in many around the country (read a newspaper sometime). If only both individual teachers and individual families were given the opportunities to assess their individual situations and act accordingly. In my area, nothing of the sort has been allowed.

My school board surveyed the local HS faculty -- 300 teachers. A whopping 10% have some sort of legitimate medical reason of the sort you describe. Any sane policy would try to find a workaround for the 10%. Instead, 100% of teachers and 100% of kids -- 3000 -- have been kept home 100% of the time, to demonstrated harmful effect, to cater to the 30 people. And this situation has been repeated in countless districts around the country. If you think you can defend that, give it a go.

(12-03-2020 07:43 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 06:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 06:19 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  It very well could be that more lives will be saved by the fact of the vaccine being available -- thus allowing life to return to normal -- than by the actual inoculations.

I wish there was a way to prioritize vaccinating by severity of one's neurosis and how insistent one has been that others must suffer to appease one's irrationally low tolerance for risk. Schoolteachers who through their unions have refused to teach in person should, in particular, be at the front of the line. Where is the most painful place to get a shot? If only that were part of the deal as well.

What puts you in a position to comment on how rational or irrational other people are being in their approach to risk tolerance when it comes to the pandemic? How can you comment on teachers who don't want to be surrounded by kids in a classroom without knowing their specific situations? Perhaps they have a kid with poorly controlled asthma at home, or an overweight husband with diabetes, or a mother who is receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Read, please. I'm talking about teachers unions that have stayed out en masse, as they have in my area and in many around the country (read a newspaper sometime).

I did read what you wrote. You made it sound as if it was the teachers that were refusing to teach in person (see bolded). So it is the unions that are refusing while the vast majority of the teachers want to teach in person? I'm kind of confused about who you are placing the blame on here.

Quote: If only both individual teachers and individual families were given the opportunities to assess their individual situations and act accordingly. In my area, nothing of the sort has been allowed.

My school board surveyed the local HS faculty -- 300 teachers. A whopping 10% have some sort of legitimate medical reason of the sort you describe. Any sane policy would try to find a workaround for the 10%. Instead, 100% of teachers and 100% of kids -- 3000 -- have been kept home 100% of the time, to demonstrated harmful effect, to cater to the 30 people. And this situation has been repeated in countless districts around the country. If you think you can defend that, give it a go.

I'm not trying to defend it. I prefer in-school learning for sure. I'm not the one sitting in the room breathing in the microbes from 20 kids in a closed system though. I agree that if the vast majority of teachers WANT to teach in person (and it is deemed safe to do so) then the school board should work to make that happen.

(12-03-2020 09:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 07:43 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 06:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 06:19 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  It very well could be that more lives will be saved by the fact of the vaccine being available -- thus allowing life to return to normal -- than by the actual inoculations.

I wish there was a way to prioritize vaccinating by severity of one's neurosis and how insistent one has been that others must suffer to appease one's irrationally low tolerance for risk. Schoolteachers who through their unions have refused to teach in person should, in particular, be at the front of the line. Where is the most painful place to get a shot? If only that were part of the deal as well.

What puts you in a position to comment on how rational or irrational other people are being in their approach to risk tolerance when it comes to the pandemic? How can you comment on teachers who don't want to be surrounded by kids in a classroom without knowing their specific situations? Perhaps they have a kid with poorly controlled asthma at home, or an overweight husband with diabetes, or a mother who is receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Read, please. I'm talking about teachers unions that have stayed out en masse, as they have in my area and in many around the country (read a newspaper sometime).

I did read what you wrote. You made it sound as if it was the teachers that were refusing to teach in person (see bolded). So it is the unions that are refusing while the vast majority of the teachers want to teach in person? I'm kind of confused about who you are placing the blame on here.

Quote: If only both individual teachers and individual families were given the opportunities to assess their individual situations and act accordingly. In my area, nothing of the sort has been allowed.

My school board surveyed the local HS faculty -- 300 teachers. A whopping 10% have some sort of legitimate medical reason of the sort you describe. Any sane policy would try to find a workaround for the 10%. Instead, 100% of teachers and 100% of kids -- 3000 -- have been kept home 100% of the time, to demonstrated harmful effect, to cater to the 30 people. And this situation has been repeated in countless districts around the country. If you think you can defend that, give it a go.

I'm not trying to defend it. I prefer in-school learning for sure. I'm not the one sitting in the room breathing in the microbes from 20 kids in a closed system though. I agree that if the vast majority of teachers WANT to teach in person (and it is deemed safe to do so) then the school board should work to make that happen.

Who tells the unions what to do? Their members. If the vast majority of teachers WANT to teach in person, then why is their union defying them? If your comment is, because 'someone' has deemed it not safe to do so, I'd like to know who that is and why... and if they've actually looked at the specifics of the situations as described by illini.

There are numerous CDC studies that talk about the incredible and often irreversible consequences of kids not being in school... in person... In addition to the educational and socialization losses, child abuse and sexual assault against children has risen.... and THAT is with the primary reporters of child abuse (teachers) unable to see children to report it. Think about that for a minute. Now lets add the fact that 20mm (out of about 30mm lunches served) are served to kids for free... so where are they getting their meals now? For millions of kids, this is the only consistent nutrition they get.

The director of the CDC has said that one of the safest places for kids to be during the pandemic is in the schools. He said that within the last 2 weeks.

So most teachers want to be there... and the CDC says its the safest place for kids to be... so why are ANY schools closed? Especially without some specific issue at that specific school or class.

You took issue with Illili's comment that teachers, through their union are refusing to work. If they're not, then why aren't they?? If you want to blame the school board, fine... but I don't see teachers out there protesting to go back to work, do you?

Illini's area apparently took a survey and 10% of the teachers had a legitimate issue that would over-rule even the CDC recommendation. What about the other 90?

I plan on waiting a year or so to ensure the vaccine is safe. I have had terrible luck with vaccines in general, so not to excited about a novel method for vaccinations

(12-03-2020 09:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 09:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 07:43 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 06:46 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 06:19 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  It very well could be that more lives will be saved by the fact of the vaccine being available -- thus allowing life to return to normal -- than by the actual inoculations.

I wish there was a way to prioritize vaccinating by severity of one's neurosis and how insistent one has been that others must suffer to appease one's irrationally low tolerance for risk. Schoolteachers who through their unions have refused to teach in person should, in particular, be at the front of the line. Where is the most painful place to get a shot? If only that were part of the deal as well.

What puts you in a position to comment on how rational or irrational other people are being in their approach to risk tolerance when it comes to the pandemic? How can you comment on teachers who don't want to be surrounded by kids in a classroom without knowing their specific situations? Perhaps they have a kid with poorly controlled asthma at home, or an overweight husband with diabetes, or a mother who is receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Read, please. I'm talking about teachers unions that have stayed out en masse, as they have in my area and in many around the country (read a newspaper sometime).

I did read what you wrote. You made it sound as if it was the teachers that were refusing to teach in person (see bolded). So it is the unions that are refusing while the vast majority of the teachers want to teach in person? I'm kind of confused about who you are placing the blame on here.

Quote: If only both individual teachers and individual families were given the opportunities to assess their individual situations and act accordingly. In my area, nothing of the sort has been allowed.

My school board surveyed the local HS faculty -- 300 teachers. A whopping 10% have some sort of legitimate medical reason of the sort you describe. Any sane policy would try to find a workaround for the 10%. Instead, 100% of teachers and 100% of kids -- 3000 -- have been kept home 100% of the time, to demonstrated harmful effect, to cater to the 30 people. And this situation has been repeated in countless districts around the country. If you think you can defend that, give it a go.

I'm not trying to defend it. I prefer in-school learning for sure. I'm not the one sitting in the room breathing in the microbes from 20 kids in a closed system though. I agree that if the vast majority of teachers WANT to teach in person (and it is deemed safe to do so) then the school board should work to make that happen.

Who tells the unions what to do? Their members. If the vast majority of teachers WANT to teach in person, then why is their union defying them? If your comment is, because 'someone' has deemed it not safe to do so, I'd like to know who that is and why... and if they've actually looked at the specifics of the situations as described by illini.

I am not familiar with what is going on with the teachers/unions with regards to the pandemic response in Illinois.

Quote:There are numerous CDC studies that talk about the incredible and often irreversible consequences of kids not being in school... in person... In addition to the educational and socialization losses, child abuse and sexual assault against children has risen.... and THAT is with the primary reporters of child abuse (teachers) unable to see children to report it. Think about that for a minute. Now lets add the fact that 20mm (out of about 30mm lunches served) are served to kids for free... so where are they getting their meals now? For millions of kids, this is the only consistent nutrition they get.

The director of the CDC has said that one of the safest places for kids to be during the pandemic is in the schools. He said that within the last 2 weeks.

So most teachers want to be there... and the CDC says its the safest place for kids to be... so why are ANY schools closed? Especially without some specific issue at that specific school or class.

Agreed.

Quote:You took issue with Illili's comment that teachers, through their union are refusing to work. If they're not, then why aren't they?? If you want to blame the school board, fine... but I don't see teachers out there protesting to go back to work, do you?

I took issue with Illini's punitive approach to those that had a approach to pandemic risk assessment than he did. Again... I am not informed regarding the specific of Illinois teacher's unions. I'm not blaming anybody. It seems that maybe Illini is blaming the teacher's unions?

(12-03-2020 10:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I took issue with Illini's punitive approach to those that had a approach to pandemic risk assessment than he did. Again... I am not informed regarding the specific of Illinois teacher's unions. I'm not blaming anybody. It seems that maybe Illini is blaming the teacher's unions?

Does it not seem to you that he IS informed regarding the specifics of Illinois teacher's unions? I'm sure not, but I get the impression that he is.

I mean, its certainly possible that the unions want to go back to work and the school districts or politicians are stopping them as I suggested, but given that it seems Illini is aware that they took a survey of the teachers. If that were the case, you'd think he'd know it and be blaming the superintendent or the mayor or the governor or whomever else it was that was keeping those kids out of school. Note that he said that the school board surveyed teachers.

(12-03-2020 09:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  the CDC says its the safest place for kids to be...

Wasn't there some political party that said they would listen to the experts?

(12-03-2020 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-03-2020 09:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  the CDC says its the safest place for kids to be...

Wasn't there some political party that said they would listen to the experts?

I don’t know if the CDC has gone quite that far and said that it is THE safest place for kids.

But we have a lot more information now about risk for spread for children and mitigation measures, and I don’t see how any school system can justify being completely closed, safe for some extreme case spread/outbreak within the system itself or scheduling purposes. I say the latter just due to logistics - it makes sense to complete an entire semester in one mode given there has already been a lot of upheaval, so a school system remaining closed through 2020, but reopening in Jan 2021 makes sense.

If they aren’t already providing individual teachers the ability to choose to teach in person in 2021, like above, I’m not sure how they could justify that position.

Speaking to the Illini comment, my guess is that the added commentary about risk tolerance (neurosis and irrationality) was the crucial part that set off Rice93, especially after we’ve had conversations about respecting people’s personal risk tolerances in the other way (i.e. respecting when people want to be less risk averse).

Clearly there are safer things we can do with the kids. We could lock each one in their own closet and not let them have any social contact with anyone at all. I believe there are a few enlightened parents already following this course.

That would be the preferred course of action if safety was the only consideration.

Of course, we, being heathens who want children to die, have some other things we consider. Education. socialization. The parents.

But, respecting other people's risk tolerances means we have to accept this course of action, right?

I think what Illini is saying is that the ones with the highest risk aversion are forcing their views on us all, and 93 is defending their right to protect themselves. Sounds like a mini-cosmos of the right to bear arms.

(12-04-2020 09:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clearly there are safer things we can do with the kids. We could lock each one in their own closet and not let them have any social contact with anyone at all. I believe there are a few enlightened parents already following this course.

That would be the preferred course of action if safety was the only consideration.

Of course, we, being heathens who want children to die, have some other things we consider. Education. socialization. The parents.

But, respecting other people's risk tolerances means we have to accept this course of action, right?

I think what Illini is saying is that the ones with the highest risk aversion are forcing their views on us all, and 93 is defending their right to protect themselves. Sounds like a mini-cosmos of the right to bear arms.

It seems like you’re responding to me, but why the martyrdom? Clearly I agree with reopening schools, so not clear why you felt the need to self identify yourself as a “heathen” that “want children to die.”

You can respect one’s personal risk tolerance while disagreeing with how it is applied. But doing so requires one to not be disrespectful towards the person and their opinions, which is what I was commenting on. That Illini’s overly dramatic and rude descriptions were likely what elicited the response.

Your description at the end of your comment doesn’t have the same fiery language and actually discusses the issue - one I brought up. Where is the line to be drawn on both ends of the spectrum? Where do we not allow the implementation of conservative (not politically) approaches to COVID, because of the negative externalities associated with these stricter measures? And then where do we not allow the implementation of liberal (again, not politically) approaches to COVID, because of the negative externalities associated with these looser measures?

Suffice to say, denigrating the supporters of either (or self-denigrating) doesn’t exactly help that conversation.

(12-04-2020 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 09:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clearly there are safer things we can do with the kids. We could lock each one in their own closet and not let them have any social contact with anyone at all. I believe there are a few enlightened parents already following this course.

That would be the preferred course of action if safety was the only consideration.

Of course, we, being heathens who want children to die, have some other things we consider. Education. socialization. The parents.

But, respecting other people's risk tolerances means we have to accept this course of action, right?

I think what Illini is saying is that the ones with the highest risk aversion are forcing their views on us all, and 93 is defending their right to protect themselves. Sounds like a mini-cosmos of the right to bear arms.

It seems like you’re responding to me, but why the martyrdom? Clearly I agree with reopening schools, so not clear why you felt the need to self identify yourself as a “heathen” that “want children to die.”

You can respect one’s personal risk tolerance while disagreeing with how it is applied. But doing so requires one to not be disrespectful towards the person and their opinions, which is what I was commenting on. That Illini’s overly dramatic and rude descriptions were likely what elicited the response.

This. Categorizing those who hold opposing (and reasonable IMO) views as neurotic and/or irrational is a bit much.

We ALL seem to be on the same page on this issue (for once). Not sure why there are continued efforts to snipe at each other. Believe me... there is nobody on this planet who does not want forced homeschooling more than yours truly.

(12-04-2020 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 09:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clearly there are safer things we can do with the kids. We could lock each one in their own closet and not let them have any social contact with anyone at all. I believe there are a few enlightened parents already following this course.

That would be the preferred course of action if safety was the only consideration.

Of course, we, being heathens who want children to die, have some other things we consider. Education. socialization. The parents.

But, respecting other people's risk tolerances means we have to accept this course of action, right?

I think what Illini is saying is that the ones with the highest risk aversion are forcing their views on us all, and 93 is defending their right to protect themselves. Sounds like a mini-cosmos of the right to bear arms.

It seems like you’re responding to me, but why the martyrdom? Clearly I agree with reopening schools, so not clear why you felt the need to self identify yourself as a “heathen” that “want children to die.”

You can respect one’s personal risk tolerance while disagreeing with how it is applied. But doing so requires one to not be disrespectful towards the person and their opinions, which is what I was commenting on. That Illini’s overly dramatic and rude descriptions were likely what elicited the response.

This. Categorizing those who hold opposing (and reasonable IMO) views as neurotic and/or irrational is a bit much.

We ALL seem to be on the same page on this issue (for once). Not sure why there are continued efforts to snipe at each other. Believe me... there is nobody on this planet who does not want forced homeschooling more than yours truly.

So let's talk about the people who will not wear masks. Are those views reasonable?

How about the people who will not get vaccinations? Are those views reasonable?

My youngest grandson, a senior, goes to school twice a week and goes virtually the other three days. He had 16 years of socialization and education, so he won't be damaged as much as some younger kids, but his last year is sub par in those areas. I just hope we have enough control so that in June it will be feasible for me to travel to his HS graduation that will be held in a traditional manner. Seems odd to me that he is endangering people twice a week and being a good citizen three days a week.

We live in an age of polarization, and one of the items in which we are polarized is response to the pandemic. It seems the Chicken Littles want to run the show, and so we get the restaurant shutdowns in LA, for example, without regard for the effects on people who work in the restaurant industry. No outdoor dining? Chicken Littles win there. On the other hand, there are those, a considerably smaller number, who want business as usual. But it seems the Chicken Littles want to classify the big middle along with the Individualists, and put everybody in the Yahoo Class. Our way or you want people to die. I've heard it. I've seen it.

I am in the Big Middle, but i do think there is a lot of overreaction powered by fear, and those are the people making the rules. Cuomo, Garcetti, Newsome, the guys in Denver and Austin.

I wish we could have a bit more common sense and a bit less hysteria - on both sides.


On education, I don't know what teachers want. I don't know what cops want, or nurses, or flight attendants, individually, but I do know most people want to be able to work and make a living and not depend on Pelosi-payments. So there is resentment against those who wag a finger and say no, no , no. You are endangering MY life when you work, so it is verboten.

(12-04-2020 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 09:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clearly there are safer things we can do with the kids. We could lock each one in their own closet and not let them have any social contact with anyone at all. I believe there are a few enlightened parents already following this course.

That would be the preferred course of action if safety was the only consideration.

Of course, we, being heathens who want children to die, have some other things we consider. Education. socialization. The parents.

But, respecting other people's risk tolerances means we have to accept this course of action, right?

I think what Illini is saying is that the ones with the highest risk aversion are forcing their views on us all, and 93 is defending their right to protect themselves. Sounds like a mini-cosmos of the right to bear arms.

It seems like you’re responding to me, but why the martyrdom? Clearly I agree with reopening schools, so not clear why you felt the need to self identify yourself as a “heathen” that “want children to die.”

You can respect one’s personal risk tolerance while disagreeing with how it is applied. But doing so requires one to not be disrespectful towards the person and their opinions, which is what I was commenting on. That Illini’s overly dramatic and rude descriptions were likely what elicited the response.

This. Categorizing those who hold opposing (and reasonable IMO) views as neurotic and/or irrational is a bit much.

We ALL seem to be on the same page on this issue (for once). Not sure why there are continued efforts to snipe at each other. Believe me... there is nobody on this planet who does not want forced homeschooling more than yours truly.

So let's talk about the people who will not wear masks. Are those views reasonable?

In my opinion... unreasonable. I understand the downside to closing down schools and closing down restaurants. What is the downside to wearing a mask? It seems that mask wear goes a long way towards cutting down the rate of infection. There is literally no significant downside that I can see despite the ridiculous "Masks cause CO2 intoxication!!!" posts that I was seeing on right-winger facebook posts.

Quote:How about the people who will not get vaccinations? Are those views reasonable?

Again just my opinion but I think it is reasonable for people to be concerned about receiving a vaccination that has been rushed to approval.

(12-04-2020 11:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 10:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2020 09:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Clearly there are safer things we can do with the kids. We could lock each one in their own closet and not let them have any social contact with anyone at all. I believe there are a few enlightened parents already following this course.

That would be the preferred course of action if safety was the only consideration.

Of course, we, being heathens who want children to die, have some other things we consider. Education. socialization. The parents.

But, respecting other people's risk tolerances means we have to accept this course of action, right?

I think what Illini is saying is that the ones with the highest risk aversion are forcing their views on us all, and 93 is defending their right to protect themselves. Sounds like a mini-cosmos of the right to bear arms.

It seems like you’re responding to me, but why the martyrdom? Clearly I agree with reopening schools, so not clear why you felt the need to self identify yourself as a “heathen” that “want children to die.”

You can respect one’s personal risk tolerance while disagreeing with how it is applied. But doing so requires one to not be disrespectful towards the person and their opinions, which is what I was commenting on. That Illini’s overly dramatic and rude descriptions were likely what elicited the response.

This. Categorizing those who hold opposing (and reasonable IMO) views as neurotic and/or irrational is a bit much.

We ALL seem to be on the same page on this issue (for once). Not sure why there are continued efforts to snipe at each other. Believe me... there is nobody on this planet who does not want forced homeschooling more than yours truly.

So let's talk about the people who will not wear masks. Are those views reasonable?

In my opinion... unreasonable. I understand the downside to closing down schools and closing down restaurants. What is the downside to wearing a mask? It seems that mask wear goes a long way towards cutting down the rate of infection. There is literally no significant downside that I can see despite the ridiculous "Masks cause CO2 intoxication!!!" posts that I was seeing on right-winger facebook posts.

Quote:How about the people who will not get vaccinations? Are those views reasonable?

Again just my opinion but I think it is reasonable for people to be concerned about receiving a vaccination that has been rushed to approval.

masks - I agree, unreasonable. But does that mean we, the reasonable people, can and should pass regulations to protect them and us from their unreasonableness? I think this gets at the heart of the matter - who decides what is reasonable and unreasonable. I, for one, think shutting down every restaurant in LA is unreasonable. I think a natiional mask mandate is unreasonable. I think a lot of the actions on the part of of leaders are unreasonable. Do you wish I was on the board to determine reasonableness? Or would you rather have Big or Lad?

Vaccinations. here i include all kinds of vaccinations, not just Covid. I think the anti-vaxxers are unreasonable. Should we, the reasonable people, make them get vaccinations? How about the anti-blood transfusion people? how about the jews? A lot of people in 1930's Germany thought those actions were reasonable.

The point, I think, is that the fearful people, the ones I refer to as Chicken Littles, are the ones determining what is reasonable. A lot of people think the actions forced on them are unreasonable. A LOT.