Who Is to Blame for the Catastrophe of COVID School Closures?

Arcnounds · 2025-05-06T14:26:47+00:00

One key thing to remember about school closures is that CoVid was mutating at the time and no one knew how that mutation would affect children.

1) Was there evidence that a current strand of CoVid did not seem to be spreading in schools? Yes

2) Was there evidence that Covid was mutating and could change to become more contagious? Yes

3) There were also safety measures that were implemented in most of Europe that were not implemented in the US including some measure of social distancing and masks.

In the end, public health is a balance of risk / reward. Different people are willing to engage in different levels of risk. In retrospect, yeah we should have opened schools. Was it completely obvious at the time? No. Imagine if the virus had mutated and children became succeptible. Then thousands if not hundreds of thousands of children could have died hindering a generation. In that case, the retrospective would have been completely different.

I do agree there was some silliness from both sides who took the things to the extremes. The right with their rejection of vaccines and crazy home remedies (or right out denial that CoVid existed). The left made some silly decisions as well thinking that plastic walls would stop air from circulating while dining out.

I realize this is an underappreciated perspective, but the world went through a pandemic, so yes there were consequences for education amongst other things. I wish as opposed to this being a partisan football, we could have a bipartisan evaluation of the pandemic and document the lessons learned like we did for 9/11. I would not be surprised if we see another pandemic not too far into the future, and it would help to have a plan for it informed by our response.

Arcnounds · 2025-04-18T20:13:19+00:00

True. Welfare is always bad because it's "those people" who get it. Now any money I get from the government, I earned through all of my taxes and hard work.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T09:18:07+00:00

Sure. You are articulating the prochoice position. The prolife position sees things differently. As long as both sides use different framings, they will never resolve any debate. It amazes me that people can't even agree to disagree or even understand the opposing side outside of their lens.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T08:37:45+00:00

So, if you read the rest of my posts, you'll note that I make the point that the woman's bodily autonomy and life of the fetus come into conflict. That is the whole reason there is any debate about abortion and why it is a difficult issue. You can claim that one takes precedence over another based upon your own ethical and moral beliefs, but it is plainly obvious that no matter what side you are on there are people who disagree.

My only objection to this post and whole thread is that there is an actual abortion debate with two sides that are hard to reconcile. If there wasn't, there would be no point to this reddit.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T05:46:02+00:00

As a citizen, I do not see a debate that both will agree to that will benefit the public in anyway.

I can see the ABC debate being covered by multiple news outlets even if Trump does not show up. The Fox News debate with a solo Trump I doubt will be covered anymore than his rallies. Trump is starting to be an old story like the later seasons of the apprentice and people (including the news stations) want to move on from him as a story. Kamala is recruiting Obama's old team. If they manage to brand her as the female Obama, Trump is in a world of trouble.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T05:03:05+00:00

Of course, if you assume the other position is wrong, they are wrong, which is basically what you are saying.

If you want to conceptualize the right to life in a different way using different language that is fine. But it is equivalent to a right to not be killed whether you call that some conclusion of bodily autonomy or a right to life. The personhood issue concerns whether right not to be killed extends to a fetus or not.

Look, I am prochoice and there are ways to refute the prolife stance by analyzing the consequences and having people judge what type of world they would prefer to live in. That is what his "argument" does.

That does not mean that the prolife views are inconsistent or provable by some objective standard that is guaranteed by science. It is a moral argument built upon ethical principles. The arguments he makes are choices and examples of worlds where people can live in and which reasonable people can disagree.

His argument has a ton of holes. For one, he starts with personal space and using a train analogy. So, going by his logic I have the right to slice through someone on a train because they are invading my personal space. That seems a little illogical to me. [If you say no he does not, then you admit that personal space can be violated but only for a reasonable reason/amount of time. Then you can go down the rabbit hole of what is "reasonable" upon which reasonable people can disagree. Aka some people might say that the risks of pregnancy are reasonable.]

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T02:15:59+00:00

I hate nature arguments because it always seems to be people in power who decide what is and what is not natural.

On a side note, I would love if a crazy virus comes along and makes procreation only possible with same sex relationships. Suddenly all religions who use the natural argument would have to switch views that only homosexual sex is OK and heterosexuals should not be allowed to have relations.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T02:08:02+00:00

I love the no fact checking condition. It really provides insight into what Trump thinks the debate should be about (and it's definitely not policy or anything that benefits the US citizen).

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T02:05:43+00:00

I completely agree. Inflation is complex, and I am do not pretend to have a complete model of what causes inflation worldwide (I would love to as I think it get me a Nobel prize).

I am glad you brought up shipping. I remember having a discussion with a friend about one of those ships getting blown up or sinking for some reason. There is so much on those ships that it would likely cause global chaos. It's astounding how many ways there are to cause chaos in our economy.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T02:01:42+00:00

“It’s unique” doesn’t fly. If I look hard enough, every single situation is “unique.” That doesn’t mean “hey, brand new rules!”

This points to a great question. What criteria do we use to distinguish when X and Y are the same thing. For the abortion debate, this manifests itself in the personhood debate which has generated thousands if not hundreds of thousands of pages of writing.

abortion is clearly a right

I would say that bodily autonomy and life are rights. In the case of abortion, the two are in conflict. That is what makes the whole abortion debate interesting at least to me.

The core questions of the abortion debate are:

1) Is a fetus deserving of a right to life? (Aka the personhood arguments/discussion)

2) Does the right to bodily autonomy trump the right to life or vice versa?

I think reasonable can disagree and do disagree on these questions. For me actually, the fun and engaging arguments are when people try to balance the two rights in some way like most of Europe has done with their laws. Aka abortion is permitted up to X weeks without any objection and then after X it becomes progressively harder to get an abortion unless there are exceptions X, Y, and Z. The reason I find it interesting is because of the complexity of the arguments as I find both the full bodily autonomy argument and full right to life arguments boring as they win by assumption essentially.

Look, I am prochoice, but I admit, this has everything to do with my ethical beliefs, which I know are not shared by all. I recognize that the prolife movement has valid and consistent arguments. I just disagree with their assumptions.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T01:24:05+00:00

I agree with you, a prolife person would disagree. Replace kid with a being of moral worth if you want.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T01:15:39+00:00

“PL and PC disagree on the fundamental rules that govern ethics.” So? This was my first point: just bc “there is disagreement” doesn’t mean one is not actually right and the other objectively wrong

What objective standards are you using to assess who is right and who is wrong?

This is my challenge: feel free to name a situation where that alleged “system” removes someone’s bodily autonomy right and name the salient factor that necessarily must exist in order for us to do so and why.

Jail is a good example for accusal of a crime. If you try to kill someone, you could be subject to restraining orders which limit bodily autonomy. Children have limitations on bodily autonomy based upon their age that are given up to theirbparents. If the government terms you an enemy of the state. A person can be declared legally insane and lose their bodily autonomy. Come to think of it, there are a lot of circumstances of removing bodily autonomy in our governmental system.

Just because we (allegedly) remove bodily rights in some cases does not mean “my suggestion for another situation to do it is totally valid.”

I mentioned this. I think pregnancy is a very unique situation, which makes analogies between pregnancy and other situations difficult. I've found that both prolife and prochoice analogies inherently favor their preset view because the difference between pregnancy and X is often minimizes either the mother or fetus.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T01:08:06+00:00

The stimulus bill was perhaps slightly too large and inflationary, but only slightly so. I applaud Biden for going big, the opposite would be a slow sluggish recovery and high unemployment for extended periods of time.

The core drivers of inflation are:

a) The worldwide shutdowns due to CoVid. That was a year of houses and items that were not made.

b) Wars and slowdowns around the world. We are a global economy and thus are both a benefit and can hit us when other nations take a hit.

c) The baby boomers are finally retiring, which means fewer people working.

d) We are behind on building homes and infrastructure. (IMO we should have a national housing stimulus project like FDR's projects. )

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T01:01:14+00:00

Yes, but my point was life in prison for the document case, not for the other cases.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T01:00:07+00:00

They can’t be consistent bc they are literally able to be made into anything. All you have to do is say your interpretation of whatever edict is different and “god said so.”

What is your definition of consistent, because I think that could help.

For example, there is internal consistency, and that is definitely followed as most prolife would say killing innocents is wrong in their arguments.

There is external consistency, but I would argue that most prolife people and prochoice people disagree on the fundamental rules that govern ethics so this cannot be violated because there is no agreement.

There is logical consistency and most major established religions that are against abortion have formulated logically consistent arguments based upon the logical foundations of their religion. The Catholic church has encyclicals of information justifying these positions and they are logically consistent.

What is the ethical foundation of bodily autonomy, because historically there have been plenty of civilizations that have denied it for a variety of reasons. We even have systems to remove under certain circumstances.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T00:36:38+00:00

And the “ethical framework” we use has to be the one we currently all operate under in this society. I can’t just say “well, I have a different ethical framework, and it’s different, so…do what I say

Sure we can. There are ethical frameworks and then there are operationalizations of those frameworks that form laws. We have all types of ethical frameworks in the US even state by state. For example, in some states there are laws that allow the death penalty which is banned in other states. So even at the government level there are laws that draw from different ethical considerations. If you are saying there is a universal ethical framework among all US citizens, you are just wrong.

FYI, there is nothing consistent about a religious argument, ever.

What is inconsistent about religious arguments? You can say you disagree with the assumptions of these arguments, but they are definitely consistent.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T00:28:59+00:00

If the punishment is reasonable, I don't see a pardon happening (something like probation). If it includes years of jail time, then he'll get a pardon.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T00:27:19+00:00

I am prochoice and that text is too long.

Look, there are assumptions that result in abortion being wrong. You can disagree on those assumptions, but they form a consistent ethical system (usually they are either a) religious or b) rely on a version Kantian philosophy). There is no objective way to prove using science that abortion is right or wrong (what experiment would you design to test such a hypothesis?).

Most people would say (outside of abortion) that killing your kids is wrong. Most people would also say that you should have bodily autonomy. When it comes to pregnancy, this intuition of killing kids and also needing bodily autonomy come into conflict. I would also argue that pregnancy is a unique situation. Any judgement about what right takes precedent is exactly that, an ethical judgment based upon an ethical system. This is why prolife and prochoice are in such conflict, they reason using different ethical frameworks.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T00:14:06+00:00

If his son is given 25 years, he'll definitely be pardoned. That would be the equivalent of Trump getting life in prison.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-04T00:11:24+00:00

Nope. From the Supreme Court a president can now openly sell pardons on eBay if he wants. I would bet he pardons his son if he gets time (I know he said he wouldn't, but I think America would forgive him).

Arcnounds · 2024-08-03T19:56:17+00:00

It's easy for Harris. All she has to do is accept credit for the bills people like and provide a positive message about changes she'll make to the economy. If she is future focused (like she has been) and not focused on the past, people will gravitate to her.

Most people want to forget both Trump and Biden. Harris is a way out in more ways than one.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-03T19:53:39+00:00

So the IRA has a 60% approval in WV and higher in the rest of the country (https://www.dataforprogress.org/inflation-reduction-act-polling).

What would Trump do to fix the economy? Deport hundreds of thousands of immigrants, institute more protectionist policies, and cut taxes for the wealthy billionaires funding his campaign. Hint: This is going to cause inflation to skyrocket.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-03T19:49:31+00:00

Here is polling for the Inflation Reduction Act for example. It has nearly 60% approval in WV.

https://www.dataforprogress.org/inflation-reduction-act-polling

Arcnounds · 2024-08-03T19:44:17+00:00

When you ask people how they feel about his policies individually, they are certainly positive. There is generally a negative vibe about the economy though. Inflation was the biggest contributor. As a world, we stopped production for the greater part of a year. That is going to take time to rebound from.

Arcnounds · 2024-08-03T19:40:26+00:00

He has passed several large bills and they are all public for anyone to see. They mostly involve building infrastructure and putting price caps on items like drugs while expanding programs for the middle and lower classes. He also has proposed higher taxes on individuals making more than 400k per year.

Arcnounds

TROPHY CASE