Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Must 'Dislike' Teachers and Children...

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Surrey
    replied
    https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/fo...mpression=true

    In other news Covid can cause motor cycle accidents in Florida apparently.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    "Official stance"?
    Is she not the official spokesperson or not? Was her statement refuted or not?
    This is another example of the liberal MSM making fake news..........and people are actually believing it.
    I haven't even seen the article you linked to. Point was that the expression used refers expressly to cases where decisions are made regardless of the science (in this case) in case the science didn't support her statement. If the science supported her statement then she is making no sense what so ever.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    You do realize that we are talking about school age children, not 20 somethings......
    Irrelevant. We were discussing the long term effects even in mild cases. That children may have mild cases does not excuse them from having long term effects unless of course you can prove that part.
    Again, we are discussing school age children, not senior citizens.
    Again, prove that the effects won't affect children.
    Again, we are discussing school age children, not a population between the ages of 16-85.
    Then prove that the above could not apply to children.
    As mentioned numerous times, we don't know the long term effects.
    We already know some of them. And what we already know is worrying enough.
    Again, I am not moving goal post, I have been consistent throughout the thread. The above links that you provided clearly show that I am correct.
    No, they don't. You still have not shown that children would not be susceptible to long term effects from this disease.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post

    The flu is a lot more deadly to children than Covid is.
    Facts don't matter when the left talks about Trump.

    https://www.aappublications.org/news...2/28/flu022820


    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-...ry?id=71462424

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    The flu is neither as contagious nor as deadly as COVID-19. The pandemic is not the flu. And when students get the flu, they stay home and the chances that an entire classroom, hallway, or school comes down with it are almost nil.
    The flu is a lot more deadly to children than Covid is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    'We' (you and that mouse in your pocket) may not know it, but it has been suggested by medical personnel familiar with COVID-19. Please try and keep up.
    "Has been suggested" does not make it a fact. It takes years to determine what long term effects are from a medical perspective.

    The best way for you to "please try to keep up" would be to study up on the subject. You can start with the links provided by Vaeltaja that clearly show that I am correct.

    Try again....

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post

    A few people suffer long term effects from flu. Don’t stop children being educated because if it though.
    The flu is neither as contagious nor as deadly as COVID-19. The pandemic is not the flu. And when students get the flu, they stay home and the chances that an entire classroom, hallway, or school comes down with it are almost nil.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    We don't know that.
    'We' (you and that mouse in your pocket) may not know it, but it has been suggested by medical personnel familiar with COVID-19. Please try and keep up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    From the link:

    People with “mild” cases are not coming out of it unscathed. Symptoms may reappear after a supposed recovery from COVID-19, and sometimes that can happen weeks or months later. “It’s almost like a blow to your ego to be in your 20s and healthy and active, and get hit with this thing and think you’re going to get better and you’re going to be OK. And then have it really not pan out that way,” says COVID-19 patient Fiona

    You do realize that we are talking about school age children, not 20 somethings......


    From the link:

    Of the 43 patients examined, 12 suffered from inflammation of the central nervous system, 10 from a transient encephalopathy (brain disease) with delirium or psychosis, eight from strokes, and a further eight from problems of the peripheral nerves, mostly with the diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome. This is an immune reaction that attacks the nerves and causes paralysis and is fatal in 5% of cases. A 59-year-old woman died of the complication.

    Again, we are discussing school age children, not senior citizens.
    From the link:

    The study provides a detailed account of neurological symptoms of 43 people (aged 16-85) treated at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, UCLH, who had either confirmed or suspected Covid-19.

    Again, we are discussing school age children, not a population between the ages of 16-85.
    From the link:

    The new coronavirus and the disease it causes are still just months old, meaning researchers have not been able to study the disease's long-term effects on people.

    As mentioned numerous times, we don't know the long term effects.
    From the link:

    Because Covid-19 is a new disease, there are no studies about its long-term trajectory for those with more severe symptoms

    As I have been saying all along.

    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    Etc... But i doubt it matters. You will just keep moving the goalposts.
    Again, I am not moving goal post, I have been consistent throughout the thread. The above links that you provided clearly show that I am correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    Soooo... the White House's official stance is that 'The science should not stand in the way of this' meaning the opening of the schools... So in other words science, i.e. things based on reality, should not be considered when thinking if the schools should open or not? Is that seriously what you guys support? Really?

    "Official stance"?

    This is another example of the liberal MSM making fake news..........and people are actually believing it.

    Even Jake Tapper called them out:

    Folks read the ENTIRE McEnany comment about "the science should not stand in the way" of opening schools. She's arguing that the science is on the side of those who want to open them, she cites a JAMA study. I'm not taking a position on the matter but be fair.

    https://www.theblaze.com/news/tapper...closing-acosta

    I don't understand how people can still fall for this type of misrepresentation the the MSM is constantly doing.....the full video is out there.

    ......but it's Trump........

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    https://thehill.com/changing-america...-be-as-mild-as
    https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-br...age/a-54111054
    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/jul/...inked-covid-19
    https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief...health-effects
    https://www.vox.com/2020/5/8/2125189...fects-symptoms
    Etc... But i doubt it matters. You will just keep moving the goalposts.

    Do provide the evidence that the 'resilience' is also true with regards to the long term effects of the coronavirus.

    Yes there is. You repeatedly insist on the difference between children and adults. And then without any shred of evidence claim that long term effects would behave the same. That is for you to prove.

    Did i say anything of the kind? Did i even imply anything of the kind? You are really desperate in your strawman hunt now.

    In that you try rather desperate find some distinction between how this disease affects children and adults. You keep repeating the same 'resilence' mantra. Yet you have not provided anything which would support your argument that the long term effects could not affect children.

    We are not interested in cancer. We are talking about the long term effects of the coronavirus. You have not provided anything which would give any reason to think that the children would not be susceptible to the long term effects which are already known. Yet you keep saying that it would be so. That is on you to prove.
    Lots of maybes. No numbers. No statements that the effects are common etc.No statements regarding the age profile of those who suffer from them.

    Whereas there is a wealth of surveys out there saying that children are 1. Less likely to be infecedt than adults. 2. Will suffer less severe symptoms (if any) and will nearly never die from it.

    There is also a wealth of information, some of which I have posted already about the damage to children caused by stopping their education for an extended period.



    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Soooo... the White House's official stance is that 'The science should not stand in the way of this' meaning the opening of the schools... So in other words science, i.e. things based on reality, should not be considered when thinking if the schools should open or not? Is that seriously what you guys support? Really?




    --- Just a comparison how it worked here (Finland) ---

    Here schools did open, but not at the insane infection rates that are in the USA. At that time we had about 55 new infections per day - with fairly low positive test rate of below 0.5% (it is now below 0.1%) (meaning that it was more likely that we actually caught most of the cases). So let's say about 1 new infection per 100 000 people with positive test rates being well below 1%. Equivalent daily value for the USA as a whole would be around 3300 new infections per day.

    Also schools didn't necessarily stay open. A positive result meant quarantining those exposed (i.e. most if not whole of the class) until all had been tested and the extent of the spread could be found and be limited. Positive case in students family would mean quarantine for the student too. No end of school celebrations. No joint events. No mixing of teachers. And grades above 9th (i.e. the upper secondary, vocational schools) stayed in remote learning. Universities (and other higher level education) stay as far as it is possible in remote learning at least until the end of the first period of the autumn semester (i.e. at least until 25th of October, could be extended) with certain exceptions (new student orientation).

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    Using the term "suggests" proves it isn't a fact.
    https://thehill.com/changing-america...-be-as-mild-as
    https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-br...age/a-54111054
    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/jul/...inked-covid-19
    https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief...health-effects
    https://www.vox.com/2020/5/8/2125189...fects-symptoms
    Etc... But i doubt it matters. You will just keep moving the goalposts.
    Wrong again, I have been saying that we don't know the long term effects, we won't until the data is collect over time. I separate children and adults because children are more resilient than adults, that is a fact.
    Do provide the evidence that the 'resilience' is also true with regards to the long term effects of the coronavirus.
    There is nothing for me to prove, you have failed to give anything that backs up your claim of long term effect.
    Yes there is. You repeatedly insist on the difference between children and adults. And then without any shred of evidence claim that long term effects would behave the same. That is for you to prove.
    And it may cause even less than that, until the data is collected over a long time period we won't know. Do you recommend cancelling school completely until all of the data is collected 20-30 years from now?
    Did i say anything of the kind? Did i even imply anything of the kind? You are really desperate in your strawman hunt now.
    Where did I insist that children would not be affected?
    In that you try rather desperate find some distinction between how this disease affects children and adults. You keep repeating the same 'resilence' mantra. Yet you have not provided anything which would support your argument that the long term effects could not affect children.
    As I said, if you want to get an idea of how children survive what adults don't study childhood cancer. Also if you want to understand what long term effects are and how they gather that data.....childhood cancer is a good place to start.
    We are not interested in cancer. We are talking about the long term effects of the coronavirus. You have not provided anything which would give any reason to think that the children would not be susceptible to the long term effects which are already known. Yet you keep saying that it would be so. That is on you to prove.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nichols
    replied
    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    Feel free to try to disprove it.
    Using the term "suggests" proves it isn't a fact.

    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    And if we already know certain things to be of 'long term effect' it and we know this disease can cause them we also know that the disease can cause long term effects. Also a fact. Though it seems to be one which you do not like.
    How does the medical field collect long term effects?

    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    Wrong. I said the disease may cause long term effects. You insisted on separating on 'children' and 'adults'. So it is up to you to prove that those long term effects won't affect children. Don't try to weasel away from your burden of proof.
    Wrong again, I have been saying that we don't know the long term effects, we won't until the data is collect over time. I separate children and adults because children are more resilient than adults, that is a fact.

    There is nothing for me to prove, you have failed to give anything that backs up your claim of long term effect.

    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    Because it may cause even more than that. So we can not limit it just to the things we are already aware of.
    And it may cause even less than that, until the data is collected over a long time period we won't know. Do you recommend cancelling school completely until all of the data is collected 20-30 years from now?

    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    We do. As discussed previously. You clearly dislike this but it doesn't matter.
    You keep on saying that we have knowledge of long term effects but the only information that you provide is speculation, nothing based on facts.

    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    If it is such why do you insist that the children would not be affected?
    Where did I insist that children would not be affected?

    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    We already know it can cause long term effects.
    You can keep saying that but it wont change the fact that the medical field does not know the long term effects.


    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    You are the one insisting that it can not do so in children. That is on you to prove.
    Again, where did i insist that children would not be affected?

    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    Also, this is not a cancer.
    As I said, if you want to get an idea of how children survive what adults don't study childhood cancer. Also if you want to understand what long term effects are and how they gather that data.....childhood cancer is a good place to start.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    "Suggests" and you are claiming that is proof? Seriously?
    Feel free to try to disprove it.
    By the definition of 'Long Term Effect' regarding any type of disease or treatment, the only way to identify the long term effects is by observing, reporting and collecting data over a long term. This isn't an "aurgument" or an "opinion" it is medical fact.
    And if we already know certain things to be of 'long term effect' it and we know this disease can cause them we also know that the disease can cause long term effects. Also a fact. Though it seems to be one which you do not like.
    You claimed that it has long term effects on children, by you not proving proof of long term effects on children, you are proving what I posted.
    Wrong. I said the disease may cause long term effects. You insisted on separating on 'children' and 'adults'. So it is up to you to prove that those long term effects won't affect children. Don't try to weasel away from your burden of proof.
    ....."That we know of"..... good reply and it backs up what I have been saying about no medical proof of what the long term effects are.
    Because it may cause even more than that. So we can not limit it just to the things we are already aware of.
    Again, we don't have knowledge of the long term effects. Speculation, scare tactics....wearing a tin foil hat still wont produce facts.
    We do. As discussed previously. You clearly dislike this but it doesn't matter.
    Evidence can only be provided after decades of data are collected and studied.

    Again, children are more resilient than adults, look at childhood cancer if you want to get an idea of how children survive while adults dont.
    If it is such why do you insist that the children would not be affected? We already know it can cause long term effects. You are the one insisting that it can not do so in children. That is on you to prove. Also, this is not a cancer.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X