What's new
By:

Donald is about to go through some things...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Fosto said:
What would have been the purpose of said authoritarianism?
Click to expand...
There were a lot of authorities and a lot of purposes, but mostly I think it boiled down to proving they had the ability to wield power. Arguably the most visible example is that of government schools.

It became clear within the first 10 weeks or so that young kids were neither susceptible nor a vector of transmission, but schools stayed closed for over a year. My school district, when they opened, ran a limited schedule Monday through Thursday because apparently COVID spreads to teachers on Fridays. The elected representative on the school boards refused to represent the will of the parents who overwhelmingly wanted the schools open. There was even the now infamous National School Board Administration working with the BIden DOJ to label discontented parents in such as way that use of the Patriot Act against them was justified.

The government should have opened the schools.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
There were a lot of authorities and a lot of purposes, but mostly I think it boiled down to proving they had the ability to wield power. Arguably the most visible example is that of government schools.

It became clear within the first 10 weeks or so that young kids were neither susceptible nor a vector of transmission, but schools stayed closed for over a year. My school district, when they opened, ran a limited schedule Monday through Thursday because apparently COVID spreads to teachers on Fridays. The elected representative on the school boards refused to represent the will of the parents who overwhelmingly wanted the schools open. There was even the now infamous National School Board Administration working with the BIden DOJ to label discontented parents in such as way that use of the Patriot Act against them was justified.

The government should have opened the schools.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting your information? Kids absolutely were a vector for transmission.

www.ama-assn.org

Study sheds light on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in homes with kids

Henry Ford Health helps collect extensive data showing how asymptomatic children spread SARS-CoV-2. Learn more about the NIH-funded research findings.
www.ama-assn.org www.ama-assn.org

www.cidrap.umn.edu

More than 70% of US household COVID spread started with a child, study suggests

www.cidrap.umn.edu www.cidrap.umn.edu

Younger kids more likely to spread virus​


A total of 15.8% of readings met the criteria for fever, making up 779,092 fever episodes. The number of fever episodes predicted new COVID-19 cases, which the researchers said lends validity to using fever as a proxy for infection. Of these cases, 15.4% were considered household transmissions, the percentage of which rose from 10.1% in March to July 2021 to 17.5% in the Omicron BA.1/BA.2 variant wave.


Among 166,170 households with both adult and child participants (51.9% of households with multiple participants), there were 516,159 participants, 51.4% of whom were children. In these households, 38,787 transmissions occurred, 40.8% of which were child to child, 29.6% child to adult, 20.3% adult to child, and 9.3% adult to adult. The median serial interval between the index and secondary cases was 2 days.


Of all households transmissions, 70.4% began with a child, with the proportion fluctuating weekly between 36.9% and 87.5%. Pediatric transmissions reached a high of 68.4% the week of September 27, 2020, and fell to a low of 41.7% the week of December 27, 2020 (0.61 times less frequent). The next high was 82.0% the week of May 23, 2021, which stayed stable until June 27 (81.4%) and then declined to 62.5% by August 8 (0.77 times less frequent).


The percentage of household transmissions beginning with a child then rose to 78.4% by September 19, hovering there until November 14 (80.3%) and then dropping to 54.5% the week of January 2, 2022 (0.68 times less frequent). By March 6, the proportion rose to 83.8%, fell to 62.8% the week ending July 24 (0.75 times less frequent), and then climbed to 84.6% the week of October 9.


Children aged 8 years and younger were more likely to be the source of transmission than those aged 9 to 17 (7.6% vs 5.8%). During most of the pandemic, the proportion of transmission from children was negatively correlated with new community COVID-19 cases.
Click to expand...
 
Al-O-Meter said:
From your sources:


Now look at the damage done to those kids by shutting down the schools.
Click to expand...

The same article provides context for that:

"When the incidence of COVID-19 increases, adults in the community are at higher risk of infection; this may increase the likelihood that adults become the index case in a household transmission and explain the negative correlation we observed," they wrote.
Click to expand...

The proportion of transmission by children decreases as cases increase overall, because adults are a more likely to be infected, and thus the more cases you have, the bigger the proportion of adult vectors.
 
Fosto said:
The proportion of transmission by children decreases as cases increase overall, because adults are a more likely to be infected, and thus the more cases you have, the bigger the proportion of adult vectors.
Click to expand...
Naturally, because COVID in children has a quota so all the COVID viruses read case statistics and if the case load is too high in an area then the COVID viruses in children decide not to be vectors of transmission so as to not go over their transmission quota. Or maybe the reason schools were statistically the safest place in any community is because children weren't a substantial vector of transmission, and everyone knew it early on, but government didn't open the schools and are now financing studies in an effort to distract from the obvious.

Now look at the damage done to children by closing the schools.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
If you believe this statement to be true, then Trump isn't the bogeyman you're looking for and the trust was broken before the election ever happened.

We were all told by the government that schools had to shut down to save the children. That wasn't true.
Masks would protect you and double masks..... Not true.
Authorities said the vaccine would make you immune and stop the transmission of COVID. Again this wasn't true.
Scientists wrote a widely circulated paper claiming COVID being man-made and leaking from a lab was impossible. Their now published Slack messages show they felt the opposite was true.
Businesses were shut down and arrows were put in aisles because if you went the wrong way in a supermarket then you'd get COVID.
Governments closed parks and beaches.
Two weeks to stop the spread.

It was lie after lie after lie after lie from the government all as an excuse to institute the most authoritarian environment most Americans had ever lived under. Then the election happened with new rules the government made up about 5 minutes before they started counting the votes.

The actions Trump took in the aftermath were horrible, but he wasn't the one who broke institutional trust. The institutions did that and Trump only read the room in an attempt to use that broken trust to his own advantage.
Click to expand...
This is your interpretation of recent history as it pertains to the pandemic. I doubt it will stand the test of time. That’s your boogeyman you’re talking about. The observation I was resonating with pertained to the importance of trust in our elections in maintaining stability in our society and body politic. And the damage there was by Trump, not Fauci. Your “if’….”then” doesn’t work for me. Your version of history isn’t mine. And your conclusion has nothing to do with Stanley’s observation. You want to apply his observation to something other than what he was talking about, don’t think you can make it mine.
 
Last edited:
Red said:
This is your interpretation of recent history as it pertains to the pandemic. I doubt it will stand the test of time. That’s your boogeyman you’re talking about. The observation I was resonating with pertained to the importance of trust in our elections in maintaining stability in our society and body politic. And the damage there was by Trump, not Fauci. Your “if’….”then” doesn’t work for me. Your version of history isn’t mine. And your conclusion has nothing to do with Stanley’s observation. You want to apply his observation to something other than what he was talking about, don’t think you can make it mine.
Click to expand...
I pulled what was worth looking at because Stanley's observation, as he wrote it, was stupid.

#1 Everything is fascism and nothing is fascism. Anyone using that word in 2023 to describe a thing is talking nonsense.

#2 Democracy doesn't require trust in institutions. It is distributed rule. It requires trust in aggregate society.

American society does not have the level of trust in institutions today that it did before the pandemic. That is worth talking about. Drilling in to the opinions of some pseudo-intellectual who clearly loves the smell of his own farts, as he goes on about institutional facilitated democracy and the path to fascism is Cheetos.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
American society does not have the level of trust in institutions today that it did before the pandemic. That is worth talking about.
Click to expand...
That’s a surprise considering there was nobody pushing conspiracy theories, or anti-vax disinformation, or anything else that might cause people to distrust the government response to the pandemic.
 
Next week trump will be indicted again. This time in georgia for his attempts to interfere in the election in the state. I heard on the radio that if convicted he would not be able to be pardoned because it isn't a federal case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top