Thanks to the pandemic, we're all being offered a very hard lesson in the consequences of a collapse in faith in liberal institutions. It's not the revolution many have been hoping for.
I draw a distinction between the degradation of the institution of policing, which has been primarily because of BLM, and education, which had been outlawed and remains severely restricted due to progressive authoritarian governance.
Kids' development of all ages has been a dumpster fire for 6 months now and counting. Of course the poor will bear the brunt. Jen's article -- and almost all journalism on justice and the pandemic -- ignores its greatest demographic inequity of all: age. The same generation(s) that bear the greatest social and psychodevelopmental consequences of the pandemic restrictions are absolutely the least likely to benefit from them. (And are also the only ones who will be earning income when the bill really comes due.)
This virus is a bastard. We're left with a series of choices marked by bad or worse. And the approach we have taken firmly prioritizes the health and quality of life for those over sixty. The Swedish model flips this equation on its head, being unwilling to inflict the harm that we have on children and young adults and placing the burden of physical isolation primarily on those most likely to benefit: the old.
Back in North America, is it really any coincidence that as the wealthiest and most powerful voting block in modern history reaches advanced age all of our new public spending is focused exclusively on healthcare, and the young are being goaded into fighting over how to distribute the remaining little bits?
The press is not even mentioning it, let alone tackling it. Any alternative to the COVID ethos is strawmanned as being idiotic or selfish. In fact, as you wrote above, there is no longer even a delineation between our chosen policy responses and the symptoms of the disease itself. COVID doesn't just cause a cough and loss of taste: other symptoms of that tricky virus include school shutdowns and unemployment. All of this is either repression or a projection because of how morally heedless our actual COVID strategy is -- especially when maintained for months and years without any rigorous public debate about its fundamental approach -- and this is also a requirement to prevent most adults from consciously entertaining the trade-off they are making: Their own health and that of their children would be demonstrably better under the Swedish model now and for years to come.
I am also scared. It's so sad because this is THE STORY about justice and the pandemic, yet noone is talking about it. Me going on the record about some of these concerns may have some small merit, but I'm not willing to do that because of the possible professional conseques.
I am, arguably, failing in my duties as a citizen and it feels crummy. However, (and I am by no means browbeating anyone -- see my own aforementioned cowardice) I do wonder about the moral distress this causes some journalists -- folks who are supposed to make a living via balanced reporting, which supposedly involves being disliked and speaking truth to power at times. And I can just imagine the death knell responsibly covering this would be for anyone's career who isn't already uncancelable.
My concern about kids and COVID is less about protecting the elderly, and more about protecting the kids, their teachers, and their parents. Much of the focus has been on the fatality rate; much less is known about other health effects, long term or otherwise. A recent German study found 3/4 of patients who’d tested positive for COVID (including mild cases treated at home) showed evidence of heart damage afterwards. How prevalent is this effect? Are we going to see a surge of people suffering from heart issues in 20-30 years when they’re still relatively young? What other effects are lurking out there related to kidneys or joints? We don’t know yet. Kids don’t appear to suffer the same acute illness as adults, so less attention has been paid to the effects of COVID. We’ll learn more in time, but this is a lingering risk. Meanwhile, there are a number of worrying upticks in rare issues like Kawasaki-type syndromes and septic hip. Still rare, but it suggests something is happening. This uncertainty implies risk. We need information to realize or retire the risk, and in the meantime, we need mitigation.
Viruses of all sorts (mono, other coronaviruses, rotavirus, varicella, herpes) can cause weird cardiac, neurological, and/or autoimmune reactions in children when they are infected. Fortunately these types of things are very rare. Medicine has known this for decades. COVID-19 seems to cause some of these types of reactions too. They also seems to be very rare, and, partly because these are so rare (as well as the novelty of the virus), it will take a very long time to determine just how rare. Still, I am not aware of any previous examples of schools being shutdown or children learning from home en masse because of these well known non-COVID-19-virus-associated risks. But then again the poor kid that got meningitis from herpes never made the national headlines.
Otherwise, see Jen's article. If I had a kid and could afford to do it right, I would also take a close look at doing a bubble with his favorite teacher (retained privately, of course) and some of his wealthy friends. That way I would be able to shut off any ruminations about him getting Kawasaki Syndrome, plus we could all still visit Grandma with social distancing-lite. That would be having one's cake and eating it too, which requires a lot of the green stuff. My point above is not about the wealthy or about rare syndromes but rather about justice on a population level for the millions of kids and young adults who won't die or get some rare sequelae from viral infection, and who bear the greatest burden of the new pandemic-era laws.
It's not even that the solution I am advocating is necessarily the correct one. There is no obvious right choice. My greatest concern is that the Overton Window on this topic in Canada doesn't leave room for journalists or academics to comfortably debate the alternatives and their forseeable consequences leaving them, as Jen wrote in the comments, terrified.
Interestingly, the doctor who advocates reopening for good is a pediatrician. The virologist who advocates intermittent lockdowns does not even mention the risks posed to children or young adults from the virus itself during a forty minute debate.
I also realize that I didn't address the issue you raised about heart damage in this post. Not sure if you have family that you are worried about returning to school or not but just in case you may find this somewhat reassuring with regards to the heart damage from acute COVID infection. I found this on Dr. Matt Strauss' Twitter.
Also, I realized that I did not respond to your concern about teachers and parents. I happen to agree with the Swedish pediatrician in the Munk Debates podcast -- that we know enough about this virus on a population level to opine that those risks do not outweigh the benefits kids receive from attending school. There would need to be accommodation for exceptional cases where a teacher or parent (or grandparent who cohabitated with a child) fell into a high risk category. I am not interested in debating the specifics of what this would look like. Please see the third-last paragraph of my original reply.
"The war of all against all". I shudder at the notion that all it takes is fear over a virus to set civil society back to pre-Hobbesian times. My biased view is that civil society is but a thin veneer that covers our tribalism. In Canada, is that veneer made of kevlar or rice paper?
Not sure of the solution but I believe most major institutions should be an equal mix of government, corporate and private. This power mix helps keep participants honest. Let unions fall where they may. Of course federal government must over see all.
I draw a distinction between the degradation of the institution of policing, which has been primarily because of BLM, and education, which had been outlawed and remains severely restricted due to progressive authoritarian governance.
Kids' development of all ages has been a dumpster fire for 6 months now and counting. Of course the poor will bear the brunt. Jen's article -- and almost all journalism on justice and the pandemic -- ignores its greatest demographic inequity of all: age. The same generation(s) that bear the greatest social and psychodevelopmental consequences of the pandemic restrictions are absolutely the least likely to benefit from them. (And are also the only ones who will be earning income when the bill really comes due.)
This virus is a bastard. We're left with a series of choices marked by bad or worse. And the approach we have taken firmly prioritizes the health and quality of life for those over sixty. The Swedish model flips this equation on its head, being unwilling to inflict the harm that we have on children and young adults and placing the burden of physical isolation primarily on those most likely to benefit: the old.
Back in North America, is it really any coincidence that as the wealthiest and most powerful voting block in modern history reaches advanced age all of our new public spending is focused exclusively on healthcare, and the young are being goaded into fighting over how to distribute the remaining little bits?
You're right. We've been terrified to tackle the intergenerational effects of COVID-19.
The press is not even mentioning it, let alone tackling it. Any alternative to the COVID ethos is strawmanned as being idiotic or selfish. In fact, as you wrote above, there is no longer even a delineation between our chosen policy responses and the symptoms of the disease itself. COVID doesn't just cause a cough and loss of taste: other symptoms of that tricky virus include school shutdowns and unemployment. All of this is either repression or a projection because of how morally heedless our actual COVID strategy is -- especially when maintained for months and years without any rigorous public debate about its fundamental approach -- and this is also a requirement to prevent most adults from consciously entertaining the trade-off they are making: Their own health and that of their children would be demonstrably better under the Swedish model now and for years to come.
I am also scared. It's so sad because this is THE STORY about justice and the pandemic, yet noone is talking about it. Me going on the record about some of these concerns may have some small merit, but I'm not willing to do that because of the possible professional conseques.
I am, arguably, failing in my duties as a citizen and it feels crummy. However, (and I am by no means browbeating anyone -- see my own aforementioned cowardice) I do wonder about the moral distress this causes some journalists -- folks who are supposed to make a living via balanced reporting, which supposedly involves being disliked and speaking truth to power at times. And I can just imagine the death knell responsibly covering this would be for anyone's career who isn't already uncancelable.
My concern about kids and COVID is less about protecting the elderly, and more about protecting the kids, their teachers, and their parents. Much of the focus has been on the fatality rate; much less is known about other health effects, long term or otherwise. A recent German study found 3/4 of patients who’d tested positive for COVID (including mild cases treated at home) showed evidence of heart damage afterwards. How prevalent is this effect? Are we going to see a surge of people suffering from heart issues in 20-30 years when they’re still relatively young? What other effects are lurking out there related to kidneys or joints? We don’t know yet. Kids don’t appear to suffer the same acute illness as adults, so less attention has been paid to the effects of COVID. We’ll learn more in time, but this is a lingering risk. Meanwhile, there are a number of worrying upticks in rare issues like Kawasaki-type syndromes and septic hip. Still rare, but it suggests something is happening. This uncertainty implies risk. We need information to realize or retire the risk, and in the meantime, we need mitigation.
Viruses of all sorts (mono, other coronaviruses, rotavirus, varicella, herpes) can cause weird cardiac, neurological, and/or autoimmune reactions in children when they are infected. Fortunately these types of things are very rare. Medicine has known this for decades. COVID-19 seems to cause some of these types of reactions too. They also seems to be very rare, and, partly because these are so rare (as well as the novelty of the virus), it will take a very long time to determine just how rare. Still, I am not aware of any previous examples of schools being shutdown or children learning from home en masse because of these well known non-COVID-19-virus-associated risks. But then again the poor kid that got meningitis from herpes never made the national headlines.
Otherwise, see Jen's article. If I had a kid and could afford to do it right, I would also take a close look at doing a bubble with his favorite teacher (retained privately, of course) and some of his wealthy friends. That way I would be able to shut off any ruminations about him getting Kawasaki Syndrome, plus we could all still visit Grandma with social distancing-lite. That would be having one's cake and eating it too, which requires a lot of the green stuff. My point above is not about the wealthy or about rare syndromes but rather about justice on a population level for the millions of kids and young adults who won't die or get some rare sequelae from viral infection, and who bear the greatest burden of the new pandemic-era laws.
It's not even that the solution I am advocating is necessarily the correct one. There is no obvious right choice. My greatest concern is that the Overton Window on this topic in Canada doesn't leave room for journalists or academics to comfortably debate the alternatives and their forseeable consequences leaving them, as Jen wrote in the comments, terrified.
An exception I have found to this is here: https://pca.st/8es3o3kj
Interestingly, the doctor who advocates reopening for good is a pediatrician. The virologist who advocates intermittent lockdowns does not even mention the risks posed to children or young adults from the virus itself during a forty minute debate.
I also realize that I didn't address the issue you raised about heart damage in this post. Not sure if you have family that you are worried about returning to school or not but just in case you may find this somewhat reassuring with regards to the heart damage from acute COVID infection. I found this on Dr. Matt Strauss' Twitter.
https://jcmr-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1532-429X-11-S1-O3?fbclid=IwAR1kGkscR1zpeDzI79BlZqljwhS7U_52UPDTWVR-EDBD_umE-sXivHa4vRc
Also, I realized that I did not respond to your concern about teachers and parents. I happen to agree with the Swedish pediatrician in the Munk Debates podcast -- that we know enough about this virus on a population level to opine that those risks do not outweigh the benefits kids receive from attending school. There would need to be accommodation for exceptional cases where a teacher or parent (or grandparent who cohabitated with a child) fell into a high risk category. I am not interested in debating the specifics of what this would look like. Please see the third-last paragraph of my original reply.
"The war of all against all". I shudder at the notion that all it takes is fear over a virus to set civil society back to pre-Hobbesian times. My biased view is that civil society is but a thin veneer that covers our tribalism. In Canada, is that veneer made of kevlar or rice paper?
Not sure of the solution but I believe most major institutions should be an equal mix of government, corporate and private. This power mix helps keep participants honest. Let unions fall where they may. Of course federal government must over see all.