Additionally, there are several issues with leaving kids at home and in many cases it causes more problems than sending them back.
Lastly, they are not "forced" to send their kids back, they have alternatives. Admittedly, the alternatives may require a difficult life change (homeschool, private, moving etc.) but if they're already making the decision that it's better their kids stay home then they should be making some sacrifices to ensure they're receiving appropriate education. I can tell you they are not receiving a good education through online classes, or at least drastically worse than in person. Average kids k-12 age lack the ability to motivate themselves when left alone at home and there's data backing this up. It's also bad for their mental health.
I would expect that measurement to rise on both extremes. If you think that there is something very wrong with the status quo it is quite natural that you will be more stressed, have more anxiety, and tend to be more neurotic. Not that there aren't very stable, serene, salt of the earth types on all sides, just that the worriers will be more common the further their preferred reality diverges from the actual one.
What I wonder about is how that came to be - and how that outcome can be avoided in the future.
I can see why this happens if there's a policy that helps some and hurts others to greater and lesser degrees; so people might support or oppose it.
Other policies have a snowball like quality about them - where once some amount of support or opposition arises they attract more of the same because of coalition logic. I support X and Z because I care about them. I support Y because the supporters and Y also care about X and Z.
The first case is reasonable enough but the second one is toxic; not just because people will go against their interests (not in the sense of things that are good for them but things that they do not support) but because no one will ever admit to others and generally not to themselves about just why they support a policy.
Social identity is a big one, and insofar as social media dispenses with the subtle social cues that we rely on to communicate and emote, I think we're stuck with this if we're going to rely heavily on public communication devoid of facial expression.
Also it's somewhat obvious that a certain side of the political spectrum has an obsession with literal enumeration. I'd be interested to see if there's a conservative parallel to the growing list that so many feel obligated to put forth: pronouns, vaccination status, race, political identity, gender, sex, romance orientation, mask-affinity, mental health identity, astrological sign, etc.
As a qualifier, I say this as a gay guy who's often in queer social circles and it seems to me not only pathological but cognitively dissonant: in a sphere that claims that labels and normativity are bad, they then go on making an ever-growing list of definitions of existence. None of this is pleasurable - it's robotic and authoritative. There is an obsession with definition instead of just living their lives and embracing the ineffable and infinitely complex nature of life.
Freedom relies on distributed intelligence and responsibility. Without that, we either get authoritarianism or a failed society. Politically, I want to live in a society without mask mandates because everybody wears one in their own self interest. Apparently we need a lot more critical thinking to be at that point, and so authoritarianism steps in.
Furthermore, a lot of the authoritarianism hasn't been actual mandates - for instance, there have been no "lockdowns" apart from CA early on. The same lack of critical thinking causes people to perceive government recommendations as mandatory, ultimately resolving the ambiguity in a productive manner.
That said, obviously economic distress, depression and other factors are taking years off of people's lives too, any reasonable viewpoint must accept some level of tradeoff here.
Humans are REALLY bad at responding to highly unlikely events.
We see this in the pandemic: Someone MIGHT die -> respond out of fear
I will CERTAINLY not die -> push for "freedom"
We saw this with past calamities: twin towers -> hunt down the terrorists
Great Recession (and Great Depression). Even personal trauma has an impact (personal job loss or a friend with cancer).
I, personally, advocate for COMPASSION as I see people on both sides of the pandemic get buffeted back and forth by their emotions. Acknowledge that they are in a hard spot; they are gripped by fear, guilt, loneliness. People from every background are getting ripped up because of the uncertainty of how to respond to the pandemic.
So I ask all of HN: The next time you see someone with a "crazy" opinion of the pandemic, be patient and show them love. Their life is probably hard enough, and they might need a friend.
Sadly this is getting rarer every day. Nobody wants to show anybody else compassion, and people of every background are guilty of this.
Seems like a lot of folks assume intent in people's actions, maybe because it's easier to make fun of others or push a certain narrative. No, I don't think Covid is going to get me in my car or when I'm walking outside away from people—I'd just rather keep my mask on because it's annoying to fiddle with.
Just a note, the article you linked doesn't seem to mention how long is too long to wear a mask if you want to prevent mask mouth, etc.. Maybe I missed it.
I've puzzled about outdoor use, but I'm not getting off my bike to ask anybody. Best guess is they're subject to early (mis-)information about virus spread or they're at risk and taking all precautions. They may have allergies and are just avoiding pollen. What should I do about it? I did some extra research and confirmed wearing a mask outdoors probably isn't beneficial to myself or others so I don't. There is no harm from them choosing to wear one.
It's a practical tool to prevent spread of a respiratory virus. Trying to ascribe political motivations to every non-sensical example of mask wearing probably says more about your concerns than whatever motivated them to wear a mask.
Putting an apparatus on a child that restricts their breathing when they don't understand the reasoning really is akin to child abuse. It's a completely unnatural thing to do. I don't agree that these parents should be jailed, just as it's not appropriate to be jailing people for not wearing masks. He's getting a message across that it's not appropriate to be doing this to children.
When a child can't emotionally handle wearing a mask, they're likely taking a cue from their parent reacting similarly. And nobody is getting "thrown off airlines" because their child took off a mask as they worked to get it back on - they're likely refusing to keep control of their child, or throwing a tantrum right along with them.
I've seen too many histrionic comments saying masks make it "hard to breathe" to take any of them seriously. Plenty of trades wear masks for hours at a time - eg surgeons, construction, auto body. That narrative ignores the benefits of wearing a mask, while blowing the burden out of proportion. Anything can be made to seem prohibitively burdensome when one shirks personal responsibility.
I've been vaccinated, (just got my second shot, so two weeks to go...), but I'll be wearing a mask indoors for probably the next year or so. Unless we start doing things like verifying vaccination or tests for entry to indoor public venues, it's the only thing that makes sense to keep my family safe.
I hate that wearing a mask became politicized. My own opinion is that the reason it did was that the government knowingly decided to lie about the efficacy of wearing a mask in the early days of the pandemic in the U.S. The reason for the lie was because there was insufficient supply of masks, and they didn't trust the public not to buy them off the shelves (which happened anyway), or panic (people got angry and polarized instead).
The CDC and the government agencies communicating policy were not in the business of getting the truth out so people could take sensible precautions. They focused on control and tactical preservation of opinion and the election couldn't have come at a worse time. That focus on control became obvious and they lost the public trust. Everything else spun out on social media with people taking sides instead of talking evidence.
It was truly depressing to watch.
What do you mean, people fancy looking like a surgeon?
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27038051.
Edit: between this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27038206 and the rest of your recent account history, it's clear that you're using the site primarily for political/ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what politics/ideology you're battling for, because it destroys this place for its intended use. I've therefore banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email email@example.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
And I dunno what your last sentence is supposed to be if not a vague gesture at some conspiracy theory. Yeah, another pandemic might happen in the future. Do you have actual evidence that shows the US government is purposefully facilitating that?
Yet here we sit, in the 21st century, with 40% of the population dead set on letting Covid mutate in their bodies and thus work its way around the vaccine.
We're never going back to normal at this rate because of those who aren't doing their duty and getting the vaccine.
The number of armchair virulogists that spawned in the last year makes my head spin.
Folks who didn't know the difference between a virus and a bacteria are now pushing covid vaccine wokeness while a big bunch of them still think that hepatitis B is a bloody vitamin.
Good luck mate.