Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


Webmaster

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, TVScout said:

Info in the link states there have been 7667 children under the age of ten tested positive. It also indicates none have died.

Kids from 5-18 will be doing to school.  I don't understand why you're excluding more than half of the student population?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, theJ said:

They're both horrendous numbers, is my point.

I don't think using inflated numbers is going to help convince people weather schools should be open or not.  The worst case scenarios being talked about all of the tide is why no one trusts the numbers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vikesfan89 said:

I don't think using inflated numbers is going to help convince people weather schools should be open or not.  The worst case scenarios being talked about all of the tide is why no one trusts the numbers

It won't.  I wasn't trying to convince anyone, just thinking out loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vikesfan89 said:

If you are waiting for 0 risk you'll never send kids to school again

That's not even remotely true. All the signs are positive on a vaccine, many projecting to get one by January.

Please explain to me how being in school is worth thousands of kids possibly dying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

That's not even remotely true. All the signs are positive on a vaccine, many projecting to get one by January.

Please explain to me how being in school is worth thousands of kids possibly dying.

It's going to be a rough 6 months at home, but i'll pay that price.  We can make it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

I don't think using inflated numbers is going to help convince people weather schools should be open or not.  The worst case scenarios being talked about all of the tide is why no one trusts the numbers

It's almost like we took some steps to avoid reaching those worst case scenarios or something. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

If you are waiting for 0 risk you'll never send kids to school again

This is a poor use of reductio ad absurdum. No one was making that claim or asking for it - there is, however, a 100% effective way to keep kids from transmitting Covid amongst themselves and their families at school. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TVScout said:

What is your actual point? I don't think any one is disputing your comment, so I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JDBrocks said:

What is your actual point? I don't think any one is disputing your comment, so I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say?

Keeping the youngest children out of the classroom is probably doing more harm than good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TVScout said:

Yeah we need a longer explanation.  Are you saying that we should send young children to school, and keep the older ones at home?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...