OK, is this weird to you?
Unless someone raids my house, I don’t enjoy calling out individuals. But Emily Oster is so bad and her actions caused my house to get raided, so I have to call her out.
I definitely didn’t misread it. You could argue that I misinterpreted it. As goofy is.
Like I said, if you’re not following along, I’m sure this is more AIDS than the huge pile of AIDS that it already is.
Silly goose.
LOL, ok.
In case it’s unclear, I’m referring to the wording not the underlying idea (which is admittedly crazy).
1 Like
Jesus
Keed you got nothing to complain about. You freed me (at least in this thread) by not replying or responding to peoples arguments, but just saying the same thing over and over. (You do this much less than you used to imo).
Many of us take the other end of this in other threads. This is essentially “my” containment thread and I’m letting my inner Lag fly.
I do have a serious point about Oster et al but the OFS debate just clogs up the main covid thread so I decided to have some fun here. Not my fault that the bait was taken to such an extreme. Never did I ever think anyone would construe that RJ was blaming her raid on Oster. Bizarre development. Glad I took a couple of hour break with the wife to come back to 55 posts that had nothing to do with RJs point about Oster nor the other articles I posted about her and OFS.
And to think the non Americans haven’t even chimed in yet.
But my whole point in this thread is that there are a group of piranahs just waiting to feed on anything RJ in an irrational manner.
It’s pretty funny that you are being the voice of reason. I bet it’s damn frustrating. Welcome to everyone else’s world over the past years.
to be fair, my general sense of your posting has improved so I feel somewhat guilty, but not that much. It’s an internet message board and we all take ourselves and each other too seriously at times. I mean this sincerely- don’t stress so much, that’s what I mean by you freed me—I had an epiphany that I can make my points and you (or any body else) can accept or reject them even if I’m certain in my own mind that I’m right. It really doesn’t matter. Sometimes i learn things. Sometimes I get other perspectives. Maybe once in a great while I share something of value. Definitely get some yucks. It’s all good
Yeah, obviously.
That was a reference to the point I made earlier. If she said those things and then followed it up by “Emily Oster was responsible for/contributed to the raid”, literally no one would say, that was a weird place for the sentence to end (except for you apparently!)*. It is the logical conclusion of “I don’t call out people UNLESS they do X”.
*in my earlier post I said paragraphs later, but the distance shouldn’t matter if your position is that those two things are clearly unrelated.
That’s not an exception. That is her stated rule.
Need an ambiguous phrasing containment thread
2 Likes
Normally we should only have containment threads for tangents that are detailing a conversation, but since this tangent is detailing this conversation, we should have a containment thread for it.
2 Likes
Emily is not the “someone”, she is the “individual”
The but certainly comes up in sentences like that. Otherwise you would have to believe that my contrived example is nonsensical.
Do you really think the ‘but’ there makes it confusing? I guess you do (that’s what you claim, any way). But I think if that were posted, there would be no argument about what she was saying. That means that the presence of the ‘but’ does not somehow make it clear that she is saying that Emily did NOT contribute to the raid in any way. Because she could have written the above (with the but) and there would have been no confusion whatsoever.
Touché
Not like Jones has anything of value to add to this thread anyways
OK, I don’t want to bother the mods starting another thread on my account, so I’ll stop posting on this topic with this last post.
I think the main difference is that I’m reading her “unless” literally, and to do anything different is “mind-reading”. It seems that Goofy, et al seem to think that the “unless” is more like an “almost always” and there is something about the “but” which makes that clear.
I’ve repeatedly said she could have meant that, but the “unless” is what she wrote and is a fairly unambiguous term. Apparently not taking the “unless” completely literally is one of those “could care less” situations. That has not been my experience. Hence the derail.
Goofy, I’m sure you see it differently. Feel free to have the last word. I guess we could continue via PM if you are so inclined.
Having read this entire article twice now, I have no idea why someone would view this as refuting Emily Oster . I would paraphrase what Oster has said with regard to “OFS” as:
-
There is a cost to keeping kids of school, and if we’re trying to evaluate costs and benefits of different choices, we need to weigh the costs and benefits of those choices.
-
Our data on kids’ infections rates and transmission sucks, and we need to do a better job measuring and tracking.
-
Kids–especially elementary school age kids–do not appear to be at much risk of suffering serious COVID-related consequences. So when we talk about mitigating risk of opening schools, we should be focusing that discussion on how to make it safer for the adults (faculty/staff).
-
Schools do not seem to be amplifying community rates of transmission (acting as superspreader sources).
The pushback noted in those articles that you posted seems to be, “We don’t yet have good enough data to be that confident.” I haven’t seen anyone say, “Actually, the things that you’re saying are not true - here’s proof.”
I still have no idea what it is about Oster’s statements that you find objectionable. You tend to just post links, laugh at “OFS” people, and then not respond when people question you.
Here’s a quote from the American Prospect article you posted:
in places where schools quickly test, contact-trace, and impose measures like mask-wearing, upgraded ventilation, and social distancing, reopenings seem to be working.
Do you know who said that? It wasn’t Oster. It was from a joint interview with Laura Garabedian, a professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Rebecca Haffajee, a health policy researcher at RAND. They wrote this article in late August:
There seems to be a great deal of agreement between those two researchers (who I think you would view as credible?) and what Oster is saying: Bringing kids back to school can be accomplished with strict mitigation procedures, particularly for elementary school children.
So again, what are the specific statements that Oster has made that you think are incorrect, and why do you believe Rebekah Jones is obviously more credible on the subject?
1 Like
Bullet point number 4.
It’s been 3 weeks and you are just realizing that?
I’ve basically said it multiple times.
It really sucks making serious arguments and having someone either dense or in poor faith disagree just to disagree for days on end.
It does suck, you should stop.
2 Likes
And the whole point from a public safety standpoint is that OFS crowd has to prove it’s safe. Not the other way around. Sorry but that’s the way it works. Basically anecdotal studies where there isn’t any type of controlled testing of all students and certainly no real contact tracing is cherry picking and is not “evidence”
I’m not sure we why we can’t agree on the following points
- Opening schools is important
- When community spread is out of control as much as possible, including schools need to close in-person.
- Control the community spread, re-open the schools.
- Much of (US) is not able or willing to re-open schools with the necessary precautions.
Thank you.
I have a vested interest in understanding whether schools do serve as likely vectors for kids. I have 3 kids in K-12 and we have to assess whether we’re comfortable sending them to school. I am also scheduled to teach in person starting in late January, in a reduced-capacity setting (13 students in a classroom that typically holds 45-50).
So I’m trying to view this question neutrally, and I am actively looking for evidence that schools are serving as superspreader origins. (That’s the whole Emily Oster article that kicked off the recent flurry of posts in this thread.)
From my looking around, I don’t see that evidence. I see things like:
-
A CDC report that shows no association between a positive COVID tests and attending in-person school or child care. This is in contrast to social gatherings or at-home visitors, which were associated with positive COVID tests.
-
A large-scale study of COVID transmission in child-care programs (in the journal Pediatrics).. This study “found no evidence of child care being a significant contributor to COVID-19 transmission to adults. This finding is consistent with previous studies showing a lack of association between school closures and transmission rates.” [It doesn’t look at transmission from adults to children or children to children, and cautions that the level of background transmission may be a threat to child care.]
and I’m happy to admit that the absence of evidence isn’t the same as evidence of absence. But has there been any evidence of schools, particularly elementary schools, reflecting superspreader events?
Like, when I see this:
I am going to push back, because it’s not clear how one would ever prove that opening for schools could be safe, and this attitude ignores the obvious costs of keeping schools closed.
2 Likes
Obvious costs drawn from what?
Control the damn virus and life goes back to normal- or some approximation.
It’s a simple cart before the horse question. Nothing else.
Read what I And others have said in ernest. The point is to do everything else to control community spread and open schools. But when things go sideways the schools need to close too.
A sane world would pay the impacted People businesses and industries to be Shut down or limited operation so we can open schools.
A sane world would mandate standards in the schools.
There is no reason to shut down Schools unless all else has failed. Well guess what, all else HAS failed and arguing to keep them open is terrible. It’s TEMPORARY. Kids have significant elasticity. But if we drag out the virus we drag out the impact on them
But God no, opening schools is an absolute must no matter
Get the eff out of here with that completely non nuanced bullshit argument.
Everyone that says schools should close under the circumstances puts all kinds of qualifiers and priority to open them back up. The other argument is YOLO. The poor kids. Bullshit. It’s the Damn parents not wanting Their kids at home.
My whole posture in this thread has been to point out this hypocrisy but there is A small contingent that is incapable of understanding.
1 Like
I am living with 3 kids experiencing school remotely, and their education is suffering. It is laughable to me that anyone could believe there is no learning-related cost to closing schools.
And that ignores the fact that schools are de facto daycare for a large number of families. Which means those families are either going to involuntarily work fewer hours or they’re going to leave their kids in substandard care.
Serious question: do you honestly believe that there are no costs to closing schools? Am I drawing a bad inference from this being your opening response?
Things are sideways here in Franklin County, Ohio. Nonetheless, if opening elementary schools with precautions doesn’t increase the rate of spread, I’m in favor of opening elementary schools with precautions.
If action X doesn’t increase the rate of transmission, or the severity of infections, or other bad outcomes, why would we prohibit action X? My view is that we shouldn’t. Which is why I’m so interested in knowing whether opening schools with appropriate mitigation strategies actually does increase the rate of transmission or the severity of infections.
Absolutely fuck off if that’s how you’re characterizing my position. Literally no one I know (even the moron school board in my district) believes this.
2 Likes