• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Social Covid 19 Thread: [no bitching about masks of Fauci edition]

FunkMiller

Member
Aug 14, 2014
8,754
27,345
990
If I was a vaccinated Austrian I would be furious and never vote for a lousy bunch of spineless losers that instead of doing the right thing decided to punish everyone.

It’s pretty ridiculous. “We can’t just lock all the people up whose fault this is, but we’ll lock absolutely everyone up, no problem.”

Every country that hasn’t properly stamped out covid misinformation enough will probably face this.
 
Last edited:

QSD

Member
Nov 8, 2020
1,283
1,305
405
Amsterdam
www.quixoticsounddesign.com
It’s pretty ridiculous. “We can’t just lock all the people up whose fault this is, but we’ll lock absolutely everyone up, no problem.”

Every country that hasn’t properly stamped out covid misinformation enough will probably face this.
Personally I can understand if someone doesn't want to go down in history as *that other austrian* that singled out a group of citizens for exclusion and incarceration.
 

FunkMiller

Member
Aug 14, 2014
8,754
27,345
990
Personally I can understand if someone doesn't want to go down in history as *that other austrian* that singled out a group of citizens for exclusion and incarceration.

Deleted, because sometimes my asshattery knows no limit.
 
Last edited:

QSD

Member
Nov 8, 2020
1,283
1,305
405
Amsterdam
www.quixoticsounddesign.com
Please.

Comparing measures to control a serious public health crisis to literally Hitler is pathetic, and beneath anyone trying to make a serious or intelligent point.
Dude I realize that, it was more of a joke. Though the shadow of Hitler is long, and I wouldn't bet against it being in the back of the mind of the austrian chancellor/government regardless.
 

FunkMiller

Member
Aug 14, 2014
8,754
27,345
990
Dude I realize that, it was more of a joke. Though the shadow of Hitler is long, and I wouldn't bet against it being in the back of the mind of the austrian chancellor/government regardless.

Sincerest apologies, my dude. I’m on the tube platform and on my phone. Nuance is rather lost on me when I’m herded in like cattle on a cold November evening 😊
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: QSD and Narasumas

QSD

Member
Nov 8, 2020
1,283
1,305
405
Amsterdam
www.quixoticsounddesign.com
Yo mama so fat, she thought COVID was an acronym for Chocolate Oreo & Vanilla Icing Dessert.
Although I appreciate your creativity I was kind of looking for an Austria/Fascism style joke

Yo Mama's so Austrian she put her left arm in a camp (or something to that effect, but funnier) (the explanation being that her left arm is already considered unvaxxed)
 
Last edited:

Tams

Member
*Finally* got the word today that me and my colleagues and all our clients will be getting booster shots in December. I was kind of surprised at some colleagues expressing reluctance to get the booster, the first 2 shots were taken by just about everyone. Meanwhile infections still soaring like crazy over here in The Netherlands.
They were probably under the misconception that this would be two and done and only got the initial shots reluctantly.
 

Tams

Member
Yeah in contrast to Japan the fate of our countries seems almost tragic: can't seem to agree on anything, many political players wilfully sowing distrust at the expense of people's lives, random outbursts of violence, many unwilling to even accept the reality of a global pandemic at all. IMHO if you compare to Japan, it seems our culture of individualism and materialism is really fucking us over ATM.
Just social cohesion and forced social cohesion (the nail that sticks out gets hammered down). It has its downsides too, but obviously in this case they are outweighed.

Trust in the government in Japan is true to an extent, but most Japanese people don't care much for them. Japanese people are also often extremely materialistic. Brands go a very long way here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shouta

Loki

Count of Concision
Jun 6, 2004
7,546
609
1,670
It’s pretty ridiculous. “We can’t just lock all the people up whose fault this is, but we’ll lock absolutely everyone up, no problem.”

Every country that hasn’t properly stamped out covid misinformation enough will probably face this.

The problem is with wanting to "lock people up" for a virus of this level of threat in the first place.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Member
Aug 14, 2014
8,754
27,345
990
The problem is with wanting to "lock people up" for a virus of this level of threat in the first place.

Nope. Not really. Unvaccinated people can, and do, catch covid more readily, and suffer from worse symptoms that put strain on medical resources. Perfectly reasonable to restrict their activities, and allow vaccinated people to live normally. That’s how you tackle a pandemic effectively and prevent loss of life: vaccinate or lockdown. Nothing else works.
 

Cyberpunkd

Member
Dec 16, 2020
1,889
2,733
455
The problem is with wanting to "lock people up" for a virus of this level of threat in the first place.
The last 18 months proved that the current healthcare system in all countries cannot support unrestricted hospitalisations from Covid, we are not operating under a state of war and regularly ordering triage of patients.
You can be surprised why having 5000 people in ICU in a country of 70mln people like France can bring a system to its knees but that is how it always works - the only time you need to maintain a high level of that is when you operate in a pandemic (right now) or war (which was WWII for the majority of European countries), otherwise you are just wasting money and resources that can be spend somewhere else in the system.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tams and FunkMiller

Loki

Count of Concision
Jun 6, 2004
7,546
609
1,670
The last 18 months proved that the current healthcare system in all countries cannot support unrestricted hospitalisations from Covid, we are not operating under a state of war and regularly ordering triage of patients.
You can be surprised why having 5000 people in ICU in a country of 70mln people like France can bring a system to its knees but that is how it always works - the only time you need to maintain a high level of that is when you operate in a pandemic (right now) or war (which was WWII for the majority of European countries), otherwise you are just wasting money and resources that can be spend somewhere else in the system.

Maybe this was true during the first two waves in 2020. It is not reflective of current realities in the vast majority of places. Given the supposedly waning efficacy of vaccines, what is your plan here - mandatory boosters every 6-8 months for the next X years (possibly forever)? I say "supposedly waning" because I've yet to hear a compelling argument as to why circulating antibody titers are being held up as the end-all, be-all of immunity when antibody levels will ALWAYS drop after X months/years - what doesn't change is your T- and B-cell memory of how to produce those antibodies again if needed in the future. As far as I am aware, there is no disease for which people are vaccinated where their circulating antibody level 1-3+ years after vaccination will be the same as it was 3-4 weeks after vaccination.

Also, why is no one pushing for the development of a more effective and durable vaccine for this? We seem content to trudge along with these middling vaccines, expecting everyone to take boosters in perpetuity.
 

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
1,438
1,456
410
Maybe this was true during the first two waves in 2020. It is not reflective of current realities in the vast majority of places. Given the supposedly waning efficacy of vaccines, what is your plan here - mandatory boosters every 6-8 months for the next X years (possibly forever)? I say "supposedly waning" because I've yet to hear a compelling argument as to why circulating antibody titers are being held up as the end-all, be-all of immunity when antibody levels will ALWAYS drop after X months/years - what doesn't change is your T- and B-cell memory of how to produce those antibodies again if needed in the future. As far as I am aware, there is no disease for which people are vaccinated where their circulating antibody level 1-3+ years after vaccination will be the same as it was 3-4 weeks after vaccination.

Also, why is no one pushing for the development of a more effective and durable vaccine for this? We seem content to trudge along with these middling vaccines, expecting everyone to take boosters in perpetuity.

With no evidence whatsoever you would just take a chance now that we're OK and just risk having more waves like the first couple in 2020?
 

Chittagong

Gold Member
Jun 8, 2004
19,304
5,158
2,110
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ma-Yuan

FunkMiller

Member
Aug 14, 2014
8,754
27,345
990
Just a year later, it is incredible to think that CNN was borderline antivax last year:


How is this related to anti-vax? I‘d never have taken a vaccine that hadn’t been through full clinical trials either. The article is about not rushing through a vaccine without full and proper trials to establish safety and efficacy. Quite right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tams

Cyberpunkd

Member
Dec 16, 2020
1,889
2,733
455
Maybe this was true during the first two waves in 2020. It is not reflective of current realities in the vast majority of places. Given the supposedly waning efficacy of vaccines, what is your plan here - mandatory boosters every 6-8 months for the next X years (possibly forever)?
Ummmmmmm.....yes? To the first part - imagine it's like (I cannot believe I am using this example) LoL or DotA.

When I look at the MOBA high skill games the victory never comes fast - you get better here, you get better there, 5% gain here, 5% gain there, in 1 hour you win.

Same for Covid-19. There is clear correlation between the number of people vaccinated, restrictions in place e.g. Pass Sanitaire in France and the number of people getting hospitalised. After all of that it's just a matter of tweaking the numbers, but one thing is clear - if with vaccination and restriction Covid progresses as it does it would have been a bloodbath without. To give you an example in Poland with 55% vaccination there are 500 people are dying each day. 5 000 in 10 days, 50 000 in 100 days, 175 000 in a year. In France, with Pass Sanitaire, 75% vaccination rate there are 55 deaths per day on a 7-day average.
 
Last edited:

WoJ

Member
Mar 23, 2019
434
832
315
Ummmmmmm.....yes? To the first part - imagine it's like (I cannot believe I am using this example) LoL or DotA.

When I look at the MOBA high skill games the victory never comes fast - you get better here, you get better there, 5% gain here, 5% gain there, in 1 hour you win.

Same for Covid-19. There is clear correlation between the number of people vaccinated, restrictions in place e.g. Pass Sanitaire in France and the number of people getting hospitalised. After all of that it's just a matter of tweaking the numbers, but one thing is clear - if with vaccination and restriction Covid progresses as it does it would have been a bloodbath without. To give you an example in Poland with 55% vaccination there are 500 people are dying each day. 5 000 in 10 days, 50 000 in 100 days, 175 000 in a year. In France, with Pass Sanitaire, 75% vaccination rate there are 55 deaths per day on a 7-day average.
You're completely out of your mind. Thanks for this. Now I know I don't ever need to take anything you say seriously ever again, let alone read anything from you.
 

The Fartist

Member
Sep 10, 2019
1,506
3,405
560
Planet Erf
That video looks like cancer just from the thumbnail. The stupidness of this age very neatly summed up.
The Big Lebowski Opinion GIF by PeacockTV
 

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
1,438
1,456
410

The father of an unvaccinated 27-year-old woman who died from COVID has called for fines to be issued to people who refuse to have the jab.

Mr Baird insists Rashelle, from Brechin in Scotland, was not an anti-vaxxer and believes she would have had the vaccine if she knew she faced a fine for not doing so.

goodness gracious
 

FunkMiller

Member
Aug 14, 2014
8,754
27,345
990



goodness gracious

Apparently she just 'never got around to it'. Despite us having walk in vaccine centres for months, and a simple online booking system. I wholly disbelieve the idea she wasn't an anti-vaxxer. Her uncle died of it, for crying out loud. Literally no reason she couldn't have had a jab.

Darwin at work once again. What a stupid waste, that leaves kids without a mother.
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
46,292
19,309
1,910
Best Coast
Just a year later, it is incredible to think that CNN was borderline antivax last year:

How is that antivax? It's cautioning against skipping the safety checks. The current COVID vaccines, when authorized for emergency use, had already gone through phase 1, 2, and 3 trials by then.

Their concern that the FDA may be moving too quickly heightened when FDA Commissioner Dr. Steven Hahn told the Financial Times that his agency could consider an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a Covid-19 vaccine before late stage clinical trials are complete if the data show strong enough evidence it would protect people.

It's true that if the proper precutions aren't taken, mistakes can be made. If the data is not thorough enough, safety and efficacy cannot be accurately determined. Fortunately, the data for these vaccines were thorough enough, and their safety and efficacy were established with good data.

If the CNN article was claiming post-authorization that the vaccines were carelessly rushed, or that the vaccines were experimental, THAT would be more clearly anti-vax.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: SpiceRacz

Loki

Count of Concision
Jun 6, 2004
7,546
609
1,670
With no evidence whatsoever you would just take a chance now that we're OK and just risk having more waves like the first couple in 2020?

Yes, I would. Because the landscape (in terms of the susceptibility of the population, available treatments etc.) has changed dramatically. Measures which might have been justified, in, say March or April of 2020 are no longer justifiable when weighed in their totality (i.e., not only looking at the public health angle in a vacuum, as some in this thread are wont to do, but when considered among other relevant legal and economic factors). Allow me to quote myself from earlier in the thread which gives a little more insight into my reasoning along these lines:

Loki said:
Now, when looking at the sheer FERVOR with which these people advocate for vaccine mandates, and the furiously rapid progression of said dictates, one should keep in mind that all of this is not happening in the USA of March or April 2020 - it is happening now. That is to say, the dynamics of the disease as well as our knowledge of and response to it have grown dramatically since the inception of the pandemic. The landscape has changed significantly, and thus some measures which might (MIGHT) have been understandable/acceptable in the early months of COVID are simply no longer acceptable as they no longer comport with the science. The way these mandate-pushers talk, you'd think that folks were just as likely to contract COVID, be hospitalized from it, or die from it as they were in April 2020 when the alpha strain was dominant. This is simply NOT the case for the following reasons:

- Alpha strain was demonstrably more lethal (roughly 150% as lethal as Delta). All the data from the UK/Israel/US supports this. Delta, a less lethal (yet admittedly more contagious) strain, now predominates. One would thus expect fewer deaths per capita. Admittedly, however, Delta's presumptive lethality is confounded by the fact that...

- Treatment modalities have improved tremendously. The biggest change from the first 6-10 months of the pandemic has been the increasing consensus that putting folks on ventilators actually does more harm than good. If you'll recall, early statistics showed that 40-50% of patients who were put on these vents ended up dying. It was later found that a lot of this was due to the mechanism of action of the virus (which wasn't known initially), and that mechanical pressure was actually counterproductive and could cause a cascade into total pulmonary failure. Now folks are treated for low blood oxygen and poor respiration via other methods, leading to better outcomes. In addition, you have monoclonal antibodies being deployed at scale, steroid-based treatment regimens, anti-virals about to enter the market (Monulpiravir as well as one from Pfizer), a mini-resurgence of HCQ etc. The net effect of all these new treatments and knowledge is that it makes the "prognosis" for hospitals and society much less grim than it was in early-mid 2020. I dare say that if we had these treatments and knowledge from the outset, we'd probably be looking at 350-500K dead in the US instead of 700K.

- The first two waves picked off the "low hanging fruit," so to speak. Folks who were disposed towards severe disease for whatever reasons (age, comorbidities, immune/genetic predisposition in terms of their idiosyncratic response to the virus etc.) were likely culled during the initial phases. At a population level, this means that what you are left with as a substrate for future infections is a more resilient, healthier populace which is better able to fight off severe outcomes or is more responsive to treatment. The net effect is that if you had population B (the population of, say, March-August 2021) as the full population at the start of the pandemic, we wouldn't have accrued as many deaths as we did, simply because it is, on average, a healthier and more resilient population. The same is even more true today.

- Between vaccine-induced and natural immunity, somewhere between 70-85% of the population has some form of protection against severe disease from COVID. This means that if we had today's population living in March/April of 2020, we would not have incurred nearly the amount of deaths which we did, nor would nearly the same amount of people require hospitalization.

Note that each of the above considerations are independent of each other, but each serves to lower the overall risk of death/disease today as compared to 18 months ago. Thus, the question becomes: why are they pushing these mandates so forcefully right now? It's an incongruous reaction given the level of threat.

This is borne out by the fact that hospitalizations and deaths in most countries did not reach even 60% of the peaks seen during previous waves.
 
Last edited:

BadBurger

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2019
4,546
7,407
610
Get vaccinated
That video looks like cancer just from the thumbnail. The stupidness of this age very neatly summed up.

It's just more super boring boomer stuff beating around the bush of anti-vaccination. He goes onto claim that an antacid (I am not lying) helped him. Couldn't make this shit up.

Basically if anyone posts some lazy YouTube video rather than actual science, they can be safely ignored.
 

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
1,438
1,456
410
Yes, I would. Because the landscape (in terms of the susceptibility of the population, available treatments etc.) has changed dramatically. Measures which might have been justified, in, say March or April of 2020 are no longer justifiable when weighed in their totality (i.e., not only looking at the public health angle in a vacuum, as some in this thread are wont to do, but when considered among other relevant legal and economic factors). Allow me to quote myself from earlier in the thread which gives a little more insight into my reasoning along these lines:



This is borne out by the fact that hospitalizations and deaths in most countries did not reach even 60% of the peaks seen during previous waves.

The difference being that we didn't have the vaccines in the previous waves and you would be potentially resetting us to March 2020, and risking more peaks. The idea that we are more resilient as a society because Covid has done its job on the weak isn't backed up by anything. So I see your "yes I would" but there isn't much of a "because".

As booster shots, before we stray too far from the kernel of this topic, demonstratably keep the efficacy of the vaccine up if you were worried about other societal ills like economic damage you should be singing the praises of their existence from the rooftops instead of shrugging them off and sinking back into covid death cult.
 
Last edited:

Loki

Count of Concision
Jun 6, 2004
7,546
609
1,670
The difference being that we didn't have the vaccines in the previous waves and you would be potentially resetting us to March 2020, and risking more peaks. The idea that we are more resilient as a society because Covid has done its job on the weak isn't backed up by anything. So I see your "yes I would" but there isn't much of a "because".

As booster shots, before we stray too far from the kernel of this topic, demonstratably keep the efficacy of the vaccine up if you were worried about other societal ills like economic damage you should be singing the praises of their existence from the rooftops instead of shrugging them off and sinking back into covid death cult.

You misunderstood (or perhaps didn't fully read) my post. COVID picking off the more susceptible members of society (due to age, comorbidities, and other genetic/immune factors) was just one of several reasons I provided as to why that the population substrate that COVID has to work with presently is markedly different from what it had to work with 15-18 months ago. One of the very points I made was that, due to a combination of vaccine-induced and natural immunity, upwards of 80% of the population now have some degree of immune protection. Back in April 2020 that was perhaps 3-10% (I say this because there is a subset of the population which seems to have "built-in" cross-reactive immunity against COVID - I've seen different estimates as to what percent of the population that comprises). To simplify it: if population factors have changed (i.e., the prevalence of some form of immunity as well as more susceptible folks having been "weeded out," so to speak), and treatments have improved (less ventilator usage, effective medicinal regimens, monoclonals, and soon two new antivirals on the market from Merck and Pfizer), and much more is known about the virus, and the currently predominant variants are less lethal than the original strain, how can one assert that the virus would have the same exact effect presently as it did in March-June 2020? It's illogical.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: SpiceRacz

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
1,438
1,456
410
You misunderstood (or perhaps didn't fully read) my post. COVID picking off the more susceptible members of society (due to age, comorbidities, and other genetic/immune factors) was just one of several reasons I provided as to why that the population substrate that COVID has to work with presently is markedly different from what it had to work with 15-18 months ago. One of the very points I made was that, due to a combination of vaccine-induced and natural immunity, upwards of 80% of the population now have some degree of immune protection. Back in April 2020 that was perhaps 3-10% (I say this because there is a subset of the population which seems to have "built-in" cross-reactive immunity against COVID - I've seen different estimates as to what percent of the population that comprises). To simplify it: if population factors have changed (i.e., the prevalence of some form of immunity as well as more susceptible folks having been "weeded out," so to speak), and treatments have improved (less ventilator usage, effective medicinal regimens, monoclonals, and soon two new antivirals on the market from Merck and Pfizer), and much more is known about the virus, and the currently predominant variants are less lethal than the original strain, how can one assert that the virus would have the same exact effect presently as it did in March-June 2020? It's illogical.

The estimates you (don't) cite for herd immunity are vague and unevidenced, you say delta is less lethal than alpha but again borne from nothing. In terms of treatments (some that aren't even with us yet) as a reason to not have boosters, I suppose you're not one for prevention being better than cure.

We are in the realm of weighing up risks and not asserting that we'll be in the same exact place as March 2020, hence "potentially". On one hand we have the uncharted territory of now throwing our hands to the wind, having faith that the dead we walk on, our herd immunity and expensive or nonexistent treatments will help us. On the other hand we have stuff we know that works and despite obviously coming with its own challenges offers a more clear route of this. The former has a far greater chance, right now, of tipping us towards previous waves.

As you have compiled your list here of weaponry against the virus, I'm trying to understand why you choose to leave the most demonstratably effective weapons like lockdowns and vaccines out of your armory. You've admitted it wasn't through evidence so what's driving it?
 
Last edited:

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
3,510
647
690
Poor Jimmy got 'injured' by the vaccine. What the fuck is a vaccine injury, did his arm fall off ? So he felt like shit, that's 1/10th of what he would have felt like if he had been infected plus the chance he would infect others.
 

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
1,438
1,456
410
Poor Jimmy got 'injured' by the vaccine. What the fuck is a vaccine injury, did his arm fall off ? So he felt like shit, that's 1/10th of what he would have felt like if he had been infected plus the chance he would infect others.

it's a perfectly untouchable diatribe, no-one can question it because it's your anecdotal experience and you can't ask for causal proof because medical history is legally and morally private

just say you don't feel good after (x) and then let everyone else fill that void with their own biases, job done, FUD spread
 
Last edited:

Cyberpunkd

Member
Dec 16, 2020
1,889
2,733
455
New measures in France in 5 minutes, probably announcing booster shots for everyone at least 5 months after previous injection, meaning I should be able to book an appointment today.
 

Cyberpunkd

Member
Dec 16, 2020
1,889
2,733
455
Ok, here are the new measures for France, holy shit let's go baby:

1. 3rd dose / booster shot available to everyone starting this Saturday
2. Delay from the last shot cut from 6 to 5 months
3. After 7 months since last dose your Pass Sanitaire will be deactivated
4. PCR tests now need to be done maximum 24 hours in advance, not 72
5. Classes will not be closed from the 1st Covid case, everyone testing negative will be able to come back, the rest will learn remotely

macron citation GIF by franceinfo
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Member
Apr 25, 2014
6,287
3,535
720
Ok, here are the new measures for France, holy shit let's go baby:

1. 3rd dose / booster shot available to everyone starting this Saturday
2. Delay from the last shot cut from 6 to 5 months
3. After 7 months since last dose your Pass Sanitaire will be deactivated
4. PCR tests now need to be done maximum 24 hours in advance, not 72
5. Classes will not be closed from the 1st Covid case, everyone testing negative will be able to come back, the rest will learn remotely

macron citation GIF by franceinfo
I just listened to it.

Basically the measures that cost the economy the least. I hope that an independent inquiry is launched soon into the government’s handling of the crisis.

With two young kids in primary school, listening to that despicable cunt Blanquer justifying not closing classes when I have just put my kids back after their school was a cluster makes me want to punch kittens lol.

They should be honest and say that closing classes costs too much money. That would at least be easier to swallow than their bullshit
 
Last edited:

Alx

Member
Jan 22, 2007
19,312
1,848
1,520
They should be honest and say that closing classes costs too much money. That would at least be easier to swallow than their bullshit
I don't think closing classes costs more money than keeping them open (especially if the alternative is testing everybody). But it does disturb the kids education, and it's a problem for parents who must stay at home to watch their kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyberpunkd

Cyberpunkd

Member
Dec 16, 2020
1,889
2,733
455
I just listened to it.

Basically the measures that cost the economy the least. I hope that an independent inquiry is launched soon into the government’s handling of the crisis.

With two young kids in primary school, listening to that despicable cunt Blanquer justifying not closing classes when I have just put my kids back after their school was a cluster makes me want to punch kittens lol.

They should be honest and say that closing classes costs too much money. That would at least be easier to swallow than their bullshit
I mean - if you think about it France was actually at the forefront of putting sane restrictions in place i.e. Pass Sanitaire. Makes sense to continue to roll with it since it is working (even more than it should - being stuck in the queue at Doctolib for an hour now)

As for the schools - I am actually kinda proud France very clearly said that kids need to go to school since it is better for their health, and also it reduces inequality (since rich parents can have laptops for their kids + can pay for extra classes to make them catch up, poor parents can't do that). Plus as Alx Alx just added - people that think you can WFH with kids are those that never had them. It's impossible.
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Member
Apr 25, 2014
6,287
3,535
720
I don't think closing classes costs more money than keeping them open (especially if the alternative is testing everybody). But it does disturb the kids education, and it's a problem for parents who must stay at home to watch their kids.

Of course it costs money when kids are not at school. They are being paid to stay at home and look after them. Add in the cost to the wider economy of people not putting fuel in their car or using public transport and not buying food at lunch time. Of course it costs money… Lots of it.
I mean - if you think about it France was actually at the forefront of putting sane restrictions in place i.e. Pass Sanitaire. Makes sense to continue to roll with it since it is working (even more than it should - being stuck in the queue at Doctolib for an hour now)

As for the schools - I am actually kinda proud France very clearly said that kids need to go to school since it is better for their health, and also it reduces inequality (since rich parents can have laptops for their kids + can pay for extra classes to make them catch up, poor parents can't do that). Plus as Alx Alx just added - people that think you can WFH with kids are those that never had them. It's impossible.
Pass sanitaire was nothing more than a coercive measure to try and get people vaccinated. It never bothered me as I got vaccinated straight away. But let’s not pretend that Macron did that for everybody’s health. The economy has and always will be his priority. He doesn’t give a flying fuck about us peasants.

Again, the schools staying open has and always was about the economy. The government has used every justification no matter how flimsy to play down the effects COVID can have on kids and the inequalities and anything else that they can think of to keep them open.

It is nothing to be proud of IMO. They have played with the health of our kids for the economy.

At least Castex was honest in January when he said that closing the schools tanks the economy
 

Cyberpunkd

Member
Dec 16, 2020
1,889
2,733
455
It is nothing to be proud of IMO. They have played with the health of our kids for the economy.

At least Castex was honest in January when he said that closing the schools tanks the economy
I had to spend the first lockdown with kids at home - trust me, it was hell. Multiply that by millions on edge and you have a recipe for disaster.

Finally after 90 minutes I got in and booked my shot for December 1st, awesome. Will be done with it next week, then chill for 5 months.