He's going to need to learn how to secure the football a bit better...
https://twitter.com/JD_Coffey1/status/1237788088551661569
Going to be special when the first recruit gets coronavirus and everyone negative recruits the hell out of us
The chances of a healthy 17 year old getting coronavirus are pretty damn low.
The chances of a healthy 17 year old experiencing severe symptoms are low but I think the chances of him contracting the virus is the same as anybody's. My concern isn't necessarily about him getting seriously ill, it's more because the optics of the headline "UW recruit contracts coronavirus on campus visit" could seriously fuck us over.
But it's not the same as anybody else's. As a healthy 17 year old he's not going to spend much time around unhealthy 70 year olds. By nature of the population he's a part of he's less likely to be exposed to someone who has the virus and if he is exposed that individual is less likely to do a lot of coughing and sneezing that make it more likely that they spread the virus.
Coming to UW on a recruiting trip is a lot different for your chances of infection than visiting grandma in Kirkland.
What is this based on? I don't think healthy young people are any less likely to contract the virus and become infectious than unhealthy old people. Probably the scariest vector was the kid in Everett who was tested and returned to school before his test came back positive.
https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1237680918350966784?s=09
This sounds scary and obviously we don't want to spread the virus to more carriers when it can be avoided but kids are largely unaffected. The teachers would be the real concern here, as well as anyone with compromised immune systems.
There's plenty to worry about with Coronavirus. Schools are not especially high on the list.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/heal...erly-understanding-why-may-help-defeat-virus/
If only these worldwide school closures were aware; likely victims of fake news.
The schools aren't closing to protect the kids. They're closing to
1. Maintain optics for those who want them to #DoSomething. Reelections are a bitch.
2. Protect teachers, administrators and other staff.
3. Protect the families of those kids who could potentially get infected.
The kids are going to be fine. In fact closing the schools cuts off a lot of kids from lunches and other services. It's almost assuredly worse for the kids to not have school right now.
This isn't being done to protect children. Not by anyone who cares about the science anyway.
You list two bullet points that are absolutely supported by the science and then say that the school closures aren't supported by the science. Confused...
Reading back through this you obviously missed the "This isn't being done to protect children[/i]" portion of my poast.
On reread (I can't believe I'm this big of a loser that I scanned through four pages to find it while drunk as fuck on my couch), I stand corrected. Your point was that it's not to protect the children, specifically, and I also believe this was also the case. I think it was always about protecting at-risk staff, rare at-risk students, at-risk parents, etc. I think I just detected a cynical vibe from your post, in the "it's all just CYA" sense, and extrapolated. My bad.
That being said, I'm done having anything to say about this virus. I'm tired of one day reading some study that says one thing then a week later reading another study that says the exact opposite.[/b] I'm almost at Thunderdome levels of just wanting to let it play out and get it over with. At some point, the damage we're doing to, say, 50 million school age kids by parking their brain for 18 months has a price that can be quantified in terms of a pretty sizeable number of deaths. If one were to look at it dispassionately and objectively.
