4,200 children have lost a parent to Covid in New York State.

[ChavvySexPond]

Why do you think 4.200 children in New York State have lost a parent to Covid pushing them into single parent poverty or the care system?

And do you think it will happen here? Or are we protected by having the National Health Service?

uhfnyc.org/news/article/uhf-report-4200-children-nys--lost-parent-covid-19/

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/champ.gothamist.com/champ/gothamist/news/more-children-ny-state-have-lost-parents-due-covid-19-911-attacks

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thecity.nyc/platform/amp/health/2020/9/30/21494764/thousands-of-new-york-children-lost-a-parent-to-covid-19-study-finds

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8791297/amp/More-4-000-New-York-children-lost-parent-coronavirus-report-finds.html

[quote Ecosse]@herecomesthsun

Of course teachers have died with (not necessarily of) COVID in the same way that taxi drivers, pilots and every other profession have.

There is no evidence that any of them contracted the virus in school as opposed to Tesco. The vast majority of evidence shows that DC play very little role in transmission.[/quote]
And there’s no evidence they didn’t. The highest risk setting is prolonged exposure in indoor settings. Not passing someone in the condiments aisle for a second. As a vulnerable parent I avoid supermarkets and indoor settings. If I caught it there’s a stupidly high risk it was from the kids’ school. Guessing most vulnerable teachers are as cautious.

@cbt944

I find the attitude of some posters on MN to Covid very interesting. There's a morbid fascination with it - a weird blend of recognising that it's a terrible thing but also almost enjoying the opportunity to stoke fear by starting threads that seem to serve no useful purpose other than to rubberneck at the latest news.

I think it is moreso a desperate effort to counterbalance the bored-with-restriction, not-going-to-wear-a mask, it's-just-a-flu/cold/hoax Covid downplayers - and also a response to the repetitious, social-media-echo-chamber influenced, and shallow misunderstandings about why the entire world is acting like this is a big deal, when the eugenicists of MN know better.

Excellent analysis.

@cbt944

I find the attitude of some posters on MN to Covid very interesting. There's a morbid fascination with it - a weird blend of recognising that it's a terrible thing but also almost enjoying the opportunity to stoke fear by starting threads that seem to serve no useful purpose other than to rubberneck at the latest news.

I think it is moreso a desperate effort to counterbalance the bored-with-restriction, not-going-to-wear-a mask, it's-just-a-flu/cold/hoax Covid downplayers - and also a response to the repetitious, social-media-echo-chamber influenced, and shallow misunderstandings about why the entire world is acting like this is a big deal, when the eugenicists of MN know better.

😂

I love the irony of describing the people who don't display this morbid fascination as the "repetitious, social-media-echo-chamber influenced" on MN of all places.

"There's a morbid fascination with it - a weird blend of recognising that it's a terrible thing but also almost enjoying the opportunity to stoke fear by starting threads that seem to serve no useful purpose other than to rubberneck at the latest news."

I have a morbid "rubbernecking" fascination with true crime murder podcasts. My concern about COVID is completely different because it's a topic that genuinely has impact on my life. The "but the flu also kills people" "the kids are just fine" attitudes on here are dangerous and need to be challenged.

I’m concerned about it, too, but I am aggravated by posts that express concern about parental deaths in New York State, no doubt exacerbated by pre-existing health inequalities and wealth inequalities given the districts most of them happened in, and that being turned into some weird, “we should worry about covid 19 because of this.” I’m not worried about covid 19 because 4,200 children have lost at least one parent to it in New York State. I’m worried about it because of proper scientific research, not some obsession with spouting numbers and then jumping from those basic numbers to asserting it’s all because schools are still open. It’s far more complicated than that and is no way to win an argument over how schools should or could be opened safely, or how we can deal with health and wealth inequalities, or how we can possibly get the balance between enabling people to live like human beings and protecting them from diseases acquired by behaving normally.

It’s basically making the assumption that we will only be worried if we feel directly threatened - yet accusing other people of taking that stance, when it comes across as the stance being taken by the person raising it in the first place!

I love the irony of describing the people who don't display this morbid fascination as the "repetitious, social-media-echo-chamber influenced" on MN of all places

I love the irony of accusing concerned people who are pointing out facts 'morbid' for attempting to stem the flow of misinformation from people with virology degrees from the University of YouTube.

Why do you think 4.200 children in New York State have lost a parent to Covid pushing them into single parent poverty or the care system?

The headline figure is somewhat misleading - 4,200 is an estimate rather than an actual figure and the report relates to "parents and caregivers" - i.e. appears to include grandparents living in the same household - no less upsetting of course. From the op's link;

^"Age and gender demographic breakdowns of NY's COVID-19 deaths were used to estimate the number of deaths occurring among parents of children under age 18 or grandparents providing kinship
care; the data was further modified by probability of living in a single or two-parent household and the average number of children per household type. Estimates were developed for each NY county
and each NYC zip code. COVID-19 death data includes probable and confirmed COVID-19 deaths. Due to unavailability of probable COVID-19 death data outside of NYC, the number of probable deaths
occurring outside NYC is estimated based on the NYC ratio of confirmed to probable deaths."^

And do you think it will happen here?

Hopefully not -
"57% of these deaths were in three New York City counties: Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), and Queens."

"Children already harmed by the opioid epidemic and living with grandparents might be disproportionately affected by COVID."

From the report, just over 1,000 children in NYS lost a parent or grandparent to a drug-related death over 5 months in 2018.

@cbt944

And what qualifications do the lockdown fanatics have in economics, mental health, oncology, psychology, social policy, malnutrition and paediatrics?

What the lockdown fanatics forget is that COVID is not the only issue in the world. There are many other areas that lockdowns affect, many of which are far more serious than Coronavirus.

@Ecosse

Maybe pop off a line to all the leaders of all the countries all over the world who are taking a global pandemic seriously, and let them know it is 'not the only issue in the world'. They really are clueless! Address them as 'Lockdown Fanatics' while you're at it, so they know you are onto them and have some better solutions, like getting rid of people who are... not you.

@cbt944

Which country apart from Israel currently has a national lockdown in place? Even Spain have realised that this is simply not a sustainable measure.

There's a lot of sad statistics out there, when you care to look. 1.7 million AIDS orphans in South Africa, 1.2 million in Mozambique and similar figures in neighbouring countries.
Yes I know this is whataboutery but the numbers make the 4200 pale into insignificance. Not only covid matters. Why have I never seen anyone on here emoting about those children?

@Ecosse

I think you are confusing yourself. I have zero interest in keeping tabs on who is in lockdown; I am not in lockdown; you are the one who has decided anyone who is not a Covid eugenicist must be, in your words, a 'lockdown fanatic'. Strange conflation, in my view.

Why have I never seen anyone on here emoting about those children?

Because no one gives a fuck about non western children basically. Especially not those who are disadvantaged by diseases that we could do something about but don't bother our arses (i.e. not Covid).

As said earlier, of course there are a range of other important issues that impact children and families, but as this is a coronavirus board we are discussing the impact of this particular issue. It doesn't mean we don't care about other issues. I am obviously not "only" worried about the 4200 children in New York who have lost parents. I am worried about the wider impact of coronavirus deaths on children.

Attitudes that minimise the virus's impact or danger on certain populations who are identified as clinically low risk is not productive. We need to keep the rates low precisely because it is only when the rates are low that we can carry on with as minimal impact to daily life as possible. Not sure why those like me are labeled as lockdown enthusiasts. Does anyone actually enjoy lockdown? I certainly don't, but I'm very worried that if we do not manage to control this virus because so many people have the view that it won't directly affect them that we will end up back there.

@Whatshouldicallme - I would suggest that those who want others to take the virus seriously should stop trying to panic them by spouting random, poorly analysed numbers at them. Also, try to explain how you can both keep rates low and carry on with minimal impact to daily life - especially to the millions of people who may not be locked down at the moment, but nor are they employed, because their livelihoods don’t count as part of the normal life which will not be impacted. Is there any way to make travel and tourism safe? How about cinemas, theatres, restaurants, pubs? How about seeing relatives, or getting close enough to touch anybody? What on earth is remotely safe about a soft play area? That’s where my children caught every single vomiting bug they have ever had to date, and chickenpox...

I don't think it is possible to carry on with truly minimal impact to daily life, we are in the middle of a global pandemic that is having serious ramifications across the globe. It is just the situation we are in unfortunately. We have to cope as best we can whilst admitting that it is a situation that is likely to persist and impact us significantly for at least the immediate future regardless of what we do. But -- there will inevitable be better/less damaging and worse/more damaging ways to handle it.

I think there is a lot of room for discussion around what we can do to live with it in the best way possible, we could start by looking at countries that are managing the situation more effectively than we are. But the first step is recognising that everyone will be affected negatively by widespread circulation of the this virus for a range of reasons.

Minimising the situation and just getting on with it because you are a) tired of it b) perceive that you and yours are low risk and c) assume that it is only a problem for the old/very sick/people you don't know or care about is going to lead to worse outcomes across the board for all of society.

A number of comments on this board seem to be trying to minimise the impact of COVID on children and families because there is a perception that as a group they are low risk, with the indication that we shouldn't worry about widespread circulation in these groups. I am just pointing out that for various reasons, including a large number of childen who will be left without parents if a very large number are infected, this is not logical thinking.

Having a serious discussion about covid is a necessity. This is not"trying to panic people".

We need to look at how life can continue while keeping rates low as possible.

People have to make their own risk assessments, it may be that many people will feel soft play for example isn''t where they want to be right now, even if it's open. That is reasonable in a pandemic.

On the one hand, we can't guarantee that everywhere is safe. On the other hand, neither can businesses carry on just the way they were before.

I hope that one day soon life will be more like the old normal. Till then we most likely have to adapt and change how we do things a bit, unfortunately.

It is not reasonable to want people to stop having a reasonable conversation about this, on a discussion board.

@herecomesthsun - but nobody is stopping reasonable discussion. I would argue a reasonable discussion is unlikely to happen on the back of an article that can easily be picked apart and has nothing new in it that we can learn from. We already know that the pandemic is going to cause immense suffering and poverty even if we do reduce the number of deaths directly attributable to it, because either way, our economies are being wrecked by it; and that in an impoverished world, being without one or both parents puts you even closer to the bottom of the pile of good fortune. How can anyone do their own risk assessment, though, if those arguing they want a serious discussion are also arguing it is unhelpful to talk about relative risk to different groups?! Obviously, those who accurately perceive themselves to be less at risk will visit soft play areas more, or pubs, or restaurants - and this will result in the virus circulating more amongst those groups... So, do you want to stop everyone visiting restaurants and soft play areas, etc, to stop the virus circulating in any groups, or do you want to let these things open with precautions and thus let the virus circulate more amongst the groups of people who were willing to take the increased risks?!

Whatever happens, you can’t stop the virus eventually spreading to the most at risk groups without effective testing, tracking and tracing, unless you close down everyone’s lives or succeed in producing and successfully administering an amazingly effective vaccine to the entire world population.

you can’t stop the virus eventually spreading to the most at risk groups without effective testing, tracking and tracing

No European country has managed that either, despite having good systems. It can work for the likes of South Korea because the government has access to personal data beyond anything that’s legal in Western countries.

Whatever happens, you can’t stop the virus eventually spreading to the most at risk groups without effective testing, tracking and tracing, unless you close down everyone’s lives or succeed in producing and successfully administering an amazingly effective vaccine to the entire world population.

Entire world?! Ultimately yes but counties can be individually made much safer with the measures you mention. And none of it is particularly unreasonable to expect.

@Woundedadmiral

refactory

Read the first line of the post above. Forget standard deviation unless you're a psychopath which I'd like to think you're not. A small percentage of a colossally high number is still s high number. That's meaningful. Unless to you it just.. Isn't. Fortunately I don't think yours is the majority view.

I would really like you to answer this question. If I am to be extremely upset about these 4,000 orphans in New York (which is certainly upsetting, I"m not dismissing it), how am I supposed to feel about the 9 million people, mostly children, who die of starvation in developing countries every year?

What would you like me to do about these things?

@Woundedadmiral

Whatever happens, you can’t stop the virus eventually spreading to the most at risk groups without effective testing, tracking and tracing, unless you close down everyone’s lives or succeed in producing and successfully administering an amazingly effective vaccine to the entire world population.

Entire world?! Ultimately yes but counties can be individually made much safer with the measures you mention. And none of it is particularly unreasonable to expect.

How would you define 'safe'?

@Refractory

What would you like me to do about these things?

Start a new thread and stop derailing this one. Thanx.