A thought experiment about children

[Chessie678]

Imagine that pre-covid there is a mother with a 6 year old son.

She becomes very scared of the child getting or spreading “diseases”. For this reason she keeps the child inside most of the time and does not let him play with other children. She tells him to stay away from others in case he infects them and makes him change his clothes and scrub his hands whenever he has been outside. She doesn’t take him on trips and the only time they go out is to walk around their local neighbourhood. He is not allowed to attend any clubs or play sport.

The mother’s behaviour escalates and she begins to keep her son off school for long periods of time, citing the risk of “diseases”. She stops contact with the child’s grandparents and cousins, telling the child that he might murder his grandmother if they see her. If he gets ill she locks him in his room and brings food to the door.

Sometimes she will send him back to school for a period but makes him wear a mask and tells him not to touch anything or get too near another child.

Having worked with vulnerable children in the past, I think this scenario would far exceed the threshold for social services intervention and suggests severe mental health issues in the mother.

Clearly the rationale for how we are treating children at the moment is different in that the threat from covid is much more severe than the threat from the “diseases” which the mother is concerned about but the treatment of the child is essentially the same in either case.

People on here often say that children are resilient and adaptable and I agree that they can be. But the idea that subjecting a child to this sort of treatment could make them stronger is rose tinted at best – more often abuse in childhood leaves scars which carry through into adulthood.

My view is that the end doesn’t justify the means so far as children are concerned i.e. there are some things which you should never do to children however noble the goal is. I am very concerned that we have started to normalise the current restrictions – just today I have seen posters on here claim that it doesn’t matter if children don’t have any social interaction with other children or any education for months at a time.

I’m aware that many mothers on here will have done everything they can to mitigate the impacts of covid on their children so I’m not trying to say that all children are being abused or will be scarred by this but I do think that what we are doing to children as a society is completely unethical and will have serious long-term effects for many.

OP, I'm wondering how you would paint the picture of an NHS hospital worker parent or a carer. Are they to be thought mentally ill, abusive, or sensibly cautious if they have been separating themselves from the rest of their family living in a caravan or sleeping in a tent so that they can still go to increasingly overwhelming work for the great need of their patients and their own financial circumstances? If they quarantine their work clothes and keys? If they do X number of long shifts on the trot and don't really have a lot of time with their children when either are awake?

Perhaps they may be legitimately terrified or driven to desperation at the need to isolate the child at a moment's notice because of cases too close for comfort in school and the above non-negotiable work. Do they call in grandparents to do the childcare, because there are no other options? How do they make that choice?

None of the above are hypothetical or a thought experiment. A lot of families are really having to live like this. We're depending on them. Trying to make this experience shorter and not worse than it is already for all ages and health states (spoiler alert...it's very bad just now) is something to which many (not all) children can contribute as well as adults.

But acting like one has been living on another planet for 10 months and all of a sudden being startled and worried as if it were unclear why these measures (and harder ones even in other countries) are being taken is odd. What are you trying to achieve OP? Maybe try and spell out what alternatives have you thought of

I don’t want to speak for the OP. But for me it’s about acknowledging that for many children and young people there will be considerable fallout from this - in mental health terms, educational outcomes, general well-being (obesity, chronic health issues) or whatever - rather than spouting platitudes about resilience and adaptability and ‘everyone being in the same boat’ (which we patently aren’t). At the moment there seems to be an insistence by individuals on here that their own children are fine, and a refusal to even countenance the suggestion that many less privileged kids might not be.

There will be numerous issues and challenges when we emerge from the crisis we’re in now; friends working in child mental health and SALT are seeing some of them already. People on MN love bringing up the WW2 analogy so I’ll use it here: once the war ended there was a new Social Contract, a massive effort to rebuild and repair, to create a strong, peaceful and more equable and inclusive society. We will need to come up with something similar in order to avoid massive generational injustice going forward and ensuring that ‘Generation COVID’ has the support they need to complete their education, find jobs, address mental health challenges etc.

But with our current government and society’s lack of collective will I have little faith that any of this will actually happen.

@TempsPerdu
You put that better than I could. Almost every time anyone on here mentions that their child is struggling or queries restrictions as they affect children they get told children are resilient and adaptable / you need to be more resilient / children nowadays are snowflakes and aren't resilient.

And I'm sure all of us are trying very hard to be resilient and adaptable and that some children are managing that too. But if this was normal times and a child had been treated the way we are now treating children (which is what my OP was aiming to demonstrate) our response would not be so dismissive.

@Ormally
I'm not trying to say that all parents are mentally ill or abusive for following the rules. I follow them 99% of the time myself and don't think I am either of those things. It's not a perfect analogy in that respect. And no I don't think the NHS worker is abusive. In part the scenario in the OP is so abusive because of all of the elements of it put together rather than because asking a child to change when they come in etc. is abusive in itself. The affect on the NHS worker's child may still be bad though even if their actions are necessary. (I don't actually see that there would be much point in a parent isolating themselves from a healthy child though because children aren't going to be vaccinated and with 1 in 30 infected at the moment I don't think it's plausible that children will avoid getting covid indefinitely unless they are shielding).

...a refusal to even countenance the suggestion that many less privileged kids might not be.

But that is not what the op and her thought experiment is talking about is it.

. At the moment there seems to be an insistence by individuals on here that their own children are fine, and a refusal to even countenance the suggestion that many less privileged kids might not be.

That's not it, with my comments. I believe, passionately, it would be extremely insincere to bang on about my own hardship during this pandemic simply because other people do have it so much worse! It is part of my acknowledgment of that prompts me to insist that we have to acknowledge positives where we can. It is not 'platitudes'. One thing I absolutely hated when I had cancer were the 'head tilters' and 'grief vampires' who used me as a means of virtue signalling. As soon as I was well, again, their attention towards me was dropped rather rapidly...

I completely agree. Just because it could be worse, doesn't make it ok.

Children have been forced to make the biggest sacrifice in this pandemic for a generation who will likely not live to thank them in the future. They have had a year of their lives essentially taken from them.

Like adults, they can't keep in touch on social media, they can't meet for a walk with 1 friend, they can't access mental health or wellbeing support online. It's hard enough for adults, it's much harder for children.

They may be resilient, they may bounce back, but they may not. We could have a whole generation of kids who could be paying for this long into their future emotionally and mentally depending on how their individually household dealt with covid.

I saw someone say kids evacuated in the war dealt with it. They didn't. It caused long lasting effect and high suicide rates in their 20s. Similarly to the 'forgotten' generation in Australia who were also stolen from their parents. This is absolutely not as bad, but it is likely to lead to issues in the future.

You cannot truly believe that the first lockdown and this lockdown won't have a detrimental effect on wellbeing of children - especially those homeschooling - even with all the things we do as parents to try make it easier.

@TempsPerdu, I think you make an excellent point about the aftermath of WW2 (people keep drawing analogies between Covid and the war). There was indeed an attempt after the war to rearrange society, and the NHS emerged from that.

Let’s hope that when the costs of covid are counted, there is a concerted effort to repair the wrongs inflicted on children and young people during this time.

The thing about 5yr olds is important and I would say 5-11 year olds in England have it worse than anyone else other than those sheilding. They cannot meet their friends and everyone else can (one at a time outside for exercise) Those shielding are not meeting for their own benefit but as a society we have asked 5-11year old only children to take the most strict restriction on their freedom for the benefit of society. This does need thinking about - what sort of society places the most stringent social restrictions on primary school aged children?

(I’ve picked 11 as a ballpark figure when a child becomes old enough to go out on their own)

@Toomuchtodo21

The thing about 5yr olds is important and I would say 5-11 year olds in England have it worse than anyone else other than those sheilding. They cannot meet their friends and everyone else can (one at a time outside for exercise) Those shielding are not meeting for their own benefit but as a society we have asked 5-11year old only children to take the most strict restriction on their freedom for the benefit of society. This does need thinking about - what sort of society places the most stringent social restrictions on primary school aged children?

(I’ve picked 11 as a ballpark figure when a child becomes old enough to go out on their own)

Exactly this (from the parent of a five year old only child).

It s not normal times

What do you suggest op?

Keep mingling children ? (There seemed to be plenty meeting up in the park today anyway ..under 10 s running around together with parents chatting slightly apart )

This is the equivalent of a huge experiment that would never get past an ethic committee. Developmentally the younger the child the bigger the damage. We have one year olds with no experience of seeing unmasked faces outside of their own immediate family at home. Two year olds who have never had contact with other children. Three year olds that have been told that other children are dangerous. Four year olds that will be starting school by sitting watching a screen at home. Children are resilient in the sense that they will survive but there is a vast array of evidence that it is important for their social and psychological development to socialize with others. We are now experimenting on them and the results of the experiment will be unfolded soon...

Billie18

Developmentally the younger the child the bigger the damage. We have one year olds with no experience of seeing unmasked faces outside of their own immediate family at home. Two year olds who have never had contact with other children. Three year olds that have been told that other children are dangerous. Four year olds that will be starting school by sitting watching a screen at home. Children are resilient in the sense that they will survive but there is a vast array of evidence that it is important for their social and psychological development to socialize with others. We are now experimenting on them and the results of the experiment will be unfolded soon...

My opinion is that this type of rhetoric is hugely damaging. How would you feel if you were declared damaged, pretty much beyond repair? Yes, our children have experienced something very different to other generations of children but they are still wonderful, brilliant, amazing children! We need to work with this and their unique experiences rather than condemn them!

I do feel like the younger generation are being sacrificed for the older, but I don't know what the answer is. I don't want to sacrifice the older generation for the younger either.

@Billie18

This is the equivalent of a huge experiment that would never get past an ethic committee. Developmentally the younger the child the bigger the damage. We have one year olds with no experience of seeing unmasked faces outside of their own immediate family at home. Two year olds who have never had contact with other children. Three year olds that have been told that other children are dangerous. Four year olds that will be starting school by sitting watching a screen at home. Children are resilient in the sense that they will survive but there is a vast array of evidence that it is important for their social and psychological development to socialize with others. We are now experimenting on them and the results of the experiment will be unfolded soon...

I agree and it’s so concerning. I have a 13 month old and developed severe PND which is better but still struggling. My child’s first year has been beyond horrific for most people and they haven’t had the chance to socialise, meet family, experience any of the normal things children should. They’re alive and well and DH and I are trying our best but it’s time we and others will never get back and it breaks my heart. But they don’t matter because it’s not about covid. And if I do try to go out and god forbid go for a coffee and a walk with a friend I’m accused of killing old people.

CoughtInTheCovid. You are allowed to go for a coffee and walk with a friend. Do you have any friends with babies/toddlers? I believe play parks are still open. Would be good for you all. Having children you have to get used to peoples judgments try and develop a thick skin and do whats best for you and your baby.

@HazeyJaneII
As a thought experiment I agree it’s flawed, but I think the sentiment is the same because at its heart it’s about deprivation.

Thankfully very few, if any, parents are going to the extremes described in the OP (although based on things I’ve read on here and seen irl I do think we may end up with a generation of germ-phobic, hyper-vigilant young people)

But as a society we are depriving babies of their extended family, and of the basic tools they need to develop socially and linguistically (limited sensory experience outside the home; widespread mask-wearing potentially affecting communication skills - anecdotally friends in SALT say they are already seeing an uptick in referrals of toddlers where this has been an issue)

We are depriving toddlers and preschoolers of the social contact they need to develop normally, and the life experience they need to make sense of the world and be ready to access formal education.

We are depriving school-aged children of education and replaced face to face hobbies and friendships with Zoom calls, pretending (often to ourselves) that these are an adequate alternative.

We are depriving teens of the opportunity to develop agency and strike out on their own, isolating them from their peers at a time when they are hardwired to seek out social contact.

Given the circumstances many would argue that all this is a necessary and proportionate response - indeed, all over Mumsnet today there are calls to crack down even more; to close playgrounds again; to ban kids from all shops; to close nurseries to all but key workers. But we need to acknowledge what young people are sacrificing, and to plan for how to support them when all this is done.

@Umbongoumbongo999

Imagine this as a thought experiment:

Children didnt go to school, they had the pressures of school, conflicts, suffocating structure reduced. They did PE with Joe Wicks instead of being picked last for the school team. They weren't shipped to 18 different activities per week. They got to spend time with mum and dad, and their siblings.

They read books, and played imaginative games, and built complex worlds on animal crossing and Minecraft. They baked, and did crafts. They got really good at jigsaws.

They became experts at using technologies, to learn, play and connect with their friends and family. They went for lots of walks. They dropped care packages for their neighbours and applauded key workers from their doorsteps.

They didnt see their grandparents, but dad explained that was important to keep granny safe. They wore masks if they were over the age of 11, and they were old enough to understand that the masks helped to reduce transmission of the virus that noone could see, but everyone knew about.

They washed their hands. To be fair, they should have been washing their hands anyway, but still. They knew that all of the changes in their lives were part of a national effort to keep them, and their communities safe.

This thought experiment is just as true as the OP, and just as false.

Well replied 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

Thanks @Billie18 I know you can and I have where possible but it’s similar to the threads of people perfectly legally using school places and being hounded because they don’t NEED to and why not just stay home. I feel guilty and like people will think I’m taking the piss. I didn’t do antenatal classes as we moved shortly after the baby was born and was going to make friends at baby groups...that worked well. I tried online groups but they were crap. It’s been a tough year.

CoughtInTheCovid. You are allowed to go for a coffee and walk with a friend

Two women have just been fined for doing the exact same thing

I think we need to move away from the narrative that we're sacrificing young for old, were sacrificing to allow hospitals to function. If there are no ICU beds anyone who needs an operation, regardless of age is in trouble.

There are arguments about how we could have avoided being in this position, but right now the virus is out of control and hospitals are filling up fast. The other concern is people in hospital without covid are at greater risk. MIL went into hospital following a fall just before Christmas, found out today she has contracted covid and is on oxygen. She has alzheimer's, so you could argue she's very ill anyway, but still in hospital needing treatment. I'm sure if we didn't have covid she would have been home by now because FIL would have been able to visit.

Anyway short of refusing to treat people like her and sending her home malnourished and dehydrated (which was how she arrived in hospital) I don't see how we can avoid the current strain on hospitals demanding that schools are closed.

Definitely interesting to think about. I often wonder what the knock on effects will be.

Umbongoumbongo999

Absolutely fucking brilliant ! Someone who actually gets 'social responsibility' and 'making the best of things'

If I hear one more person say ...

"I (insert selfish reason for not staying home when actually possible to do so ) because I'm at my wits end/stressed/bored.."

Or is 80k dead not enough for most of you ?

As to what we could do, even if you accept the basic premise that we need to lockdown and close schools, we could still allow some small things for children which would make their lives better. People have made the point about children age 5+ not being allowed to meet another child. You could exclude them from the two person limit. You could allow children in the same bubble at school to meet outside of school if you wanted to go a bit further. You could scrap 2m distancing for children, as they have in Scotland (this actually makes quite a big difference to classes being able to run etc. and to the narrative children are being fed about having to stay away from other children). In the last lockdown baby classes were allowed to run but they are not now. You could allow one bubble for every household rather than just for parents with children under 1. These things might all affect the spread of covid a bit but I think the trade off would be worth it.

Personally I think the lockdown policy has been a disaster across Europe and that we will end up in just as bad position as if we hadn't done it but we are where we are and it's not going to change now. I don't think there is a good answer here - just that if the answer involves treating children in a way which would usually be considered abusive it is wrong.

@CaughtInTheCovid

I sympathise as I am in a similar position to you with a slightly younger baby, though I do have the benefit of some local friends with babies which helps a lot. It's really hard however positive you try to be - you're trying to be everything to your baby all the time.

What I would say is that people in real life have not seemed in the least bit interested in judging me while I am out and about. Someone came up to me in the supermarket the other day and I thought (probably due to too much reading on here) that they were going to tell me off for having a baby with me but they were coming to tell me that my baby was beautiful. People also keep telling me that young children are less affected because the most important thing to them is their relationship with their primary caregiver so I'm trying to hold onto that.

I don’t think you understand mental health, Tricky boy.

‘80k dead not good enough?’

No, of course the selfish depressed pricks want to go higher. They love it. It’s ‘not enough’ for them.

Just out of interest, how did wealthy kids in Victorian times cope? I'm sure there will be historians along with more info, but I get the impression that many (especially girls who didn't go to boarding school) had pretty isolated childhoods, with prolonged periods of no socialising with other kids.