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.

Great post @Sevensilverrings

Also agree with DameFanny

All the protect the vulnerable nonsense - what they're really saying is let me do what I want and people who have a different health status/ skin colour / age than me need to accept life for THEM and THEM only will be really shit, they'll essentially be locked away.

What does this remind you of in history? Saying people with certain characteristics deserve worse treatment than everyone else?

What kind of society are children SEEING when they see adults advocating disablist, racist, ageist views like this? Older children in particular can see it for what it is. What happened to community? I think this type of 'herd immunity'/'lock away the 'vulnerable'' argument is far more damaging to children than having things being slightly different for a year or so, having to wear a mask or socially distance.

No-one can guarantee they won't develop an 'underlying' condition at any point. Some of which are completely out of a person's control, however much it might be convenient for the 'lock 'em up' types to think otherwise.

a famous quote from Mahatma Gandhi 'the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members'

It's one of the things that I think has been most damaging to children, actually. The utter selfishness on display by some. The absolute polar opposite of the principles of fairness and kindness that they are generally taught in schools.

[quote Wishing14]@Bing12 the censorship is getting ridiculous[/quote]
It really is! Where are the newspaper articles reporting the realities of what is happening in our hospitals? Instead we are hearing more about Trump and how bad it is in America.

False information however is rife! Anything that causes confusion and makes people doubt themselves regarding the realities of life in a global pandemic encouraged.

We need to see more about the realities and where we are heading. We should expect to see stories and voices encouraging the down-playing of the need to stay home silenced. They’re dangerous and we should be angry and call them out.

@firstimemamma

Yanbu op. I know a toddler who hasn't seen another child at all since March last year and I do believe long-term damage has been done there. And we're not allowed to mention or acknowledge the damage at all because of the virus. It's so sad. The virus isn't all that matters imo.

That is their parent's choice though. Children's activities have been open for much of the year. My children have done gymnastics, swimming etc.

This is... so stupid. Carry on with your thought experiments inside your heads, people. Let's deal with the reality of a pandemic.

Like do you actually know any people with children? I have a seven year. That’s literally not her experience, and I have never explained she needs to stay away from people in case she kills them. You do know there are age appropriate ways to explain what’s going on? Also in Scotland, she’s not had to social distance with other kids as she’s under 12 so apart from missing school and not seeing people or doing as many things it’s not be the worst experience of her life. She quite liked watching a lot of Disney and things covid is annoying and it’s all a bit sad. That’s it.

I agree having worked in paediatric health and social care roles all my life what is happening to children at the moment completely goes against all my professional and personal beliefs.
Primary aged children are the only group who under current restrictions are not allowed to meet with anyone else outside of their household . They are being told to sit on laptops/ iPads and carry out work in screens . Adults can go out and meet with another person for daily excercise and their mental health yet this age group are not . I find it incredibly concerning and discriminating .

@audweb

Like do you actually know any people with children? I have a seven year. That’s literally not her experience, and I have never explained she needs to stay away from people in case she kills them. You do know there are age appropriate ways to explain what’s going on? Also in Scotland, she’s not had to social distance with other kids as she’s under 12 so apart from missing school and not seeing people or doing as many things it’s not be the worst experience of her life. She quite liked watching a lot of Disney and things covid is annoying and it’s all a bit sad. That’s it.

Yes but that's Scotland that is not our experience in England unfortunately.

What pediatric health and social care roles @Allhallowseve? What's the range of your experience?

just grow up. Our children are incredibly privileged. Anyone who has lived or worked in poorer areas of the world knows that the children they met there are unlikely ever in their wildest dreams to even hope that they can be half as comfortable, healthy, secure, well entertained, well educated or well nourished as 99% of the UK children are during lock down.

Our kids, even in lock down, are among the richest and best off in the world

The thought experiment is flawed, although I do agree with the main thrust of the sentiment. I’m particularly concerned about the mental health fallout and the social and educational inequality that will inevitably widen as a result of school closures, and which the government in its current callous, incompetent incarnation is unlikely to do much about.

But tbh I’m less concerned about school aged kids than I am about toddlers and preschoolers. Older kids can grasp the severity of the situation to some extent; you can reason and discuss it with them, talk about empathy, build resilience; they can use Zoom to keep in touch with their friends (a poor substitute but better than nothing); they can focus on hobbies and interests, read, watch films, make art...

Younger children’s brains are developing at lightning speed, and they learn mainly through physical experience. There is a relatively brief developmental window for each new ‘skill’ they need to learn. They can’t use tech to learn or interact socially. Many of them - especially those not in nursery/preschool - aren’t having the same life experiences that other cohorts have had, and which are built on when they start formal education (so much of the Early Years curriculum is based on tapping into prior life experience). They’re not being taken into shops and cafes, on public transport, to the library, swimming etc. Their world, in many cases, is restricted to their (currently often stressed and preoccupied) nuclear family, their house, garden (if they’re lucky) and park. And they don’t understand why.

Before covid we already had many issues with children not being ‘school-ready’, lacking the necessary independence, knowledge and understanding of the world and social and communication skills to thrive in formal education. Covid is going to put that crisis on steroids, especially if nurseries close again and parents are trying to WFH while attempting to occupy small children.

What sort of damage will be done to the child I know whose 42 year old father is currently on a ventilator with the family being told to expect the worst?

You’re talking about a delusional parent with a mental health condition versus a very real risk - have you seen the hospitalisation and death figures lately?

Bringing a child up to be terrified of any bug or germs is rather different to raising a child to be cautious of a virus that’s hospitalising and killing thousands a day isn’t it?

No one on this thread has denied that covid is real or that the current situation with the NHS is very serious. I acknowledge that in my first post. I was prompted to post this now because the covid situation is so bad at the moment that I can see it being used to justify further restrictions on children’s lives and I think a conversation about how much damage we are doing and whether it is justified are necessary.

I think there are two key questions which will affect how people respond to this:

1. Are the restrictions doing serious damage to children?
2. Are the restrictions on children achieving a greater good by “saving the NHS” or “saving lives”?

I am of the view that the restrictions have the potential to do a lot of damage to a very large number of children (accepting that there are also children who seem to have managed ok or even flourished and that parental response and attitude can affect this). In fact, I think the restrictions have the potential to cross the line into abuse and that that cannot be justified even for a “greater good”.

I am also of the view that the specific restrictions on children I have mentioned are not doing a very good job of saving the NHS or saving lives i.e. children are being damaged for little if any benefit to society. But that is a factual question which is really for another thread.

If you think that the restrictions are not that damaging to children and / or that the restrictions are successfully fulfilling their aims you are more likely to think they are reasonable. For example, some have said that they think, although the treatment of children would usually be abusive, in the context of a pandemic it is not abusive because it protects society - that is a means justifying ends argument. Some have said that they don't think the restrictions are actually that damaging anyway.

Everyone presumably has a line which they don’t think we should cross to control covid, even if it is different to mine. Let’s say SAGE comes up with these policy suggestions:

• Ban all outside exercise;
• Close parks;
• Forcibly send children away to isolation camps where they are each put in a separate cell until the pandemic is over.

All might help to control covid to different extents. Hopefully no one would support the third option. Some might support the first two. My point is that no one is going to think that any treatment of children can be justified, however extreme, just because it might reduce covid cases.

For those who reported me or said that we shouldn’t discuss this, I think that is a very dangerous precedent. My post doesn’t contain any information so it is not misinformation. Are we really at the point where we should not even discuss whether restrictions are justified and / or damaging any more? What happens if something which you think is abusive is proposed (like the child isolation camp scenario)? Should you not be allowed to discuss it either because this might impact on our covid response?

For those who have said that the scenario is implausible, 80% of it probably reflects law or official guidance which all children will be subject to (as someone said it is now illegal for a 6 year old to play with another child while supervised by their parents). The rest is to do with the mother’s anxieties and the way she communicates, which I agree is a significant factor. I have seen everything in the post suggested on here, or in real life or in the news multiple times over the last few months e.g. there have been posts about isolating primary school aged children in their rooms because they were a close contact of someone with covid and apparently tests and trace advises this where children are symptomatic.

The point is that Covid is real not some mother “thinking” up some terrible disease

Let’s say SAGE comes up with these policy suggestions:
-Ban all outside exercise;
-Close parks;
-Forcibly send children away to isolation camps where they are each put in a separate cell until the pandemic is over.

This is not a thought experiment. This is scaremongering fuckwittery. Stop it for fuck's sake @Chessie678

e.g. there have been posts about isolating primary school aged children in their rooms because they were a close contact of someone with covid and apparently tests and trace advises this where children are symptomatic.

Guidance says an adult should isolate with a young child. Your point is pointless

It’s a parents job (along with school) to ensure children understand the situation in child friendly way. Same as any other awful situation like the Manchester bombing for example. This should ensure the damage that potentially could be caused is limited and actually makes them a more understanding sympathetic individual.

I can't believe so many people are misunderstanding the OP.
Parents, family and friends getting sick and dying is indeed part of the trauma of the pandemic.
OP wasn't advocating rule breaking re: masks or pandemic restrictions, she was hypothesizing that in different circumstances imposing the same rules on kids would be seen as damaging to them. The intention behind masks on the child is different, but the outcome could be the same.

And what will happen to the child who chokes and can't be treated because we've run out of medics "2.Are the restrictions on children achieving a greater good by “saving the NHS” or “saving lives”?"

I agree with you OP

From summer onwards, children were able to lead relatively normal lives, more so than adults. Children's sporting activities were open and remained so when most adult activities were restricted. My children attended dance/gymnastics/drama classes except for in the November lockdown. They couldn't gather for things like parties but could meet in groups up to 6 outdoors and even indoors some of the time - we were able to have one or two children over for playdates some of the time and have been able to meet in the park, etc Children were able to attend school as normal. Arguably that's what has worsened the situation now.

Yes, it's tough on kids but a global pandemic is completely different to the theoretical situation in the OP which is one individual parent with a mental health issue.

I actually think it's harder for young adults. I see the effects more in my 21 year old DSC than in my primary-aged DC. At that age life is all about mixing, getting different experiences, socialising, making life choices. Younger DC tend to be most adaptable and spend more time at home anyway. It's not the way most of us would choose but the only times when they have been completely isolated were March until June/July and from now until whenever some restrictions ease. We don't know how long that will be, but in the grand scheme of things it will be months out of their childhood.

Also, many posters are saying that children in western countries are relatively privileged in a world context. That is very true, and should be acknowledged. But it’s also true that MN is something of privileged middle-class echo chamber, and what posters’ kids are getting at home is not necessarily typical of the wider population. There are many, many kids who are currently stuck at home being largely ignored while stressed out, desperate or dysfunctional parents scrabble about trying to earn a living, deal with their own mental health issues and so on.

And it’s not just the previously vulnerable families this stuff is happening in; I know of two new school refusers who have not set foot in school since March because their parents took the ‘Stay at Home/This Virus Doesn’t Discriminate’ message so literally that they are now germ-phobic and terrified to leave the house. No clinical vulnerabilities - just the knock-on effect of the government and their own parents’ fear messaging.

But @herethereandeverywhere she's making the point that the restrictions are abusive and shouldn't be happening. Which is a pointless thing to do when there's an actual pandemic on.

And as other posters have said, chemotherapy is abusive if you don't have cancer. Throwing a child out of a car is abusive unless the car is about to go over a cloud.

It's not a thought experiment because there's bugger-all thought behind it. Just Daily Mail-style sadface hand wringing with no fucking point to it.

*cliff, not cloud. Though that would also be perilous...

@DameFanny
Clearly, I'm not suggesting that SAGE will propose policies about sending children to isolation camps. I'm saying that for most people that would be too far even if it was helpful in controlling covid.

I think that there is a valid discussion to be had about whether what we are doing now, though less extreme, is already too far.

@herethereandeverywhere
Thank you. Exactly. There is a different justification behind the current rules than to the mother's behaviour in the OP but the treatment of children (or some children) is similar in either case. So is a change in context or rationale enough to justify what would otherwise be abuse? The question clearly divides the crowd.