What a fantastic article

[Redbrickwall]

www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-moral-degeneracy-of-sacrificing-children-on-the-altar-of-covid/?fbclid=IwAR2Sf7hiL3Ma_yxMrFjBefd0wj-PUWOJKToPQ9KGEUoRz71DnJFUph94g3A

Terrible article. Written by a covid ghoul - the sort of person responsible for the mess we are in now. The terrible mistakes of listening to Heneghan and Gupta, and locking down too late,

Thanks for your contribution @herecomesthsun

Insightful.

Maybe you’d rather not face what we are doing to our children. Maybe you are one of the extremely distasteful “progressives” that spouts that ‘children are resilient’. Maybe you just give a shit about yourself and not society’s children.

Even Dr Jenny tonight reiterated that schools are not responsible for high levels of transmission. So why are they closed?

Quite honestly, all the parents who supported and even squealed for schools to be closed are a disgrace to their children

Are you living under a rock @hamstersarse? Who the hell are you to tell parents they should be ashamed? Are you part of usforthem?

I don't rate Dr Jenny, too much of what she said in previous months was later discredited.

I would like schools funded to be safer and then re-opened.

We need to listen to the WHO and SAGE and manage infections well.

They haven't closed schools for fun. It's to save people from actual, you know, DEATH.
Education can be caught up. Finances can be recovered. Death is it - the end.
Some children are missing seeing their friends, some are loving learning online. Some children's mental health has improved with lockdown. Some children's mental health has worsened. Most are somewhere in the middle.
Learning from home is not forever. Death is.
Look at the hospitals - we cannot just let schools go back. Children in schools are a massive contribution to COVID infection rates in their communities - look at the SAGE reports.

When I saw the title & that it was in Conservative Woman I knew it’d be Laura Perrins. Can’t stand the woman; even when she might have a point she goes so OTT in presenting it & is so permanently outraged that she undermines any validity it may have had. She’s less overtly racist than Katy Hopkins but from a very similar mould imo

Thankfully her TV appearances seem to be less frequent than they were so I can only assume her writing is the main vehicle for her catharsis now. I won’t be giving her the click

[quote Flyonawalk]@FOJN I agree that some figures in the article would encourage the reader to really think. Such as, the fact (I am looking for the source...I read it today) that more under sixties died in road accidents in 2019 than died of covid in 2020.[/quote]
This is not true, though. That 'source' bases its claim on those under 60 who have died with no underlying conditions, because that kind of agenda doesn't care to count people with conditions (including mild ones like psoriasis and broken femur.) Even if they were still to claim the comparison, they would have to show how many of the under 60s who died in road accidents did not have underlying conditions, too, and they haven't bothered to do that, because they prefer to use the deaths of people with conditions when they support their agenda.

Thousands of under 60s have died of Covid.

Average road deaths in one year - 1700 (including all over 60s, but of course they don't matter, do they.)

It's a terrible article.

Just lol at a Tory suddenly being all faux concerned about education, mental health and poverty. If they really were then austerity wouldn't have sunk us as low as it had and the NHS might have had a chance of coping a little more with this.

Her arguments are poor, straw man after straw man, shallow hyperbole and emotive handwriting about things she doesn't actually care about, in order to push her libertarian ideology.

She says this: "You cannot crush the rights of one individual in such a brutal and disproportionate way to save another."

So what does she think would happen if Covid were let to rip freely? Because she is actually saying it's ok to crush the rights of people who don't matter some by not having lockdown measures, in order to save those adversely affected by lockdown. Now that would be brutal and disproportionate, with many more individuals paying the price for other people's 'rights.'

It is actually possible to believe lockdown measures are necessary and still be worried about their impact. She speaks derogatively of 'lockdown hawks,' tarring all those who don't minimise lockdown and covid itself with one great big hyperbolic brush, making sweeping generalisations about people having no compassion for those it is affecting. To advance her argument she uses emotive accounts from people, as if to say if you advocate for lockdown you don't care about this child's mental health or that person taking their own life. It is as short of nuance as a flat grey line.

Most people actually do care about those affected, and even more, see lockdown as necessary in order to prevent more of these effects over the long term as well as to relieve the burden on health services and save lives of covid patients and other patients.

I would argue that her position is the one reeking of discompassion; she is the one wanting to drag this thing out further, to encourage new mutations, to cause more MH issues across society with mass death and disability.

Shockingly poor article and I call her out for being one of those who encourages people to break rules, and she and others should answer for it.

*handwringing not handwriting!

Well said Madhairday.

@mrshoho

What a self centred, ignorant article.

Agree

I didn't agree with the article. Lockdown is shit, yes. The NHS is overwhelmed as too little too late and that is with some lockdown measures. Money could have been put into schools to make them safer, testing track and trace could have helped back in September, a week's "deprivation" in October could have helped, rather than pissing around the edges and penalising more businesses (and their families with children).

How safe are hospitals for any conditions right now with covid rates so high? Lockdown allows more capacity within hospitals. I have a close relative in a care home, I have kids in school - if anyone could visit in a normal way, how long do you think he'd be alive for? It's a cruel virus. Lockdown is also cruel. So, if this article is saying not to lockdown, then it would be helpful if it provided some measures that would work to enable people's livelihoods to be maintained, visits to elderly, mental health, education, safe working environments, businesses running effectively etc. This article only says lockdown is shit as we are sacrificing our kids (I agree it's shit, but think this lockdown is more than necessary). What measures does the author think should have been taken? As a country we have fucked up massively, looked at why and then done it again. As for morally inept, other than doorstep shopping, I've stayed away from elderly relatives, because I don't want to unwittingly pass something on - it is shit, but it would be more shit if I killed them! How many peoples' mental health is also fucked from having a relative die of covid or having long covid? I'm not saying mental health deterioration due to lockdown is better/worse than mental health due to close relative dying from covid or going into hospital for something else and being finished off by covid or not being able to access treatment as hospitals are overwhelmed. I just can't see any other way right now as we have again done too little too late, and on that note I am willing to sacrifice a bit of education and social contact for kids, but I still hate it.

@confuseddotcom090

Yes. Agree. Denying children an education is what they are doing to cover up the fact that the NHS has been hugely unprepared for a tough winter that was entirely foreseeable given the fact that a nasty new respiratory virus has been known to be in circulation FOR A YEAR NOW.

Totally agree

Education has not been treated as the priority it should be. It’s as important as healthcare

The site is filled with almost stupefyingly bad articles. Which is to say, I can see why it will appeal to some.

@madhairday better put than me! As for the education thing, I'd suggest that this school year, up to now, it was (unsafe) education at all costs to society and think kids were put first in that respect (obviously in an unsafe environment, but not locked down and pretty much bau apart from some token measures). Education, albeit not as good as normal for lots, is still happening now, just not in actual schools for most.

@OwlWearingGlasses

They haven't closed schools for fun. It's to save people from actual, you know, DEATH. Education can be caught up. Finances can be recovered. Death is it - the end. Some children are missing seeing their friends, some are loving learning online. Some children's mental health has improved with lockdown. Some children's mental health has worsened. Most are somewhere in the middle. Learning from home is not forever. Death is. Look at the hospitals - we cannot just let schools go back. Children in schools are a massive contribution to COVID infection rates in their communities - look at the SAGE reports.

This.

@Madhairday

It's a terrible article.

Just lol at a Tory suddenly being all faux concerned about education, mental health and poverty. If they really were then austerity wouldn't have sunk us as low as it had and the NHS might have had a chance of coping a little more with this.

Her arguments are poor, straw man after straw man, shallow hyperbole and emotive handwriting about things she doesn't actually care about, in order to push her libertarian ideology.

She says this: "You cannot crush the rights of one individual in such a brutal and disproportionate way to save another."

So what does she think would happen if Covid were let to rip freely? Because she is actually saying it's ok to crush the rights of people who don't matter some by not having lockdown measures, in order to save those adversely affected by lockdown. Now that would be brutal and disproportionate, with many more individuals paying the price for other people's 'rights.'

It is actually possible to believe lockdown measures are necessary and still be worried about their impact. She speaks derogatively of 'lockdown hawks,' tarring all those who don't minimise lockdown and covid itself with one great big hyperbolic brush, making sweeping generalisations about people having no compassion for those it is affecting. To advance her argument she uses emotive accounts from people, as if to say if you advocate for lockdown you don't care about this child's mental health or that person taking their own life. It is as short of nuance as a flat grey line.

Most people actually do care about those affected, and even more, see lockdown as necessary in order to prevent more of these effects over the long term as well as to relieve the burden on health services and save lives of covid patients and other patients.

I would argue that her position is the one reeking of discompassion; she is the one wanting to drag this thing out further, to encourage new mutations, to cause more MH issues across society with mass death and disability.

Shockingly poor article and I call her out for being one of those who encourages people to break rules, and she and others should answer for it.

And this. Well said.

@hamstersarse

The starting point should have been to comply with the human rights act:

“ Protocol 1, Article 2: Right to education

No person shall be denied a right to an education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

It should have been a non-negotiable. That’s it. Non negotiable. Make it work.

An alternative to closing schools would have been to pour money into proper infection control in hospitals and care homes, seeing as they are the top 2 areas for infection. That is possible. More than possible.

Wouldn’t be an effective alternative. No amount of infection control would stop that. If it’s circulating widely in the community it’s going to get into nursing homes and hospitals.

If you want children in schools, then you will need to close nearly everything else and require businesses to ensure as many people as possible are working from home. Legally if necessary for as long as it takes to get the 30million in groups 1-6 vaccinated with 2 doses of a vaccine.

There are also many children and families benefiting from lockdown- there is no middle ground
It seems. Some are enjoying more time with kids and less stress with travelling and a multitude of extra curricular activities- and some are not. The overly negative rhetoric doesn't necessarily help because not everyone does identify with it. It therefore maybe doesn't have the same impact as it may come across as dramatic, as opposed to a teal issue faced by many families.

That’s not an article. It’s an opinion piece and a poorly informed and hyperbolic one at that.

People like the “article” “writer” seem to miss the fact the virus is doing this to us. Not lockdowns the virus. Letting it rip would cause so much harm too including poor mental health, poor economy due to ill workforce and cancelled nhs services. The chaos would not be good for many children either.

The virus is the problem.

That and those whose views keep encouraging to spread and mutate.

And in answer to a comment above. Investment in sage schools and distancing rather than crammed classes would have been more effective.

Our children thrive with homeschooling and last term in school is the most unsettled they’ve been. You never hear about the children who are happier. We’d had a few issues the previous year of school too.

@hamstersarse

The starting point should have been to comply with the human rights act:

“ Protocol 1, Article 2: Right to education

No person shall be denied a right to an education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

It should have been a non-negotiable. That’s it. Non negotiable. Make it work.

An alternative to closing schools would have been to pour money into proper infection control in hospitals and care homes, seeing as they are the top 2 areas for infection. That is possible. More than possible.

Agreed about infection control. The cynic in me thinks part of furlough will be paid in the reduction of the pension bill. But then I’m reminded that many people may be on disability benefits soon. But the biggest thing of all we could have done would have been to pour money into not letting the virus take root in the country.

I forgot to comment on the answer. Drivvel. What is it with the Tories? Always divide and conquer.