easyrowrdw
Well-Known Member
Kids getting to go to school in person is living for many of them. It's a gigantic difference for a kid to be in school on the computer versus in person. The American Academy of Pediatrics says its far preferable for kids (especially younger ones) to be at school in person. That is something many kids need. It's also ignoring the data, which finds that schools aren't a major spreader of the virus.The virus does not care ”what is acceptable to the vast majority of people.” Staying home as much as possible (not as much as is comfortable) is not “just existing.” “Living” does not require trips to Disney World, in-person schooling, or even mask-free interactions with others. If we could convince selfish and entitled people to willingly endure some amount of sacrifice and discomfort, we could get the numbers down and reopen things safely.
What you really mean is, I wish you saw things the exact same way that I did. But you aren't the arbiter of what constitutes living for others. (Neither am I or anyone else around here.) People have different needs and there are about 1,000 different theories of personality that try to explain this. For example, my sister needs to be around other people; I don't. Isolation is going to have a more deleterious impact on her than it would on me. So when she gets together with extended family, I get it. I'm not doing it, but I understand why she does.I wish you could see how things are interconnected.
It's obvious that too many people are getting infected. And...? We all understand best practices at this point, but people get to make their decisions. Calling strangers on the internet selfish isn't going to do anything to change that. I wish it would, as it would make this a lot easier.
Last edited: