I’m really annoyed by the new talking point which is that “yes, we now know that school lockdowns did more harm than good but when we advocated for closures, we were operating with imperfect information and made the best choice available at that time.”
This is gaslighting of the most primitive kind. I took my kid on the first playdate of the quarantine on April 1, 2020. By that time, I already knew COVID wasn’t dangerous to children. There were already studies – 4 of them at that time – that this was no danger whatsoever to kids. By August 2020, the evidence was absolutely overwhelming that children didn’t suffer from or transmit COVID. I understand being unsure in April, but in August the amount of evidence was absolutely staggering. There was never a single – not one – study showing COVID as dangerous to children. It’s physiologically impossible for it to harm any but the already extremely ill children.
And I’m talking 2020. The people who claim they didn’t have the information that would have let them stop calling for lockdowns in August of 2021 are simply lying. The history of COVID is being rewritten right in front of us. Nobody took responsibility, which enables them to keep lying. “Oh, I didn’t know them what I know now!” Well, if you really didn’t know, you are an incompetent. Why are we still listening to somebody so darn useless?
Crowds of people turned out in the streets in the summer of 2020 to deface a statue of a 17th-century Catholic priest that was supposedly doing great damage to black kids. But when those black kids were saddled with irrecoverable learning loss because of lockdowns, nobody gave a crap.
People should take a long, hard look at themselves.
Clarissa's Blog 
At the very least, everybody working for a public health authority, who makes this claim, needs to be dismissed from employment. They are not doing their job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen to that.
LikeLike
I talked with a colleague a while back. Their child was in high school in 2020/2021 and had a major bout of depression during the lockdowns. I gently suggested that perhaps the lockdowns were not worth it. I got back a lot of anger (Many people would have died if it were not for the school lockdowns!) So, I have no hopes of any kind of introspection from people. For many, the cost was simply too high to even acknowledge that the school lockdowns were unnecessary.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“People should take a long, hard look at themselves.”
Only people with a conscience can and do take a long, hard look at themselves.
These people do not have a conscience, they only follow one law: “As long as my ass is covered everybody else can go to hell!”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Disagree. People with consciences are often the most frightened of what they’ll see when they take a long, hard look at themselves.
The truly amoral are fine with what they see in the mirror. The well-meaning are scared of it. It takes both courage and conscience to look in the mirror. Most people can do it, but only occasionally. More than an occasional look is hard.
LikeLike
The most effective politicians listen to their electorate. I wouldn’t expect anything original from these people beyond reflecting people’s beliefs back to them.
LikeLike
I always thought that the rationale for the lockdowns was not to protect the children themselves but to reduce community spread and protect more vulnerable populations. (This is not to say that I support the lockdowns – ours lasted for a very long time and did a lot of damage. I supported it initially, but they took far too long to change course and reopen the schools.)
LikeLike
Children don’t contribute to the spread. Their viral loads are too small. There were studies done back in March-April of 2020 that already demonstrated that children don’t spread and explained the mechanism why. Those studies were then repeated worldwide throughout the summer-autumn of 2020. The results were always the same.
Grandkids were never any danger to grandma. Never. This was known to scientists pretty much from the get-go.
LikeLike