gewehr44

gewehr44 t1_iuavmd4 wrote

Kids were never at risk. Something like 60% of kids never showed symptoms after contracting it (as opposed to 35-40% overall). As a respiratory virus, everyone was going to be exposed eventually. Numbers out of the UK earlier in the year showed well over 90% of those under 18 with antibodies.

CT laws prohibits any school districts funding to be less than the previous year. If you actually look at school funding, the annual increases in spending far exceed the inflation rate by about 3x over the last 50 years. Any failures in school improvements aren't due to lack of funds. Go look at the towns in Fairfield county that are majority R, you'll see high spending per student.

If you want fewer children to die you could simply ban all motor vehicles. About 600 kids under 13 die in motor vehicle accidents compared to less than 50 firearm murders of all types.

Also... Not a republican.

1

gewehr44 t1_iuauz9b wrote

Children are not only less likely to catch covid, they are less likely to spread it. How did so many countries in Europe keep their schools open without becoming charnel houses? Simple, there was never much risk

https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-12-25/children-covid-19-coronavirus-spread-transmission-immune/13012550

0

gewehr44 t1_iu94n8e wrote

Kids were never at risk of dying. 80% of deaths were people over 65.

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/what-share-of-people-who-have-died-of-covid-19-are-65-and-older-and-how-does-it-vary-by-state/

You don't get learning time back. A child's brain plasticity only lasts so long.

5