The quality of the discussion is in parts abysmal. Assertions are thrown into the world without even mentioning a source.
A substantive discussion is therefore not possible. It is just 'opinion porn' imho.
Regardless of whether the pandemic, social media, (real) porn, industrial food, excessive demands at school, any combination thereof or other anecdotes are used as the cause. Nothing is substantiated by linking sources. Or at least naming them.
Whatever is claimed can only be questioned, not refuted, as there is no substantive point of attack.
Thus, in the end, everyone feels good because they were able to express an opinion. But unfortunately we have learned nothing.
The reality is the pandemic fear mongers won't cite fataility rates for groups like 5 year olds, because the data doesn't support steps taken.
They won't cite data about N95 use because N95's DO work, and if we just let people who wanted to / were at risk wear N95's we'd solve half the problem right there without burdening anyone else. And yes, N95's with a vent are fine and should be encouraged because they make mask wearing a LOT easier.
Instead we are just fed endless BS. Citing the CDC and WHO is pointless because their stuff was not actually grounded in science but in BS. Witness their loud announcements that travel restrictions (time honored method to reduce spread) was racist and wouldn't reduce spread. Or that masks don't work etc. You have an airbone disease, masks probably help. You have a transmittable disease, reducing travel may help.
I think we can be a little less confrontational in the discussion. I also believe that it helps not to impute bad intentions to the other side, but to assume that they make mistakes (like every side), but also try to achieve the best possible outcome under the given circumstances and knowledge at the time.
Especially during Corona I think you have to distinguish clearly between politics and science. Science has the great advantage that it does not have to deal with feasibility. It can call out what works best (after appropriate studies have been done with good study design). Does science make mistakes? Sure. Still it is the best methodology we have. Does politics make mistakes. Oh - absolutely. Also probably some politicians wet their pants in regards to the power trip they had. Still - I think the majority tried to do the best they could.
However, especially at the beginning of the pandemic, a lot of what we know today was yet unknown. So a lot of decisions were necessarily wrong in hindsight. but right under the given circumstances and the goals of the people involved.
Was it known that N95 masks (very likely) help? Yes. Were there enough N95 masks available for everybody? Probably not.
When I look at how toilet paper was hoarded in Germany at the beginning of the pandemic and how there was almost nowhere to get toilet paper, the political action was not so stupid. Because N95 masks would have been off the shelves in minutes.
So letting people wear any masks (at least they help a little bit) and let as many people as possible stay at home as much as possible and in public only gather at an appropriate distance. Not too bad an idea when dealing with too few effective masks as a limitation imho.
When enough masks were available, the requirements for masks were tightened (although not enough, in my personal opinion). But again: I know a lot of people who think wearing masks is important, but have a hard time wearing N95/FFP2 but are fine with surgical masks due to for example panic attacks. The fact that currently quite a few public places like universities demand FFP2/N95 to be worn permanently makes for a bad situation for these people as they can't partake in their courses under this regime. While nearly all over Germany mask mandates fell yesterday.
Also taking into account possible long-term consequences of a Covid disease for children (or anyone), it was unclear for a long time (and partly still today) whether there is/was a corresponding danger. Therefore, one can also see appropriate measures here as a balancing of protection of society vs. individual liberties.
And that people are not the best at acting rationally in groups (sorry - but I have become very cynical and misanthropic during Corona) and to act reasonably in the masses we see again and again. Without coercion, most people (in groups) do not behave sensibly.
You know, opinions are valuable here for hypothesis generation.
No one knows and there is no consensus why this is happening. I have a few opinions as a middle-and-high school teacher. But talking about this is important to help wrap our heads around it.
If a definitive understanding or reason were easy to acquire, we'd have done it already. So, the toil continues: for researchers, policymakers, laymen... and those of us in the trenches trying to do something about it with not enough information.
There are for quite some time already studies happening so I doubt that random people on the internet sharing opinions help much in generating valid (or interesting) hypotheses. Also how would you validate those?
A few observational studies are fairly meaningless-- they don't establish causation, etc. Your meta-analysis highlights as such.
Discussion, speculation, and reasoning about problems are valuable-- even if the process does often lead us astray.
Do you ever talk about things that you are not an expert on or that aren't settled? E.g. You made some comments about team culture a few days ago-- ignoring the massive body of literature about conflict in teams and engaging in speculation based upon personal opinion.
I'm a teacher at a school where neither COVID "lockdown" nor excessive social media use would be a great explanation for poor student mental health, but still there has been a significant increase in problems in the past few years. Should I just ignore the problem and hope research pins it down and solves it? I need to make reasonable guesses and act upon them.
I did not say, that I evaluated the studies. I just wanted to exemplify that with very little effort one could find studies. I don't think it is my job to evaluate every study on any subject.
If I were interested in the details and interested in discussing the actual content (not the meta layer of discussion quality) I would first look at meta studies and see were they lead me, though.
So sorry for posting examples that there are studies without the disclaimer, that I did not check the strength of any of those.
A substantive discussion is therefore not possible. It is just 'opinion porn' imho.
Regardless of whether the pandemic, social media, (real) porn, industrial food, excessive demands at school, any combination thereof or other anecdotes are used as the cause. Nothing is substantiated by linking sources. Or at least naming them.
Whatever is claimed can only be questioned, not refuted, as there is no substantive point of attack.
Thus, in the end, everyone feels good because they were able to express an opinion. But unfortunately we have learned nothing.