I Need to Ask Millennials--Why Are your Kids so Awful?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Good politics should cross demographic lines to produce best of breed solutions

I think pointing to the elephant in the room is a good thing. 

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I guess that distraction explains why so many kids went without potty training.

Let's get serious for a second. 

About having a kid who can't talk normally? One who has to go through therapy to get up to developmental levels. 

Cost in the damage of every one being shut in and not socializing? 

We lost a lot. This was a major traumatic event that people really haven't acknowledged. For sure it was worse than 9/11 or world War II. My assessment only. 

 

But the same people who insist that they're independent thinkers, call folks sheep for following Public health recommendations and making their own choices. 

I gave more than enough attention to new claims. They would go from limited scope, as in "Needs more Information on this" To clearly false and wild claims 

I'm comfortable with the choices I made, and for the most part the conclusions and assessments I made of others.

 

[Goddess]

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why do you think that ?  Parents were quite worried about it.  I was.  But we didn't know how bad Covid would be on them either.

I think that because there were many child psychologists trying to warn of it and they were silenced and censored.  I even posted about it here at the time and was attacked by everyone saying lockdowns would have no effect on children at all and that the child psychologists I cited were crackpots.

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But we didn't know how bad Covid would be on them either.

This is untrue.  We knew early on, by March 2020, that the risk was to the very elderly, the very obese and those with multiple comorbidities.  We knew covid was not dangerous to children by March 2020. 

It's interesting that in Fauci's testimony to the Senate, he tried to say he did not demand or prolong school closures.  It was one of the lies he was called out for.  Internet receipts are everywhere.

Hopefully, we have learned to push back against these "experts" next time and follow established science and do proper risk/benefit analyses.

I doubt it though.  Everyone trying to re-write history with "We didn't know!"  Yes, we fuqueing did know.  

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Goddess said:

1.  they were silenced and censored. 

2. I even posted about it here at the time and was attacked by everyone saying lockdowns would have no effect on children at all and that the child psychologists I cited were crackpots.

3. This is untrue.  We knew early on, by March 2020, that the risk was to the very elderly, the very obese and those with multiple comorbidities.  We knew covid was not dangerous to children by March 2020. 

4. It's interesting that in Fauci's testimony to the Senate, he tried to say he did not demand or prolong school closures.  It was one of the lies he was called out for.  Internet receipts are everywhere.

5. Hopefully, we have learned to push back against these "experts" next time and follow established science and do proper risk/benefit analyses.

 

1. I will ask this one time - how ?
2. Well, people were under stress but that's not a rational response.
3. We did not know this with any degree of certainty.  "The risk was to the very elderly" ?  So I was crazy for keeping my kids away from crowds ?  Nonsense.
4. Well he also admitted it was a mistake, so we have: He demanded/prologongued closures, denied that he did, admitted it was a mistake.  The 'lie' would be that he didn't demand them.
5. No.  I will listen to them next time, despite the urge for armchair Public Health epidemeologists to chime in and retroactively say they were right and perfect all along and the folks working long days/nights/weeks to figure it out were evil and/or insane.
 

[Goddess]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I will ask this one time - how ?

They were shut down, blacklisted and silenced and denigrated in the MSM.  Were you unaware that for years, any one who said anything against "the narrative' was attacked mercilessly, including experts at the top of their various fields?

 

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We did not know this with any degree of certainty.  "The risk was to the very elderly" ?

Ya. Ya, we did.  We had the 2 cruise ships and Italy.  We had John Ionniddis.  I tried to bring all this up, with references, datasets and experts and again, was attacked.

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The 'lie' would be that he didn't demand them.

Anthony "I am The Science!" Fauci.

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I will listen to them next time, despite the urge for armchair Public Health epidemeologists to chime in and retroactively say they were right and perfect all along and the folks working long days/nights/weeks to figure it out were evil and/or insane.

The world's pandemic plan called for experts in a variety of fields to gather together and make decisions based on risk/benefit analyses.  This would have included economists, child psychologists, statisticians, data analysists, politicians, scientists of all sorts.

That's what I hope we do next time.  Instead we turned it all over to public health, who considered exactly ZERO of those other things.  I believe it was Collins who recently came out and admitted this was the greatest mistake made during covid - turning all decisions on everything over to public health bureaucrats.  I posted about it here.

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

1. They were shut down, blacklisted and silenced and denigrated in the MSM.  Were you unaware that for years, any one who said anything against "the narrative' was attacked mercilessly, including experts at the top of their various fields?

2.  We had the 2 cruise ships and Italy.  We had John Ionniddis.  I tried to bring all this up, with references, datasets and experts and again, was attacked.

3. This would have included economists, child psychologists, statisticians, data analysists, politicians, scientists of all sorts.

4.  Instead we turned it all over to public health, who considered exactly ZERO of those other things.  I believe it was Collins who recently came out and admitted this was the greatest mistake made during covid - turning all decisions on everything over to public health bureaucrats.  I posted about it here.

1. An extreme claim.  "Anyone" who "said anything" was attacked mercilessly ?  At best you are exaggerating.  
2. Two cruise ships isn't proof.  I just looked up Ionniddis.  One guy, a gadfly, who says that the official approach is wrong.  So why do you believe him versus the consensus ?  He sure seems to have been wrong in a few of his statements too.  Was he attacked ?  I think his ideas were pretty risky and, well, they weren't picked up.  

To say he was 'attacked' seems to imply that he had good ideas but they went against him personally.  I can't see it.  He seems like a gadfly with risky ideas which may be interesting... but the public officials erred on the side of safety and went for lockdown.  

I still think it was the right approach.

3. That sounds like it would have been an interesting exercise, were it not for a mounting emergency that was taking place - with its own logistical challenges, and requirements for experts to make quick analysis, decisions, and - yes - tradeoffs.

4.  I know some people who are experts in these things and they're pretty brilliant and also caring people.  I am not dismissing you, but I do think you're wrong.  It's good to be skeptical of institutions, but you are second-guessing them and throwing them under the bus for how they reacted during the biggest health emergency in 100 years.   It's your right to do so, but when you post about difficult topics like this and throw people who you don't know under the bus, call them liars, and decide that Public Health shouldn't be in charge of public health emergencies well... I make my decision to not agree with your opinion, I guess.

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

At best you are exaggerating.

Am I?  The world's top epidemiologists from Harvard, Yale and Oxford formulated the Great Barrington Declaration very early on and were absolutely vilified for it.  It advocated for non-panic and focused protection of at risk groups.  This was early October, 2020.

When Fauci found out about it, he commanded his staff to do a "devastating takedown" of it.  Which they did.

If you're happy with public health bureaucrats taking over pandemic decisions instead of the world's top epidemiologists, biologists, virologists and scientists, then.....yes.  We will have to agree to disagree.

Gawd help us next time.

 

[Goddess]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I just looked up Ionniddis. 

Instead we followed Ferguson.

Look him up, too.  The guy's a ******.

Ioannidis was correct from the beginning on covid IFR.   Ferguson had a record of vastly exaggerating risk.

Again, if you're happy with Ferguson.....gawd help us next time.

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Instead we followed Ferguson.

Look him up, too.  The guy's a ******.

Ioannidis was correct from the beginning on covid IFR.   Ferguson had a record of vastly exaggerating risk.

Again, if you're happy with Ferguson.....gawd help us next time.

Like when he said there could be 10,000 deaths?  Everybody was making guesses early on.

You need to admit your decisions are affected by an affection for the underdog, the gadfly.

[eyeball]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Let's get serious for a second. 

About having a kid who can't talk normally? One who has to go through therapy to get up to developmental levels. 

Cost in the damage of every one being shut in and not socializing? 

We lost a lot. This was a major traumatic event that people really haven't acknowledged. For sure it was worse than 9/11 or world War II. My assessment only. 

It certainly wasn't a walk in the park. At the other end of the age/development, spectrum was helping seniors through COVID.

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But the same people who insist that they're independent thinkers, call folks sheep for following Public health recommendations and making their own choices. 

I gave more than enough attention to new claims. They would go from limited scope, as in "Needs more Information on this" To clearly false and wild claims 

I'm comfortable with the choices I made, and for the most part the conclusions and assessments I made of others.

COVID was certainly worse than 9/11, but WW2 might be a stretch. In any case it was definitely made worse than it needed to be by the fact so many people were gaslit beyond hope - with the sort of conspiracy based misinformation that spread in the wake of 9/11 and is blooming today like there's no tomorrow.

Stupidity was COVID's favourite vector from day one and there were sitting ducks as far as the eye could see.

Assessing and concluding comes with a responsibility that I think millions of people feel doesn't apply to them. I think this selfishness is still causing more damage than having to comply with a few health measures even came close to having caused.

[Michael Hardner]

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 .

COVID was certainly worse than 9/11, but WW2 might be a stretch.  

More were killed by Covid and there was more deprivation.

[Guest]

On 9/6/2024 at 5:20 PM, Michael Hardner said:

For sure it was worse than 9/11 or world War II.

If we are talking propaganda and fear mongering, probably.

If we are talking repercussions, and actual damage, its not even close.

Statististically speaking, if you were under 55 years of age and very healthy and not obese, you would be highly unlikely to die from covid.

Highly unlikely to be hospitalized. Sure the news pounced like salivating wild animals at any person bucking those statistics (ommitting to mention these were the exception), but it didn't negate that reality. This was killing the elderly and frail, and those with weakened immune systems, in droves.

There is a reason in Canada they stopped showing such statistics on the news.

On 9/6/2024 at 5:22 PM, Goddess said:

I even posted about it here at the time and was attacked by everyone saying lockdowns would have no effect on children at all

These people likely were not paying attention to the long lineups of adults, at alcohol stores. The explosion of adults at homeless shelters. Overdoses exploding over 600%, in cities like Vancouver, alone. Women stuck in abusive relationships, now having been robbed of a critical lifeline. 

This is grown adults  coping with the trauma of seclusion. 

And these people thought it wouldn't affect children?

I remember being banned from posting for months from another message board for posting such "nonsense" as to the devastation this would have on young children's developments.

About the governments omission of the mental health of people, and pushing more for more political than medical, seen by our leader routinely shunning his own safety orders, catching covid several times, and not missing a beat in shaming the same Canadians for not following safety protocols.

On 9/6/2024 at 5:42 PM, Michael Hardner said:

So I was crazy for keeping my kids away from crowds ? 

No you weren't, but to fully isolate them, was doing far more damage than good to them.

My niece got covid early on, and was crying, certain, inconsolable, "knowing" her death was imminent.

She barely got a cough. The likely result based on her age.

This is the damage of what propaganda does to people too young to grasp all the imagery of body bags on the news, and the elusive context they are deliberately withholding. Not covid-19, itself.

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

More were killed by Covid and there was more deprivation.

That doesn't make it worse than world War II and 9/11.

9/11, still affects how we travel by flight daily, to this day. ISIS, and the unintended consequences of war, were far more reaching.

Sorry, but you're reaching, yourself. If you asked the Japanese if they would prefer getting nuked again, or risk catching covid, am sure they would risk the latter.

Holocaust victims, if given a chance of catching covid, instead.

We could run down the line, here.

There is absolutely no way covid is worse as you're comparing outcome, and not the actual threat to the entire world.

I was in China when covid started  and got out just in time. The fear came from the Canadian media. I was mask wearing from the onset. Social distancing, from the onset, because that's what every single person in China was doing.

The threat to my life of global warfare and having to enlist, just doesn't compare to the risk of catching covid.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

 

1. If we are talking repercussions, and actual damage, its not even close.

2. This is grown adults  coping with the trauma of seclusion. 

3. And these people thought it wouldn't affect children?

4. This is the damage of what propaganda does to people  

5. That doesn't make it worse than world War II and 9/11.

6. Sorry, but you're reaching, yourself. If you asked the Japanese if they would prefer getting nuked again, or risk catching covid, am sure they would risk the latter.

 

1. 5. 6.  Sorry I was referring to Canada. Not Japan or other countries.

2. Yes, and the deprivation and mental health issues were more pervasive for Canadians than in WW2.  This is the case I'm making.

3. What people?  Obviously I did think that it was a risk.

4. Are you saying that there was an official campaign to do harm?  Propaganda is one of those words people use to passive aggressively imply something rather than just making a case for it.

[eyeball]

9 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

This is grown adults  coping with the trauma of seclusion. 

And these people thought it wouldn't affect children?

It should be no surprise that kids of parents who lost their shit over COVID would be affected. 

But I think more adults still fared worse than kids overall.

 

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 

But I think more adults still fared worse than kids overall.

 

Young kids have forgotten about it. To be honest, kids who seem really put off Are the teens to early twenties... That's a good chunk of your best years gone.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sorry I was referring to Canada. Not Japan or other countries.

How is covid-19 worse statistically, than world War II (in Canada)?

What metrics are you using? 

Death toll? How people died? What are you using to draw that conclusion?

Forget Japan and other countries.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, and the deprivation and mental health issues were more pervasive for Canadians than in WW2

So, ignoring the death toll, and carnage?

The amount of young men that died?

I think what you're eluding to, is that mental health issues were just not something that you talked about back then. 

Kind of hard to recover from witnessing your partner getting blown up. That sticks with you for life. Covid-19, is basically now business as usual, socially. 

What long lasting damage?

Your comparison makes no sense.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What people? 

Those who didn't factor in mental health, specifically for kids, during lockdowns evdn post significant portions of the population being vaccinated.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Are you saying that there was an official campaign to do harm? 

There are unintended consequences in locking people down for years. Experts also mentioned mental health should be within that balance.

There was nothing but fear mongering, and lockdowns. Even when a significant portion of the population was vaccinated. Shaming campaigns for those who refused.

I was in China and people simply had to wear masks. Period.

Politicians manipulated the fear, to advance political agendas.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Propaganda

Deliberately misleading your population by the deliberate omission of information is not passive. Its propaganda.

Initially, stats showcased those who were likeliest to die. 

It clearly affected specific demographics. 

Italy had catastrophic results, because of the sheer volume of seniors, to name one country.

We stopped posting this, and only would posts deaths. 

Showing thousands of body bags in NYC. Italy. What do you think is going to happen? Calm and order?

There should be awareness. Not panic.

I didn't feel fear in China. I felt it in Canada.

Death tolls were padded.

If you were admitted with a grievous injury and illness and you were positive for covid, this was determined as your cause of death.

I know people who died of other means, but their death certificate read covid.

This isn't false, but is deliberately misleading.

The mental toll was not due to the illness but how it was approached, politically. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

1. How is covid-19 worse statistically, than world War II (in Canada)?

What metrics are you using? 

Death toll? How people died?  

2. I think what you're eluding to, is that mental health issues were just not something that you talked about back then. 

3. There was nothing but fear mongering, and lockdowns.   Deliberately misleading your population by the deliberate omission of information is not passive. Its propaganda.

 

1. Yes, number of deaths, and the fact that the entire population was locked down unlike during world War II. 

2. Maybe so.

3. To what end though? Was someone trying to actually do harm?  It's strange that you say there was fear-mongering, that people we're afraid, but you weren't.  So who was afraid? 

I think people were isolated and there was stress and depression from that. That was a well-known, and felt by pretty much everyone.

Propaganda just seems like the wrong word in this context. I'll leave it at that. 

I think I've made my case, I don't want to go back and forth back and forth back and forth with this. If you have something new to ask, go ahead.

Edited September 8 by Michael Hardner

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, number of deaths, and the fact that the entire population was locked down unlike during world War II. 

The threat is nowhere near the same. 

People being locked down as long as they had been in Canada, has more to do with politics preceding medicine, especially considering Canada was one of the most vaccinated countries in the heat of things.

I was in China. They were informative. People thus made educated decisions, and people went about their business. 

To draw that comparison based on a government being overprotective, vs an actual threat (when the bulk of Canada was vaccinated), is ridiculous.

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe so.

Definitely. If you were injured, and still good enough to go, you didn't take a mental health day back then. You went back in.

There is no way they lock society down like this, back then.

Covid is not the first deadly outbreak that we had. Its the first where governments realized they powers they could impose onto the population, and many took advantage of this.

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Was someone trying to actually do harm? 

If your desired result is population control, that's debatable.

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Propaganda just seems like the wrong word in this context. 

You're deliberately misleading your population, creating fear that may or may not be justified.

You're deliberately creating divisions, and instead of thinking population first, are seeing the political gains that could be made. 

So many policies were pushed through during this outbreak.

Propaganda is the perfect word, as the misleading was deliberate.

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think I've made my case

You really haven't. War and an outbreak, are vastly different and threat levels are vastly different.

Comparing the two is laughable. You have yet to defend your point, along with any of your others.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

 

1. People being locked down as long as they had been in Canada, has more to do with politics preceding medicine, especially considering Canada was one of the most vaccinated countries in the heat of things.

2. I was in China. They were informative. People thus made educated decisions, and people went about their business. 

3. To draw that comparison based on a government being overprotective, vs an actual threat (when the bulk of Canada was vaccinated), is ridiculous.

4. If your desired result is population control, that's debatable.

5. You're deliberately misleading your population, creating fear that may or may not be justified.

6. You really haven't. War and an outbreak, are vastly different and threat levels are vastly different.

7. Comparing the two is laughable. You have yet to defend your point, along with any of your others.

1. That's beside the point I'm making.
2. They protested in China too over lockdowns, which is almost an unheard of thing.  But again, beside the point.
3. Why ?  Even if you think the lockdowns were overdone, there is still a mental health impact.  It even buttresses your case if those lockdowns *were overdone.
4. Who is trying to achieve population control ?  And by that do you mean population levels ?
5. It's also possible to scare your people in order to convince them to do something that you think is right.
6. Threat levels are not what I'm talking about.
7. I'd like to defend it but you don't seem to get what I mean by impacts.  I'm not talking about 'threat' 'risk' and such, which you assess before the impact is known I'm talking about what happened to *us ... after the fact.  Looking back.  And you even agree that the government did harm, in the end.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

there is still a mental health impact

You're comparing this to the mental health impact of actual warfare, where the actual threat is far greater. The damage lasts for life.

It's just not comparable.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's also possible to scare your people in order to convince them to do something that you think is right.

If it goes against their rights, no.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Threat levels are not what I'm talking about

Damage. Which was overblown due to our inundation with media. Not talked about back then.

You think people are getting "mental health help" back then?

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm talking about what happened to *us ... after the fact.

Majority of us have moved on with their lives.

Now, if you were eluding to women in abusive relationships which now had zero outlets to get out with lockdowns to get out, you have a point.

Those who have been hung out to dry with mental health issues, and now homeless and on fentanyl. You have a point.

Once the media stopped its fear mongering, most were back to normal. What happened isn't the same.

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. You're comparing this to the mental health impact of actual warfare, where the actual threat is far greater. The damage lasts for life.

2. If it goes against their rights, no.

3. Damage. Which was overblown due to our inundation with media. Not talked about back then.  You think people are getting "mental health help" back then?

4. Majority of us have moved on with their lives.

5. ... who have been hung out to dry with mental health issues, and now homeless and on fentanyl. You have a point.

Once the media stopped its fear mongering, most were back to normal. What happened isn't the same.

1. I am, and it IS an apples and oranges comparison I allow that.  But 1 million Canadians 'deployed' and a fraction of that who actually saw combat is a smaller number than all 40 million or so under lockdown.  Now, of course, combat is more stressful than lockdown but there are also cross-impacts.  

2. I said it's "possible", not that it's correct or moral to do so.  This is another example of you arguing a point that I am *not* making

3.  Again, I'm not arguing that the media coverage wasn't overblown or that fear didn't result.  You're right that mental health wasn't addressed as much back then, but I'm not sure that people are getting care to the point they need it today either.

4.  This seems to negate your own point in #3.

5.  Ok, well I am definitely not saying your points are wrong.  You have good points but ultimately I still think that Covid was more impactful.  

----

Yes, your points are quite arguable and defensible but I just disagree on this.

[eyeball]

26 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Once the media stopped its fear mongering...

Under orders from the government or is it the other way around?

It's never entirely clear who you people believe is in control of who.

I'm assuming you understand me to be under their spell...whoever they are.

Maybe it's you?

[TreeBeard]

40 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

But 1 million Canadians 'deployed' and a fraction of that who actually saw combat is a smaller number than all 40 million or so under lockdown.  Now, of course, combat is more stressful than lockdown but there are also cross-impacts.  

45,000 dead Canadians in WWII, many more than that wounded, many more than that still with PTSD and other mental health issues when they came back.  
 

50,000 dead Canadians from COVID, although if you’re debating on this forum, the person on the other end probably doesn’t believe those numbers anyway.  

It is not a valid comparison though, so it’s probably not a great argument to try and make. 

[Michael Hardner]

21 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

1. 50,000 dead Canadians from COVID, although if you’re debating on this forum, the person on the other end probably doesn’t believe those numbers anyway.  

2. It is not a valid comparison though, so it’s probably not a great argument to try and make. 

1. perspektiv isn't crazy
2. It's apples to oranges, but... it's valid to try to compare... it's just unlikely you'll convince anyone, and by 'you'll' I mean 'i'll'.  I guess the fact that we're debating it speaks to the fact that Covid did have a large impact, even if you think my claim is ridiculous

Edited September 9 by Michael Hardner

[Goddess]

On 9/6/2024 at 4:45 PM, Michael Hardner said:

You need to admit your decisions are affected by an affection for the underdog, the gadfly.

I wont' admit that, because they're' not.

The decisions and views of experts who were correct on everything - those decisions were based on science.  These are all people who were at the top of their fields.

That's why they've all been proven to have been correct.

The "experts" paraded in the media - they've all been wrong.  On literally everything. 

Because none of their advice was based on science.  It was political or they were paid to promote Pharma views.

This is why it's important for the public to at the very least, have a basic understanding of things.

We can disagree on the reasons why these "experts" were so badly wrong on everything, but No.  I was posting the studies and datasets and already established science on coronaviruses and vaccines here, very early on.

I was following the science.  It's the rest of you that aren't.

The science didn't' change - you were just wrong the whole time.