‘.. a group of UK academics who work with children and adolescents. … concerned about the lack of focus on the needs of this age group … in policy making during the pandemic. We provide scientific evidence that might help to redress this imbalance.’
1/ Updated thread. The impact of lockdown on children/adolescents 2021. Or, why we need to keep schools open.
‘.. a group of UK academics who work with children and adolescents. … concerned about the lack of focus on the needs of this age group … in policy making during the pandemic. We provide scientific evidence that might help to redress this imbalance.’
https://t.co/ljAGD72fol
Conclusion: ‘The consequences of a large gap in schooling are waiting to be documented and these effects will occupy social services and mental health specialists for many years to come.’
https://t.co/WDSSlXC2LT
Concluding: Ensure safeguarding, bereavement, & mental health needs are promptly identified & evidence-based provision is made available to those who need it
https://t.co/UCXeBgqt5Z
‘Regional & local multi-agency planning to support the mental health of those known to be vulnerable & to maximise capacity to meet increased need over the next few years.’
https://t.co/qbRUnJmzad
‘Loneliness is associated with later depression and anxiety, up to 9 years later.’
https://t.co/j7DKZmwYDV
Importantly I noted ‘Suicide is the leading cause of death in England in 5-19 year olds and many more young people will die from suicide and road traffic accidents than Covid-19 this year’
‘… we can choose to put the needs and rights of children first – we can choose a different path.’
https://t.co/44nWfvLol6
https://t.co/Bk0yFH2e4h
We must ask ourselves whether future actions will in fact, ‘help, or at least, do no harm... safeguarding young people is everyone’s responsibility.’
https://t.co/20uX1RLcP0
‘Self-harm has been rising in recent years, alongside anxiety & depression. A real worry is that the pandemic & the measures taken to curb the spread of COVID-19 will exacerbate &entrench these trends.’
'Mental health research is underfunded. The current emphasis on COVID-19 research is likely to widen that inequality. Funders need to explicitly address this...to protect young people ...'
https://t.co/lIa30X8ctg
'More support needs to be readily available for those struggling with their mental health ...'
https://t.co/H0mFuipkzl
End.
More from Education
This is the steady stream of propaganda that's going to be hitting us daily, selling "deprogramming" and "re-education" as normal and reasonable, attempting to convince us that the Biden-Harris side is the good-guy side, admittedly 'backed by corporate billionaires'.
Don\u2019t know who this dude is but he broke that shit DOWN!! Listen especially the ones that need to hear it!! pic.twitter.com/gSZno2yaRh
— Leslie Jones \U0001f98b (@Lesdoggg) January 17, 2021
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?