The article's beginning and very ending was very informative and made clear nuance of the situation of keeping kids/college young adults from school.
The author lost me completely when they started injecting in one sided political perspectives and hindsight bias:
"...opposition to public-health guidance."
Which public-health guidance? Not all of the "opposition" was bad. Example: Any guidance from the W.H.O early on in the pandemic [0]
"Had Trump implored his supporters to wear masks and be patient, case counts might well be dropping across the country. "
Author chooses to show a particular political bias again and fails to mention the other major event that caused a uptick in cases (nationwide protests).
This whole section seems very out of place with the rest of the article, almost like The Atlantic had a requirement to show a left leaning bias to be published...
The author lost me completely when they started injecting in one sided political perspectives and hindsight bias:
"...opposition to public-health guidance."
Which public-health guidance? Not all of the "opposition" was bad. Example: Any guidance from the W.H.O early on in the pandemic [0]
"Had Trump implored his supporters to wear masks and be patient, case counts might well be dropping across the country. "
Author chooses to show a particular political bias again and fails to mention the other major event that caused a uptick in cases (nationwide protests).
This whole section seems very out of place with the rest of the article, almost like The Atlantic had a requirement to show a left leaning bias to be published...
0: https://www.businessinsider.com/who-changes-timeline-first-c...