The problem is that they give it to old people, not that they rarely die from it. I'm pretty sure people under 70 have an quite moderate risk of dying of covid (as compared to other endemic diseases that don't cause world lockdowns.) The problem is that they give it to old people.
But the old people are now all vaccinated so they won't get it or at least won't get really sick. I'm sure some will but a lot of the risk has been mitigated. There will always have to be some measure of risk we have to accept. We can't eliminate it completely.
I'm a bit worried that because of a year and a half of mass fear even the slightest risk of covid will be blown up.
I saw this effect here in Barcelona. There was an article on young people thinking they could not get covid. And an ICU nurse was quoted saying that's not true and they have a girl there who is bad.
But this doesn't take into account that the numbers are so low. Many young people die because of traffic accidents and the like. There has to be a point where we say it's mitigated enough and just move on with life.
I'm not saying we're there yet but we should start talking about where that point is.
All the fear, isolation, and disruption to their normal lives has also had a very negative psychological impact on kids. I've seen many who are clearly developing phobias and anxiety issues. The rare and hypothetical long term risks of covid to children (and the mild risks to vaccinated adults) need to be balanced against these ubiquitous and very non-hypothetical adverse psychological effects. On a population level, I believe the evidence points to there being far more risk in the latter.
A society that sacrifices the psychological wellbeing of its children to prevent moderate illness in adults has really screwed up its priorities, and that's increasingly the situation in places where the most at-risk have been vaccinated.
At some point last year I read an article, probably in the Guardian, about what school was like at the time (when it was open) for the kids. Not allowed their own toys, forced to stand on markers on the ground, not allowed to mix with their friends or just play in the dirt and be, y’know, kids. I don’t have children, but I really started to question whether it was worth it - the poor things.
No they’re not - but it wasn’t all that long ago that I was in school myself and it sounded extremely dissimilar to how I remember it - particularly for younger kids, who spend all day outside of lessons running around yelling and playing sports or doing activities and all.
What era? My own childhood (in the 80s) was filled with recess and free-play and gym class. However, I got the perception from parents of kids who attended elementary school in the late 00s and 10s that recess has been cut or dramatically shortened and nearly everything is scheduled and academically-oriented. This predates COVID, and is a consequence of the general climate of fear and hyper-competitiveness that's followed the 08-09 financial crisis.
My kid plays in the dirt, but he does it with me, not at preschool (where apparently they don't even do play-dough and sand these days). He does have some recess & free-play time - I can't imagine managing a 3-year-old without it - but it's time-boxed into 30 minute increments.
I was in junior school (<11 years old) in the UK in the late 90s. Lunch time was an hour and a half of (obviously eating) and loosely supervised running around in a field with a ball, attempting to climb a tree, using your imagination to play games with your friends, falling out with your friends one day, learning how to make up the next, falling out of said tree and being patched up by the school nurse.
There were music clubs and science and art ones too, where you’d mix with other years. The library had computers that a few of us learned HTML on, and later the internet.
I’m not really looking back through rose tinted glasses, this was also at a quite competitive academically driven private school (if you did not then pass the 11+, bye bye) but like, you really were free to do a lot. Perhaps things really have changed then (and I really have gotten old), I like to hope not. I dunno - I really just don’t think it’s fair to do that to the young. Especially coupled with the justification that ‘if you do rough and tumble play with your mate you will kill your grandmother’ reasoning that they must have picked up on.
Honestly - I have to agree with you, no matter how unpopular an opinion that is. I got to watch my elderly relatives die long before COVID was a thing, which was of course very sad. But no one tried to take my childhood away to prevent it (which it wouldn’t have anyway) - like what seems to be happening now to some extent.
IME, there are far more anxiety issues with “kids today” than there were before turn of century. IMO, this is not a mysterious phenomenon - kids take adults seriously, and adults have been involving kids in political awareness to a degree that is evidently unhealthy. Talking about how the world will end because of climate change, the end of democracy, COVID will kill everyone who goes outside. Adults hear this and either bin the talk as hyperbole or the testimony of certifiable wingnuts, but kids tend to internalize this stuff, hearing hyperbole as serious prediction. We wonder why kids are full of anxiety - try sheltering kids more from the kind of BS that circulates on infotainment news channels. There’s time enough for kids to become world weary and wise; help them to enjoy carefree living while they’re children and you might get more confident and less anxious kids out of it.
I agree that it’s time we started putting COVID risks in to perspective. Yes, the Delta variant is more transmissible that regular. But to a fully vaccinated person, is it more or less of a concern now than automobile accidents or other viruses?
Until there's more data on the long term effects and what we've heard so far of the long term effects, and then adding in the drop in vaccine effectiveness and new variants and the lower vaccine effectiveness against those variants, I'm going to continue to be cautious and concerned with all the handwaving and "it's over" rhetoric.
Why isn’t the same caution exercised when it comes to the long term effects of lockdowns and mask mandates on children, adults’ mental health, the economy, etc?
To put some numbers on it, in the US [1] from February 2020 - March 2021:
• For age 65+, the infection rate was 23% and the hospitalization rate 4.9%.
• For age 5-17, the infection rate was 42% and the hospitalization rate was 0.27%.
Kids 5-17 were actually the group with the highest infection rate, followed closely by 18-49 at 41%, then 50-64 at 31%, and 0-4 tied with 65+ at 23%.
The hospitalization rates strictly went up with age: 0.26% for 0-4, 0.27% for 5-17, 0.98% for 18-49, 2.3% for 50-64, and 4.9% for 65+.
I wonder if we would have done better to keep the schools open the first few months, but as boarding schools until most children have had it. Once nearly all children have had it, school goes fully back to normal.
> I wonder if we would have done better to keep the schools open the first few months, but as boarding schools until most children have had it. Once nearly all children have had it, school goes fully back to normal.
A few problems:
• Parents have to agree to not see their children for several months.
• Adults need to be present to supervise / teach the children, and they will be at risk from COVID.
• Early on, there was debate about whether contracting COVID led to immunity. (I personally thought people were being overly cautious about this, but even so.)
Taken together, I just don't see it working.
I am surprised we didn't see any college campuses (which really are boarding schools) attempt to isolate themselves. Both students and staff (!) are not allowed to leave campus or invite guests, and must quarantine for two weeks before arrival—but in return, you get to live a normal college life. It would be a huge commitment for professors with families, however.
I wonder if there's any data on this from countries that did a lot of contact tracing.
On the one hand, I thought it strange a year ago when some authorities based policy on the assumption that kids didn't spread it. On the other hand if kids are mostly asymptomatic it would make sense that they don't spread it as much. I know that private schools in my area were running normal classes, en masse nothing bad seemed to happen.
Hard data would be nice to see, if it's out there.
Also, old people can be vaccinated now, so fears over children spreading it to vulnerable population is becoming a moot point.
So what if they can transmit it? That means the vulnerable should restrict themselves and wear full body PPE everywhere or stay at home. The rest of society, including children who lost critical time in their growth, shouldn’t have to alter their lifestyle just so the elerrrly can have some semblance of normalcy by being out and about.
Apart from that, there have been numerous studies showing kids transmit less than others, and this was known mid last year (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200710100934.h...). European countries reacted rationally by opening schools earlier while politically motivated decisions were made in America to keep the country and economy locked down in an intense election year.
The difference between British and U.S. mainstream news sources, in regards to covid-19, is that you would be a lot less likely to see the NYTimes or Washington Post or etc. run any story with anything resembling positive news. While the BBC, Guardian, etc. can certainly make mistakes, I don't get nearly as strong an impression of a heavy-handed filter on what information I'm being given. With U.S. mainstream news, I very much do.
Those newspapers and their like blame themselves for getting Trump elected by focusing too much on Hilary's emails in 2016.
As a result they became openly activist over the past 5 years, and wouldn't publish this story because they wouldn't want to publish anything that possibly would convince vaccine holdouts to remain unvaccinated. They are now subscription services mostly built around feeding the confirmation bias of their subscribers, if they published this story they'd get a lot of complaints from their readers about how dangerous it was and they were going to get people killed.
I am one of those subscribers and while I feel the same many times, I can't find any better source of general information than the NYTimes. Any suggestion? Where do you find unbiased information nowadays?
I don’t know about unbiased, but seeking out smart individuals who try to be correct has worked the best for me (and then Axios for general news updates, SF Chronicle for local).
Some quick ones:
- Stay Tuned with Preet (legal policy stuff)
- Persuasion with Yascha Mounk (nuanced policy and politics, liberalism)
- Making Sense with Sam Harris (nuanced discussions on culture war topics, but other interesting stuff too).
- Noah Smith Substack
- Money Stuff with Matt Levine (finance)
- Stratechery (best tech analysis)
- Rationally Speaking with Julia Galef
- The Diff (more financial and company analysis)
- The Weekly Dish with Andrew Sullivan (center right, but reasonable - gives me a nuanced perspective on issues I may hold different positions on)
- Coleman Hughes has been interesting too.
- Astral Codex Ten (not really news, but an insightful blog on a wide variety of topics).
- Tyler Cowen and Marginal Revolution
- Balaji Srinivasan on Twitter (not news, but usually interesting and forward looking), same thing applies to others on Twitter if you can find them.
Any of these is 10x better than something like the NYT, on a regular basis. The MSM writing and discussion isn’t even close in complexity or depth. MSM anchors don’t seem as smart (imo) and are mostly preaching to their own choir with whatever motivated reasoning they need to do so.
Wow. This is a beautiful list to go through. Thanks a lot.
The only one I knew and read at times is Matt Levine. I'll try the others.... this is when I wish rss feed were still with us....
AP, Reuters, and Astral Codex Ten are as good as it gets, not perfect. The rest, you're just going to have to run an intersection on what they don't disagree on for a starting point. The rest of stuff they disagree on, revisit who's predictions were more accurate or not.
I subscribe to an email newsletter called 1440. It is a news curator, more than reporter, but it gives me a broad cross-section of the news, without a lot of obvious bias, and it's readable in 5 minutes a morning or so. https://join1440.com/
I haven't found anywhere that is largely unbiased nowadays. I subscribe to a single mailing list that emails me news cliffnotes every day, but nowadays I'm largely unplugged.
Personally I think there's no such thing as an unbiased information stream/newspaper. What stories you promote/ignore and how you frame them is a source of bias and it's impossible to avoid as you or any algorithm simply must make editorial decisions. To paint with a broad brush NYTimes is probably the best source of the American left's perspective, WSJ is probably the best source of the right's IMO.
I don't know that that's true. I quickly spot-checked this with NPR (a closer analogue to the BBC) by Googling "npr children covid". The first two results were neutral factual information about current CDC guidelines, and the very first result with a narrative angle was "In kids, the risk of covid-19 and flu are similar, but the risk perception isn't".
In a discussion like this ‘reach’ and ‘impact’ are the critical axises that have to be discussed. Both Fox and CNN websites might have the same article if you Google the specific thing but one of them ran it in the front page for 24 hours while the other put it as link number 100 after you have scrolled down and clicked more a few times. Millions of Americans will see one of those articles while maybe a few hundred Americans will see the other. I wish there was some kind of service that provided access to measurements on the reach and impact of different topics by the different news agencies, it would be illuminating on their individual biases.
You may be correct. Once upon a time, in my lifetime, the NYTimes _was_ the analog to the BBC, and at least to the Guardian, but perhaps what has changed is that the place in the American news spectrum that the NYT and WashPo are occupying is different.
Article lead: The overall risk of children becoming severely ill or dying from Covid is extremely low, a new analysis of Covid infection data confirms.
As far as I can tell the linked report mentions nothing about severity of illness, only mortality.
Edit: Second study is linked to further down the page which addresses the severe illnesses, as ricardobeat points out.
Looks like they are reporting on multiple studies. There is a second paper that includes hospitalization rates linked under the “Hospital stays are rare” section.
Also mentions nothing at all about the rapidly-rising Delta strain that appears to hit younger people much harder than other/earlier strains and in preference to older folk. Ugh. This virus is horrible.
I'd like to think that was accounted for in the analysis.
We can compare children infected last year when other strains were dominant, with children infected this year in UK (likely to get the Delta variant).
Since there've been studies attributing Covid's lung and circulatory damage to bad immune response to the virus, I'm looking forward to seeing the numbers on juvenile diabetes.
Anecdotally, Type 1's exploding along with other auto-immune disorders. The problem is, of course, we've got a 6-12 month lag on type 1 diagnosis, and various often long delays on other auto-immune failures.
We already knew that the mortality rate and hospitalization rate of children was low. Low isn't zero, of course, but it's lower than that of adults and the elderly.
The real question in my mind is the prevalence of Long COVID and other longer lasting changes. Having seen the debilitating effects of post-viral fatigue syndrome (non-COVID, but still very similar) I would caution everyone to do as much as possible to avoid getting illnesses that are known to trigger extended disability like this.
A COVID infection isn't a binary outcome of live or die. There's a lot of potential for lasting damage that isn't fully studied yet, so we need to stop treating the statistics as a simple matter of life or death.
It's also misleading to consider the statistics for children in isolation because children obviously don't live alone in isolation. If kids get a contagious illness, the parents are highly likely to get it. This is especially true for younger children, as any parent will tell you.
The tough question is: how do the long-term, hard-to-pin-down, variable physical health effects of post-viral syndrome compare to the long-term, hard-to-pin-down, variable mental health effects of lockdown, social isolation, job insecurity, and disruption?
There's a wide spectrum between full lockdown and zero precautions taken. We were never choosing between one or the other, and very few places actually went into full lockdown.
Even some of the cities with the strictest regulations still felt like business as normal, albeit with masks, after about April or May of last year.
Let's not kid ourselves, there was never a proper lockdown. Barely anything changed besides working from home and kids having remote school for a few months. Nearly everything remained open with only half measures taken and most people ignored social isolation as well.
The impact on the virus was certainly minimal but I would not underestimate the impact on kids’ mental health and education, especially those kids with bad situations at home. My kids were fine because I bought them an outdoor playset and a thousand dollars of LEGOs, and taught them math and science three grades above their level. Other kids were stuck at home with abusive parents trying to do Zoom school with learning disabilities.
That's a false dichotomy, especially in countries which are planning to open up in spite of the science.
Aside from Long Covid, there's also a danger of adult's not being able to work, as people either self-isolate or are too ill to do their jobs.
Remote won't necessarily fix this - partly because if you're ill at home you're still ill, but also because there are many jobs which need people on-site.
If you get a huge peak at the same time, not only are hospitals overwhelmed - already happening in the UK - but other critical services are also endangered.
That's not what the study says. They found that the seropositive group of 6 to 16 year olds was more likely to report a symptom beyond 12 weeks than the seronegative group. 4% of the seropositive students versus only 2% for the control group.
The study authors conclude that the prevalence is low, but they do not conclude that it's about zero.
For comparison, Polio is estimated to be asymptomatic or extremely mild in 90% or 95% of cases. Polio only moves to the central nervous system in about 0.5% of cases, and only about 2-5% of children with CNS infection die (15-30% of adults with CNS involvement). That's a relatively small percentage, but at scale it's a devastating number of people impacted. At epidemic scales, you can't simply waive away small percentages in the 2% range as inconsequential when it translates to millions of people impacted.
So 9% of seropositive and 10% of seronegative reported at least one symptom beyond 4 weeks. I.e. the background level is around 10% and the seronegative had "more" long covid than the ones who actually had covid in that group. Although this is pure randomness with such close measurements.
It is pretty weak though. There were only 109 seropositive kids in the follow-up according to the table, so you're talking about 2 more kids reporting a cough or headache as the entire basis of your concern.
> the prevalence of Long COVID and other longer lasting changes.
That, and it will also be interesting to discover how different it is from the ordinary flu. I remember the last time I had a proper flu (well before COVID) it was months before I felt like I'd gotten over it even though the visible symptoms cleared up in a week or so.
The background rate of life-altering disease always seemed rather high to me. Life is far messier than what a "healthy/sick" binary can capture.
Also given the fast evolution of the virus (with the newest variants way more infectious and deadly than the original), it's not a given that the low effects in children will continue. Especially if children remain the only vulnerable population - it's conceivable that a variant that is way worse for children will arise.
Another related question is whether “long COVID” (which feels imprecise to me), is something that should require everyone to lose their individual rights to decide what risks they undertake? In my opinion, if people are worried about it then they should just restrict themselves, rather than blocking everyone else from [going to school, opening their business, collecting rent, etc]. One reason I feel that way is that studies have shown that lingering issues like ARDS (which is now seemingly lumped into “long COVID”) are linked to obesity or vitamin D deficiency. It seems to me that limiting one individual’s freedom to accommodate the poor lifestyle choices of another individual is morally wrong.
Lastly I think your closing comment that parents are highly likely to get infections from children is misleading. Numerous studies show children are less likely to transmit COVID (example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200710100934.h...).
No doubt that post-viral fatigue is a thing, but I wonder how much of Long COVID is the collective COVID anxiety and fear that continues to be fomented by all information sources (news, media, socials, etc). At this point we need to go back to pre-COVID in terms of how much attention it receives. We have vaccines, time to move on, the pandemic is over. Basically COVID needs to take a similar mental profile as the flu, which is that we annoyed everyone about vaccines yearly but other than that it was not nightly news and discussion, with warnings plastered everywhere like it's the Cold War. Even worse you have leaders branding this fear+anxiety-laced behavior as the "new normal"
I think behaving as-if the pandemic is over will do collectively far more for the well-being + psyche of fatigued citizens who have likely felt some measure of hope disappear over the past year. It does no benefit to keep circulating disproportionate levels of information about an uncertain and vague threat when we have the solution in vaccines. At this point "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" as the saying goes.
This straight appeal to authority is particularly weak given the last year or so.
- lab leak hypothesis
- “masks don’t work”
- “not transmissible via the air”
- “it’s not a pandemic, don’t panic”
The authority has shown its capacity to be wrong here repeatedly and in obvious ways. This isn’t direct support of what OP said, but appeal to authority does little for me. The specifics matter.
The appeal to scientific authority is only weak if you are looking for a way to downplay the virus. How many scientific authorities were saying "It's not a pandemic, don't panic"?
I think the "not a pandemic" was a reference to the WHO's month-plus delay in declaring a pandemic.
There was definitely a mindset of potential panic being worse than the disease itself early on. Perhaps not downplaying per se, so much as resisting making any major pronouncements of danger until the evidence was overwhelming.
They also framed virus fears at the time as racism and complained about border closures.
The “masks don’t work” arguments came from scientific authority though.
Same with “not transmitted via the air” and dismissing the lab leak hypothesis.
I’m not arguing with a partisan position - partisanship is what lead to a lot of dumb positions from scientific authority (and politicians too obviously).
You are citing points whereby there was confusion about the scientific consensus, but what has been the overarching consensus this whole time? It hasn't been masks don't work, it hasn't been social distancing doesn't work and it hasn't been "not transmitted via the air".
Respectfully, I think you’re cherry picking the current (more correct) understanding and missing what the consensus was at the time with the benefit of hindsight.
At the time “masks don’t work, “it’s not airborne”, and especially “it wasn’t a lab leak” were the overarching consensus - it was a handful of minority voices that pushed back on this, and they were not the authority.
The authorities largely failed us, my guess is because of political partisanship and motivated reasoning (along with a weaker MSM with bad journalists and some CCP pressure on WHO).
It was largely specific individual voices that were more correct at each step, rather than authority. The trick is you had to be able to tell which ones.
I think you’re talking past each other. Is the virus still with us (your point)? Yes. Do we have a potent and effective vaccine which, for vaccinated persons means the virus is no longer a threat (the other person’s point)? Yes.
Do we have enough supplies of those vaccines yet, worldwide? Have we vaccinated sufficient people yet, worldwide?
Sadly, no and no.
Even in many US states it's also not enough yet.
And many countries must be looking at their situation regarding vaccine production in general, particularly dependency on other countries, and finding that to be something that they want to secure for themselves.
> for vaccinated persons means the virus is no longer a threat
I would call it a much diminished threat, which would be further diminished by vaccinating more other people, rather than "no threat".
Still not enough vaccinated for herd immunity. And considering the effectiveness of the vaccine drops from ~95% to ~65% 6 months after (around more for a majority of people) then it's looking further from all clear.
We were vaccinated enough for heard immunity from the original variants. That’s why infections were cratering even in places with no social distancing rules.
Delta variant is probably going to change that. Some parts of the country will have a delta wave. But it’s going to be mostly in vaccinated people with serious infections.
This is surprising to read, guess it depends on where you live? Different countries are still at different stages of the pandemic, and it is most certainly not over for a lot of them, especially with the delta variant causing a third/fourth wave.
The pandemic is over in America (for now), definitely not true for all of the rest of the world though.
I do suspect while there are long term complications from particularly bad covid cases (lung damage, etc.) - the OP is probably right that the more generic “long covid” symptoms (fatigue, brain fog, heart rate) sound a lot like physical symptoms of anxiety - I’d expect probably those numbers to go down.
especially when talking about UK, it's far from over (no matter what Boris Johnson is telling his people). With 30.000 cases per day and more opening up planned (and the Euro finals tomorrow), more and more people will get covid. Even if the death rate will be low compared to last year, people will get long covid. Probably hundreds of thousands of people. There are already 400k people in UK who suffer for more than 1 year from long covid. [1]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/01/almost-400000-ha...
That is good news, especially for all the children in those countries, who are opening up with a wave of the delta variant approaching. Combine that with some reluctancy or inability to vaccinate children, it means most of them will get infected.
Note that this says nothing about long term consequences, i.e. Long Covid, which we've only just started acknowledging when it comes to adults.
Polio was asymptomatic in 95% of cases and most of the symptomatic cases were unspecific and mild, but now we know that it can be followed by the much more severe Post-Polio Syndrome even 3-5 decades after the original infection, which may affect almost 30% of all cases, including the asymptomatic ones.
That children are unlikely to die or have severe complications from Covid doesn't mean it's safe to allow children to be infected, even if we ignore that this could make them asymptomatic carriers infecting at-risk family members who may not be able to get vaccinated for health reasons.
If the lower estimate of 20% of Covid cases resulting in Long Covid are right and we lift hygiene restrictions for children because of their "low risk" for hospitalization, that means we could see Long Covid in up to 20% of the population under 12 (assuming vaccinations become available for ages 12 and over).
And that's assuming the data about "low risk" is interpreted correctly. The article states that 25 dead in 12 million children translates to a death rate of 2 per million (or 0.2 in 100,000 if we want to use the same scale used for numbers about the general population) but this wrongly assumes that all of the 12 million children have at some point been Covid positive, which seems impossibly pessimistic given that there have only been 5 million recorded infections in the UK across the entire population.
For comparison, the ONS report[1] estimates roughly 1% of children between age 2 and school year 6 (age 10-11) having been positive with no data on ages younger than 2. This would take the number from 0.2 in 100,000 to 20 in 100,000 -- compared to the total mortality of 228.6 in 100,000[2].
In other words, it looks like children are only 1/10 as likely to die as adults, not 1/1000 as likely.
Also, the article only considers the 25 children who directly died from Covid, not the 36 children who were tested positive but died from "other causes". I'm not sure if this has changed in the UK given that you often read about "deaths within 28 days of a positive test" now, but at least for most of 2020 these 36 children would have counted towards the total death count as I understand it. If we compare the 20 in 100,000 (or 20.8 in 100,000 if we want to be pedantic about rounding) number to the "deaths within 28 days of a positive test" number we actually get slightly more than 1/10 because that rate is 192.2 in 100,000.
Knowing this, why are we so willing to risk our children's safety by injecting them with emergency-authorized vaccines? When we know that it's not about helping them at all. Whatever happened to protect the children?
For those who don't know the BBC is in the middle of weekend political scandal where a senior Tory director was caught red-handed interfering in recruiting - specifically trying to prevent the recruitment of a journalist who might be critical of the government.
That's where the BBC always was. People hired by the BBC were systematically vetted by MI5 and rejected for left-wing sympathies from its entire history until very recent times. IMO the only difference between then and now is that there are vanishingly few left-wing toffs and strivers in the UK anymore, so when hiring from the pre-filtered pool (of typical BBC candidates) they can get by relying on an informal veto system.
Trump might have guessed or it just might have been politically convenient to say so but if there is no research to base such a statement on, it's certainly not trustworthy information.
Yes. It was a good call. They are not immune, and still spread the virus, they just have a lower chance of complications/death. As said in this report.
“The overall risk of children becoming severely ill or dying from Covid is extremely low” != “children are immune”
Again, they can still transmit the disease to their parents, and other adults around, so it’s not that simple. That comment was made in the context of keeping schools and activities open I believe.
He didn't say they were "immune". He said they were "almost immune", which is certainly unscientific but is another way to say they are at very low risk. Trump was often reckless with his words, but you're being pedantic.
Yes, the wisdom of his statements jumps from "utterly nonsensical" to "occasionally somewhat correct" if you interpret what he says with the same leniency you might a 12 year old.
For example, he probably meant immune by the definition "protected from" with the implied thing being "serious medical harm" rather than "infection".
I agree it's disingenuous to call him a deliberate liar here when the truth is he just speaks with the vocabulary and scientific acumen of a candid 6th grader.
The real shame is triplicate here:
1. That we must settle for a president with those verbal skills
2. That his verbal skills are perhaps more reflective of the average American than we'd like to believe
3. That people with sometimes exceptional verbal skills and education can somehow not comprehend some of the simple truths that he can (children being at extremely low personal health risk should've been obvious to everyone after the first few months of the pandemic)
And in my opinion, the well educated being deluded into a false perception of reality is a lot more startling of a fact than that a person who has an obviously mediocre command of his native language and paltry understanding of scientific fundamentals said something that was incoherent and not technically correct when trying to verbalise his opinions.
It's not still wrong, because it was never wrong in the first place. The risk to children is exceptionally low as he pointed out, imprecisely as it was. If you delineate between generally healthy children and those with known co-morbidities, it's likely the risk was much, much lower than that.
I'm guessing hindsight will tell us the cost-benefit of sending kids to school significantly outweighs the cost-benefit of the school shutdowns. And that's not even mentioning the actual effectiveness of school shutdowns in restricting the spread of Covid. We're already seeing very little difference in infection and death outcomes among children from areas that shut down their schools for a long period of time to those that did not.
In time I expect the narrative will turn to recognize that the policy consequences of "almost immune" would have been much preferred to the "sky is falling" rhetoric that resulted in schools that were closed for more than a year and the resulting educational and developmental damage that has caused.
I find your responses baffling, because on one hand I agree with your main point that Covid is just not very dangerous to children, but on the other, you keep ignoring all the responses that point out that the primary reason for things like school shutdowns was to protect others from child carriers. Children obviously interact with a ton of different adults throughout their day, and "almost immune" would definitely argue to me that these kids wouldn't be a dangerous coronavirus vector, which is false.
you keep ignoring all the responses that point out that the primary reason for things like school shutdowns was to protect others from child carriers
On the contrary, I specifically said:
"We're already seeing very little difference in infection and death outcomes among children from areas that shut down their schools for a long period of time to those that did not."
The infection rates among adults should mirror the infections rates among children - Covid doesn't discriminate, right? But if there isn't any clear delineation between the infection rates of areas where schools shut down and those where schools are open, it likely infers one of two things:
1) Lockdowns aren't as effective as thought
AND/OR
2) Children aren't as prolific at spreading Covids as adults.
My analysis here is far from scientific, but the data genuinely doesn't seem to indicate that the behavior of children influences the spread of Covid all that much.
I'm quite interested to see the study that showed infection rates amongst children in lockdown districts weren't significantly different than those with in person attendance.
If you could link to such a study, it would be worth a conversation itself I imagine, examining the methodology, age groups, zip codes, ect.
You can see it at the state level. Kids in Texas and Florida went to school in the fall of 2020. Kids in New York and California did not. And there are many other contrasts regarding policies on public events, mask requirements, restaurant logistics, and much more. But there doesn’t seem to be a significant difference in the resulting infection and death statistics.
I live in Texas. I was assured by all the talking heads and enlightened types that when the governor reopened the state and eliminated all mask mandates, it was snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It was premature, short-sighted, and unnecessary, they raved. I was assured we would be stacking bodies at the doorstep. None of that turned out to be the case.
In fact, when things opened up my kids got all the respiratory diseases normally shared over the winter. We had RSV, stomach bugs, colds - the works. Germs that had been at bay for a year were definitely spreading now that life was returning to normal!
Except Covid, that is. Thanks to vaccines and thanks to models that don’t seem to accurately simulate the effectiveness of masks and lockdowns, the apocalypse was averted.
There's a difference between scientists doing a study and a politician making something up out of thin air and being right after the fact by chance. Can you figure it out?
There's a difference between a rigorous scientific method providing confirmation evidence, and empiricism. Enpricism is the state of the world that is true, and you don't need science to observe empirical facts.
Even if you can find some examples, there are literally thousands of counterexamples from speeches and Tweets which were clearly nonsense - starting with the claim that he actually won the election, and working through a very long list from there.
An analogy would be this: it would be like flying in a plane designed by an engineer that calculated coincidentally correct values but arrived at them using completely incorrect methods and calculations.
The output happened to be right but the method to get there was fundamentally wrong and would be faulty if used in other scenarios.
Getting the right answer for the wrong reasons is still wrong in a way, the process to arrive at the conclusion is important.
For the average American, Trump's description is probably more understandable and meaningful than a precise definition.
There's a reason why half of America (~1 in 2 voters) voted for Trump, twice, you know.
I for one don't give a crap about the precise definition of immunity when communicating in everyday conversations; the same way I don't argue with a family relative using a computer science term colloquially. Children are almost immune to covid.
The difference between bullshit and a lie is that the liar knows he's wrong, the bullshitter doesn't care.
Trump said whatever was politically useful to him in any given situation at best (either by earning him praise from supporters or by distracting his critics) and whatever he felt like or overheard someone else say at worst. That anyone would look at any statement from him and use it to justify praise for him or use its falseness to dunk on him is silly. Factuality wasn't a consideration for him when making any of his statements.
Like how small town book stores are inherently good and big stores evil. Regardless of facts.
Republicans will be portrayed as stupid and dangerous, regardless of facts. So when Trump was saying something it was automatically just that. If need be facts would be twisted until they fit that viewpoint.
For contrast the current president making a joke about running a reporter over is just a laughable moment now. Under Trump it would have been discussed for weeks.
Definitions of Narrative Journalism
Simply put, narrative is the way in which a story is constructed through a particular point of view and arrangement of events.
We've known this since the beginning of the pandemic. The danger with children is them spreading with mild or asymptomatic disease in academic settings, not them succumbing to it.
