1 minute ago, Paul852 said:

Are you interpreting that as "higher levels than unvaccinated people"?

No, I've moved on to Israel numbers now. That tweet no longer interests me. 

turtlehead mcconnell is using his own campaign funds to help promote covid vaccinations. he's still a weasel...but this is one positive thing he's doing. 

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Since 2004-2005, flu-related deaths in children reported to CDC during regular flu seasons have ranged from 37 to 199 deaths.

 

"Flu & Young Children | CDC" https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/children.htm

I'd really love to see the breakdown of younger children. 0-17 is literally the biggest range of ages on the CDC site but the most important to parents. I want to know the comparison of children ages 5 and under.

8 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I'd really like to see the numbers for that and are they counting children up to age 17? Everything I've seen still points to the flu being far more deadly to children than COVID.

Also, if the numbers are really smaller it isn't going to be very interesting to see a doubling.  Kind of like a company that talks about 100% growth in revenue but starts from a very small number.  Need to see more info...

3 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I'd really love to see the breakdown of younger children. 0-17 is literally the biggest range of ages on the CDC site but the most important to parents. I want to know the comparison of children ages 5 and under.

From what I've seen, they're roughly comparable in terms of risk to young children. Of course, that's with our current understanding of the disease. We have decades worth of research on how influenza affects children, but we're just barely scratching the surface on covid. But even pre-covid, it's still mind numbing how many parents didn't get the flu shot for their kids though. I suspect we'll see also many parents forgo the covid vaccine for their kids when it's approved.

14 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Solid question from Sam I Am. At this point, we need the vaccinated to stay in their homes so this thing doesn't get out of hand. 

The unvaccinated should go on lockdown to protect themselves from the vaccinated.

14 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

 Everything I've seen still points to the flu being far more deadly to children than COVID.

In the short term. Acutely, the flu seems to kill more children than COVID. But we are still discovering there may be long-term effects to COVID infection, like MIS-C, and how deadly is that?

9 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Also, if the numbers are really smaller it isn't going to be very interesting to see a doubling.  Kind of like a company that talks about 100% growth in revenue but starts from a very small number.  Need to see more info...

I know you get a lot of ish in here because you don't like masks as much as the rest of CVON or something, but whatever Sweden did during the pandemic worked. Less than 20 people in intensive care right now. Single digits in weekly deaths. What's the secret?

 

Pretty much.  

Florida mayors defy DeSantis with mask, vaccine mandates

 

Masks will again be required at indoor county facilities in Florida’s populous Miami-Dade following new federal guidance recommending that even people vaccinated against COVID-19 should wear facial coverings. And in Orange County, home to Walt Disney World and Universal Orlando Resort, the mayor went a step further and announced all 4,200 nonunion county employees will be required to get their first coronavirus vaccine shot by the end of August, and the second shot by the end of September. Disney World announced on its website Wednesday evening that beginning July 30, face coverings will be required for all guests ages 2 and up while indoors and in Disney buses, monorail and Disney Skyliner, regardless of vaccination status. This includes upon entering and throughout all attractions. Face coverings remain optional in outdoor common areas.

When I say it's a no-brainer, this is what I mean...

Neglect vaccination and roll the dice at your own kid's risk.

1 hour ago, Paul852 said:

I'd really like to see the numbers for that and are they counting children up to age 17? Everything I've seen still points to the flu being far more deadly to children than COVID.

Back when this all started I read something that indicated the American Association of Pediatrics considered people children up to the age of 23 in some states.  Which inflated the "child” cases of covid in some states.  I think they fixed that for covid reporting though.  

2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Since 2004-2005, flu-related deaths in children reported to CDC during regular flu seasons have ranged from 37 to 199 deaths.

 

"Flu & Young Children | CDC" https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/children.htm

2018-2019 the number is 477.  Walensky flat out lied.  So far, according to the CDC, 367 kids aged 0-17 have died from Covid.  Total.  And they've also estimated that at least 1/3 of those had comorbidity factors.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1127698/influenza-us-deaths-by-age-group/

5 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

2018-2019 the number is 477.  Walensky flat out lied.  So far, according to the CDC, 367 kids aged 0-17 have died from Covid.  Total.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1127698/influenza-us-deaths-by-age-group/

I'd also be shocked if 266 children between the ages of 0-4 have died of COVID in the US.

7 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

2018-2019 the number is 477.  Walensky flat out lied.  So far, according to the CDC, 367 kids aged 0-17 have died from Covid.  Total.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1127698/influenza-us-deaths-by-age-group/

If you read the whole paragraph from WGB's link it explains it:
 

Quote

While relatively rare, some children die from flu each year. Since 2004-2005, flu-related deaths in children reported to CDC during regular flu seasons have ranged from 37 to 199 deaths. (During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, 358 pediatric flu-related deaths were reported to CDC from April 2009 to September 2010.) It is noteworthy that among reported pediatric deaths, about 80% of those children were not fully vaccinated. Also of note, even though individual flu deaths in children must be reported to CDC, it is likely that not all deaths are captured and that the number of actual deaths is higher. CDC has developed statistical models that account for the underreporting of flu-related deaths in children to estimate the actual number of deaths. During 2018-2019, for example, 199 deaths in children were reported to CDC but statistical modeling suggests approximately 434 deaths may have occurred. More information about pediatric deaths since the 2004-2005 flu season is available in the interactive flu web application.

199 is the exact number reported. The number from statista is an adjusted number that the CDCs model uses which accounts for under-reporting of flu deaths. 

The CDC should be much more clear about these things. That said, the CDC has never faced the level of scrutiny it has during a highly politicized pandemic so ... 🤷‍♂️

2 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

2018-2019 the number is 477.  Walensky flat out lied.  So far, according to the CDC, 367 kids aged 0-17 have died from Covid.  Total.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1127698/influenza-us-deaths-by-age-group/

I've already said that most of what I've seen paints the risk as comparable. I'm not gonna defend what she said, but the take home message for parents remains the same: Don't F around with this thing. It's not a joke. 

Don't believe me? There's a children's hospital in Arkansas that would like to disabuse parents of the notion that kids don't get really sick from COVID. Yesterday they reported 24 kids were admitted, when their previous all time high was 16 during the winter peak. Of those 24 patients, 7 are in the ICU with 2 on vents. The saddest part though? Over half are over 12 and could've been vaccinated but weren't.

Don't use last year's data for this year's variant. Delta is tearing through these communities and anyone that's unvaccinated (including kids) is at risk.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

If you read the whole paragraph from WGB's link it explains it:
 

The number from statista is an adjusted number that the CDCs model uses which accounts for under-reporting of flu deaths. 

The CDC should be much more clear about these things. That said, the CDC has never faced the level of scrutiny it has during a highly politicized pandemic so ... 🤷‍♂️

Fair enough.  

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

If you read the whole paragraph from WGB's link it explains it:
 

199 is the exact number reported. The number from statista is an adjusted number that the CDCs model uses which accounts for under-reporting of flu deaths. 

The CDC should be much more clear about these things. That said, the CDC has never faced the level of scrutiny it has during a highly politicized pandemic so ... 🤷‍♂️

Numbers should not be politicized. Just give us the data and let us decide. 

I'd never say this out loud, but there's something about Rochelle Walensky that I find quite attractive.  I'd let her perform statistical analysis on me anytime.

10 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

I'd never say this out loud, but there's something about Rochelle Walensky that I find quite attractive.  I'd let her perform statistical analysis on me anytime.

I'm not much a fan, neither of her appearance, nor her performance. The list of her missteps is long but probably one of the biggest ones is the recent claim that viral load for those infected with delta is the same level as those unvaccinated against it. Which is misleading because it doesn't specify whether the viral load is as infectious, meaning whether the same amount of live virus can be cultured from both. Presumably, neutralizing antibodies would've binded to some portion of the sample since that's literally their purpose and primary function, but she just throws it out there knowing the distinction would be completely lost.

For reference, there was a study early on in the pandemic from a lab experiment that showed the virus was found on various surfaces up to a week later. This caused people to panic and wipe everything down for months, including groceries. But the study was called out almost immediately for non-representative aspiration methods and failing to ascertain whether they were able to culture the virus from their samples. Follow up studies proved how difficult it was to become infected from contaminated surfaces, and we eventually began to collectively understand that wiping down everything in sight was overkill.

12 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

I'd never say this out loud, but there's something about Rochelle Walensky that I find quite attractive.  I'd let her perform statistical analysis on me anytime.