NorthDallas40
Displaced Hillbilly
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2014
- Messages
- 59,528
- Likes
- 86,942
If I had children I’d absolutely look at the risk / rewards which clearly show at this time the risk is very very low and the reward seems not worth it for an otherwise healthy child. It also goes to health specifics of the child.So you are willing to put your child's life at risk, even if it's just a small percentage that they'll die? Does your kid know this?
I can only conclude, assuming tyler and others aren't simply playing the role of troll on VN, some people need fear in their life. Without something to fear, there is something missing in themselves.I am legit curious at the fascination with fear porn from you guys. It's like there is zero critical thinking skills or even an attempt to read the article. You guys are being embarrassingly played reposting this journalistic retard nonsense.
It’s merely a vehicle to some to show how much more virtuous they are than the rest of us where virtuous is a euphemism for better. It’s just unfounded stupidity.I can only conclude, assuming tyler and others aren't simply playing the role of troll on VN, some people need fear in their life. Without something to fear, there is something missing in themselves.
Interestingly, this is the only actual set of statistics in the "article" (which is a pile of junk):
A study published last week by Scientific Reports that looked at data from more than 12,000 child patients found that the majority don’t show typical COVID-19 symptoms like fever, cough or shortness of breath. Almost 19% reported fever, malaise, muscle or joint pain, and disturbances of smell or taste. More than 16% had respiratory symptoms, 14% had gastrointestinal problems, and a few required critical care.
One of the few statistical comforts of the otherwise nightmarish COVID-19 pandemic — that it largely spares young people — is fading
though good data are scarce
Bless your heart for taking a serious, objective assessment of what Tyler posted.Interestingly, this is the only actual set of statistics in the "article" (which is a pile of junk):
In other words, no data on long-term sequelae which, I can assure you, are exceedingly uncommon in children.
Look at this opening line:
The author then goes on to provide absolutely zero "statistical" evidence to back this statement.
In fact, toward the end, this gem is included:
Any thoughts as to why that might be? Answer: because the actual cases are so scarce that they can hardly be studied. You don't think Pediatric hospitals are following the data? You think they are overwhelmed and don't have the capacity? Answer: obviously not, as many don't have a single CV19+ inpatient most of the time.
Give me a freaking break.
Interestingly, this is the only actual set of statistics in the "article" (which is a pile of junk):
In other words, no data on long-term sequelae which, I can assure you, are exceedingly uncommon in children.
Look at this opening line:
The author then goes on to provide absolutely zero "statistical" evidence to back this statement.
In fact, toward the end, this gem is included:
Any thoughts as to why that might be? Answer: because the actual cases are so scarce that they can hardly be studied. You don't think Pediatric hospitals are following the data? You think they are overwhelmed and don't have the capacity? Answer: obviously not, as many don't have a single CV19+ inpatient most of the time.
Give me a freaking break.
@kiddiedoc clearly must not be a real MDBless your heart for taking a serious, objective assessment of what Tyler posted.
You’d wind up firing over 75% of “journalists”The more I see of this stuff the more it pisses me off. Scare tactics and politics being played for clicks and power is having real cost to real people. Lockdowns are doing no good. The journalists and yahoos who repost this crap with Twitter and TikTok and whatever need to be mercilessly flamed at every chance. At some point heads need to roll and jobs need to lost.
The article covers the long term side effects some children are experiencing after being diagnosed with COVID, explicitly stating that often these children never wind up in a hospital but suffer from home. It's clear you know how to cherry pick things that support your stance as opposed to looking at the overall facts of a given situation.Interestingly, this is the only actual set of statistics in the "article" (which is a pile of junk):
In other words, no data on long-term sequelae which, I can assure you, are exceedingly uncommon in children.
Look at this opening line:
The author then goes on to provide absolutely zero "statistical" evidence to back this statement.
In fact, toward the end, this gem is included:
Any thoughts as to why that might be? Answer: because the actual cases are so scarce that they can hardly be studied. You don't think Pediatric hospitals are following the data? You think they are overwhelmed and don't have the capacity? Answer: obviously not, as many don't have a single CV19+ inpatient most of the time.
Give me a freaking break.
