Considering most countries try to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system, your child is affected by it though not directly. It should just not get sick, or have any form of preexisting condition about to pop up, or infect it's parents to name some possibilities.

Considering many US hospitals are going under for lack patients, this is an argument that doesn't apply.

That's not really what the comment I was replying to was talking about though, was it?

I’m sure Mark Cuban would also like to avoid the risk of leaving their children without a mother or father too.

I am merely taking the wording at face value. The point was not "is this a place I would want to shop?", it was "is this a place I would take my family?" The implication is clearly different.

That’s an uncharitably narrow interpretation, and kind of a silly point to argue.

It's really not. That is the literal wording of the quote.

“Family” includes all members of the family, including the parents. If he wanted to refer to just his children he would’ve said “children”.

Tell that to the parents of the children who just died of Kawasaki-like inflammation from the virus in NYC. We’re still seeing novel presentation of symptoms in various cohorts and have no idea of its long term impacts on children or anyone else.

We’re not certain, but all signs point to it being so, and we’re rushing advisements to pediatric care providers accordingly:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-baby-s-...

I don’t understand why demanding caution against harm to children in a dangerous, unpredictable situation is “disgusting.” It certainly seems less so to me then an a false confidence that could throw them into harms way.

How would we know the statistical significance of the harm to these children in the case of novel symptom presentation, when we don’t know the rate of overall infection, the duration of immunity, or any myriad other things about the disease path at this point?

Instead of admitting our ignorance of the situation and embracing precaution, you’re painting that ignorance as strength and hiding behind appeals to decorum. So again, which is the more “disgusting” to engage in?

> Instead of admitting our ignorance of the situation and embracing precaution, you’re painting that ignorance as strength and hiding behind appeals to decorum.

Where in the world are you getting that? This is not something we are totally ignorant about.

Even if the syndrome you decided to tout is 100% COVID-19s fault, it has still only killed 3 children. That is the definition of statistically insignificant.

Again – statistically, with our current knowledge, children in general do not have much to fear from this virus. We know that people are dying, and we know that the vast majority of the people dying are not, in fact, children.

You seem to be saying that because we don't know everything, we can't make informed decisions at all. But we can. Based on what we know, children have very little relative risk.

> Even if the syndrome you decided to tout is 100% COVID-19s fault, it has still only killed 3 children. That is the definition of statistically insignificant.

This is literally not true. I think you're trying to claim it's not a big deal because most children who contract covid will not die in this way. But this doesn't have any relationship to the statistical analysis of significance that tries to determine causality. In your hypothetical you've stipulated that covid19 is 100% at fault. There's no need for statistics in this case because the confidence at 100% i.e. somehow science has proved the mechanism in your hypothetical.

> Again – statistically, with our current knowledge, children in general do not have much to fear from this virus.

You could have said the same thing about AIDS. Statistically with current knowledge circa 1981 straight people had nothing to fear from AIDS. Statistically in 1983, years after the initial outbreak the proportion of people dying from AIDS as opposed to those who were living with HIV was infinitesimal. And then people started dying at higher, alarming rates. That took over a decade. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_the_United_States#...)

I'm not saying covid is AIDS, but we're mere months into this thing and noticing strange syndromes in children. To blanket claim that "statics show us" anything with the certainty you're projecting is shortsighted.

You seem misinformed.

https://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/coronavirus-covid-19-informatio...

Please stop with all the FUD and actually read up on what we know.

Not really seeing anything in this link that has any bearing on what I said in my post.

We know that COVID-19 is less dangerous, statistically, for children than it is for other populations. By a large degree.

Okay, but I wasn’t saying COVID isn’t more dangerous for children statistically. I said you are misusing the idea of statistical significance and and are overconfident about the long term effects of a new disease.