To emphasise this point, in Victoria, Australia, most of the cases are in the 20-29 age group. Most of the active cases are in the 0-9 age group.[0] NSW data doesn't have the pretty graphs, but the raw data [1] bears out similar groupings.
[0] https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/victorian-coronavirus-cov...
[1] https://data.nsw.gov.au/data/dataset/nsw-covid-19-cases-by-a...
A COVID case != serious illness, especially in vaccinated individuals. We need to stop pretending that they are equivalent.
My first link reports 492 total active cases, not thousands.
If you want to use the total cases, then you should be noting that 820 people have died, and 20,212 have recovered. The mortality calculated from that is a simple 3.8%.
20 hospitalised cases out of 492 total active cases, is about 4%, and the 9 in ICU are about 2% of total active cases.
You are correct, I was looking at total cases, not active cases. My apologies!
However, this still does not support the claim that young people are "widely" going to the hospital. Even assuming that age ranges are going to the hospital at equal rates (which is a preposterous assumption), given 20 total hospitalizations spread across 492 active cases (of which 290 are ages 0-29), we would only expect ~11/290 active COVID cases under 30 to be hospitalized. But again, this an extremely unrealistic upper bound, based on the ludicrous assumption that all ages get hospitalized at equal rates.
On top of that, these data are from Australia, where the population is still not widely vaccinated. I assume the vast majority of hospitalized COVID patients in Victoria are not fully vaccinated.
>The mortality calculated from that is a simple 3.8%.
This (and all previous calculations) depend on accurately estimating the denominator, i.e. the total number of cases. Given the amount of asymptomatic/low symptomatic cases, how is this accurately done? Has the composition of who gets tested shifted over the course of the pandemic? Has it ever actually accurately sampled the true number of cases?
The vast majority of currently active cases right now are for the 0-9 age group.
Whilst there isn't a current breakdown of mortality by age rate, the overall mortality rate for Victoria is 4%, meaning that there is a high risk to children.
The data does bear out the risk.
[0] https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/victorian-coronavirus-cov...
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
Either I can't read graphs, or you can't.
And you absolutely cannot take the overall mortality rate and apply it to the one age group we know practically none have died from in the past.
So, as I said, the data doesn't bear this out so far as I've seen.
That would be _you_. Here's the numbers from said active case graph.
+ 0-9 - 112
+ 10-19 - 100
+ 20-29 - 78
+ 30-39 - 105
+ 40-49 - 54
+ 50-59 - 25
+ 60-69 - 14
+ 70-79 - 3
+ 80-89 - 1
It treats cases in aged care vs. not in aged care as separate sets, but is not clear on whether or not hospitalisation cases come from both sets.
At the top of the page it says "cases in hospital by age" but I can't seem to find any reference to the age of those people in hospital.
What's clear to me, though, is in the age group of 0-29 there's been a total of 1 death in Victoria. It's not a whole lot to go on, but it seems unlikely to me that many in the 0-29 group require hospital treatment.
> The vast majority of currently active cases right now are for the 0-9 age group.
And then you shared data that shows 0-9 age group with less than 30%. Since we apparently agree on how to read the chart, I can only assume the words “vast majority” were not what you meant.
Younger people, under 30, and children are getting it and ending up in hospital.
It’s widely reported here in Australia.
Children are at risk.