Moreover, the governed don't want the actions of others to kill them. That's why they created a government that prevents others from polluting, driving dangerously, and spreading disease.
400
> Why are you comparing across years?
Many seem to have the misconception that covid is risky for children, while they are at low risk, so I highlight that the child covid death numbers from covid was low and comparable to a normal flu season like the one in 2019.
That would make Covid hundreds of times deadlier for children than the flu. If it were a regular flu season without the mitigations that dropped flu deaths to 1, Covid would have killed even more children.
The FDA advisory panel unanimously approved the vaccine for kids. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-advisory-pane...
You are also misinterpreting what the term comorbidities means when you say that 75% of Covid deaths weren't due to Covid. Having those comorbidities means that you're more likely to die from Covid. By your logic, 75% of flu deaths aren't from flu every year, not just 2020-2021, leaving Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu, which leaves them lucky to have had mitigations that contained flu and Covid deaths to such a degree.
The new test knows the difference between flu and covid, which is why the CDC recalled the old and instituted a new that did better. However, you can’t go back in time and fix the old tests. Re-read the article to comprehend it better.
You are getting hung up in the artifact for 2020, where unlike previous years there were 1 pediatric death case categorized as flu instead of 180-400 like in the years I mentioned due to the old pcr covid test not knowing the difference. It’s not hard to do a Google search on this to see that your pediatric flu death data for 2020 is not representative when compared to a normal year.
> Did previous PCR tests confuse COVID-19 cases for influenza cases? > Not at all.
Or is it this part?
> Dr. Broadhurst says, "The PCR test is validated against many different coronaviruses and common respiratory viruses, including influenza so that it would not give false-positive results."
Maybe you're referring to this part?
> How do we know COVID-19 cases aren't actually influenza? > Every PCR test must be validated, meaning checked for its sensitivity and specificity. The Nebraska Medicine PCR test has been extensively vetted with multiple ways of validation.
> Dr. Broadhurst explains, "At the beginning of the pandemic, we went through a very rigorous process. That includes demonstrating the specificity of the test to exclude anything that may cause a false positive."
Or perhaps you mean this part?
> Researchers also looked through large databases of viral genetic sequences – the building blocks of a virus. That way, they ensured the PCR test only picked up a piece unique to SARS-CoV-2 and not another coronavirus or influenza.
I don't know how many ways your article needs to tell you you're wrong before you'll believe it, except that it's larger than four.
Once you understand that, your entire argument that Covid is less dangerous for kids than the flu falls apart. The reason there was only one flu death is due to masking, social distancing, and lockdowns. In that same setting, Covid caused hundreds of deaths.
You are incorrect on pediatric flu deaths in a normal year being around 1. See this link to the CDC [1] about the 2019-2020 season:
"total number of flu deaths in kids reported to CDC for that season to 199."
which is not around 1. 199 deaths for 1 year is not hundreds of times smaller than 400 covid deaths over 1.5 years (averaged 266 over 1 year). When will you admit you are wrong on covid being “hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu”?
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2020-2021/pediatric-flu-d...
We are talking about how severe covid is for children. A comparison to a normal flu year is very relevant, because people in a normal year is not worried about the flu for children. When are you going to admit pediatric flu deaths in a normal year is around 190 and not 1?
Yes, you can lock a kid inside to avoid the flu and car accidents. But that is not a way to live and not worth the reward in mitigating a low risk.
> We could expect the number of pediatric Covid deaths to be higher still without those mitigations.
A lot of kids already had covid due to how infectious it is. How much more severe than 400 deaths amongst 73 million US kids over 1.5 years do you claim it would be and on what grounds? 20 or 20k more deaths?
Your proposed policy of vaccinating kids severely increase young kids risk for severe conditions such as heart issues including stroke and long term risks are unknown. How do you know the reward outweigh the risk of vaccinating kids that are at low risk for covid?
People in a normal year vaccinate children against the flu.
> When are you going to admit pediatric flu deaths in a normal year is around 190 and not 1?
When are you going to understand that I never disputed that, and none of my arguments are affected by that? My point was that Covid is so bad for children that even with severe mitigations in place (so severe that only one child died of flu), it outkilled the flu in a normal year without those mitigations.
> Yes, you can lock a kid inside to avoid the flu and car accidents.
That's a silly idea. We could vaccinate kids instead, and that's what is going on.
> Your proposed policy of vaccinating kids severely increase young kids risk for severe conditions such as heart issues including stroke and long term risks are unknown.
Viruses, including the one that causes Covid, are an even greater risk of heart disease, including a more severe form called MIS-C that has resulted in amputations.
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/viruses-are-the-most-common-...
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/covid-19-child-ra...
> long term risks are unknown
They are well-known because any long term effects will be observed at most days after the vaccination or infection. There is no mechanism by which a change can take place in the body that does nothing until years later. What has been observed is that the effects observed within a week show that long term effects will be far worse for the disease than the vaccine.
> How do you know the reward outweigh the risk of vaccinating kids that are at low risk for covid?
Just as you were wrong about the PCR test article, you were wrong about the FDA advisory panel, which concluded unanimously that vaccinating kids is better than letting them contract Covid.
The FDA panel approved the childhood vaxx after skipping the FDA Science Advisory panel.
Again, you are not spotting that the FDA circumvent the standard convening of the expert advisory board when the FDA advisory board approved it, see my original link [3] and the non-paywalled [4]. This is after the science advisory panel denied approval in September.
This is corrupt and unscientific.
> Just as you were wrong about the PCR test article,
You are incorrect judging by the source. Quote from the original CDC policy source I remembered [1] instead of the secondary link I clearly didn't read well enough:
"After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel ... CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses."
Basically after December 31, 2021, the CDC will withdraw the emergency use authorization of the PCR test for COVID-19 testing. If I read this correctly the CDC said the old tests are no longer authorized because the do not differentiate well between the flu and COVID virus.
It doesn't matter much to my argument since 400 pediatric deaths over 1.5 years is already very low, and as I said I am fine with just counting the all as covid deaths.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert... [2] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/05/cdc-do... [3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters... [4] https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/01/05/cdc-do...
> If I read this correctly the CDC said
You did not read this correctly, and the original link you posted explained why.
> It doesn't matter much to my argument since 400 pediatric deaths over 1.5 years is already very low,
This would be low if it happened without mitigations (or the first half year of that being before the disease had spread to most of America). It happened when mitigations severe enough to reduce flu deaths a hundredfold were in place. Do you not understand that?
Pediatrics covers teens.
You clearly value a political process higher than the scientific method when you don’t distrust a vaccine approval entity that cut scientific advisory committees, cut required steps from the process, ignore extremely elevated myocarditis cases amongst boys etc
In what seem politically instead of scientifically motivated you invent hypothesis such as “ Viruses, including the one that causes Covid, are an even greater risk of heart disease, including a more severe form called MIS-C that has resulted in amputations.” which the best science indicate is wrong for covid.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
You are both severely overestimating how much myocarditis covid gives and underestimating how irregular the vaxx myocarditis numbers are. These seem designed to fit your motivated reasoning that the mitigations worked as desired.
> This would be low if it happened without mitigations (or the first half year of that being before the disease had spread to most of America). It happened when mitigations severe enough to reduce flu deaths a hundredfold were in place. Do you not understand that?
According to this nature article by end of 2020 1/3 of all Americans had covid, so you are severely overestimating the effectiveness of the mitigations.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4
You said "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu", so that means you claim we should expect 20k+ deaths without mitigations.
Again, we had 400 pediatric deaths amongst the unvaccinated 73 million US kids over 1.5 years.
Where do you get your excess mitigated pediatric deaths from in a population when 1/3 already had the virus by end of 2020, way before mid 2021 that the 400 deaths cover?
If by "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu" the parent means "flu as the one officially detected in 2020 instead of the around 200 that is normal" it's disingenuous as you need to compare to normal flu death numbers of time (we seem to be going back to normal official flu numbers). Unmitigated covid had pediatric deaths at the level of the normal flu, and the heuristic here is that people are not worried about the flu for healthy kids.
If by "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu" the parent means relative to the normal flu, around 200, (s)he is claiming at least 20k+ deaths are mitigated despite us only seeing 400 pediatric covid deaths over 1.5 years after already by the end of 2020 1/3 of the american population had covid. The parent may be threading this needle by severely underestimating how many had covid.
This kind of thinking is used to argue for it being a-ok that the FDA blatantly break vaccine approval process standards because of a pediatric severity that is manufactured. And this is for vaccines we know will be mandated or taken without informed consent, vaccines that have known to ruin lives or kill otherwise healthy children while it doesn't even work well for omicron.
Maybe the parent is caught up in the mass transformation? A lot of otherwise smart people has been scared into this state.
Sometimes I ask myself if the FDA and CDC credibility died with covid, or because of covid. Likewise with my fellow acadmics that has failed to defend the scientific method and instead defend "Science" administrative institutional processes even after obvious corruption that make them unscientific.
To make matters worse administrative institutional representatives often obviously misrepresent the core document, contributing to misinformation for political aims and profit. E.g. making it seem like approved vaxx is injected while approval doc reissue Emergency Use Authorization that has a liability shield and only EUA vaxx is injected (see FDA approval page 3 [1]).
People that defend health and science organizations that break the scientific method as well as best practices, all while having revolving doors with those they regulate, are enablers. It's like living in a house infected with termites with people that ignore the signs. Without you guys defending them in forums like this their bullshit would be much harder to pull off, and we could have nice things such as a healthy scientific discourse and probably many fewer covid deaths.
Many like myself will pry science back out of "Science" hands, because it's annoying to get political answers to scientific questions.
Quote from the scientist in [1] showing you are wrong on long term effects: "One of the worst medical disasters was diethylstilbestrol (DES) which was commonly prescribed as an anti-miscarriage medication in the 1940s. It was recalled 30 years later after it was connected to a rare tumor that appeared in the next generation of daughters of women who had taken it. "
Reproductive damage would also only show up once the kids grow up and try to have kids. Cancers other than the one in the quote also take a while to develop.
The scientists that wrote [1] are concerned about long term adverse effects as well as the short term we know: Larry Kwak, MD, PhD was named to the TIME100 for his work in cancer vaccines and is a former advisor to FDA; Steven Rosen, MD is Dir of a US NCI-designated Comp Cancer Center - he dev monoclonal Ab & drugs for cancer; Idit Shachar, PhD served as a dept chair
> What has been observed is that the effects observed within a week show that long term effects will be far worse for the disease than the vaccine.
The pre-print article below [2] is backed up by solid data that observes for young men, the risk of myocarditis is greater with the mRNA vaccines than from natural infection.
> When are you going to understand that I never disputed that, and none of my arguments are affected by that? My point was that Covid is so bad for children that even with severe mitigations in place (so severe that only one child died of flu), it outkilled the flu in a normal year without those mitigations.
You said "Covid still hundreds of times more lethal for children than the flu", so that means you claim we should expect 20k+ deaths without mitigations.
Again, we had 400 pediatric deaths amongst the unvaccinated 73 million US kids over 1.5 years. According to this [3] nature article by end of 2020 1/3 of all Americans had covid.
Where do you get your excess mitigated pediatric deaths from?
> That's a silly idea. We could vaccinate kids instead, and that's what is going on.
For Polio this makes sense as the reward is higher than risk, but low pediatric covid risk coupled with so much risk and uncertainty around the mRNA gene therapy vaccines makes the reward not worth it.
Plus, it seems like the vaccines are ineffective against new variants such as omicron and wears off pretty fast. Boosters have not worked for variants so far, which is especially clear in highly boosted Israel and Singapore.
Some hope further boosters will solve the vaccine effectivenes, but "European Union regulators warned that frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune response and may not be feasible" [4]. So again, risk vs reward is off and part of the damage would only show up long-term (and being immuno compromised is no fun).
[1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/oct/28/applying-br... [2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... [3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03914-4 [4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-bo...
Moreover, the government should be representative and derive it's power from the consent of the governed. Not enforce compliance to administrative state edicts. The slide from a representative republic to a technocracy is worrying.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/dangerous-push-to-give-boosters...