5 ms·

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 i

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?

fastball 6y ago
> 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.
- ModernMech 6y ago
  > 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#/media/File:Prevalence_of_HIV_infections_in_the_United_States_and_total_AIDS_deaths.svg 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.
  - fastball 6y ago
    You seem misinformed. https://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/coronavirus-covid-19-information-children-young-people-and-families https://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/coronavirus-covid-19-informatio... Please stop with all the FUD and actually read up on what we know.
    - ModernMech 6y ago
      Not really seeing anything in this link that has any bearing on what I said in my post.
      - fastball 6y ago
        We know that COVID-19 is less dangerous, statistically, for children than it is for other populations. By a large degree.
        ModernMech 6y ago
        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.

fastball 6y ago

> 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.

ModernMech 6y ago
> 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#/media/File:Prevalence_of_HIV_infections_in_the_United_States_and_total_AIDS_deaths.svg 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.
- fastball 6y ago
  You seem misinformed. https://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/coronavirus-covid-19-information-children-young-people-and-families https://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/coronavirus-covid-19-informatio... Please stop with all the FUD and actually read up on what we know.
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    Not really seeing anything in this link that has any bearing on what I said in my post.
    - fastball 6y ago
      We know that COVID-19 is less dangerous, statistically, for children than it is for other populations. By a large degree.
      - ModernMech 6y ago
        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.