10 ms·

Yeah this is definitely not surprising to the least! Even if I was laid off I am more worried about my children having long term health effects (or worse) than

Yeah this is definitely not surprising to the least! Even if I was laid off I am more worried about my children having long term health effects (or worse) than missing a few bills, and that is before considering how flexible lenders are claiming to be (I've gotten emails from all my major bills about covid related help they can provide). I am just so confused why some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid. Yes they have less effects than adults but some children do go to the hospital and ICU. And also they can easily spread it to the parents/grandparents.

cellar_door 6y ago
> Yes they have less effects than adults but some children do go to the hospital and ICU You see this kind of vague claim online all the time when it comes to COVID but with no actual data. What are the actual risks of a child going to the hospital as a result of COVID infection? How does that compare to other risks that you regularly expose your kids to?
- lambdaba 6y ago
  The risk in children is from diabetes and metabolic syndrome, conversely what protects children most is a relatively well functioning immune system. As we've seen that coronavirus immunity is enhanced with exposure to other coronaviruses, and innate immune system function, it appears children should not be isolated. By this rationale, they shouldn't even be wearing masks.
- zaroth 6y ago
  About 1% of detected cases in children require hospitalization. That number of course does not account for undiagnosed, subclinical, and fully asymptomatic cases in children. Compared to the flu, just looking at the proportion of children who are diagnosed positive cases, children would be about equally as likely to require hospitalization, but this likely overstates the hospitalization risk of COVID. In terms of death rates, flu is significantly more deadly (at least 10x more deadly) in children 0-14, and about equally as deadly for ages 15-24. [1] [1] - https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/07/14/coronavirus-covid-deaths-among-children-and-reopening-schools-14909 https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/07/14/coronavirus-covid-death...
umvi 6y ago
> I am just so confused why some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid. Well, it's not that surprising when you have a disease whose harm factor is a function of your age. The vast majority of covid deaths are the elderly. The tiniest minority of covid deaths are young children. Their ability to spread to adults is their biggest risk factor, not the disease itself.
- UncleOxidant 6y ago
  Sure, but they can pass it as easily as an adult can (saw a recent paper that said that children under 5 have higher viral loads than adults so they might actually be more infectious). There's a myth that kids can't pass it, but it's only a myth.
  - mortehu 6y ago
    > they can pass it as easily as an adult can Sounds like you're using a proxy result (viral load instead of shedding or actual transmission) in a single unnamed paper to make a pretty strong assertion?
- bendotero 6y ago
  > Their ability to spread to adults is their biggest risk factor, not the disease itself. But that's one of the biggest unknowns. While children are at far lower risk of dying, according to data we have, we still don't know about long term health effects and we're finding out new information all the time. And much of that new information doesn't seem great.
- buhhh 6y ago
  Are you confusing harm with death rates? It's a novel virus and we still do not know the long term health impacts of it.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Everything novel has this problem, and fortunately our epistemology is up to the task. We set our priors to a weighted linear combination of other similar things and then revise as evidence comes in. For instance, MMR II was approved in 1978. How do we know that people who were given MMR II won't spontaneously die at the age of 60? Or perhaps to bring it closer to another problem, how do we know they won't spontaneously develop Autism Spectrum Disorder at the age of 60? There hasn't been time. It's a pretty novel vaccine.
miketery 6y ago
It's all about risk. Humans are terrible at understanding probability. There must be a threshold where it becomes ok to take on the risk (e.g. driving a car everyday for most Americans). So where is that threshold? Another way to think about it is, what do we do if we learn that the pandemic will not end for the next 10 years? What activities do we allow and under what new mode of operation / conditions? It might be the case that opening schools for younger ages with 2 shifts to reduce density (2 weeks in person, 2 weeks from home) could have an acceptable risk profile.
- gdubs 6y ago
  Risk and uncertainty go hand-in-hand. It’s clear what the risks are, generally, with cars. It’s unclear what the risks are with a novel pathogen.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - matz1 6y ago
    If its unclear yet then don't shut down school ? Its clear that there are risk of closing school.
- birken 6y ago
  > Another way to think about it is, what do we do if we learn that the pandemic will not end for the next 10 years? What activities do we allow and under what new mode of operation / conditions? Then we'd actually put real effort into controlling it so we could go back to life as normal even with the virus not fully eradicated. The problem with all of these simple "risk profile" analyses is that we as a country are being forced to accept risk we don't have to. With cars, we understand there is some amount of risk but also we as a society also care about those deaths and make tons of regulations and improvements to make driving safer. As such, death rates have fallen over the decades even as miles driven have accelerated. Whereas with the pandemic we seemingly are just accepting high death rates and hoping for the best instead of putting in the level of effort to fix it. That makes it not just about risk tolerance, but frustration with the level of concern the country is putting into fixing the problem.
Florin_Andrei 6y ago
> some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid I mean, that point of view was literally expressed in a public forum by the president of the United States. It must carry weight in some circles at least.
sneak 6y ago
It’s impossible to force a parent into the choice between working a life-threatening job interacting with the public or eviction so long as they have a child at home. The parent will not abandon the child home alone to go to work, no matter how big the stick. School being effectively state subsidized working hours daycare, it must resume before low wage workers can once again be coerced back into risking their lives to avoid homelessness.
- kazen44 6y ago
  > It’s impossible to force a parent into the choice between working a life-threatening job interacting with the public or eviction so long as they have a child at home Impossible? definitely not. (i would argue this is the exact issue many people in the US face today). highly immoral and with a total disregard to one's decency or life? absolutely.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Parents simply will not abandon their small child, home alone for the day, to go to work. Not going to happen. If that’s their only option, they will end up homeless, with their child.
- dfxm12 6y ago
  It’s impossible to force a parent into the choice between working a life-threatening job interacting with the public or eviction It's a failing of the government that so many Americans have to face this choice.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    How is this a failing? The system is performing well for its stakeholders - maximizing wealth extraction for the upper class, with a simulation of free market choice to keep the middle and lower classes occupied and pacified. From this perspective, a 1% fatality rate should merely translate into the stock market declining by 1%, and then we move on.
  - Afton 6y ago
vmchale 6y ago
> I am just so confused why some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid. That was what the Chinese data said - they had fewer cases so presumably they didn't see the full range of possibilities.
gibrown 6y ago
Plus we know nothing about the long term health consequences. Kids may not be dying at a high rate but they may suffer long term heart, lung, or organ damage. It feels like everyone is just assuming that if it isn’t death then it is fine. Just because you survive something doesn’t make you stronger.
- brink 6y ago
  > Plus we know nothing about the long term health consequences. I'm not anti-vax, but anti-vaxers use this same tactic; they use ambiguity to breed fear against vaccines. I get that some unknowns are dangerous, but there has to be a limit, right? We can't be afraid of everything we don't know.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Most vaccines have been in use for years, sometimes decades. They're given nearly universally. We've had ample time and sample size to uncover their dangers (if any). Covid hasn't even been around for a year. The two situations are nothing alike.
  - dfxm12 6y ago
    The difference is that anti-vaxers make this point against vaccines that have been used for a long time about which we do understand the long term health consequences. This is contrasted to the long term health consequences of COVID-19, which appears could be significant, but we just aren't certain yet only because there just aren't any long term survivors yet and thus studies [0] related to it haven't been completed. I don't think this is past the limit. 0 - https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2020/looking-forward-understanding-long-term-effects-covid-19 https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2020/looking-forward-understa...
  - gibrown 6y ago
    I’m basing my risk assessment on evidence of likely long term damage to adults. Combined with very little data there is a huge amount of unknown risk still to children. https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/07/08/from-lung-scarring-to-heart-damage-covid-19-may-leave-lingering-marks/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/07/08/from-lung-scarring-to-h... I hope I’m wrong. In six months or a year maybe I’ll feel more comfortable with the risk to my kids (and myself with a damaged spinal cord), but right now I don’t and to equate it to anti-vaxxers is fairly insulting.
gdubs 6y ago
People put a lot of weight in early studies from countries that didn’t see outbreaks in schools. My problem with those studies has been: 1) Community spread in those areas was very low. 2) Kids were/are not being tested at anywhere near the same rate as adults. 3) We really have no idea whether there are long term effects in asymptomatic individuals. Regarding both 2 and 3, kids seem to be largely asymptomatic. That would explain the lower testing rates. People are generally not going to go have their kid swabbed if there’s no apparent reason to do so. But given that asymptomatic adults might have long term negative effects, it seems pretty cavalier to just assume kids won’t. Hopefully they don’t, but we really don’t know. This type of thinking often gets dismissed as “alarmist”, however a bit of alarm (and an abundance of caution) over a rapidly spreading novel virus is warranted. (This is my armchair analysis. I’m not a health expert.)
- linuxftw 6y ago
  People put a lot of weight into early proprietary models that turned out to be absolute garbage. > But given that asymptomatic adults might have long term negative effects Unfortunately, there's no control for these assumptions. People are exposed to all sorts of things over their lifetime. Not everyone produces antibodies, so there will be no definitive way to link any person having an infection and any long term effects. Need to establish the risk compared to existing baseline. So far, deaths are down for the year, so everyone's switched to 'unknown long term effects.'
dfxm12 6y ago
I am just so confused why some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid. Those people think "opening the economy" is worth more than human (kid or otherwise) lives. They're either politicians trying to convince an electorate that they didn't fail miserably at their job, or are regular Joes falling victim to disingenuous cable news networks.
- oxymoran 6y ago
  Painting your strawmen with very broad brushes. What about the long term health consequences of poverty? At least those are known.
  - thomaslord 6y ago
    Please consider the long-term implications here. We don't get to choose whether economic damage happens - it's already happened and will continue. People who are scared are not going to go out unnecessarily, and even if that's only 30-40% of consumers it'll have a massively negative effect on the economy. We have only one thing we can do to get the economy back on the rails: bring the case count down. The longer we let this go without properly managing it, the harder it is to bring the case count down. The longer the case count is too high for reasonable, cautious people who care about their parents and grandparents' survival and their long term lung health to participate significantly in the economy, the more damage the economy will sustain. If you want businesses to be opening up now, you should've demanded for them to close 6 months ago. If you want schools to open, you should've been demanding that everyone wear a mask 6 months ago. At this stage of the pandemic, people who selfishly refused to do their part for their fellow citizens are entirely to blame for the continued necessity of mask requirements and schools closing.
TheBlight 6y ago
More kids go to the ICU and die due to the flu.
- triceratops 6y ago
  Who's gonna take care of the kids whose parents are in the ICU?
x87678r 6y ago
I know 7 people now that have had it. The worst affected one had to stay in bed a day, most of the others just lost taste or felt a bit run down. Children had sniffles. 2 were asymptomatic.
- ghouse 6y ago
  I know two people who have had it. Once lost her sense of smell four months ago. Not back yet. The other died.
  - x87678r 6y ago
    Wow that is incredibly bad luck.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  So, now you know 8. Three weeks in bed, recovery another 4, still not 100% but managing. That's been 5 months now.
heavyset_go 6y ago
> I am just so confused why some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid. Yes they have less effects than adults but some children do go to the hospital and ICU. And also they can easily spread it to the parents/grandparents. Minimization and denial are powerful psychological forces, and the fact that some children get the condition without severe symptoms lulls some people into complacency. The fact is that the virus inhabits the lungs, and damages tissue as it replicates. Just because someone isn't having an acute symptomatic response doesn't mean that there couldn't be long term effects from infection.
- highmastdon 6y ago
  > The fact is that the virus inhabits the lungs, and damages tissue as it replicates. Just because someone isn't having an acute symptomatic response doesn't mean that there couldn't be long term effects from infection If this is the way to treat with life, how would you be still alive? Isn’t it the very reason we get ill because the body is treating the virus. Do you have any source to believe that asymptomatic infected person has long term negative effects from infection?
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    > If this is the way to treat with life, how would you be still alive? I'm confused as to why you're taking my observation about a novel deadly disease as advice to live the rest of your life by.
HumblyTossed 6y ago
> I am just so confused why some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid. Because we have forgotten how to say to ourselves, "I generally agree with this ideology, but on this subject, I agree with other people." Politics (and this is, sadly, political) is a zero sum game now.
ip26 6y ago
I am just so confused why some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid Perhaps people are simply desensitized to kids catching colds & flus? My kid probably brought home twenty different novel coronaviruses, all before his second birthday.
schemy 6y ago
Are you worried about your children living on the streets? Because for 1/3rd of people this is a reality when the federal money stops flowing.
dmch-1 6y ago
Covid-19 might be a major challenge for the society, but individual risks for younger people wothout health issues are still small, at least based on the knowledge we currently have. I am afraid the attitudes described in the article are more due to uninformedness and normal parental anxiousness than anything rational.

cellar_door 6y ago

> Yes they have less effects than adults but some children do go to the hospital and ICU You see this kind of vague claim online all the time when it comes to COVID but with no actual data. What are the actual risks of a child going to the hospital as a result of COVID infection? How does that compare to other risks that you regularly expose your kids to?

lambdaba 6y ago
The risk in children is from diabetes and metabolic syndrome, conversely what protects children most is a relatively well functioning immune system. As we've seen that coronavirus immunity is enhanced with exposure to other coronaviruses, and innate immune system function, it appears children should not be isolated. By this rationale, they shouldn't even be wearing masks.
zaroth 6y ago
About 1% of detected cases in children require hospitalization. That number of course does not account for undiagnosed, subclinical, and fully asymptomatic cases in children. Compared to the flu, just looking at the proportion of children who are diagnosed positive cases, children would be about equally as likely to require hospitalization, but this likely overstates the hospitalization risk of COVID. In terms of death rates, flu is significantly more deadly (at least 10x more deadly) in children 0-14, and about equally as deadly for ages 15-24. [1] [1] - https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/07/14/coronavirus-covid-deaths-among-children-and-reopening-schools-14909 https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/07/14/coronavirus-covid-death...

umvi 6y ago

> I am just so confused why some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid. Well, it's not that surprising when you have a disease whose harm factor is a function of your age. The vast majority of covid deaths are the elderly. The tiniest minority of covid deaths are young children. Their ability to spread to adults is their biggest risk factor, not the disease itself.

UncleOxidant 6y ago
Sure, but they can pass it as easily as an adult can (saw a recent paper that said that children under 5 have higher viral loads than adults so they might actually be more infectious). There's a myth that kids can't pass it, but it's only a myth.
- mortehu 6y ago
  > they can pass it as easily as an adult can Sounds like you're using a proxy result (viral load instead of shedding or actual transmission) in a single unnamed paper to make a pretty strong assertion?
bendotero 6y ago
> Their ability to spread to adults is their biggest risk factor, not the disease itself. But that's one of the biggest unknowns. While children are at far lower risk of dying, according to data we have, we still don't know about long term health effects and we're finding out new information all the time. And much of that new information doesn't seem great.
buhhh 6y ago
Are you confusing harm with death rates? It's a novel virus and we still do not know the long term health impacts of it.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Everything novel has this problem, and fortunately our epistemology is up to the task. We set our priors to a weighted linear combination of other similar things and then revise as evidence comes in. For instance, MMR II was approved in 1978. How do we know that people who were given MMR II won't spontaneously die at the age of 60? Or perhaps to bring it closer to another problem, how do we know they won't spontaneously develop Autism Spectrum Disorder at the age of 60? There hasn't been time. It's a pretty novel vaccine.

miketery 6y ago

It's all about risk. Humans are terrible at understanding probability. There must be a threshold where it becomes ok to take on the risk (e.g. driving a car everyday for most Americans). So where is that threshold? Another way to think about it is, what do we do if we learn that the pandemic will not end for the next 10 years? What activities do we allow and under what new mode of operation / conditions? It might be the case that opening schools for younger ages with 2 shifts to reduce density (2 weeks in person, 2 weeks from home) could have an acceptable risk profile.

gdubs 6y ago
Risk and uncertainty go hand-in-hand. It’s clear what the risks are, generally, with cars. It’s unclear what the risks are with a novel pathogen.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- matz1 6y ago
  If its unclear yet then don't shut down school ? Its clear that there are risk of closing school.
birken 6y ago
> Another way to think about it is, what do we do if we learn that the pandemic will not end for the next 10 years? What activities do we allow and under what new mode of operation / conditions? Then we'd actually put real effort into controlling it so we could go back to life as normal even with the virus not fully eradicated. The problem with all of these simple "risk profile" analyses is that we as a country are being forced to accept risk we don't have to. With cars, we understand there is some amount of risk but also we as a society also care about those deaths and make tons of regulations and improvements to make driving safer. As such, death rates have fallen over the decades even as miles driven have accelerated. Whereas with the pandemic we seemingly are just accepting high death rates and hoping for the best instead of putting in the level of effort to fix it. That makes it not just about risk tolerance, but frustration with the level of concern the country is putting into fixing the problem.

Florin_Andrei 6y ago

> some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid I mean, that point of view was literally expressed in a public forum by the president of the United States. It must carry weight in some circles at least.

sneak 6y ago

It’s impossible to force a parent into the choice between working a life-threatening job interacting with the public or eviction so long as they have a child at home. The parent will not abandon the child home alone to go to work, no matter how big the stick. School being effectively state subsidized working hours daycare, it must resume before low wage workers can once again be coerced back into risking their lives to avoid homelessness.

kazen44 6y ago
> It’s impossible to force a parent into the choice between working a life-threatening job interacting with the public or eviction so long as they have a child at home Impossible? definitely not. (i would argue this is the exact issue many people in the US face today). highly immoral and with a total disregard to one's decency or life? absolutely.
- sneak 6y ago
  Parents simply will not abandon their small child, home alone for the day, to go to work. Not going to happen. If that’s their only option, they will end up homeless, with their child.
dfxm12 6y ago
It’s impossible to force a parent into the choice between working a life-threatening job interacting with the public or eviction It's a failing of the government that so many Americans have to face this choice.
- mindslight 6y ago
  How is this a failing? The system is performing well for its stakeholders - maximizing wealth extraction for the upper class, with a simulation of free market choice to keep the middle and lower classes occupied and pacified. From this perspective, a 1% fatality rate should merely translate into the stock market declining by 1%, and then we move on.
- Afton 6y ago

vmchale 6y ago

> I am just so confused why some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid. That was what the Chinese data said - they had fewer cases so presumably they didn't see the full range of possibilities.

gibrown 6y ago

Plus we know nothing about the long term health consequences. Kids may not be dying at a high rate but they may suffer long term heart, lung, or organ damage. It feels like everyone is just assuming that if it isn’t death then it is fine. Just because you survive something doesn’t make you stronger.

brink 6y ago
> Plus we know nothing about the long term health consequences. I'm not anti-vax, but anti-vaxers use this same tactic; they use ambiguity to breed fear against vaccines. I get that some unknowns are dangerous, but there has to be a limit, right? We can't be afraid of everything we don't know.
- triceratops 6y ago
  Most vaccines have been in use for years, sometimes decades. They're given nearly universally. We've had ample time and sample size to uncover their dangers (if any). Covid hasn't even been around for a year. The two situations are nothing alike.
- dfxm12 6y ago
  The difference is that anti-vaxers make this point against vaccines that have been used for a long time about which we do understand the long term health consequences. This is contrasted to the long term health consequences of COVID-19, which appears could be significant, but we just aren't certain yet only because there just aren't any long term survivors yet and thus studies [0] related to it haven't been completed. I don't think this is past the limit. 0 - https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2020/looking-forward-understanding-long-term-effects-covid-19 https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2020/looking-forward-understa...
- gibrown 6y ago
  I’m basing my risk assessment on evidence of likely long term damage to adults. Combined with very little data there is a huge amount of unknown risk still to children. https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/07/08/from-lung-scarring-to-heart-damage-covid-19-may-leave-lingering-marks/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/07/08/from-lung-scarring-to-h... I hope I’m wrong. In six months or a year maybe I’ll feel more comfortable with the risk to my kids (and myself with a damaged spinal cord), but right now I don’t and to equate it to anti-vaxxers is fairly insulting.

gdubs 6y ago

People put a lot of weight in early studies from countries that didn’t see outbreaks in schools. My problem with those studies has been: 1) Community spread in those areas was very low. 2) Kids were/are not being tested at anywhere near the same rate as adults. 3) We really have no idea whether there are long term effects in asymptomatic individuals. Regarding both 2 and 3, kids seem to be largely asymptomatic. That would explain the lower testing rates. People are generally not going to go have their kid swabbed if there’s no apparent reason to do so. But given that asymptomatic adults might have long term negative effects, it seems pretty cavalier to just assume kids won’t. Hopefully they don’t, but we really don’t know. This type of thinking often gets dismissed as “alarmist”, however a bit of alarm (and an abundance of caution) over a rapidly spreading novel virus is warranted. (This is my armchair analysis. I’m not a health expert.)

linuxftw 6y ago
People put a lot of weight into early proprietary models that turned out to be absolute garbage. > But given that asymptomatic adults might have long term negative effects Unfortunately, there's no control for these assumptions. People are exposed to all sorts of things over their lifetime. Not everyone produces antibodies, so there will be no definitive way to link any person having an infection and any long term effects. Need to establish the risk compared to existing baseline. So far, deaths are down for the year, so everyone's switched to 'unknown long term effects.'

dfxm12 6y ago

I am just so confused why some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid. Those people think "opening the economy" is worth more than human (kid or otherwise) lives. They're either politicians trying to convince an electorate that they didn't fail miserably at their job, or are regular Joes falling victim to disingenuous cable news networks.

oxymoran 6y ago
Painting your strawmen with very broad brushes. What about the long term health consequences of poverty? At least those are known.
- thomaslord 6y ago
  Please consider the long-term implications here. We don't get to choose whether economic damage happens - it's already happened and will continue. People who are scared are not going to go out unnecessarily, and even if that's only 30-40% of consumers it'll have a massively negative effect on the economy. We have only one thing we can do to get the economy back on the rails: bring the case count down. The longer we let this go without properly managing it, the harder it is to bring the case count down. The longer the case count is too high for reasonable, cautious people who care about their parents and grandparents' survival and their long term lung health to participate significantly in the economy, the more damage the economy will sustain. If you want businesses to be opening up now, you should've demanded for them to close 6 months ago. If you want schools to open, you should've been demanding that everyone wear a mask 6 months ago. At this stage of the pandemic, people who selfishly refused to do their part for their fellow citizens are entirely to blame for the continued necessity of mask requirements and schools closing.

TheBlight 6y ago

More kids go to the ICU and die due to the flu.

triceratops 6y ago
Who's gonna take care of the kids whose parents are in the ICU?

x87678r 6y ago

I know 7 people now that have had it. The worst affected one had to stay in bed a day, most of the others just lost taste or felt a bit run down. Children had sniffles. 2 were asymptomatic.

ghouse 6y ago
I know two people who have had it. Once lost her sense of smell four months ago. Not back yet. The other died.
- x87678r 6y ago
  Wow that is incredibly bad luck.
jacquesm 6y ago
So, now you know 8. Three weeks in bed, recovery another 4, still not 100% but managing. That's been 5 months now.

heavyset_go 6y ago

> I am just so confused why some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid. Yes they have less effects than adults but some children do go to the hospital and ICU. And also they can easily spread it to the parents/grandparents. Minimization and denial are powerful psychological forces, and the fact that some children get the condition without severe symptoms lulls some people into complacency. The fact is that the virus inhabits the lungs, and damages tissue as it replicates. Just because someone isn't having an acute symptomatic response doesn't mean that there couldn't be long term effects from infection.

highmastdon 6y ago
> The fact is that the virus inhabits the lungs, and damages tissue as it replicates. Just because someone isn't having an acute symptomatic response doesn't mean that there couldn't be long term effects from infection If this is the way to treat with life, how would you be still alive? Isn’t it the very reason we get ill because the body is treating the virus. Do you have any source to believe that asymptomatic infected person has long term negative effects from infection?
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > If this is the way to treat with life, how would you be still alive? I'm confused as to why you're taking my observation about a novel deadly disease as advice to live the rest of your life by.

HumblyTossed 6y ago

> I am just so confused why some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid. Because we have forgotten how to say to ourselves, "I generally agree with this ideology, but on this subject, I agree with other people." Politics (and this is, sadly, political) is a zero sum game now.

ip26 6y ago

I am just so confused why some people are acting like kids are a different species when it comes to covid Perhaps people are simply desensitized to kids catching colds & flus? My kid probably brought home twenty different novel coronaviruses, all before his second birthday.

schemy 6y ago

Are you worried about your children living on the streets? Because for 1/3rd of people this is a reality when the federal money stops flowing.

dmch-1 6y ago

Covid-19 might be a major challenge for the society, but individual risks for younger people wothout health issues are still small, at least based on the knowledge we currently have. I am afraid the attitudes described in the article are more due to uninformedness and normal parental anxiousness than anything rational.