4 ms·
First, I'll note that my initial comment was in the context of "when do we get on with our lives", which I took as a different question from "when _should_ we g
by anyonecancode 5y ago
First, I'll note that my initial comment was in the context of "when do we get on with our lives", which I took as a different question from "when _should_ we get on with our lives." What I think we _should_ do is not the same as what I think we _will_ do. Plenty of debate to be had around the "should" question of course, but it is a different question.
That noted, and since I did engage in your comment on the risk to children, I am curious about your statement that my response is inconsistent with what we know. As I understand it, we don't actually know why children have been less susceptible to illness so far, do we? I've seen plenty of theorizing, but I haven't seen any reporting indicating these are more than theories so far. If there's some reliable reporting on this topic I missed, I'd definitely be happy to see it!
- timr 5y ago> As I understand it, we don't actually know why children have been less susceptible to illness so far, do we? Well, everything is a theory, but the most plausible one I've seen is that ACE2 expression is age-dependent. Young kids don't have much of the receptor the virus needs.