3 ms·

>>That was over 2 weeks ago. As of August 15th there are now 1,900 children hospitalized with COVID in the US. There are many states that are just starting to e

>>That was over 2 weeks ago. As of August 15th there are now 1,900 children hospitalized with COVID in the US. There are many states that are just starting to experience the delta surge. The US delta wave is not projected to peak until September/October. How much of that hospitalization is driven by over-concerned parents being driven by exactly the kind of hysteria that we've seen fanned in this discussion, to admit their children when they get sick? How much of it is driven by RSV, which is surging: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/13/children-hospitalizations-covid-delta/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/13/children-ho... >>Combined with a highly unusual spike in the number of children admitted with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), a flu-like illness that usually strikes in the winter, and parainfluenza viruses — and in some cases, co-infections with covid-19 — many children’s hospitals are overwhelmed. Something similar is happening in New Zealand, where there is no covid, as children pay an immunity debt: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/new-zealand-children-falling-ill-in-high-numbers-due-to-covid-immunity-debt https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/08/new-zealand-ch... The fact is, there have been only 292 deaths with positive covid status, in the 5-18 age group in the US throughout the entirety of the covid epidemic: https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-on-Ages-0-18-Yea/nr4s-juj3 https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-... That is not a large enough number to justify masking tens of millions of children for much of every day, for two years, when the most likely effect of masking is going to only be to delay contraction of the virus, rather than prevent it altogether. >>Also, if you're going to compare outcomes between England and US you absolutely have to compare policy and vax rate. Nearly 90% of adults in UK have had at least one shot compared to 70% in the US. In some individual states it's more like 50%. This is why per capita caseload in the US is significantly higher. Higher caseload means a greater number of children will get sick. I would consider it if the number of children dying from covid delta wasn't ~0 in the entirety of England with a population 55 million. That tells us the risk is extremely small, and won't become significant even if the case load increases by several fold.

jasonlaramburu 5y ago
> when the most likely effect of masking is going to only be to delay contraction of the virus, rather than prevent it altogether. Your worst case scenario would likely be a phenomenal outcome. American kids age 5+ should have access to both mRNA vaccines by October. Vaccination reduces the death rate from Delta to effectively zero. If 292 US kids have died since day 1 of the pandemic, we could reasonably expect at least 30 more to die before vaccines are widely available. Assuming masks really can delay a child’s infection (which seems realistic) then I can’t fathom anyone who couldn’t be bothered to wear one for a couple months longer.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>I can’t fathom anyone who couldn’t be bothered to wear one for a couple months longer. Because the quality of life given up is not worth the risk mitigation. If a child has a 0.00006% chance of dying each month they are not masked (30 deaths / 50,000,000 children aged 5-17), and wearing a mask for most of the school day reduces their quality of life by 5%, they are giving up 0.00417 (1 yr / 12 * 0.05) quality-adjusted life years to gain 0.000045 (0.0000006 risk of death × 75 years lost if they die) life years. The cost, in life years, is approximately 100X the benefit, in mitigating risk of death. And this is assuming masks reduce the risk of death by 100%, and don't exacerbate other risks of death (e.g. less development of communication skills, leading to less lifetime income and lower life expectancy). The real ratio, in terms of cost vs benefit, could be 1,000X.
  - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
    What? Nobody thinks like this so you must just be trolling at this point. No evidence whatsoever that masking takes any % off your life expectancy.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      My point was very clear, so I have no idea how you misinterpreted me. My primary point is that masking takes from your quality of life, and that it's not worth giving up a lot of quality of life to gain a little bit of life expectancy. As for masking's potentially negative effect on life expectancy, we don't know if it exists and what it could be, but we cannot rule it out, as extended masking in children has never been tested to see its effects, let alone its long-term ones. So you completely ignored my primary point about quality of life. Did you really misinterpret my reference to quality of life as being about life expectancy, or are you deliberately trolling me?
      - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
        You're trolling because you just made up the numbers. 5%... Why not 10% or 0.5? There is such a thing in the world as altruism. Sometimes people inconvenience themselves to help others (not just themselves).

jasonlaramburu 5y ago

> when the most likely effect of masking is going to only be to delay contraction of the virus, rather than prevent it altogether. Your worst case scenario would likely be a phenomenal outcome. American kids age 5+ should have access to both mRNA vaccines by October. Vaccination reduces the death rate from Delta to effectively zero. If 292 US kids have died since day 1 of the pandemic, we could reasonably expect at least 30 more to die before vaccines are widely available. Assuming masks really can delay a child’s infection (which seems realistic) then I can’t fathom anyone who couldn’t be bothered to wear one for a couple months longer.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>I can’t fathom anyone who couldn’t be bothered to wear one for a couple months longer. Because the quality of life given up is not worth the risk mitigation. If a child has a 0.00006% chance of dying each month they are not masked (30 deaths / 50,000,000 children aged 5-17), and wearing a mask for most of the school day reduces their quality of life by 5%, they are giving up 0.00417 (1 yr / 12 * 0.05) quality-adjusted life years to gain 0.000045 (0.0000006 risk of death × 75 years lost if they die) life years. The cost, in life years, is approximately 100X the benefit, in mitigating risk of death. And this is assuming masks reduce the risk of death by 100%, and don't exacerbate other risks of death (e.g. less development of communication skills, leading to less lifetime income and lower life expectancy). The real ratio, in terms of cost vs benefit, could be 1,000X.
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  What? Nobody thinks like this so you must just be trolling at this point. No evidence whatsoever that masking takes any % off your life expectancy.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    My point was very clear, so I have no idea how you misinterpreted me. My primary point is that masking takes from your quality of life, and that it's not worth giving up a lot of quality of life to gain a little bit of life expectancy. As for masking's potentially negative effect on life expectancy, we don't know if it exists and what it could be, but we cannot rule it out, as extended masking in children has never been tested to see its effects, let alone its long-term ones. So you completely ignored my primary point about quality of life. Did you really misinterpret my reference to quality of life as being about life expectancy, or are you deliberately trolling me?
    - jasonlaramburu 5y ago
      You're trolling because you just made up the numbers. 5%... Why not 10% or 0.5? There is such a thing in the world as altruism. Sometimes people inconvenience themselves to help others (not just themselves).