6 ms·
The thing that boggles my mind is how many people are treating "children" as if they are anything but smaller, developing humans. What works for adults will wor
by bena 5y ago
The thing that boggles my mind is how many people are treating "children" as if they are anything but smaller, developing humans. What works for adults will work for children. What can happen to children can happen to adults. The major difference is that children are smaller and are developing. So we need to be wary of things that could hinder that development.
That's really it.
They aren't some completely separate species. It's not like Covid checks birthdays.
- gls2ro 5y agoWhat works for adults does not work for children. For example we use different dosages per kg in adults and children. Please note dosage per kg and not total dosage. Also the immune system works differently. So please do not spread this information. It is false in many ways. Children body (especially young ones) works differently than adult body.
- jtc331 5y agoYep. For example with the 1918 flu cytokine storms in younger populations and not in older populations is one proposed explanation for peak mortality being among the young not the elderly.
- yucky 5y ago>What works for adults will work for children. Then why do we have different medication for children?
- bena 5y agoDo we though? We have lower strength versions of things because they're smaller. And we don't give them anything that would inhibit development. Those are the differences. Giving something in dosages designed for a 180 lb man to a 50 lb child is bound to be problematic.
- jtc331 5y agoNo, that’s not what people are doing or saying. If the side effect rate/safety curve for the vaccines is not age specific then it’s entirely plausible there’s an age crossover point with the disease risk curve given COVID’s risk is wildly slanted towards older ages.
- bena 5y agoAll disease risk is wildly slanted towards older ages. Old people die. It's what we expect. And the vaccine side effect rate/safety curve you claim to be worried about for the very first time in your life is so astonishingly low, there's never going to be an "age crossover point".
- jtc331 5y agoRe: all diseases that’s not true either. For example the 1918 flu caused significant damage precisely because it affected young people quite significantly.
- bena 5y agoBut it affected older people worse, right? You're trying to deny a basic fact, old people are more at risk, as a group, just in general.
- jtc331 5y ago> But it affected older people worse, right? No, incorrect again. Mortality for the 1918 flu peaked at age 28 and was lower in older age groups. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3734171/#!po=0.806452 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3734171/#!po=0.... I’m not denying a basic fact. I’m showing that your knowledge of the facts is not as complete as you seem to think.
- bena 5y agoThen it's truly an aberration and not nearly the slam dunk you think it is. Because it was so odd, they specifically looked into it.