5 ms·
Because the Covid mortality risk for children is already with masks, compared to without masks for the flu. Also, there are considerations other than specifica
by TameAntelope 5y ago
Because the Covid mortality risk for children is already with masks, compared to without masks for the flu.
Also, there are considerations other than specifically a child's death that are relevant here, like who that child can spread it to and what negative longterm effects surviving COVID-19 carry, neither of which are as pronounced or unknown as with the flu.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nradov 5y agoAccording to the CDC the COVID-19 infection fatality rate for children is 0.002%. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd... Children can spread the virus to adults, but adults who want to be vaccinated have been for months now. And since everyone will be exposed anyway it hardly matters who does the exposing. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
- TameAntelope 5y agoHow many children are there in the US? I'll let you pick the number you'd like to multiply by 0.00002, to get the number of children you're okay with killing.
- nradov 5y agoIt's easy to act morally superior and make cheap emotional arguments for when you're not the one who has to make hard decisions. All lives have value, but no life has infinite value. You can't seriously expect the majority to endure perpetual mandates and restrictions just to provide some limited, temporary protection to a small minority who are vulnerable due to risk factors like obesity. https://reason.com/2022/01/03/cdc-covid-19-children-hospitalization-obesity-teenagers/ https://reason.com/2022/01/03/cdc-covid-19-children-hospital... And in the long run it won't make any difference anyway. Everyone will be exposed regardless of whether or not schoolchildren are subjected to mask mandates. So what's the point of continuing the charade? https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
- TameAntelope 5y agoI absolutely can expect the majority to endure a minor inconvenience, if that minority they're protecting is a thousand innocent children in a given year (you didn't pick a number, so I will, 78 million children). And the point is to lower the curve, not avoid exposure. But, again, you know all of this, you just don't care. Shameful.
- jimmaswell 5y ago> minor inconvenience The impacts on their development shown in the article and rest of the comments are much more than a minor inconvenience
- TameAntelope 5y agoThe impacts are a price worth paying.
- jimmaswell 5y agoDelaying inevitable infections doesn't seem worth saddling an entire generation with developmental delays and potential ear deformities requiring surgery.
- TameAntelope 5y agoIt is, however, and it is the advice of every reputable institution in the US.
- jimmyjazz14 5y agoThat is not for you to decide. Maybe you can decide that for your own children but not mine.
- TameAntelope 5y agoI absolutely can decide that for your own children, and I can decide that for you, given enough votes. You have no special control over your children that transcends society, especially if you mean them harm.
- xigoi 5y agoThe mortality of a virus is not affected by whether you were wearing a mask when you caught it.
- jdminhbg 5y ago> Because the Covid mortality risk for children is already with masks, compared to without masks for the flu This is false, which we know because we can measure the fatality rates for children in unmasked locales, and they do not differ from those in masked locales.
- TameAntelope 5y agoToo many confounding variables, those measurements are useless.
- jimmyjazz14 5y agookay, then please by all means, cite a source showing definitively that mask themselves reduce the likelihood of a children dying from covid.
- TameAntelope 5y agoI already have, all over this thread.