3 ms·
Considering we're in the middle of a pandemic, and that there's no vaccine approved for infants, there's not much mystery there. Of course they will avoid like
by sonicggg 4y ago
Considering we're in the middle of a pandemic, and that there's no vaccine approved for infants, there's not much mystery there.
Of course they will avoid like plague having to make that connection. Just like they tried to cover up the fact that Sars-Cov-2 is airborne (too expensive to admit it).
Scary that US is not even the first country to report this.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y agoI see some people repeat that but it makes no much sense. We're talking about children 1-6 y.o., mostly too young for C19 vaccination. I know different countries have differing positions on this but I haven't heard anyone recommending vaccination to 1-year-olds. Even WHO recommends waiting until they are 5.
- acidoverride 4y agoI do not think they are saying the vaccination of the children is the cause. They even mention that vaccines are not approved. Instead, they correctly write about how the WHO tried to block the "infodemic" that SARS is airborne, because it was not feasible to do much about that which would not be very costly, and may increase panic, which makes people harder to manage and control. We do not know the effects of long COVID on children, even though health officials opened back up the schools. Again, there are other concerns there than your personal or family's health: if you do not open the schools, then parents can not get to work, and hospitals and police collapse. From SARS-1, we know that SARS can cause long-lasting kidney damage. But nobody wants to come out and say: "we send your children back to school without masks, and while we said children do not get severely ill from COVID, the effects of long COVID in children was not possible to investigate, nor (cost-)effectively manage.". That makes a lot of sense.