Old Buffalo said:Quote:
increases seemQuote:
pattern may be changingQuote:
We certainly get the senseQuote:
Osterholm said it remains to be seen
Garbage. All garbage.
Print this article out and use it for toilet paper when you drum up your next scare mongering.
cone said:
i assume you've been really careful so far, especially with your kids
i would encourage you to keep that up and just keep watching for new numbers and data
It's not new.Quote:
"But a new variant identified in the United Kingdom has Osterholm switching courses, and he's not the only infectious disease expert who is concerned."
Quote:
"all the things that we had planned for about kids in schools with this virus are really no longer applicable,"
There is not enough time to vaccinate against the variant. Even though the vaccine protects against it. So we developed a vaccine in record time even though no experts thought it could be done.... but we can't get shots in arms for it to actually be effective.Quote:
While each of the approved vaccines are expected to help fight against the "more contagious" B.1.1.7 variant, which is said to cause more severe disease and possibly even deadly there's just not enough time
Quote:
Hotez encouraged Americans to hold on for "another four to six weeks," per KTRK, adding that he has high hopes we'll be in a much better place by summer.
Interesting that your article pointed out that the "British variant" is more contagious, but conveniently left out that most variants of any respiratory diseases are more contagious but less lethal. It actually does the opposite and says it MIGHT BE MORE deadly. With absolutely no evidence, proof, theories, etc. Wonder why that is?jamey said:BadMoonRisin said:Are you kidding me? Look up the "serious" DATA then of children that are impacted by this specific disease. It's widely available on cdc.org (right here btwjamey said:
I'm not interested in political blah blah, fear mongering, blah blah, I don't wear masks, I'm tough blah blah.
I'm looking for serious data. I have a daughter that was hospitalized last year due to a breathing issue at age 3.). There is over a years worth of data. It's very close to statistically-zero. What else do you want? Or are you too lazy to do that to care about your kids and you'd rather post some weird fear-porn OP on a fan site of a college that you didnt even attend for some weird reason?
Sorry your article was slapped down like the idiot-magnet **** that it was.
And even more sorry that you were the idiot that posted this here asking for commentary. Your OP was postulates of something you admitted you knew nothing about, and then you asked about data, without...you know. lookin at the data.
I know it's risky posting on this board, but this disease is very mild, to put it lightly, with younger people. And by younger people I mean those under 20 years old. And also those under 30 or 40 years old. I might even tread more heavily by saying its mostly harmless to those under 65 years old. You can cry about it, or you can follow your own ask and look at the actual "serious" data. I dont call it "serious" data though, i just call it "data" -- because it is what it is -- you can access it whenever you choose to. .
Look at the data yourself. It is very easily accessible. But let's be real, you aren't intersted in all about the data.
Years old information is not relevant to the new variant in question.
And yeah..I went to A&M and was the original moderator of this website back in the late 1990s so I've probably been around longer than you
TxAg82 said:
Well this idea that the UK variant puts kids at risk is spreading and is going to spread like wildfire as soon as it starts getting tweeted out.
I think we can agree a headline of "'Game-changing' COVID-19 variant spreading fast among children" without offering a single statistic within the article is closer to fear-mongering than science.
Check out all of these claims made in the article.
https://www.chron.com/coronavirus/article/Game-changing-COVID-19-variant-being-heavily-16077482.phpIt's not new.Quote:
"But a new variant identified in the United Kingdom has Osterholm switching courses, and he's not the only infectious disease expert who is concerned."Quote:
"all the things that we had planned for about kids in schools with this virus are really no longer applicable,"
No more school for kids.There is not enough time to vaccinate against the variant. Even though the vaccine protects against it. So we developed a vaccine in record time even though no experts thought it could be done.... but we can't get shots in arms for it to actually be effective.Quote:
While each of the approved vaccines are expected to help fight against the "more contagious" B.1.1.7 variant, which is said to cause more severe disease and possibly even deadly there's just not enough time
Also claims the variant is "possibly more deadly" - offers no data to back up the claim.Quote:
Hotez encouraged Americans to hold on for "another four to six weeks," per KTRK, adding that he has high hopes we'll be in a much better place by summer.
The ever-popular put your life on hold for 15 da...... err four to six weeks.
This article is on the front page of a major American news site and was written by someone who graduated in 2017 with no expertise in infectious diseases.
That headline coupled with zero facts and no actual reporting - her quotes are just from other tv stories she watched - is irresponsible journalism.
To be clear this is a 2nd article.Dos Tasadores De TAMU said:
Great analysis!
Thanks for doing the extra research.
why would that be the case if it's kids spreading it and they can't be vaccinated yet?Quote:
Hotez encouraged Americans to hold on for "another four to six weeks," per KTRK, adding that he has high hopes we'll be in a much better place by summer.
is it realistic that even a EUA will be out for kids younger than 12 by August?Quote:
I hate to be this way, but it seems like this is calculated to pressure parents and schools into making children get the vaccine before next fall.
Why do you hate to say it? It's clear as day.KlinkerAg11 said:
Yeah, I'm starting to think this as well.
I hate to be this way, but it seems like this is calculated to pressure parents and schools into making children get the vaccine before next fall.
Why? I have no idea, but like I said earlier in the thread that's what this is to me.
jamey said:beerad12man said:
Just a hunch, but I bet a part of the reason spread is occurring is because we are testing children and young people more post spring break, but I also bet that the actual death rates per case remains virtually unchanged.
I don't see any data anywhere that suggests this variant is becoming more deadly to children. Seems pretty consistent with all others that it just doesn't affect them greatly. I think if that was happening anywhere in the world, you'd be hearing horror story after horror story with it. This variant has spread through far more so in some other countries than the US, so we should have those stories if they existed.
No doubt spring break would have a near term impact on cases.
More deadly isn't the concern that I've read but if you read the article posted or any other science on Covid, death isn't the only bad outcome.
Pfizer released data from their latest study (12-16 yo old, IIRC) showing 100% effectiveness. Not at all surprising. I suspect we may be getting close to lowering the age limit on one or more of the vaccines.jamey said:KlinkerAg11 said:
Seems like an attempt to get people to vaccinate their kids.
Scare people into vaccinating their kids for something that is pretty mild in most kids.
My son had strep a couple weeks ago and I'm willing to bet that was worse for him than Covid.
I don't think so since kids of the age being discussed can't get the vaccine, unless something changed.
The earliest is like age 16, last I checked.
beerad12man said:
Enough people will get them voluntarily for it to all work out. Both adults and children.
70% currently willing to get it as of March 3rd, and I bet that number rises with time. It's already gone from 49% unsure, to 39%, to now 30%. According to the study I read. 15% definitely not. 15% probably not, but again, I get the feeling that some in that 15% will get it in due time when more data comes out.jamey said:beerad12man said:
Enough people will get them voluntarily for it to all work out. Both adults and children.
Perhaps, seems like the anti covid vaccination crowd is pretty big.
All depends on the spread. If the vaccine is no more dangerous to kids and can prove out that way, it might still be better if 50-60+% or so get it rather than still having the virus spread among them, even if it's ever so slightly. I'm not a fear mongerer, and quite frankly I think the vaccines will continue to stay ahead of any variants, but the less potential for variants, statistically the better off the world is. Just thinking like a public health official. Statistically, it's still better for the kids to get vaccinated than not, assuming the data continues to come back as encouragingly as it has for adults. I see no reason why it wouldn't.P.U.T.U said:
Kids do not need Covid vaccinations unless they are at risk. Children under 18 compose of 25% of our population and account for 295 out of the 530,000+ deaths in the USA. Children are poor vectors and transmitters, we know this from our country and hundreds of others. Plus a lot of children have been going to school in person when more adults have the ability to work from home
Quote:
These early second wave data show that many children and young people have been admitted to hospital. This might be due to the higher prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 within our local community. Indeed, the number of adult patients admitted to King's College Hospital in the second wave has also increased by about a third. Importantly, we have found no evidence of more severe disease having occurred in children and young people during the second wave, suggesting that infection with the B.1.1.7 variant does not result in an appreciably different clinical course to the original strain. These findings are in keeping with early national data. Severe acute respiratory COVID-19 remains an uncommon occurrence in children and young people.
I agree. I just see the more the better. It isn't some magical number, but rather what can be kept under 1. I think we are practically there in Texas, but many would disagree. Maybe not 100% of people doing 100% of what they want, but even just some of the higher risk social distancing / being cautious is enough combined with our immunity. Seeing as how many are already living life as 100% normal before covid. I see it in my daily life.BiochemAg97 said:
Even after we plateau on vaccinations, we could still be at herd immunity from those who had it but didn't get the vaccine.
Also, we need to stop thinking of herd immunity as a magic switch or line in the sand where we are good above the line and bad below the line. Do we remember all the talk of R0 in the beginning. If R is less than 1, you don't have exponential growth. And the closer to 0 it becomes, the faster an outbreak will stop. The more people who are immune, the close to R=0 we get.
Windy City Ag said:
To the OP question, the Lancet published an article trying to find legitimate points for concern in the data trends.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00030-4/fulltextQuote:
These early second wave data show that many children and young people have been admitted to hospital. This might be due to the higher prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 within our local community. Indeed, the number of adult patients admitted to King's College Hospital in the second wave has also increased by about a third. Importantly, we have found no evidence of more severe disease having occurred in children and young people during the second wave, suggesting that infection with the B.1.1.7 variant does not result in an appreciably different clinical course to the original strain. These findings are in keeping with early national data. Severe acute respiratory COVID-19 remains an uncommon occurrence in children and young people.
Windy City Ag said:
To the OP question, the Lancet published an article trying to find legitimate points for concern in the data trends.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00030-4/fulltextQuote:
These early second wave data show that many children and young people have been admitted to hospital. This might be due to the higher prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 within our local community. Indeed, the number of adult patients admitted to King's College Hospital in the second wave has also increased by about a third. Importantly, we have found no evidence of more severe disease having occurred in children and young people during the second wave, suggesting that infection with the B.1.1.7 variant does not result in an appreciably different clinical course to the original strain. These findings are in keeping with early national data. Severe acute respiratory COVID-19 remains an uncommon occurrence in children and young people.
I will wait until there are long term studies and it is FDA approved before I will even consider my kids getting it. Oone of my kids already had it and was tired for 2 hours and the other has been around other positive people and has tested negative 12 times. Both kids are healthy and with one already having Covid I see no positive for my kids getting a vaccine when you compare the stats of the disease versus a rarely studies vaccine on children.beerad12man said:All depends on the spread. If the vaccine is no more dangerous to kids and can prove out that way, it might still be better if 50-60+% or so get it rather than still having the virus spread among them, even if it's ever so slightly. I'm not a fear mongerer, and quite frankly I think the vaccines will continue to stay ahead of any variants, but the less potential for variants, statistically the better off the world is. Just thinking like a public health official. Statistically, it's still better for the kids to get vaccinated than not, assuming the data continues to come back as encouragingly as it has for adults. I see no reason why it wouldn't.P.U.T.U said:
Kids do not need Covid vaccinations unless they are at risk. Children under 18 compose of 25% of our population and account for 295 out of the 530,000+ deaths in the USA. Children are poor vectors and transmitters, we know this from our country and hundreds of others. Plus a lot of children have been going to school in person when more adults have the ability to work from home
Again, it will likely play out to be completely unnecessary. But if the vaccine is safe, which I believe undoubtedly that it is, then no harm in some parents being extra careful and getting kids vaccinated around 6-9 months out after all adults in the world have had a chance at it.
beerad12man said:
https://khn.org/news/article/covid-vaccine-hesitancy-drops-among-americans-new-kff-survey-shows/
Found this one on March 30th. Looks like now 62% polled saying for sure. 17% in wait and see mode. I bet over time more and more of these get it. We will easily get to 60+% similar to where Israel is at now in the next 2-3 months.
