12 Mississippi children in ICU, 10 on ventilators

[ironbjorn]

So 9 kids had such a bad case of COVID-19 they ended up in ICU. I wouldn't call that good.

Out of 900,000 under 18s in the whole state. Context.

Not that you should care since you've regularly said you don't care about anyone but your family.

 

[Hammster]

Except in this case, you don't know if you're infected or not.

Neither do you.

 

[KCfromNC]

Those who are fearful of getting the virus are free to stay home. The rest of us will live our lives like normal.

Hey look, yet another post mistakenly thinking that others are also so terrified that a random stranger might think they're afraid of something and attempting to use that fear to rationalize making a bad decision.

Unfortunately for the approach, most people grow out of these sorts of fears and are able to take a more balanced approach towards decisions in their life. So I don't see this "ignore covid because someone might think you're afraid" getting much traction.

 

[Hammster]

Hey look, yet another post mistakenly thinking that others are also so terrified that a random stranger might think they're afraid of something and attempting to use that fear to rationalize making a bad decision.

Unfortunately for the approach, most people grow out of these sorts of fears and are able to take a more balanced approach towards decisions in their life. So I don't see this "ignore covid because someone might think you're afraid" getting much traction.

If they aren’t afraid, they are free to not stay home.

 

[probinson]

Given the results from 2020, guess they were wrong.

The results from 2020 were, well, less than stellar. There is example after example after example after example of masks "working"... until they don't.

So I'm curious; could you post the evidence that you believe shows masking was effective?

What other "systematic review" of 2020 flu case numbers would you prefer?

Not sure why "systematic review" is in quotes. The CDC did a systematic review of the effect of masking on the transmission of influenza, studying 10 RCT's on the topic and concluding that masking had no significant effect on the transmission of the flu.

I'll anxiously await your results. In the mean time, though, are we just supposed to ignore the massive reduction in flu numbers when mask wearing was prevalent?

Are we likewise supposed to ignore that flu numbers are down EVERYWHERE, even in places where mask wearing was NOT prevalent? Anyone remember Sweden, where they took a much more relaxed approach and did not mandate masks and remained largely open for business? Same results;

Are we supposed to ignore that flu numbers were down EVEN BEFORE it was recommended for people to start wearing masks and while public health in the US was recommending AGAINST their use?

So the idea that masking was the cause of reduced influenza cases is not supported by the data. As you an see from the graphs above, flu cases declined before masks were in widespread use, and at the same rate regardless of the rate of mask usage.

So perhaps there is another explanation. Perhaps viral interference is playing a much larger role. During the H1N1 flu pandemic, France never saw large case numbers. Why? They hypothesize because the common cold deflected it;

A viral mystery: Can one infection prevent another? - STAT

The study in question was of flu infections, not sure why you're talking about covid numbers.

You're claiming that masking and social distancing worked to reduce the flu. I'm showing you that systematic reviews have shown that not to be the case.

While COVID is not the flu, they are both viruses, and what we learn from one virus is often instructional of another, especially in terms of how they are transmitted.

Looking at covid case counts is a red herring

No it's not. It's the exact methodology of all of the observational studies throughout the pandemic. The studies look at masking, look at case counts, see them decline, and conclude "MUST BE MASKS!" with no shred of evidence whatsoever. Of course, they never conduct a study during times of case increase, because that would invalidate their observational findings.

Here's yet another example of the CDC's study of masking in Delaware that cherry-picked the timeframe they studied. And once again, you can see the intentional selection of data that supports the desired conclusion. They ignore the data that shows a roughly 1,600% increase (not a typo) in case counts from the end of their study period;

- we don't know what would have happened if people weren't wearing masks during that time.

And there it is; the absolutely worst way to analyze something. "We don't know what would have happened if people weren't wearing masks, so they must have worked" is probably the most unscientific and bizarre thing to come out of this pandemic. What if, instead of convincing everyone that a piece of cloth across your face was the panacea we've waited for all our lives to crush viruses, we actually stuck with proven science and focused our protection on the elderly and most vulnerable? We don't know what would have happened if we had followed our pandemic preparedness plans because we didn't. We did the great masking and lockdown experiment of 2020 instead, and claimed it was a success.

Posting a pretty multi-colored pyramid graphic doesn't change that fact.

You sure do seem to have a disdain for science. That "pretty multi-colored pyramid graphic" is how we weigh the quality of evidence in science. That's not really up for debate. If you don't know what that "pretty multi-colored pyramid graphic" is, I would suggest you Google evidence pyramid.

 

[durangodawood]

The kingdoms of the world are possessions of satan.

Who would ever bring a child into such a world? It would be pure cruelty.

 

[NxNW]

Except in this case, you don't know if you're infected or not.

Neither do you.

I'm not claiming otherwise. You are.

 

[98cwitr]

Who would ever bring a child into such a world? It would be pure cruelty.

Me. I brought two in. Also, God creates people still.

 

[durangodawood]

Me. I brought two in. Also, God creates people still.

That wasnt very nice of you. Or perhaps you dont believe this is Satan's world?

Given the premise that the world is owned by evil, I cant see the good in bearing new people into that. (For myself, I reject the premise.)

 

[98cwitr]

That wasnt very nice of you. Or perhaps you dont believe this is Satan's world?

Given the premise that the world is owned by evil, I cant see the good in bearing new people into that. (For myself, I reject the premise.)

I believe in God's Sovereignty. More Christians in the world is good for the world, and I think that's God's plan for it is the meek that shall inherit the earth, the "world" will be divided against itself and the power of God will be displayed to the elect; actually I know when the end comes that's exactly God's plan.

 

[d taylor]

Who would ever bring a child into such a world? It would be pure cruelty.

Well i have not (brought in any children) but it happens everyday.

But satans possession is just temporarily.

Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.”


How do we know that satan is still in possession, just look around at the chaos and problems.

And compare that with the up and coming kingdom of The Messiah, were people who die at 100 are considered accursed.

“Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

 

[Hammster]

I'm not claiming otherwise. You are.

What do you think I’m claiming exactly?

 

[NxNW]

What do you think I’m claiming exactly?

You claim to know when you're sick, at which point you claim to stay home. I pointed out that you don't know when you're infected, so how can you know when to stay home? Only when you have symptoms?

You falsely claimed that I don't know either. I know I'm not infected, because I was just tested.

 

[probinson]

The UK has decided against mass vaccination of teenagers.

British ministers decide against mass vaccination for teens - The Telegraph

 

[whatbogsends]

It's not about fear. It's about understanding how viruses transmit from host to host and taking precautions to minimize that which includes getting vaccinated.

Those who choose not to do the latter are the ones who should be staying at home. As far as I am concerned, they are forfeiting the social contract and thus their right to participate in a society in the same manner as everyone else.

Don't forget, you need certain people (e.g. essential workers) to not stay at home or otherwise all the goods and services you enjoy would suddenly cease. What about them? Do not care about your fellow human?

While i'm sure there is overlap between groups, those who are vaccine hesitant aren't necessarily those unconcerned with limiting the spread of the virus.

I'm vaccine hesitant. I definitely believe the risk associated with the vaccine is being minimized in official information presented.

That being said, i believe the virus represents a significant danger to our society, and as such, i social distance, wear masks when appropriate, and avoid all large social gatherings - just as i had done prior to the release of the vaccines.

I may be put in a situation where i'm going to need to broaden my social exposure, and that will go hand-in-hand with re-evaluation of my personal vaccination status.

People should understand that the calculus for vaccination for an individual may vary, and open, nuanced discussion, and sharing of data go a lot further than coercion, shaming, and selling fear (recognizing that both sides of the vaccine equation sell fear as a mechanism for advocating their position).

I believe i have an obligation to society to limit negative impacts from my actions. I believe i have an obligation to my family (especially my children) which weighs more in my calculus than my obligation to society, but both obligations factor into my decision making.

I put forth that those who are vaccinated, but wholly disregard the other mitigation strategies we've employed during pre-vaccine pandemic are a larger risk vector than someone like me, who has very little social contact but is unvaccinated.

 

[Hammster]

You claim to know when you're sick, at which point you claim to stay home. I pointed out that you don't know when you're infected, so how can you know when to stay home? Only when you have symptoms?

You falsely claimed that I don't know either. I know I'm not infected, because I was just tested.

Are you tested every day before leaving the house?

 

[NxNW]

Are you tested every day before leaving the house?

Your question incorrectly assumes I leave the house every day. I've been vaccinated, and I've been tested. You, on the other hand, seem to have taken zero steps to prevent the spread of the virus.

 

[Hammster]

Your question incorrectly assumes I leave the house every day. I've been vaccinated, and I've been tested. You, on the other hand, seem to have taken zero steps to prevent the spread of the virus.

One, if you never ever leave your house, then why get tested? If you leave your house occasionally, you will need to be tested beforehand to ensure you’re not infected.

Two, I already spelled out the steps I take.

 

[NxNW]

I already spelled out the steps I take.

Which, as I've explained, are nonexistent.

 

[probinson]

One, if you never ever leave your house, then why get tested? If you leave your house occasionally, you will need to be tested beforehand to ensure you’re not infected.

These tests make me laugh. Even if you get tested before you leave your house in the morning, what's to say you didn't get infected 10 minutes after you walk out the door? Then you spend all day spreading the virus around, thinking you're good because your daily morning test said you were negative. I guess it just makes people feel better that they're "doing something". However, they don't really seem to care or stop to think if that "something" is actually beneficial in any way.