12 Mississippi children in ICU, 10 on ventilators

[probinson]

I really don't get all this "fear" talk. Do adults really base health decisions on some sort of terror that random strangers might think they're afraid of something?

What a blatantly intentional mischaracterization of what is being said.

If you think that fear hasn't been a driving force in this pandemic, you are detached from reality. Not a fear of what random strangers might think, but a fear of the virus itself. Some would say an irrational, overblown fear.

The vast majority of people cannot give the correct answer to the question, "What percentage of people who have been infected by the coronavirus needed to be hospitalized?". Republicans did slightly better than Democrats when answering this question, but only 1 in 5 people regardless of party were correct. Most vastly overestimate this risk;

The correct answer is not precisely known, but it is highly likely to be between 1% and 5% according to the best available estimates, and it is unlikely to be much higher or lower. We discuss the data and logic behind this conclusion in the appendix.

Less than one in five U.S. adults (18%) give a correct answer of between 1 and 5%. Many adults (35%) say that at least half of infected people need hospitalization. If that were true, the millions of resulting patients would have overwhelmed hospitals throughout the pandemic.

Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to overestimate this harm. Forty-one percent of Democrats and 28% of Republicans answered that half or more of those infected by COVID-19 need to be hospitalized. Republicans were also far more likely to get the correct answer, with 26% correctly identifying the risk compared to just 10% of Democrats.
How misinformation is distorting COVID policies and behaviors​

If you go read that article and look at the survey results, you'll see that 41% of Democrats and 27.9% of Republicans believe that there is a 50%+ greater chance that if you get COVID, you'll end up in the hospital. The real answer is between 1-5%. So the majority of people are overestimating the risks of COVID by a factor of 10-50x, or even more.

Why are people so misinformed about the actual risk of COVID? Why has the government, public health and the media done such a poor job in accurately communicating the risk of COVID to people? Because they have been using fear as a motivator.

That's why we have people terrified of their kids getting COVID because they can't be vaccinated without realizing that the risk of child being hospitalized if they contract COVID is 3/1,000,000. On the other hand, if a child gets the vaccine, their risk is 50/1,000,000 that they will have to be hospitalized for myocarditis, a risk that is more than 16x greater than if they contracted COVID. To be clear, both of those risks are incredibly small, but why would we mass vaccinate children if it has been demonstrated that they carry a risk 16x greater than if they just contract COVID? The answer? Fear.

 

[KCfromNC]

I must've missed that. Could you post the evidence you have that shows masks "worked" again?

Why? You ignored it the last few times.

Yes. It seems you and The Science™ seem to believe that viruses suddenly changed how they transmit overnight, but here in the land of reality, that's just not the case.

What your post thinks is the case and what I actually wrote seem to diverge. Makes me curious if that's also true with posted claims based on other sources.

At least I'm posting data and evidence to support what I'm saying. You're just saying things.

You might want to review the article I linked to before saying things like that. It will allow you to actually provide a coherent response rather than just parroting generic anti-mask arguments - for example, posting a study looking at data up to 2018 as if it somehow addressed the 2020-21 flu season numbers.

Yes you did. Specifically, in post #114 you said;

"We don't know what would have happened."

What did I write before and after that sentence? Come on, you've been caught, stop digging.

At some point people are going to catch on that this is an example of pulling something totally out of context. And you've posted it several times, even after being corrected. I wonder if there's anything else in these posts with similar issues?

 

[KCfromNC]

You are free to get the vaccine or not get the vaccine and then stay at home or not stay at home. But if you get the vaccine and insist that everyone else does, that’s a different story.

I guess you believe this.

 

[Hammster]

I guess you believe this.

Of course. What’s not to believe?

 

[KCfromNC]

On the other hand, if a child gets the vaccine, their risk is 50/1,000,000 that they will have to be hospitalized for myocarditis

This seems to be a bit of an overstatement. See e.g. Use of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine After Reports of ... for another take on the data.

 

[KCfromNC]

Of course. What’s not to believe?

I said I fully accept that you believe this stuff.

 

[Hammster]

I said I fully accept that you believe this stuff.

Right. It’s the truth. You’d be silly to think otherwise.

 

[probinson]

Why? You ignored it the last few times.

Nope. I've responded to everything you've posted. And for the record, you've posted exactly one link one time, in post #91. Here it is again for reference;

Decreased Influenza Activity During the COVID-19 Pandemic ...

In that post, you claimed that this was "...an interesting [study] about the effects of mask wearing and social distancing". Then I posted 2 graphics showing the data for flu numbers in the US, and in different countries. For your convenience I'll post them again;

The linked study's discussion begins by saying;

In the United States, influenza virus circulation declined sharply within 2 weeks of the COVID-19 emergency declaration and widespread implementation of community mitigation measures, including school closures, social distancing, and mask wearing, although the exact timing varied by location.​

First of all, this is not an accurate statement, and ignores that flu case were already declining long before any emergency declaration or mitigation measures were put in place as the first graph shows. We see a precipitous decline in flu cases beginning mid-February. No one was wearing masks in mid-February. No one was social distancing in mid-February. No one was staying home from work in mid-February. There were no event cancelations in mid-February. We were being actively discouraged by Dr. Fauci, the Surgeon General and pretty much all of public health to "STOP BUYING MASKS!" Yet that is when the flu numbers began their rapid decline. To suggest this was caused by mitigation measures is disingenuous and intentionally ignores the data trend before any mitigation measures were put into place.

The second graph illustrates that flu numbers declined everywhere, regardless of mitigation measures. Sweden was relentlessly attacked in the media for not taking strong enough measures at the beginning of the pandemic, yet their flu numbers declined at the same time and at the same rate as other places that implemented mitigation measures. If mitigation measures were the cause of flu numbers dropping, places that did not implement those measures should have seen different results. They did not.

So yes, you posted a link to a "study" that the CDC did that arrived at a predetermined conclusion by ignoring data that demonstrably proves the conclusion is incorrect. That's pretty much what almost every "study" the CDC has done since the beginning of the pandemic. I understand that you believe this, but the data simply does not support the hypothesis.

At some point people are going to catch on that this is an example of pulling something totally out of context. And you've posted it several times, even after being corrected. I wonder if there's anything else in these posts with similar issues?

The great thing about forum discussions is that people can read the entire discussion for themselves. It's all right here in black and white. So for example, they can see that I've addressed the one and only link you've posted and now I've done it again here in this post. They can also see that you haven't addressed anything I've posted, attempting to minimize the evidence that you can't refute as "anti-mask talking points". You've not responded to any of the multiple links I've posted. You clearly don't understand the evidence pyramid by your attempt to denigrate it by calling it a "pretty multi-colored graphic" and apparently believe that the highest quality historical scientific evidence is magically trumped by the lowest quality current "study". But it's not.

You accuse me of "parroting" information, but everything I've posted is my own analysis. Your inability to respond to or refute the things I've posted has caused you to resort to ad hominem, which is unfortunate, but not unexpected.

 

[probinson]

This seems to be a bit of an overstatement. See e.g. Use of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine After Reports of ... for another take on the data.

It's not an overstatement.

The CDC, on the other hand, overstated the risks of COVID to children/teens by using outdated data. Note that this report is dated July 9, but they used data from May;

Specifically, the benefits per million second doses administered (i.e., the benefits of being fully vaccinated in accordance with the FDA EUA) were assessed, including 1) COVID-19 cases prevented based on rates the week of May 29, 2021) COVID-19 hospitalizations prevented based on rates the week of May 22, 2021​

Any objective person should ask, why on earth would the CDC look at cases and hospitalizations from May when making a decision in July? Because that's the only way the risk/benefit calculation would work in favor of the vaccine. Had they used current numbers, the risk/benefit calculation would have shown in favor of not vaccinating children/teens.

So it is actually the CDC that is overstating the risk of COVID to children/teens by intentionally choosing to not use current data, again, to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

 

[probinson]

Here is the UK's statement on why they are opting against mass vaccination of children/teens (emphasis added);

For children and young people without underlying health conditions that put them at high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19, the direct individual health benefits of COVID-19 vaccination are limited. While vaccination of younger cohorts could reduce the risk of outbreaks of COVID-19 in school settings, the vast majority of those infected in any outbreak will either be asymptomatic or have mild disease. Currently, less data are available on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in children and young people compared to adults, and JCVI carefully considered reports of myocarditis following the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT612b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccines in younger adults. At this time JCVI does not consider that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential risks. Until more safety data have accrued and their significance for children and young people has been more thoroughly evaluated, a precautionary approach is preferred.

JCVI statement on COVID-19 vaccination of children and young people aged 12 to 17 years: 15 July 2021​

 

[KCfromNC]

Nope. I've responded to everything you've posted.

That's not true. You didn't manage to answer this simple question in response to your post misleadingly quoting me out of context - "What did I write before and after that sentence?" Quite curious. I know what I wrote, and it isn't accurately reflected by your post's "peculiar" quoting style. Leads me to wonder what other citations in those same posts are similarly impacted?

Anyway, I'll continue to wait for your answer.

The linked study's discussion begins by saying;

In the United States, influenza virus circulation declined sharply within 2 weeks of the COVID-19 emergency declaration and widespread implementation of community mitigation measures, including school closures, social distancing, and mask wearing, although the exact timing varied by location.​

First of all, this is not an accurate statement and ignores that flu case were already declining long before any emergency declaration or mitigation measures were put in place as the first graph shows.

You seem to imply here that cases declining before the date in question prevents them from declining sharply afterwards.

No one was wearing masks in mid-February. No one was social distancing in mid-February. No one was staying home from work in mid-February.

I can't help but notice you're very focused on the particular shape of the spike in Feb 2020 but ignoring the very conspicuous jump in the following winter. As you say, no one was wearing masks in Feb 2020. Wonder what mask use looked like through the end of 2020 into 2021.

The second graph illustrates that flu numbers declined everywhere, regardless of mitigation measures.

Actually, it shows that it declines in 3 places you cherry-picked. And given how astute you are, you should know that it is impossible to see significant differences, if they exist, in graphs scaled in such a fashion. Seeing the pattern in these posts, one might think that was the reason that they, instead of actual numbers, were presented.

So yes, you posted a link to a "study" that the CDC did that arrived at a predetermined conclusion

Evidence it was a predetermined conclusion? Nice attempt to demonize the CDC, I'm sure anti-government "but muh freedoms" types will really love that. Too bad there's zero evidence for it - which is weird given how important that pretty evidence pyramid thing was when it was other people's claims being analyzed.

They can also see that you haven't addressed anything I've posted

That's a falsehood. For example I pointed out your initial generic anti-masking post attempted to use an article with data from 2018 and earlier to disprove studies done during the pandemic. And I mentioned that same post that you attempted to change the subject to a study which no one else was talking about - something about the cutoff dates being objectionable to you, therefore, well, I'm not sure what the point was given that no one else had mentioned it.

You clearly don't understand the evidence pyramid

You have no evidence for this claim either. Nice rhetoric though - poisoning the well has a long, distinguished history of use in dishonest attempts at debating.

You accuse me of "parroting" information, but everything I've posted is my own analysis.

The contrast between that analysis and those from people who do this for a living is quite interesting - e.g. Impact of COVID-19 outbreaks and interventions on influenza in China and the United States | Nature Communications

Your inability to respond to or refute the things I've posted

I've already disposed of this falsehood.

The really interesting thing to me is how much this series of posts is just so typical of denialism in general. A really significant bit of data shows up that at least should cause one to think "hey maybe there's something to this mask stuff" - you know, like an order of magnitude reduction in a similarly-transmitted disease. The first response isn't "hmm, is that interesting, let's look for more data on it (e.g. the link I posted a few lines up, which took like 5 seconds of searching).

Instead, the first post in post was a collection of generic anti-mask stuff which was basically unrelated to the data in the link. Kinda weird.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's not an overstatement.

Statements like this would be more convincing if there was data presented to back up this claim.

But I guess random attempts to demonize the CDC are probably just as effective for the target audience.

 

[KCfromNC]

the risk of child being hospitalized if they contract COVID is 3/1,000,000.

JCVI statement on COVID-19 vaccination of children and young people aged 12 to 17 years: 15 July 2021

From that same link :

During the second wave of the pandemic in the UK, the hospitalisation rate in children and young people was 100 to 400 per million.

Interesting.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I really don't get all this "fear" talk. Do adults really base health decisions on some sort of terror that random strangers might think they're afraid of something?

Mature and rational adults? No.

But as the saying goes, "It's not a mask mandate; it's an IQ test."

 

[cow451]

What this shows is, we really need two Americas now. One for the ones scared to live life and will keep going with the fear agendas. And another for the ones who want to live life and just get out work make a living etc...

Guess what... communicable diseases are not concerned with your preferences. It is a mindless entity that looks for hosts and is built to survive. It looks for opportunity. Statistically, guess where the odds put "your" America.

 

[probinson]

That's not true. You didn't manage to answer this simple question in response to your post misleadingly quoting me out of context - "What did I write before and after that sentence?" Quite curious. I know what I wrote, and it isn't accurately reflected by your post's "peculiar" quoting style. Leads me to wonder what other citations in those same posts are similarly impacted?

Anyway, I'll continue to wait for your answer.

Go back and read the answer.

You seem to imply here that cases declining before the date in question prevents them from declining sharply afterwards.

No, but it shows cases declining before masks were worn. So the assertion that masks were the cause of the reduction is called into question by the fact that flu cases declined precipitously before their use.

I can't help but notice you're very focused on the particular shape of the spike in Feb 2020 but ignoring the very conspicuous jump in the following winter. As you say, no one was wearing masks in Feb 2020. Wonder what mask use looked like through the end of 2020 into 2021.

What are you even talking about? There has not been a conspicuous jump in flu cases. It's hard to tell if you're talking about the flu or COVID at any given moment. I suppose whatever bolsters the argument that masks "work" at that moment. But it makes it difficult to follow what you're talking about.

Actually, it shows that it declines in 3 places you cherry-picked. And given how astute you are, you should know that it is impossible to see significant differences, if they exist, in graphs scaled in such a fashion. Seeing the pattern in these posts, one might think that was the reason that they, instead of actual numbers, were presented.

Interesting how you raise all of these questions and doubts about the data, yet provide no actual data of your own to refute it. Proof by aspersion and assertion, I suppose.

Evidence it was a predetermined conclusion? Nice attempt to demonize the CDC,

Trust in the CDC has declined immensely, even amongst doctors and nurses. 77% of medical professionals surveyed said that their trust in the CDC has decreased since the beginning of the pandemic. I don't have to "demonize" the CDC. They've done a fine job damaging their credibility all on their own;

Trust in CDC, FDA Took a Beating During Pandemic

That's a falsehood.

Like I said, the nice thing about online discussions is that everyone can read the discussion for themselves.

You have no evidence for this claim either. Nice rhetoric though - poisoning the well has a long, distinguished history of use in dishonest attempts at debating.

Your disregard of the evidence pyramid being significant when evaluating quality of evidence causes me to believe you have no idea what it is.

The really interesting thing to me is how much this series of posts is just so typical of denialism in general. A really significant bit of data shows up that at least should cause one to think "hey maybe there's something to this mask stuff" - you know, like an order of magnitude reduction in a similarly-transmitted disease. The first response isn't "hmm, is that interesting, let's look for more data on it (e.g. the link I posted a few lines up, which took like 5 seconds of searching).

Confirmation bias is indeed what drives a lot of this. You think, "Flu cases are down, and it must be because of masks". So you spend 5 seconds to find something that confirms your belief and discard anything that calls your predetermined conclusion into question. Solid "science".

 

[probinson]

From that same link :

During the second wave of the pandemic in the UK, the hospitalisation rate in children and young people was 100 to 400 per million.

Interesting.

Interesting indeed. Even with that higher hospitalization rate, they still concluded for children and teens;

At this time JCVI does not consider that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential risks.

 

[KCfromNC]

Go back and read the answer.

I see your posts still can't come clean about the tactics used earlier.

No, but it shows cases declining before masks were worn.

You haven't presented mask use data, just anecdotes about what you think might have been going on.

What are you even talking about? There has not been a conspicuous jump in flu cases.

Yep, even during the fall 2020 to spring 2021 flu season. Cases were an order of magnitude lower than normal. Wonder what was different then. Well, anything but masks, we can't have actual evidence guide us away from the right wing "masks are fascism" rhetoric.

Interesting how you raise all of these questions and doubts about the data, yet provide no actual data of your own to refute it.

Do you really need for me to find "actual data" to help figure out if a paper with data ending in 2018 is relevant to what happened during the pandemic?

Trust in the CDC has declined immensely

Yeah, it is a shame posts like yours are working with certain audiences. We could have beat this pandemic.

Your disregard of the evidence pyramid being significant when evaluating quality of evidence causes me to believe you have no idea what it is.

An irrelevant distraction, given you're not presenting anything higher up on this thing you're claiming is the bet way to evaluate studies.

Confirmation bias is indeed what drives a lot of this.

Which confirmation bias did you find in the paper I linked from Nature? Please be specific - I'm sure the editors and reviewers would love to know what they missed.

 

[KCfromNC]

Interesting indeed. Even with that higher hospitalization rate, they still concluded for children and teens;

At this time JCVI does not consider that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential risks.

Yep, who cares if the numbers posted are false? Caring about actual facts is for people who don't already know the truth.

 

[98cwitr]

Mature and rational adults? No.

But as the saying goes, "It's not a mask mandate; it's an IQ test."

Are you calling the Swedish government immature, irrational and low-IQ?