I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, but these probabilities listed by the author is just trying to mislead the reader. The probabilities for lightning strike, bee sting, drowning etc. are all lifetime probabilities. That's the chance of someone dying of one of those reasons in their entire life. Also, the 0.1% rate for seasonal flue is the estimated IFR which should not be compared to 849/161M. The average number of deaths from lightning strike in the US in the last ten years is around 30 people per year. The chance of being struck in a any given year is 1/1.2milion. The number of deaths from covid even after vaccination is 849/161 million in 6 months (if you generously assume everyone was vaccinated by February). That's 1 in 95k, or 12.6 times more likely than deaths by lightning strike. Covid Deaths with Vaccination 849 in <6 months lightning deaths ~ 30 per year wasp and bee stings deaths ~ 62 per year dog attack deaths ~ 16 per year heat stroke deaths ~ 600 per year It's clear that covid death risk are higher than many of the things the author listed. He just plainly tried to mislead the reader. The chance of deaths from covid once vaccinated is still very low and is very likely to be lower than dying from a car crash or choking on food. What makes covid different from all of those other deaths is that the number of covid deaths increases exponentially if you let it get out of control. So the past is not a great estimator of the future unless you consider potential growth in your model. I agree that school age children seems to be at very very low risk and school reopening is essential for their well being. The benefit clearly outweighs the risk. I just hate how the author used probabilities improperly to make his case.
Covid isn’t binary. 10-20% of infected appears to develop long covid. A UK study show significant cognitive decline for both hospitalize and non-hospitalize cases… Lighting strike, is usually binary. You get hit, you die. But how often do people get hit by lighting vs how often do people get covid? One is extremely rare the other is extremely common. BTW, I said earlier mask is to help stop spread. I’ll correct myself - it’s also to reduce viral load and your chances of other spectrum of covid issue - not just dead or not.
this is actually a point made by multiple people in the comments. But this is the Washington Post we're talking about.
Liberals are taking their cues from scientists. Conservatives are taking their cues from Tucker Carlson. One of these things is not like the other.
While I personally agree with what Pelosi said, I don't think it will help improve the political climate...
If you need a reason why people are skeptical and do not want to follow NPIs, it's because of bs like this from the CDC.
Can you explain what is the problem that is being highlighted here? I can't make it out from the screen shots. Here is the link: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-637724/v1 So -- what is the problem, and what is the CDC's role in it?
Spread it to whom? Other vaccinated people who are also unlikely to have serious illness? Or to unvaccinated people who were dancing with the devil in the first place? That's the curmudgeon in me. I understand I could be a link in a chain that lands the virus in the body of a child who can't be vaccinated or someone with a compromised immune system. I understand why public health would benefit. But the distribution of the burden of risk mitigation is totally out of whack. I did my civic duty, shutting down and masking and distancing and vaccinating. Now I'm safe, but CDC says because other people haven't done their duty and will continue to not do their duty, maybe could they impose on me to just do more? Not that my efforts would be even a tenth as effective as an unvaccinated person consenting to be vaccinated. But since they won't do their part, I'm asked to try to do it for them. I can't do it for them. The pandemic will end when people pull their heads out of their asses and get vaccinated, and no amount of mask-wearing is going to change that.
CDC is basing their renewed mask recommendations on a study from India that was rejected on 7/9/21 after peer review. If you look up the citations on the CDC and the source material on Research Square, all of the designations that the paper was rejected after peer review have now been scrubbed. Shady AF.
Thanks. However, the "scrubbing" you are referring to appears to be the usual procedure: https://www.researchsquare.com/researchers/in-review Events information that is displayed in the peer review timeline is received through Research Square’s direct integration with the manuscript tracking system of journals that participate in In Review. Readers may notice that not all In Review preprints have a peer review timeline. Journals can participate in In Review with varying levels of transparency into the peer review process, and some journals opt to not share those details publicly on our preprints. Preprints can have the public status Under Review, Under Revision, and Published. If the submission is accepted and published by the journal, the preprint will have a link to the published version on the journal website. If the submission is rejected by the journal, the preprint will remain on Research Square, with the journal branding and peer review timeline removed. So, the question I have is why the paper now shows the status as "Revise" rather than "Reject". Is this unusual? I have no idea. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that there is a conspiracy going on, but I understand this is where Twitter likes to take things.
That's my question too. At a minimum, it's head scratching. But you can see how it raises credibility concerns regarding the CDC and whether their recommendations are haphazard or not.
Can you point me to where they say their current recommendations are based primarily on this paper? Would help to understand more what information in particular they were looking at. The reason for the initial rejection of the paper may have nothing to do with what the information / data they based their recommendation on.
Be the adult in the room. The unvaccinated unfortunately are the children in the room. The adults must show the children, by example, how to be a responsible adult. I know it is easy advice to give ... but tough to follow.
