Covid-19 is killing children at an astounding rate

[Finance85]

We have kept our four year old daughter home from school since March, despite it being open. Today, two staff members are going for Covid tests. Either way, I am happy we have decided to still keep her home.

You are a good parent. Every parent should be making informed decisions on how to best protect their family. Until kids get to be about 9 or ten, they aren't going to understand things like social distancing, wearing a mask, not touching their face, etc.

 

[Joes Place]

Perhaps? Is that confirmed data?

It is simply a point of fact that HCQ is no longer being dosed to people with serious Covid. If that bothers you, I cannot help you on that. The President and WH were grossly misinforming people and were wrong. There is no sugarcoating this here.

 

[jasonrann]

You are a good parent. Every parent should be making informed decisions on how to best protect their family. Until kids get to be about 9 or ten, they aren't going to understand things like social distancing, wearing a mask, not touching their face, etc.

My wife (no pic) and I worked at the same company up until she quit her job in March, literally a week before all the closings started. The school asked families to keep kids home if they could because several high risk teachers were going to need to stay home. The school wanted to continue to pay them in order to retain them so we also paid 75% of her tuition during this time, despite keeping her home.

We are fortunate that the wife has been able to be home with our daughter this whole time. Many families didn't have that option. I split time working at home half days while being at the office the other half. The extra time that we have had with Emma has been a blast.

 

[strummingram]

It is simply a point of fact that HCQ is no longer being dosed to people with serious Covid. If that bothers you, I cannot help you on that. The President and WH were grossly misinforming people and were wrong. There is no sugarcoating this here.

So, you literally believe it's trending lower because HCQ is being used less? I know you have to get your requisite dig at Trump and/or Republicans. Every time you politicize this more, you kill people.

 

[Joes Place]

So, you literally believe it's trending lower because HCQ is being used less?

I'm indicating for you that it is a possible factor. Because it is simply a point of fact that it is no longer being used.

 

[strummingram]

I'm indicating for you that it is a possible factor. Because it is simply a point of fact that it is no longer being used.

You're indicating, alright.

 

[Joes Place]

Q: What accounts for the heart dysfunction in children with MISC?
One effect on children who had severe cases of MISC: heart dysfunction. It's still not clear what's the trigger for this.

Dr. James Schneider, head of pediatric critical care at Northwell Health in New York, told a briefing on May 20, 2020. "A striking finding here — alarming — is that in this group, about half the children already had coronary artery abnormalities."

The children were previously healthy, so he thinks the abnormalities were caused by MISC, possibly as a result of a delayed immune response to the coronavirus.

"Any child at home who has fever, abdominal pain or symptoms such as rash and conjunctivitis should be seen by a pediatrician right away," he advised. "I think we need to have a low threshold for evaluation."

More than half of the 33 children treated for MISC at Northwell in April and May had developed some sort of heart dysfunction, Schneider told CNN.


Published June 21:
https://gulfnews.com/world/covid-19...e-disease-what-we-know-so-far-1.1592735647257

 

[Finance85]

My wife (no pic) and I worked at the same company up until she quit her job in March, literally a week before all the closings started. The school asked families to keep kids home if they could because several high risk teachers were going to need to stay home. The school wanted to continue to pay them in order to retain them so we also paid 75% of her tuition during this time, despite keeping her home.

We are fortunate that the wife has been able to be home with our daughter this whole time. Many families didn't have that option. I split time working at home half days while being at the office the other half. The extra time that we have had with Emma has been a blast.

It's clear you see the big picture, too. So many don't. A lot of kids need school just for simple nutrition. A lot of older kids can do remote learning, but not all are equipped.

One of my clients in NC does a "toy" drive every Christmas. A local branch of the state social services department provides the names of kids, number of siblings, and their wish lists. A lot of the kids obviously ask for toys. Surprisingly, the majority ask for clothing. And it truly breaks my heart when I read about the kids who want nothing for themselves, but ask for a small toy for a sibling. I say all this because there's a whole other world out there that a lot of well intentioned people aren't exposed to. They say, "we have to keep everyone locked up until this is over". It's all or nothing for them. There's no compromise. They don't realize the suffering, and that a great many people have to weigh the COVID-19 risk against daily survival.

Thankfully for your family, you've thought it through.

 

[jasonrann]

It's clear you see the big picture, too. So many don't. A lot of kids need school just for simple nutrition. A lot of older kids can do remote learning, but not all are equipped.

One of my clients in NC does a "toy" drive every Christmas. A local branch of the state social services department provides the names of kids, number of siblings, and their wish lists. A lot of the kids obviously ask for toys. Surprisingly, the majority ask for clothing. And it truly breaks my heart when I read about the kids who want nothing for themselves, but ask for a small toy for a sibling. I say all this because there's a whole other world out there that a lot of well intentioned people aren't exposed to. They say, "we have to keep everyone locked up until this is over". It's all or nothing for them. There's no compromise. They don't realize the suffering, and that a great many people have to weigh the COVID-19 risk against daily survival.

Thankfully for your family, you've thought it through.

Our daughter is four so we are talking preschool, but it was still a tough decision to hold her out. She had been in this class for nine months, had many great friends that she was already close to. They are all back at school, we just decided to wait because it was about three weeks ago when a bunch of parents sent their kids back. We wanted to see if anything would happen.

The company I work for does a toy drive each year as does our daughter's school. It sounds like your client and I have had very similar experiences. It is difficult for me to comprehend wondering how food gets put on the table and bills are going to get paid on a daily basis. They throw Covid on top of it and it's even more tenuous.

We are fortunate that my wife is basically a penny pincher. We planned for her departure and cranked up savings well ahead of time to prepare for it. She wanted to spend the time getting our house organized as we moved in right before our daughter was born and had tons of stuff that hadn't been unpacked. Instead, she switched gears to Emma and has gotten other things done as she can. She has done a TON. On top of that, she is keeping Emma occupied with chores, crafty activities, walks, playing outside, etc. She isn't plopping her in front of the TV all day.

This whole experience has made us reevaluate our long term plans and what is truly important.

 

[shank hawk]

You seem to have forgotten in March how you and others were so badly schooled on "geometric growth" and how the deaths numbers lagged the case numbers.

Also, as I've stated already, perhaps the deaths are down, because doctors are no longer dosing (and killing) patients with HCQ that was so widely pushed by the WH....

Even for you that’s quite a stretch.

Tylenol and/or aspirin kill more people than HCQ and it’s not even close, which is one reason they’re listed in the ‘50 most dangerous drugs’ category and HCQ isn’t.

Hopefully we see some worthwhile data on this new ‘disease’ the CDC has uncovered. My money is on boys being affected at a significantly higher rate than girls.

Just like Kawasaki’s.



And autism.

 

[FranklinHawk]

I'm indicating for you that it is a possible factor. Because it is simply a point of fact that it is no longer being used.

Or it could be that medical professionals figured out that in many cases putting patients on ventilators was causing negative outcomes, or because they figured out they got more positive outcomes placing patients on their stomach rather than on their back, or..................

 

[Joes Place]

Tylenol and/or aspirin kill more people than HCQ and it’s not even close

Let's not be silly, comparing OCT meds with much more dangerous prescription medciation.

 

[Finance85]

Let's not be silly, comparing OCT meds with much more dangerous prescription medciation.

That's a good point. Prescriptions by definition are made by doctors, who presumably understand the risks. HCQ was always thought to be "what have we got to lose". And in that vein, was it the HCQ that killed people, or was it COVID-19?

 

[Joes Place]

That's a good point. Prescriptions by definition are made by doctors, who presumably understand the risks. HCQ was always thought to be "what have we got to lose". And in that vein, was it the HCQ that killed people, or was it COVID-19?

Considering the only reason they were given HCQ in the first place was Covid19......it's a pretty safe bet to classify them as Covid19, despite HCQ being a possible contributor.

 

[Rifler]

Let's not be silly...

Utterly impossible...

 

[Finance85]

Considering the only reason they were given HCQ in the first place was Covid19......it's a pretty safe bet to classify them as Covid19, despite HCQ being a possible contributor.

Good that you are being consistent. Seemed for a moment like you were headed towards blaming HCQ for the deaths.

 

[Rifler]

That's a good point. Prescriptions by definition are made by doctors, who presumably understand the risks. HCQ was always thought to be "what have we got to lose". And in that vein, was it the HCQ that killed people, or was it COVID-19?

Or perhaps they died because the sky was blue...

 

[strummingram]

Utterly impossible...

He needs his self-congratulatory nature to remain intact!

 

[strummingram]

Or perhaps they died because the sky was blue...

Joe has been telling you that the sky was blue, but no one listened, Everyone laughed at him.

Something tells me he had a very rough childhood. Public school was particularly harsh.

 

[hawkboy76]

Still no clarification or explanation from the CDC on the 1500+ deaths in children under the age of four from COVID-19. The stats on the website still indicate a 6% case fatality rate, which is a staggering number. Crickets from the media on this as well. Appears that only Joe is aware of this. Strange indeed.

 

[strummingram]

Still no clarification or explanation from the CDC on the 1500+ deaths in children under the age of four from COVID-19. The stats on the website still indicate a 6% case fatality rate, which is a staggering number. Crickets from the media on this as well. Appears that only Joe is aware of this. Strange indeed.

We're all aware of it, here. Don't forget that!

 

[Rifler]

Appears that only Joe is aware of this. Strange indeed.

I thought it valuable to re-post this...

 

[hawkland14]

@Joes Place again I ask have you reached out to anyone about this? I would be ready to lock the entire nation down and board up the windows and doors if this is true. Come on Joe you are our only hope of saving the babies. Please get in touch with Fauci as soon as possible.

In all seriousness if this is true @Joes Place where is the panic at? The media never passes on panic porn and this would be the biggest finding in the entire pandemic and would be the final nail in Trumps coffin. Something does not add up.

 

[hawkboy76]

I emailed a contact of mine who works in journalism and has done quite a bit of work covering the COVID story from the beginning. He's not a trained scientist, but is a voracious reader and is definitely up to speed on the science. I pointed out this CDC data to him and his response was, "I rarely say things with 100% certainty, but I will say with 100% certainty - that’s a mistake."

Now, he could definitely be wrong about this, but that's his take anyway. I hope he's right.

 

[Finance85]

I emailed a contact of mine who works in journalism and has done quite a bit of work covering the COVID story from the beginning. He's not a trained scientist, but is a voracious reader and is definitely up to speed on the science. I pointed out this CDC data to him and his response was, "I rarely say things with 100% certainty, but I will say with 100% certainty - that’s a mistake."

Now, he could definitely be wrong about this, but that's his take anyway. I hope he's right.

Need to hook him up with @joesplace. I'll buy the popcorn.

 

[hawkland14]

I emailed a contact of mine who works in journalism and has done quite a bit of work covering the COVID story from the beginning. He's not a trained scientist, but is a voracious reader and is definitely up to speed on the science. I pointed out this CDC data to him and his response was, "I rarely say things with 100% certainty, but I will say with 100% certainty - that’s a mistake."

Now, he could definitely be wrong about this, but that's his take anyway. I hope he's right.

Would love to hear Joes response to this. Instead he just keeps yelling baby killer in other threads.

 

[Joes Place]

I emailed a contact of mine who works in journalism and has done quite a bit of work covering the COVID story from the beginning. He's not a trained scientist, but is a voracious reader and is definitely up to speed on the science. I pointed out this CDC data to him and his response was, "I rarely say things with 100% certainty, but I will say with 100% certainty - that’s a mistake."

Now, he could definitely be wrong about this, but that's his take anyway. I hope he's right.

I have posted that it could be an error several times now.
However, that means the original 2% rate was a mistake, and then they made the same mistake again with updating the numbers to a 6% CFR.

And it's sitting there now for a couple days.
Not saying it isn't a mistake; I'm stating that, coupled with the increasing numbers of stories on MIS-C coming out, it is very odd.

 

[hawkboy76]

I have posted that it could be an error several times now.
However, that means the original 2% rate was a mistake, and then they made the same mistake again with updating the numbers to a 6% CFR.

And it's sitting there now for a couple days.
Not saying it isn't a mistake; I'm stating that, coupled with the increasing numbers of stories on MIS-C coming out, it is very odd.

I agree with you that it is odd.

If the numbers are incorrect, I would hope the CDC would correct them soon.

If the numbers are correct, then I would hope there would be an explanation.

What I find most strange is the total silence from the media on this. A 6% death rate for kids under 4 would be a HUGE story.

 

[Joes Place]

I agree with you that it is odd.

If the numbers are incorrect, I would hope the CDC would correct them soon.

If the numbers are correct, then I would hope there would be an explanation.

What I find most strange is the total silence from the media on this. A 6% death rate for kids under 4 would be a HUGE story.

That chart has changed a few times now:

6/22:
~482 deaths; ~23,000 cases
(from memory, where Business Insider took their ~2% number from, and their number was actually 1.9% in the chart, so it is possible the deaths were different or lower with what they used for their graph. When I first computed it, the numbers ran to 2.1% and were 482/22,800)

6/23:
1582 deaths; 26,045 cases

And, again, it's not a 6% death rate - the CFR has a very specific computation - if they are ONLY testing the very sick kids, the actual IFR is a lot lower. Still, the 1582 number, alone, is disturbing.

6/25 (Today)
1582 deaths; 26,641 cases

EDIT: JUST CHANGED
1583 deaths; 26,844 cases
5.9%

https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics

If these are an "error", it's gone unfixed and undetected by them for >3 days now.
Not saying that cannot happen with bureaucratic mix-ups. It's just odd with something this high-profile.

 

[hawkboy76]

That chart has changed a few times now:

6/22:
~482 deaths; ~23,000 cases
(from memory, where Business Insider took their ~2% number from, and their number was actually 1.9% in the chart, so it is possible the deaths were different or lower with what they used for their graph. When I first computed it, the numbers ran to 2.1% and were 482/22,800)

6/23:
1582 deaths; 26,045 cases

And, again, it's not a 6% death rate - the CFR has a very specific computation - if they are ONLY testing the very sick kids, the actual IFR is a lot lower. Still, the 1582 number, alone, is disturbing.

6/25 (Today)
1582 deaths; 26,641 cases

EDIT: JUST CHANGED
1583 deaths; 26,844 cases
5.9%

https://www.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographics

If these are an "error", it's gone unfixed and undetected by them for >3 days now.
Not saying that cannot happen with bureaucratic mix-ups. It's just odd with something this high-profile.

Yes, I should have been more precise in my post and stated "case fatality rate" instead of death rate. As you noted, the IFR would be lower. But still, 1500+ deaths is a big number, particularly for kids in that age range.

 

[Joes Place]

Yes, I should have been more precise in my post and stated "case fatality rate" instead of death rate. As you noted, the IFR would be lower. But still, 1500+ deaths is a big number, particularly for kids in that age range.

I suspect this is going to be clarified, and not as "dire sounding" soon.

But what is even more concerning to me, are the numbers of very young children surviving exposure, and showing indications of major cardiovascular damage: aortic aneurysms, coronary artery abnormalities, possibly other renal or lung damage as well.

We know these things are happening (indications of cases from many places); but we do not know incidence rates OR if "asymptomatic" children are incurring any of these conditions (we know they have seen lung damage signs in adults with minor cases).

Thus, allowing this stuff to "run free" because "it is an old people disease" may have some very very bad consequences. But, as you can see - when you bring these things up, the MAGA attacks come out of the woodwork.

 

[z_ape]

Based on death certificate data, hardly anything in this age group.

From CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#AgeAndSex

 

[artradley]

that's a big age gap, comparing a newborn to a 4 year is not fair in the case of tracking a disease

i'd curious to see the age breakdown detail

Joe enjoys lying on this topic. For everyone with a positive test there are 10 to 50 who never had a test. So the actual mortality rate is tiny.

He knows this, but the politics of this are more important to him than truth.

 

[Finance85]

Joe enjoys lying on this topic. For everyone with a positive test there are 10 to 50 who never had a test. So the actual mortality rate is tiny.

He knows this, but the politics of this are more important to him than truth.

In hos last few posts in this thread he's been looking for wiggle room. Then he can say he posted the correct information all along.

He's definitely a master. I admire his tenacity.

 

[Joes Place]

Based on death certificate data, hardly anything in this age group.

From CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#AgeAndSex

Not really sure what your reading comprehension problem is there, but this was covered on Page 3, with respect to ICD codes:

https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/thre...an-astounding-rate.320472/page-3#post-7845962

 

[Joes Place]

In hos last few posts in this thread he's been looking for wiggle room. Then he can say he posted the correct information all along.

No, I literally included "unless CDC has posted this in error" in the original post in this thread.

https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/covid-19-is-killing-children-at-an-astounding-rate.320472/

And stated, many times, that it could be an error.
But they've now updated their numbers on the demographics page at least 3 times, with CFRs ranging from 1.9% to 6%.

 

[NCHawk5]

0-4 year olds die more often than all age groups up until at least 30, I don’t remember when it reverses. For any cause. They’re a vulnerable group for too many reasons to list. If Joe’s Place had any integrity, he’d be pushing how we need to figure out how to stop SIDS. He’s attempting to manipulate using “baby killers” as his strategy. Don’t fall for it.

 

[z_ape]

Not really sure what your reading comprehension problem is there, but this was covered on Page 3, with respect to ICD codes:

https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/thre...an-astounding-rate.320472/page-3#post-7845962

My reading comprehension is zero when I don't read said material.

 

[Joes Place]

Yes, I should have been more precise in my post and stated "case fatality rate" instead of death rate. As you noted, the IFR would be lower. But still, 1500+ deaths is a big number, particularly for kids in that age range.

Here's another nugget to munch on, that I had not noticed.

I've generally tracked cases and deaths via the World-O-Meters site, as their data seems to be the most up-to-date. Johns Hopkins site is usually a little behind them, but similar - they're just not updating as quickly.

Let's compare numbers:

US Cases:
W-O-M: 2,496,816
JH: 2,411,413
CDC Demographics: 2,030,732

Either CDC is lagging, badly, or they do not have all the data on this site.
WOMs has approximately the CDC total as of 6/8/2020, or ~two weeks ago.


US Deaths:
W-O-M: 124,844
JH: 122,482
CDC Demographics: 95,352
CDC Provisonal: 107,997

Now, the demographics CDC page lists "only 99%" of data included age-related info, so there is a small adjustment here.

But the deaths counts on the CDC Provisional Page appear current as of about 6/2/2020 per the JH/WOM numbers.
The deaths counts on the CDC Demographics Page align as of around a full month ago, 5/21/2020

So, not only do we have no explanations on the 0-4 year olds, the data presented on those CDC sites is, at a minimum, about 2-4 weeks lagging.

I can see a week lag-time, if they update things on weekends or beginnings of weeks. But 2 weeks? 4 weeks?

And on a different CDC page, they list much more current numbers:
2,374,282 cases (4-5 days lagging WOM)
121,809 deaths (~6 days lagging WOM)
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
(If I add the 0-4 plus the 5-17 case numbers off the Demographics page, they actually match reasonably well with the 109k from this CDC link)



0-4 yr old Demographic data still list:
1583 Deaths
26,844 Cases

 

[NCHawk5]

Here's another nugget to munch on, that I had not noticed.

I've generally tracked cases and deaths via the World-O-Meters site, as their data seems to be the most up-to-date. Johns Hopkins site is usually a little behind them, but similar - they're just not updating as quickly.

Let's compare numbers:

US Cases:
W-O-M: 2,496,816
JH: 2,411,413
CDC Demographics: 2,030,732

Either CDC is lagging, badly, or they do not have all the data on this site.
WOMs has approximately the CDC total as of 6/8/2020, or ~two weeks ago.


US Deaths:
W-O-M: 124,844
JH: 122,482
CDC Demographics: 95,352
CDC Provisonal: 107,997

Now, the demographics CDC page lists "only 99%" of data included age-related info, so there is a small adjustment here.

But the deaths counts on the CDC Provisional Page appear current as of about 6/2/2020 per the JH/WOM numbers.
The deaths counts on the CDC Demographics Page align as of around a full month ago, 5/21/2020

So, not only do we have no explanations on the 0-4 year olds, the data presented on those CDC sites is, at a minimum, about 2-4 weeks lagging.

I can see a week lag-time, if they update things on weekends or beginnings of weeks. But 2 weeks? 4 weeks?

And on a different CDC page, they list much more current numbers:
2,374,282 cases (4-5 days lagging WOM)
121,809 deaths (~6 days lagging WOM)
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html
(If I add the 0-4 plus the 5-17 case numbers off the Demographics page, they actually match reasonably well with the 109k from this CDC link)



0-4 yr old Demographic data still list:
1583 Deaths
26,844 Cases

There’s a simple explanation: They’re an at-risk portion of the population to die for any reason. You’re quadrupling down now? I think that’s generous.