What Made You Do A Facepalm Today??

[invisible airwave]

https://www.spin.com/2021/04/ted-nugent-covid-19-facebook-live/

 

This is stupid even for him and the same "logic" Kellyanne used. Should we let him know there's no Maroon 1-4 or Mambo 1-4?

 

[Rhyta]

March 6th, 2021. At the Idaho Capitol Building, in Boise, Idaho

 

 

 

In what can only be described as delicious irony, the legislature of the state of Idaho is shutting down at least until April 6th because of a Covid outbreak.

 

https://apnews.com/a...4f884e752317d8c

 

Irony so sweet, it’s giving me a toothache!

Meanwhile, blue state death rates continue to give others heartache.

 

https://www.statista...es-us-by-state/

I dunno, of the top 17 which is 1/3 of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, I believe 9 are red states.

8 of the 10 states/territories with the lowest rates of death are also blue states.

 

 

"Tell your statistics to shut up".

Joe Schulz to Jim Bouton, 1969

 

I don't give a rat's ass about what a state's stupid "color" is.

I care about dysfunctional, irresponsible parents passing their dysfunction onto their children and putting their health at risk, all because of their juvenile partisan agendas.

 

 

I agree with this completely. All the available evidence shows that for young children, the risk of Covid is significantly lower than the risk of the normal flu (in the range of 1-3 times less dangerous depending on the age). Yet you have parents who are teaching their kids hysterical fear in the face of what, to the kids, is essentially a non-factor. Parents, and society as a whole, have a responsibility to protect children physically and emotionally. What we’ve seen is that partisan stupidity, anti-science beliefs, and irrational fear have caused many to sacrifice children’s psychological, intellectual, and physical development by closing schools, wrapping their kids up like they’re in a The Stand, and some even physically distancing themselves from their own kids if the kids have had exposure to the virus. What some have decided to do is just a form of child abuse.

 

That isn’t to say the children don’t need to take any precautions: when I came back to the states to visit my parents for Christmas the kids masked up and socially distanced. Even though young children are significantly less likely to either contract or to pass on the virus than teens or adults, we planned to stay with my elderly parents and there was no need to put them at additional risk (the virus is significantly more dangerous than the flu for their age group). But there is a big difference between teaching kids to take some precautions in certain circumstances where they could increase the risk to others and the insanity which has gripped many in the US for the last year.

Things are improving with so many getting vaccinated but the trope that children are not at risk is now being revised. With the influx of the new strains, ones that are much more contagious, children are now at a greater risk of contracting the virus. The U.K. variant is spreading in Minnesota, 750 cases reported in the last two weeks. Nothing is guaranteed with these mutations. Being cautious is being smart.

March 6th, 2021. At the Idaho Capitol Building, in Boise, Idaho

 

 

 

In what can only be described as delicious irony, the legislature of the state of Idaho is shutting down at least until April 6th because of a Covid outbreak.

 

https://apnews.com/a...4f884e752317d8c

 

Irony so sweet, it’s giving me a toothache!

Meanwhile, blue state death rates continue to give others heartache.

 

https://www.statista...es-us-by-state/

I dunno, of the top 17 which is 1/3 of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, I believe 9 are red states.

8 of the 10 states/territories with the lowest rates of death are also blue states.

 

 

"Tell your statistics to shut up".

Joe Schulz to Jim Bouton, 1969

 

I don't give a rat's ass about what a state's stupid "color" is.

I care about dysfunctional, irresponsible parents passing their dysfunction onto their children and putting their health at risk, all because of their juvenile partisan agendas.

 

 

I agree with this completely. All the available evidence shows that for young children, the risk of Covid is significantly lower than the risk of the normal flu (in the range of 1-3 times less dangerous depending on the age). Yet you have parents who are teaching their kids hysterical fear in the face of what, to the kids, is essentially a non-factor. Parents, and society as a whole, have a responsibility to protect children physically and emotionally. What we’ve seen is that partisan stupidity, anti-science beliefs, and irrational fear have caused many to sacrifice children’s psychological, intellectual, and physical development by closing schools, wrapping their kids up like they’re in a The Stand, and some even physically distancing themselves from their own kids if the kids have had exposure to the virus. What some have decided to do is just a form of child abuse.

 

That isn’t to say the children don’t need to take any precautions: when I came back to the states to visit my parents for Christmas the kids masked up and socially distanced. Even though young children are significantly less likely to either contract or to pass on the virus than teens or adults, we planned to stay with my elderly parents and there was no need to put them at additional risk (the virus is significantly more dangerous than the flu for their age group). But there is a big difference between teaching kids to take some precautions in certain circumstances where they could increase the risk to others and the insanity which has gripped many in the US for the last year.

Things are improving with so many getting vaccinated but the trope that children are not at risk is now being revised. With the influx of the new strains, ones that are much more contagious, children are now at a greater risk of contracting the virus. The U.K. variant is spreading in Minnesota, 750 cases reported in the last two weeks. Nothing is guaranteed with these mutations. Being cautious is being smart.

 

I’ve never heard the trope that children are not at risk. What I’ve read is the scientific evidence that they are less likely to contract the disease than adults, less likely to pass on the disease than adults, less likely to have bad outcomes from the disease than adults, and that the disease is less dangerous for them than the flu. Even with the new variants, all this seems still to be true with the available evidence. Of course, you should be cautious when the danger is warranted (i.e., the kids may come in contact with high risk people). But many Americans aren’t merely being cautious, they are putting their kids’ mental and physical health at risk based on unscientific fear mongering.

It isn't unscientific fear mongering. Here's a few recent headlines

Massachusetts data shows nearly 7,000 COVID cases in children, teens in past 2 weeks ..cases of the contagious respiratory disease is reported as increasing in younger adults and children in many states as the country as a whole eases restrictions put in place to help stop transmission of the virus behind the pandemic that has killed more than 559,000 Americans.

 

While children are out and about, playing sports and going to school after having being indoors for nearly a year, more and more are getting exposed to COVID-19 and getting sick enough to be hospitalized. While adults are getting vaccinated, there are no protections for children...

 

Michigan Covid Hospitalizations number at 3K.. are younger than 60..that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.

 

Wisconsin

 

With 1,046 new cases reported on Thursday, the first time since Feb. 11 that the daily count topped 1,000, the seven-day average for new infections has risen to 733. The daily average on March 23 was 387.

 

“There are still a lot of vulnerable people at high risk,” Westergaard said. Adding to the risk, he said, are children who this week have the highest numbers of infection as in-person school resumes and extra-curricular activities activities ramp up.

 

There is no doubt that children are being severely impacted by the disruption in their schooling. But rushing to get them all back in school as if everything is fine is setting up those children for exposure to the more highly contagious variants. We do so at our peril.

[LedRush]

1617956211[/url'>' post='4904221']

1617814010[/url'>' post='4903886']

1617692590[/url'>' post='4903672']

1617243319[/url'>' post='4902383']

1616277426[/url'>' post='4899677']

1616270774[/url'>' post='4899643']

1616264190[/url'>' post='4899631']

1616263135[/url'>' post='4899628']

1616248161[/url'>' post='4899563']

1615139136[/url'>' post='4896038']

March 6th, 2021. At the Idaho Capitol Building, in Boise, Idaho

 

 

 

In what can only be described as delicious irony, the legislature of the state of Idaho is shutting down at least until April 6th because of a Covid outbreak.

 

https://apnews.com/a...4f884e752317d8c

 

Irony so sweet, it’s giving me a toothache!

Meanwhile, blue state death rates continue to give others heartache.

 

https://www.statista...es-us-by-state/

I dunno, of the top 17 which is 1/3 of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, I believe 9 are red states.

8 of the 10 states/territories with the lowest rates of death are also blue states.

 

 

"Tell your statistics to shut up".

Joe Schulz to Jim Bouton, 1969

 

I don't give a rat's ass about what a state's stupid "color" is.

I care about dysfunctional, irresponsible parents passing their dysfunction onto their children and putting their health at risk, all because of their juvenile partisan agendas.

 

 

I agree with this completely. All the available evidence shows that for young children, the risk of Covid is significantly lower than the risk of the normal flu (in the range of 1-3 times less dangerous depending on the age). Yet you have parents who are teaching their kids hysterical fear in the face of what, to the kids, is essentially a non-factor. Parents, and society as a whole, have a responsibility to protect children physically and emotionally. What we’ve seen is that partisan stupidity, anti-science beliefs, and irrational fear have caused many to sacrifice children’s psychological, intellectual, and physical development by closing schools, wrapping their kids up like they’re in a The Stand, and some even physically distancing themselves from their own kids if the kids have had exposure to the virus. What some have decided to do is just a form of child abuse.

 

That isn’t to say the children don’t need to take any precautions: when I came back to the states to visit my parents for Christmas the kids masked up and socially distanced. Even though young children are significantly less likely to either contract or to pass on the virus than teens or adults, we planned to stay with my elderly parents and there was no need to put them at additional risk (the virus is significantly more dangerous than the flu for their age group). But there is a big difference between teaching kids to take some precautions in certain circumstances where they could increase the risk to others and the insanity which has gripped many in the US for the last year.

Things are improving with so many getting vaccinated but the trope that children are not at risk is now being revised. With the influx of the new strains, ones that are much more contagious, children are now at a greater risk of contracting the virus. The U.K. variant is spreading in Minnesota, 750 cases reported in the last two weeks. Nothing is guaranteed with these mutations. Being cautious is being smart.

1617692590[/url'>' post='4903672']

1617243319[/url'>' post='4902383']

1616277426[/url'>' post='4899677']

1616270774[/url'>' post='4899643']

1616264190[/url'>' post='4899631']

1616263135[/url'>' post='4899628']

1616248161[/url'>' post='4899563']

1615139136[/url'>' post='4896038']

March 6th, 2021. At the Idaho Capitol Building, in Boise, Idaho

 

 

 

In what can only be described as delicious irony, the legislature of the state of Idaho is shutting down at least until April 6th because of a Covid outbreak.

 

https://apnews.com/a...4f884e752317d8c

 

Irony so sweet, it’s giving me a toothache!

Meanwhile, blue state death rates continue to give others heartache.

 

https://www.statista...es-us-by-state/

I dunno, of the top 17 which is 1/3 of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, I believe 9 are red states.

8 of the 10 states/territories with the lowest rates of death are also blue states.

 

 

"Tell your statistics to shut up".

Joe Schulz to Jim Bouton, 1969

 

I don't give a rat's ass about what a state's stupid "color" is.

I care about dysfunctional, irresponsible parents passing their dysfunction onto their children and putting their health at risk, all because of their juvenile partisan agendas.

 

 

I agree with this completely. All the available evidence shows that for young children, the risk of Covid is significantly lower than the risk of the normal flu (in the range of 1-3 times less dangerous depending on the age). Yet you have parents who are teaching their kids hysterical fear in the face of what, to the kids, is essentially a non-factor. Parents, and society as a whole, have a responsibility to protect children physically and emotionally. What we’ve seen is that partisan stupidity, anti-science beliefs, and irrational fear have caused many to sacrifice children’s psychological, intellectual, and physical development by closing schools, wrapping their kids up like they’re in a The Stand, and some even physically distancing themselves from their own kids if the kids have had exposure to the virus. What some have decided to do is just a form of child abuse.

 

That isn’t to say the children don’t need to take any precautions: when I came back to the states to visit my parents for Christmas the kids masked up and socially distanced. Even though young children are significantly less likely to either contract or to pass on the virus than teens or adults, we planned to stay with my elderly parents and there was no need to put them at additional risk (the virus is significantly more dangerous than the flu for their age group). But there is a big difference between teaching kids to take some precautions in certain circumstances where they could increase the risk to others and the insanity which has gripped many in the US for the last year.

Things are improving with so many getting vaccinated but the trope that children are not at risk is now being revised. With the influx of the new strains, ones that are much more contagious, children are now at a greater risk of contracting the virus. The U.K. variant is spreading in Minnesota, 750 cases reported in the last two weeks. Nothing is guaranteed with these mutations. Being cautious is being smart.

 

I’ve never heard the trope that children are not at risk. What I’ve read is the scientific evidence that they are less likely to contract the disease than adults, less likely to pass on the disease than adults, less likely to have bad outcomes from the disease than adults, and that the disease is less dangerous for them than the flu. Even with the new variants, all this seems still to be true with the available evidence. Of course, you should be cautious when the danger is warranted (i.e., the kids may come in contact with high risk people). But many Americans aren’t merely being cautious, they are putting their kids’ mental and physical health at risk based on unscientific fear mongering.

It isn't unscientific fear mongering. Here's a few recent headlines

Massachusetts data shows nearly 7,000 COVID cases in children, teens in past 2 weeks ..cases of the contagious respiratory disease is reported as increasing in younger adults and children in many states as the country as a whole eases restrictions put in place to help stop transmission of the virus behind the pandemic that has killed more than 559,000 Americans.

 

While children are out and about, playing sports and going to school after having being indoors for nearly a year, more and more are getting exposed to COVID-19 and getting sick enough to be hospitalized. While adults are getting vaccinated, there are no protections for children...

 

Michigan Covid Hospitalizations number at 3K.. are younger than 60..that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.

 

Wisconsin

 

With 1,046 new cases reported on Thursday, the first time since Feb. 11 that the daily count topped 1,000, the seven-day average for new infections has risen to 733. The daily average on March 23 was 387.

 

“There are still a lot of vulnerable people at high risk,” Westergaard said. Adding to the risk, he said, are children who this week have the highest numbers of infection as in-person school resumes and extra-curricular activities activities ramp up.

 

There is no doubt that children are being severely impacted by the disruption in their schooling. But rushing to get them all back in school as if everything is fine is setting up those children for exposure to the more highly contagious variants. We do so at our peril.

 

It is funny and sad (worthy of a facepalm) that you use unscientific fear mongering to argue that something isn’t unscientific fear mongering. The virus infects whatever it can. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t see an old person and a young one and decide to go after the old, just as it doesn’t attempt to go after an old person, discover that it is vaccinated, and then go after whatever is left. Children are less likely to be infected than adults. That is a fact. Children are less likely to have serious repercussions from the virus than adults. That is a fact. Children are less at risk to the coronavirus than the ordinary flu. That is a fact.

 

You can argue for psychological and physical abuse of children to accommodate your own fear, but that says more about you than the scientific facts about the virus.

Edited April 9, 2021 by LedRush

[invisible airwave]

Huntington Beach, which I went to as a kid a number of times with my dad, is trending for reasons I knew it would for being "the Florida of SoCal." My cousin who grew up nearby in Fountain Valley just moved there. Hoping the planned KKK at the pier rally gets stopped before tomorrow.

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by invisible airwave

[Rhyta]

It is funny and sad (worthy of a facepalm) that you use unscientific fear mongering to argue that something isn’t unscientific fear mongering. The virus infects whatever it can. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t see an old person and a young one and decide to go after the old, just as it doesn’t attempt to go after an old person, discover that it is vaccinated, and then go after whatever is left. Children are less likely to be infected than adults. That is a fact. Children are less likely to have serious repercussions from the virus than adults. That is a fact. Children are less at risk to the coronavirus than the ordinary flu. That is a fact.

 

You can argue for psychological and physical abuse of children to accommodate your own fear, but that says more about you than the scientific facts about the virus.

 

I could say the same about you, I found quotes from medical doctors commenting on how the virus is now more contagious and that children are now at a greater risk of being infected yet you ignore that. I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus. Those states referred to in my comment are showing a change in the risk for children due to the new strains being more highly contagious. It seems those facts don't fit with your view so you waved them away.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Rhyta

[LedRush]

It is funny and sad (worthy of a facepalm) that you use unscientific fear mongering to argue that something isn’t unscientific fear mongering. The virus infects whatever it can. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t see an old person and a young one and decide to go after the old, just as it doesn’t attempt to go after an old person, discover that it is vaccinated, and then go after whatever is left. Children are less likely to be infected than adults. That is a fact. Children are less likely to have serious repercussions from the virus than adults. That is a fact. Children are less at risk to the coronavirus than the ordinary flu. That is a fact.

 

You can argue for psychological and physical abuse of children to accommodate your own fear, but that says more about you than the scientific facts about the virus.

 

I could say the same about you, I found quotes from medical doctors commenting on how the virus is now more contagious and that children are now at a greater risk of being infected yet you ignore that. I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus. Those states referred to in my comment are showing a change in the risk for children due to the new strains being more highly contagious. It seems those facts don't fit with your view so you waved them away.

 

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.”

 

This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering.

 

“I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color.

[goose]

Racism reported.

[Principled Man]

Air fresheners dangling from a rear view mirror.

[invisible airwave]

Regarding Mar A Lago, I’m reminded about why I prefer Ahnuld over the guy he tricked into doing a horrible movie with a Golden Girl.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxYrTe7LDp4

[blueschica]

A young distant relative! She finds weird fake videos, somehow, and believes they are real. I know there is a push to vaccinate against covid now but I don't believe that the government is lining up homeless people, sticking needles in their arms and then sending them on their way.

 

I think we need to work on critical thinking skills . . . :banghead:

[Rhyta]

It is funny and sad (worthy of a facepalm) that you use unscientific fear mongering to argue that something isn’t unscientific fear mongering. The virus infects whatever it can. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t see an old person and a young one and decide to go after the old, just as it doesn’t attempt to go after an old person, discover that it is vaccinated, and then go after whatever is left. Children are less likely to be infected than adults. That is a fact. Children are less likely to have serious repercussions from the virus than adults. That is a fact. Children are less at risk to the coronavirus than the ordinary flu. That is a fact.

 

You can argue for psychological and physical abuse of children to accommodate your own fear, but that says more about you than the scientific facts about the virus.

 

I could say the same about you, I found quotes from medical doctors commenting on how the virus is now more contagious and that children are now at a greater risk of being infected yet you ignore that. I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus. Those states referred to in my comment are showing a change in the risk for children due to the new strains being more highly contagious. It seems those facts don't fit with your view so you waved them away.

 

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.”

 

This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering.

 

“I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color.

:facepalm: Really?

[invisible airwave]

It is funny and sad (worthy of a facepalm) that you use unscientific fear mongering to argue that something isn’t unscientific fear mongering. The virus infects whatever it can. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t see an old person and a young one and decide to go after the old, just as it doesn’t attempt to go after an old person, discover that it is vaccinated, and then go after whatever is left. Children are less likely to be infected than adults. That is a fact. Children are less likely to have serious repercussions from the virus than adults. That is a fact. Children are less at risk to the coronavirus than the ordinary flu. That is a fact.

 

You can argue for psychological and physical abuse of children to accommodate your own fear, but that says more about you than the scientific facts about the virus.

 

I could say the same about you, I found quotes from medical doctors commenting on how the virus is now more contagious and that children are now at a greater risk of being infected yet you ignore that. I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus. Those states referred to in my comment are showing a change in the risk for children due to the new strains being more highly contagious. It seems those facts don't fit with your view so you waved them away.

 

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.”

 

This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering.

 

“I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color.

:facepalm: Really?

 

I hear you. I'm sick of this "I have Google at my fingertips. Therefore, I know more than scientists and experts because I say so" entitlement and attitude. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool before opening mouth and removing all doubt.

[LedRush]

It is funny and sad (worthy of a facepalm) that you use unscientific fear mongering to argue that something isn’t unscientific fear mongering. The virus infects whatever it can. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t see an old person and a young one and decide to go after the old, just as it doesn’t attempt to go after an old person, discover that it is vaccinated, and then go after whatever is left. Children are less likely to be infected than adults. That is a fact. Children are less likely to have serious repercussions from the virus than adults. That is a fact. Children are less at risk to the coronavirus than the ordinary flu. That is a fact.

 

You can argue for psychological and physical abuse of children to accommodate your own fear, but that says more about you than the scientific facts about the virus.

 

I could say the same about you, I found quotes from medical doctors commenting on how the virus is now more contagious and that children are now at a greater risk of being infected yet you ignore that. I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus. Those states referred to in my comment are showing a change in the risk for children due to the new strains being more highly contagious. It seems those facts don't fit with your view so you waved them away.

 

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.”

 

This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering.

 

“I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color.

:facepalm: Really?

 

I hear you. I'm sick of this "I have Google at my fingertips. Therefore, I know more than scientists and experts because I say so" entitlement and attitude. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool before opening mouth and removing all doubt.

 

My goodness this is both hilarious and sad. There has been a lot of research on the topic, and most scientists and doctors agree. Are you suggesting that Rhyta’s theory of the sentient virus which chooses it’s victims and, as such, it will be looking for defenseless children is valid? Are you suggesting that children aren’t at less risk to covid than adults? Or that even when kids do get covid they don’t have less severe reactions (as a group, not individually, obviously)?

[Rhyta]

It is funny and sad (worthy of a facepalm) that you use unscientific fear mongering to argue that something isn’t unscientific fear mongering. The virus infects whatever it can. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t see an old person and a young one and decide to go after the old, just as it doesn’t attempt to go after an old person, discover that it is vaccinated, and then go after whatever is left. Children are less likely to be infected than adults. That is a fact. Children are less likely to have serious repercussions from the virus than adults. That is a fact. Children are less at risk to the coronavirus than the ordinary flu. That is a fact.

 

You can argue for psychological and physical abuse of children to accommodate your own fear, but that says more about you than the scientific facts about the virus.

 

I could say the same about you, I found quotes from medical doctors commenting on how the virus is now more contagious and that children are now at a greater risk of being infected yet you ignore that. I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus. Those states referred to in my comment are showing a change in the risk for children due to the new strains being more highly contagious. It seems those facts don't fit with your view so you waved them away.

 

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.”

 

This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering.

 

“I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color.

:facepalm: Really?

 

I hear you. I'm sick of this "I have Google at my fingertips. Therefore, I know more than scientists and experts because I say so" entitlement and attitude. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool before opening mouth and removing all doubt.

 

My goodness this is both hilarious and sad. There has been a lot of research on the topic, and most scientists and doctors agree. Are you suggesting that Rhyta’s theory of the sentient virus which chooses it’s victims and, as such, it will be looking for defenseless children is valid? Are you suggesting that children aren’t at less risk to covid than adults? Or that even when kids do get covid they don’t have less severe reactions (as a group, not individually, obviously)?

As you are being deliberately ignorant, it is not my theory, the quotes I listed earlier in the thread are from medical people, I didn't link to the articles but they are out there if one cared to check. You just want to make fun of me and act superior, have a party :16ton:

[laughedatbytime]

Anyone have a guess as to how many people under 18 have died of (or probably with) COVID in the US since the start of the epidemic, according to the CDC?

 

No googling, please.

Edited April 14, 2021 by laughedatbytime

[LedRush]

Anyone have a guess as to how many people under 18 have died of (or probably with) COVID in the US since the start of the epidemic, according to the CDC?

 

No googling, please.

 

At the beginning of last summer is was something like 6 people under the age of 6, and maybe about 100 under the age of 18. If that rate held, it should be something like 500, though I suspect we got better at dealing with it since the early days. Also, there were 2-5 times as many deaths due to flu and pneumonia (I’m not sure why they grouped those 2 together) than covid.

[laughedatbytime]

Anyone have a guess as to how many people under 18 have died of (or probably with) COVID in the US since the start of the epidemic, according to the CDC?

 

No googling, please.

 

At the beginning of last summer is was something like 6 people under the age of 6, and maybe about 100 under the age of 18. If that rate held, it should be something like 500, though I suspect we got better at dealing with it since the early days. Also, there were 2-5 times as many deaths due to flu and pneumonia (I’m not sure why they grouped those 2 together) than covid.

I'll wait to get a few more guesses till I post the number (and the link).

[LedRush]

Anyone have a guess as to how many people under 18 have died of (or probably with) COVID in the US since the start of the epidemic, according to the CDC?

 

No googling, please.

 

At the beginning of last summer is was something like 6 people under the age of 6, and maybe about 100 under the age of 18. If that rate held, it should be something like 500, though I suspect we got better at dealing with it since the early days. Also, there were 2-5 times as many deaths due to flu and pneumonia (I’m not sure why they grouped those 2 together) than covid.

I'll wait to get a few more guesses till I post the number (and the link).

 

I just looked it up. Don’t worry folks, I got it wrong by a significant amount. Guess away!

 

Some of the numbers in there really surprised me, and I’ve tried to keep up with this stuff.

[LedRush]

1618366872[/url'>' post='4905520']

1618309152[/url'>' post='4905203']

1618288332[/url'>' post='4905177']

1618261860[/url'>' post='4905065']

1618189701[/url'>' post='4904907']

1618146210[/url'>' post='4904762']

It is funny and sad (worthy of a facepalm) that you use unscientific fear mongering to argue that something isn’t unscientific fear mongering. The virus infects whatever it can. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t see an old person and a young one and decide to go after the old, just as it doesn’t attempt to go after an old person, discover that it is vaccinated, and then go after whatever is left. Children are less likely to be infected than adults. That is a fact. Children are less likely to have serious repercussions from the virus than adults. That is a fact. Children are less at risk to the coronavirus than the ordinary flu. That is a fact.

 

You can argue for psychological and physical abuse of children to accommodate your own fear, but that says more about you than the scientific facts about the virus.

 

I could say the same about you, I found quotes from medical doctors commenting on how the virus is now more contagious and that children are now at a greater risk of being infected yet you ignore that. I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus. Those states referred to in my comment are showing a change in the risk for children due to the new strains being more highly contagious. It seems those facts don't fit with your view so you waved them away.

 

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.”

 

This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering.

 

“I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color.

:facepalm: Really?

 

I hear you. I'm sick of this "I have Google at my fingertips. Therefore, I know more than scientists and experts because I say so" entitlement and attitude. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool before opening mouth and removing all doubt.

 

My goodness this is both hilarious and sad. There has been a lot of research on the topic, and most scientists and doctors agree. Are you suggesting that Rhyta’s theory of the sentient virus which chooses it’s victims and, as such, it will be looking for defenseless children is valid? Are you suggesting that children aren’t at less risk to covid than adults? Or that even when kids do get covid they don’t have less severe reactions (as a group, not individually, obviously)?

As you are being deliberately ignorant, it is not my theory, the quotes I listed earlier in the thread are from medical people, I didn't link to the articles but they are out there if one cared to check. You just want to make fun of me and act superior, have a party :16ton:

 

So when you are quoting other people in your argument against my position, you don’t actually believe what you are quoting? Why quote it then? The position is unscientific and absurd on its face. It goes against everything we’ve learned since the inception of germ-based theory over 100 years ago. And you still don’t acknowledge the incontrovertible facts that covid doesn’t infect children as much as adults, doesn’t affect children as negatively as adults, and isn’t nearly as dangerous to children as the ordinary flu.

Edited April 14, 2021 by LedRush

[blueschica]

It is funny and sad (worthy of a facepalm) that you use unscientific fear mongering to argue that something isn’t unscientific fear mongering. The virus infects whatever it can. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t see an old person and a young one and decide to go after the old, just as it doesn’t attempt to go after an old person, discover that it is vaccinated, and then go after whatever is left. Children are less likely to be infected than adults. That is a fact. Children are less likely to have serious repercussions from the virus than adults. That is a fact. Children are less at risk to the coronavirus than the ordinary flu. That is a fact.

 

You can argue for psychological and physical abuse of children to accommodate your own fear, but that says more about you than the scientific facts about the virus.

 

I could say the same about you, I found quotes from medical doctors commenting on how the virus is now more contagious and that children are now at a greater risk of being infected yet you ignore that. I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus. Those states referred to in my comment are showing a change in the risk for children due to the new strains being more highly contagious. It seems those facts don't fit with your view so you waved them away.

 

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.”

 

This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering.

 

“I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color.

:facepalm: Really?

 

I hear you. I'm sick of this "I have Google at my fingertips. Therefore, I know more than scientists and experts because I say so" entitlement and attitude. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool before opening mouth and removing all doubt.

 

My goodness this is both hilarious and sad. There has been a lot of research on the topic, and most scientists and doctors agree. Are you suggesting that Rhyta’s theory of the sentient virus which chooses it’s victims and, as such, it will be looking for defenseless children is valid? Are you suggesting that children aren’t at less risk to covid than adults? Or that even when kids do get covid they don’t have less severe reactions (as a group, not individually, obviously)?

 

What science are you reading? I can give you some sources. A good friend is a Phd biochemist working at the NIH on Covid work. Yes, the virus is definitely out there looking for hosts.If a number of adults are not good hosts due to vaccination and/or exposure the numbers may well increase in children, no one knows.They have been shown to have fewer and milder cases so far, yes, but it's a novel coronavirus and has shown a frightening capacity to change and stick around. Variants are popping up rapidly and we dont know as much about how they behave/will behave in adults or children. I wouldn't bet against it, sadly.

Edited April 14, 2021 by blueschica

[LedRush]

It is funny and sad (worthy of a facepalm) that you use unscientific fear mongering to argue that something isn’t unscientific fear mongering. The virus infects whatever it can. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t see an old person and a young one and decide to go after the old, just as it doesn’t attempt to go after an old person, discover that it is vaccinated, and then go after whatever is left. Children are less likely to be infected than adults. That is a fact. Children are less likely to have serious repercussions from the virus than adults. That is a fact. Children are less at risk to the coronavirus than the ordinary flu. That is a fact.

 

You can argue for psychological and physical abuse of children to accommodate your own fear, but that says more about you than the scientific facts about the virus.

 

I could say the same about you, I found quotes from medical doctors commenting on how the virus is now more contagious and that children are now at a greater risk of being infected yet you ignore that. I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus. Those states referred to in my comment are showing a change in the risk for children due to the new strains being more highly contagious. It seems those facts don't fit with your view so you waved them away.

 

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.”

 

This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering.

 

“I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color.

:facepalm: Really?

 

I hear you. I'm sick of this "I have Google at my fingertips. Therefore, I know more than scientists and experts because I say so" entitlement and attitude. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool before opening mouth and removing all doubt.

 

My goodness this is both hilarious and sad. There has been a lot of research on the topic, and most scientists and doctors agree. Are you suggesting that Rhyta’s theory of the sentient virus which chooses it’s victims and, as such, it will be looking for defenseless children is valid? Are you suggesting that children aren’t at less risk to covid than adults? Or that even when kids do get covid they don’t have less severe reactions (as a group, not individually, obviously)?

 

What science are you reading? I can give you some sources. A good friend is a Phd biochemist working at the NIH on Covid work. Yes, the virus is definitely out there looking for hosts.If a number of adults are not good hosts due to vaccination and/or exposure the numbers may well increase in children, no one knows.

 

I would love to see the scientific papers which determine that covid is the first sentient virus discovered by humans, but let’s just chalk that up to overly loose language and move past it (though it does seem odd that people are continuing to use that loose and inaccurate language about a virus).

 

Infection is a function of exposure to the virus. With more adults already having had the virus or gotten vaccinated, children’s exposure to the virus decreases. That’s the whole point of herd immunity occurring at a number less than 100%. This is really, really basic stuff, and it’s disheartening to see that people don’t understand it.

[blueschica]

It is funny and sad (worthy of a facepalm) that you use unscientific fear mongering to argue that something isn’t unscientific fear mongering. The virus infects whatever it can. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t see an old person and a young one and decide to go after the old, just as it doesn’t attempt to go after an old person, discover that it is vaccinated, and then go after whatever is left. Children are less likely to be infected than adults. That is a fact. Children are less likely to have serious repercussions from the virus than adults. That is a fact. Children are less at risk to the coronavirus than the ordinary flu. That is a fact.

 

You can argue for psychological and physical abuse of children to accommodate your own fear, but that says more about you than the scientific facts about the virus.

 

I could say the same about you, I found quotes from medical doctors commenting on how the virus is now more contagious and that children are now at a greater risk of being infected yet you ignore that. I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus. Those states referred to in my comment are showing a change in the risk for children due to the new strains being more highly contagious. It seems those facts don't fit with your view so you waved them away.

 

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.”

 

This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering.

 

“I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color.

:facepalm: Really?

 

I hear you. I'm sick of this "I have Google at my fingertips. Therefore, I know more than scientists and experts because I say so" entitlement and attitude. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool before opening mouth and removing all doubt.

 

My goodness this is both hilarious and sad. There has been a lot of research on the topic, and most scientists and doctors agree. Are you suggesting that Rhyta’s theory of the sentient virus which chooses it’s victims and, as such, it will be looking for defenseless children is valid? Are you suggesting that children aren’t at less risk to covid than adults? Or that even when kids do get covid they don’t have less severe reactions (as a group, not individually, obviously)?

 

What science are you reading? I can give you some sources. A good friend is a Phd biochemist working at the NIH on Covid work. Yes, the virus is definitely out there looking for hosts.If a number of adults are not good hosts due to vaccination and/or exposure the numbers may well increase in children, no one knows.

 

I would love to see the scientific papers which determine that covid is the first sentient virus discovered by humans, but let’s just chalk that up to overly loose language and move past it (though it does seem odd that people are continuing to use that loose and inaccurate language about a virus).

 

Infection is a function of exposure to the virus. With more adults already having had the virus or gotten vaccinated, children’s exposure to the virus decreases. That’s the whole point of herd immunity occurring at a number less than 100%. This is really, really basic stuff, and it’s disheartening to see that people don’t understand it.

 

When did the virus become sentient? I'm not understanding that part of what you wrote. It's a virus, it's not sentient. Thanks. Being replicating genetic material seeking a host doesn't mean it is sentient.

 

And yes, I understand herd immunity. I haven't seen the exact percentage when that occurs for Covid? Because it keeps having variations, and some, like the South African variant, seem to persist even in people with vaccinations, so the number will be difficult to determine. I hope we can get there, though. Until then, the virus is going to be a problem. :( :(

Edited April 14, 2021 by blueschica

[LedRush]

It is funny and sad (worthy of a facepalm) that you use unscientific fear mongering to argue that something isn’t unscientific fear mongering. The virus infects whatever it can. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t see an old person and a young one and decide to go after the old, just as it doesn’t attempt to go after an old person, discover that it is vaccinated, and then go after whatever is left. Children are less likely to be infected than adults. That is a fact. Children are less likely to have serious repercussions from the virus than adults. That is a fact. Children are less at risk to the coronavirus than the ordinary flu. That is a fact.

 

You can argue for psychological and physical abuse of children to accommodate your own fear, but that says more about you than the scientific facts about the virus.

 

I could say the same about you, I found quotes from medical doctors commenting on how the virus is now more contagious and that children are now at a greater risk of being infected yet you ignore that. I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus. Those states referred to in my comment are showing a change in the risk for children due to the new strains being more highly contagious. It seems those facts don't fit with your view so you waved them away.

 

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.”

 

This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering.

 

“I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color.

:facepalm: Really?

 

I hear you. I'm sick of this "I have Google at my fingertips. Therefore, I know more than scientists and experts because I say so" entitlement and attitude. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool before opening mouth and removing all doubt.

 

My goodness this is both hilarious and sad. There has been a lot of research on the topic, and most scientists and doctors agree. Are you suggesting that Rhyta’s theory of the sentient virus which chooses it’s victims and, as such, it will be looking for defenseless children is valid? Are you suggesting that children aren’t at less risk to covid than adults? Or that even when kids do get covid they don’t have less severe reactions (as a group, not individually, obviously)?

 

What science are you reading? I can give you some sources. A good friend is a Phd biochemist working at the NIH on Covid work. Yes, the virus is definitely out there looking for hosts.If a number of adults are not good hosts due to vaccination and/or exposure the numbers may well increase in children, no one knows.

 

I would love to see the scientific papers which determine that covid is the first sentient virus discovered by humans, but let’s just chalk that up to overly loose language and move past it (though it does seem odd that people are continuing to use that loose and inaccurate language about a virus).

 

Infection is a function of exposure to the virus. With more adults already having had the virus or gotten vaccinated, children’s exposure to the virus decreases. That’s the whole point of herd immunity occurring at a number less than 100%. This is really, really basic stuff, and it’s disheartening to see that people don’t understand it.

 

When did the virus become sentient? I'm not understanding that part of what you wrote. It's a virus, it's not sentient. Thanks. Being a living organism seeking a host doesn't mean it is sentient.

 

And yes, I understand herd immunity. I haven't seen the exact percentage when that occurs for Covid? Because it keeps having variations, and some, like the South African variant, seem to persist even in people with vaccinations, so the number will be difficult to determine. I hope we can get there, though. Until then, the virus is going to be a problem. :( :(

 

You said “Yes, the virus is definitely out there looking for hosts.If a number of adults are not good hosts due to vaccination and/or exposure the numbers may well increase in children, no one knows.”

 

I said “Infection is a function of exposure to the virus. With more adults already having had the virus or gotten vaccinated, children’s exposure to the virus decreases.”

 

My reference to herd immunity was to cement the point regarding decreased exposure as immunity numbers increase in direct contradiction to your earlier argument, and Rhyta’s.

[blueschica]

It is funny and sad (worthy of a facepalm) that you use unscientific fear mongering to argue that something isn’t unscientific fear mongering. The virus infects whatever it can. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t see an old person and a young one and decide to go after the old, just as it doesn’t attempt to go after an old person, discover that it is vaccinated, and then go after whatever is left. Children are less likely to be infected than adults. That is a fact. Children are less likely to have serious repercussions from the virus than adults. That is a fact. Children are less at risk to the coronavirus than the ordinary flu. That is a fact.

 

You can argue for psychological and physical abuse of children to accommodate your own fear, but that says more about you than the scientific facts about the virus.

 

I could say the same about you, I found quotes from medical doctors commenting on how the virus is now more contagious and that children are now at a greater risk of being infected yet you ignore that. I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus. Those states referred to in my comment are showing a change in the risk for children due to the new strains being more highly contagious. It seems those facts don't fit with your view so you waved them away.

 

”that those being hospitalized are getting younger because the virus looks for suitable hosts in order to reproduce. As more adults get vaccinated, the virus has fewer places to go, so it will seek out hosts that have no protections -- like children.”

 

This is the definition of unscientific fear mongering.

 

“I am not arguing for the return of children to school by saying they are less likely to be at risk for getting the virus.” Of course not, because of your unscientific fear mongering you support the physical and emotional abuse of children. Interestingly, this is an issue which disproportionately disadvantages students of color.

:facepalm: Really?

 

I hear you. I'm sick of this "I have Google at my fingertips. Therefore, I know more than scientists and experts because I say so" entitlement and attitude. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool before opening mouth and removing all doubt.

 

My goodness this is both hilarious and sad. There has been a lot of research on the topic, and most scientists and doctors agree. Are you suggesting that Rhyta’s theory of the sentient virus which chooses it’s victims and, as such, it will be looking for defenseless children is valid? Are you suggesting that children aren’t at less risk to covid than adults? Or that even when kids do get covid they don’t have less severe reactions (as a group, not individually, obviously)?

 

What science are you reading? I can give you some sources. A good friend is a Phd biochemist working at the NIH on Covid work. Yes, the virus is definitely out there looking for hosts.If a number of adults are not good hosts due to vaccination and/or exposure the numbers may well increase in children, no one knows.

 

I would love to see the scientific papers which determine that covid is the first sentient virus discovered by humans, but let’s just chalk that up to overly loose language and move past it (though it does seem odd that people are continuing to use that loose and inaccurate language about a virus).

 

Infection is a function of exposure to the virus. With more adults already having had the virus or gotten vaccinated, children’s exposure to the virus decreases. That’s the whole point of herd immunity occurring at a number less than 100%. This is really, really basic stuff, and it’s disheartening to see that people don’t understand it.

 

When did the virus become sentient? I'm not understanding that part of what you wrote. It's a virus, it's not sentient. Thanks. Being a living organism seeking a host doesn't mean it is sentient.

 

And yes, I understand herd immunity. I haven't seen the exact percentage when that occurs for Covid? Because it keeps having variations, and some, like the South African variant, seem to persist even in people with vaccinations, so the number will be difficult to determine. I hope we can get there, though. Until then, the virus is going to be a problem. :( :(

 

You said “Yes, the virus is definitely out there looking for hosts.If a number of adults are not good hosts due to vaccination and/or exposure the numbers may well increase in children, no one knows.”

 

I said “Infection is a function of exposure to the virus. With more adults already having had the virus or gotten vaccinated, children’s exposure to the virus decreases.”

 

My reference to herd immunity was to cement the point regarding decreased exposure as immunity numbers increase in direct contradiction to your earlier argument, and Rhyta’s.

 

OK! Have a good evening (morning, I guess? ). :hi:

[Rick N. Backer]

Anyone have a guess as to how many people under 18 have died of (or probably with) COVID in the US since the start of the epidemic, according to the CDC?

 

No googling, please.

 

Under 18? I'm going to guess that the number is under 100. I would be willing to bet if we could control for people in that age demographic who do not also suffer from a cardiopulmonary disease, which is thankfully somewhat uncommon in that bracket, the number gets very, very close to 0.

 

One of the things I worry about is the shift in the focus of the discussion about the virus. We've gone from focusing on deaths to cases to exposures. It's likely not a problem for my kids or me to get it. It's a problem if my parents do. The roadmap to preventing that is pretty clear.