Just before I was interviewed today on Fox about ongoing challenges to shutdown orders, Admiral Brett Giroir was interviewed and gave what must have been welcomed views on the science behind pandemic orders. A hearing is scheduled tomorrow in one of the challenges by businesses in California to the lockdown ordered by Governor Gavin Newsom. Giroir however stated that there was no evidence or science supporting the type of categorical lockdown in states like California, particularly bans on outdoor dining. The statement presents a potential conflict with Dr. Anthony Fauci. It certainly contradicts the common narrative in the media and the recent election. Giroir is a widely respected public health expert who has reenforced a calm and science-based approach to the White House Coronavirus Task Force.
As I discussed, courts have been applying greater scrutiny to these pandemic orders. The initial deference afforded to pandemic order tends to wane with time. The first such shift came predictably with challenges based on the contravention of constitutional rights, particularly the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. Such challenges have the advantage of the higher standard of strict scrutiny.
Now, however, there are renewed challenges for businesses under the lower standard of the rational basis test. This is due to the contradiction of some orders with known science or data on transmission rates and sources. For example, through the election, Democrats suggested that President Donald Trump was effectively trying to kill children by pushing to reopen schools, including Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin. Rubin has previously shown a disregard of the factual foundation for her allegations. Yet, Democrats have maintained until recently that schools must be closed due to the high risk of transmission despite growing scientific evidence to the contrary. Ads running before the election cited Dr. Fauci in saying that opening schools was putting the lives of children at risk for political reasons:
Recently, Mayor diBlasio reversed his order to close New York schools after criticism over the lack of scientific support for the policy. Indeed, it contradicts the long-standing findings of health organizations that young children show an exceptionally low risk for contracting or passing Covid-19. There are also studies showing the high cost of lockdown from massive economic losses to spikes in suicide to increasing medical (non-Covid-19) emergencies.
Thankfully, courts tend to be more attentive to the factual foundation of their own conclusions. At most, they will find a mixed scientific record supporting the categorical bans.
Notably, Dr. Anthony Fauci, said publicly that he supported the new lockdowns in California. However, Giroir referenced Fauci and the other Task Force members in saying that they have not seen “any data that says you need to shutdown outdoor dining or outdoor bars.” He said that the science does not support such categorical lockdowns, explaining
“We do, in a surge place, need to limit indoor dining, indoor bars, but you don’t have to close schools, you don’t have to close universities, you don’t have to close your major industries . . . The science does not support limiting indoor dining and bars…It’s time to nuance. This is not March or April. This is December. We know what the science says, we know there are countermeasures that are effective…
…Whatever the expression is, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I think we could be causing a lot more harm by overly restrictive recommendations that are not supported by the science,” he said. “What I am saying is the evidence clearly does not support limitations on things like outdoor dining particularly that are spaced, outdoor bars — the evidence just isn’t there. . . Shutting down completely, particularly if you don’t have evidence, can be counterproductive.”
That is likely to be featured prominently in these increasing challenges to blanket shutdown orders. State and local officials will still be afforded deference but the science on some of these limitations can now be challenged. The best bet for governors is still the rational basis test which ordinarily presents an easy standard to satisfy. However, the call “follow the science” may not be a clearly supportive in some of these cases. There now appears to be significant science-based arguments that can be raised in opposing to sweeping lockdowns. If a court is presented with science on both sides, the advantage still rests with the states and their pandemic orders. They will have to offer a rational basis for why such lockdowns are needed. That might include reducing the travel of parents with their children to schools and the need for significant numbers of adults to support school operations, including obviously the teachers. In such a balancing, statements by experts like Admiral Giroir will likely to be raised and considered by courts.
Texas lawsuit filed SCOTUS.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/breaking-texas-files-lawsuit-directly-supreme-court-challenging-election?utm_source=breaking-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Interesting
https://populist.press/breaking-judge-makes-sudden-decision-on-flynn-case/
It wasn’t sudden. It was expected.
Lawsuit filed from Texas AG in order to stop Ga, Mi, PA, and WI from casting “unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes” in the Electoral College.
At: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf
Read the odds calculated for such a win on page 6 #10
CTHD posted an analysis of the case hours ago in the Biden column. Don’t expect the SC to accept the case.
I don’t expect the SC to do anything one way or the other. They make their own decisions. I don’t expect Trump to prevail though there are good reasons that he should and there is a significant possibility. Anonymous posted what I think is a better explanation of this case. I posted this one because of the mathematical calculation gives one an idea as to why many believe Biden lost. There is a lot of other data but we might have to leave it to historians to show that Trump actually won in a landslide and Biden lost with less votes than Obama not with exceeding Obama’s election popularity.
Baker and Jimmy Carter warned us about mail in voting. We didn’t listen and now we have a Constitutional crisis. The Democrats pushed mail in voting because they felt that might help them win and it is sort of interesting that in the battleground states in around a half a dozen cities known to be corrupt there were major questions of illegal counting of ballots. Some of the states violated their own Constitutions. This led Alan Dershowitz to say that the SC might permit legislators to pick alternative electors. He is a lefty but provides a fair balance when the law is involved.
From what I have seen, any analysis by CTHD is not trustworthy. CTHD is a polarizing figure who doesn’t admit to any facts CTHD doesn’t like. Maybe that posting is in my mailbox or maybe I threw it out without reading. I throw out much of the emails from this blog out unless I can quickly spot something of interest.
Speaking of odds, historically it is far more likely that Democrats bribed a Wuhan lab worker to release the virus than any other theory proposed. Such an act would make sense if they had already planned to rig the election – they just had to hurt the economy enough to make it reasonably close in order to maintain the fiction of a “fair election.”
A peer reviewed study of the use of Hydroxychloroquine with zinc and azithromycin is to be published this month in a respected journal. It concluded that use of these inexpensive treatments prior to hospitalization reduced hospitalizations and deaths by 84%.
So, if 200,000 people have died in the U.S.from Covid, 168,000 of them were due to Democrat lies and disinformation. Another leftist mass murder in the name of power. Stalin would be so proud!
Let’s see it.
Then ask yourself why Trump didn’t do that.
Anon: “Then ask yourself why Trump didn’t do that.”
I assume by “that” you mean: publicize the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. If so, your idea of “history” must be what you ate for breakfast.
For some 9 months, Trump has been touting hydroxychloroquine (and azithromycin). And he was widely ridiculed by the typical mob, including by Lord Fauci. They are the ones responsible for untold suffering.
In *March*, 2020: “Trump tweets to his roughly 84 million followers that hydroxychloroquine taken with the antibiotic azithromycin could be ‘one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine” and should “be put in use immediately.'”
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/timeline-tracking-trump-alongside-scientific-developments-hydroxychloroquine/story?id=72170553
It’s tough to figure out what is on the mind of Anonymous. I like your corrections. I don’t think anonymous thinks very deeply or bases what he says on facts. He strikes me as an individual obsessed with wanting to look smart but can’t.
Mel, you strike me as an individual who posts under several different names and often ascribes his own failings to others.
Here is anonymous running around like he is a turkey whose head was cut off. He is accusing everyone of having many names. He wants this type of craziness all to himself.
Allan, your comments are so recognizable that I can tell it’s you even when you post under another name.
What about me?
Me too.
No, by “that,” I meant TAKE hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin after being diagnosed with Covid, before going to the hospital. Trump touted it, so why didn’t he take it after he became infected?
Still waiting for “John Galt” to produce his peer reviewed study. Do you have it, Sam?
Nov 9, 2020
“A National Institutes of Health clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has formally concluded that the drug provides no clinical benefit to hospitalized patients. Though found not to cause harm, early findings in June when the trial was stopped indicated that the drug was not improving outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Final data and analyses of the trial, which was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), part of NIH, will appear online Nov. 9 in the Journal of the American Medical Association(link is external).”
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/hydroxychloroquine-does-not-benefit-adults-hospitalized-covid-19
Like the hurricane threatening Alabama, Dear Leader must never admit a mistake, no matter how small, and cultists must exert every effort to “prove” he was correct, once again and as he always is.
That’s what cultists do.
Other studies in other countries say HCQ works and the drugs are being given. What makes your study better than many studies in many countries by reputable people?
For a start, what makes his comment better than your comment is that he presented a study, and you didn’t.
I’m not sure which anonymous you are there are so many running around and bloviating pissing into the wind. One article doesn’t prove anything and one has to be able to read and interpret what the article says with respect to all other articles. Neither you nor he can do that.
All you do is post crapola.
What Trump took is irrelevant to the question: Is hydroxychloroquine efficacious as a therapeutic?
By injecting Trump into the issue, you’re muddying the waters — in a lame attempt to condemn him (and to frighten people off hydroxychloroquine).
It’s not irrelevant. Trump touted it. So why didn’t he take it?
This anonymous is whacko.
Sam, anonymous is among the most inept persons I have ever had contact with.
Playing down the risks of Remdesivir and hyping its benefits while playing up the risks of HCQ and playing down its benefits is an effective strategy for Gilead. HCQ is not a big profit maker, but Remdesivir is.
We don’t have an answer but due to these types of actions money has been pulled away from HCQ study and placed into pharmaceutical companies looking for high profit drugs that satisfies both a political and financial end.
There may be no difference between HCQ and Remdesivir. However, what is forgotten is that for billions of people the price of Remdesivir and the designer drugs means no treatment because of cost. The inept anonymous doesn’t care about billions of people now or in the future when we might have other severe virus pandemics. He is only interested in spouting off despite how wrong he is. His attitudes demonstrate how low some humans have become in this modern world.
Nearly a month ago, from Politico:
“The most pressing question: How does Biden balance the political imperative to quickly vaccinate Americans while also ensuring equitable global vaccine distribution?”
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/global-pulse/2020/11/12/covid-vaccine-could-test-bidens-global-leadership-490875
Yesterday, from ABC News:
“President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order on Tuesday that would prioritize Americans’ access to COVID-19 vaccines before the United States helps other countries, multiple White House officials said during a background briefing Monday evening.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vaccine-summit-trump-set-issue-order-americans-1st/story?id=74590913
President Trump is scheduled to make public remarks on Operation Warp Speed at 2 PM EST this afternoon during a COVID-19 Vaccine Summit.
“Former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, now a member of the Pfizer board of directors, said Tuesday that the pharmaceutical giant offered the Trump administration the chance to buy additional doses of its coronavirus vaccine multiple times, but that officials turned down the offers.
“The comments from Gottlieb confirm a report in The New York Times, which on Monday revealed that additional doses of the Pfizer vaccine, beyond the 100 million already purchased, may not be available in the U.S. until June because they were committed to other countries after the Trump administration passed on them. …”
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/529212-trump-officials-passed-on-multiple-offers-to-buy-more-pfizer-vaccine
The Trump Admin. very clearly was *not* “prioritiz[ing] Americans’ access to COVID-19 vaccines.”
The vaccine is as worthless as a flu shot, dishonest discusser.
Of course you have no idea why.
The 2020 death rate in the US is the same as any other year.
“A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19”
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tnb1a8TXHj_jJCM2BDfGSriUgdn-2gec/view
Do you even read what you link to, wanker?
“Published by the Students of Johns Hopkins”
“Briand’s study should not be used exclusively in understanding the impact of COVID-19, but should be taken in context with the countless other data published by Hopkins, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). As assistant director for the Master’s in Applied Economics program at Hopkins, Briand is neither a medical professional nor a disease researcher. At her talk, she herself stated that more research and data are needed to understand the effects of COVID-19 in the U.S.”
“Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.”
It sounds like the Trump administration was not willing to put the federal eggs all in one basket and drove a harder bargain that Pfizer was initially willing to recognize. Today Trump said he will “invoke the Defense Production Act if necessary” in order to insure that Americans, who are disproportionately suffering from the pandemic, get timely access to the vaccinations they need:
https://nypost.com/2020/12/08/trump-signs-america-first-covid-19-vaccine-executive-order/
President-elect Biden, for his part, has announced “that Yale University Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith will lead efforts to make sure the government’s coronavirus response is fair and equitable”:
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/yale-professor-to-lead-president-elect-bidens-covid-19-equity-task-force/2379114/
What is Pfizer’s plan for global vaccine equity, as Gottlieb explained it?
Trump lies a lot. I’ll wait to see what he actually does, not what he says he’ll do.
Here’s the actual text of today’s EO:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-ensuring-access-united-states-government-covid-19-vaccines/
I don’t know that Gottlied announced Pfizer’s plan for global vaccine equity, or if they have one.
President Xiden would send our vaccines to his Chinese masters.
This article was originally published on the Johns Hopkins Newsletter. But the Ministry of Truth asked JH to take it down because it ran against the prescribed authoritarian statist BS narrative.
“A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tnb1a8TXHj_jJCM2BDfGSriUgdn-2gec/view
“This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below,
the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests,
according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory
diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.”
In summation, the US death rate has not increased at all in 2020, because the CDC by their own admission is attributing deaths from other causes to Covid with no testing for Covid ever done on the deceased.
IOW, it’s a f*cking scamdemic, not a pandemic. Which is why I refuse to wear a mask, and why I tell anyone who asks me to wear one to kindly f*ckoff, and mind their own business.
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
“Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic. We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media. However, it is our responsibility as journalists to provide a historical record. We have chosen to take down the article from our website, but it is available here as a PDF. In accordance with our standards for transparency, we are sharing with our readers how we came to this decision. The News-Letter is an editorially and financially independent, student-run publication. Our articles and content are not endorsed by the University or the School of Medicine, and our decision to retract this article was made independently. …
“Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers. …”
IOW, anyone who calls it a scamdemic should “kindly f*ckoff.”
Often what is most critical is not what is said, but what is NOT said. The publication now has a watermark stipulating that the article was withdrawn NOT that it was incorrect. Nothing to see here, folks….
The editors’ note says that it contains incorrect claims. It’s a student publication.
Ok, incorrect how? What the author did seems to be an extremely straightforward statistical analysis. The publication does not say they used falsified data, so exactly what is their reasoning?
Despite months of fake studies, disinformation, and literally imposing bans on studying the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment, a full peer reviewed study of use on non hospitalized Covid cases is coming out this month in a respected journal, The conclusion? 84% reduction in hospitalization and death. That means that in this country Democrats are literally responsible for over 168,000 deaths because “Orange man bad,” one of the greatest mass murders since WWII. If you (the generic “you,” not you personally) aren’t at least a bit skeptical of “pronouncements by hand waving” denouncing evidence which might show Covid to be less dangerous than Sarin gas as “invalid” without any evidence, you need to rethink your ability to reason.
Are you incapable of reading what they wrote for yourself?
An excerpt is quoted above with a link to their full statement.
I’m going over this anonymous’ twit’s responses. I note this anonymous is unable to accurately repeat what he reads, but is quite critical of others. Most frequently his criticism represents a lack of knowledge.
Poor Allan, do you need it repeated just for you?
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
“Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic. We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media. However, it is our responsibility as journalists to provide a historical record. We have chosen to take down the article from our website, but it is available here as a PDF. In accordance with our standards for transparency, we are sharing with our readers how we came to this decision. The News-Letter is an editorially and financially independent, student-run publication. Our articles and content are not endorsed by the University or the School of Medicine, and our decision to retract this article was made independently. …
“Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers. …”
Unfortunately, it appears you are only able to deal with one fact at a time. That makes you wrong if that one fact wasn’t the fact under discussion. Additionally you didn’t comprehend or comment on the important points made by Galt. That is par for the course for you and you forget how many people you have done this to including the one you initially responded to.
In your response you chose both the wrong fact and the wrong name.
It is notable that the document watermark stipulates that the publication has withdrawn the article – NOT that it was in any way incorrect.
Turley says, “Thankfully, courts tend to be more attentive to the factual foundation of their own conclusions.” This is hilarious. Courts have become a joke. Judges decide any case in advance by political considerations and then invent law, precedent and facts to fit their initial decision. A learned, scholarly, honest, fact-based ruling is so rare as to be considered an accident.
Turley is taking this into the political a bit with the thrust of this post, but it should be mentioned that restaurants and colleges and schools in general have shown leadership with Covid 19 that the federal government surely has not. A good friend works high end dining in NY as a server. She gets tested constantly, the restaurant has shifted to the sidewalk and remains there, and when she arrives at work she gets an immediate blood oxygen level test and gets her temperature taken. Colleges, while not as individualized and precise have become adept at looking for Covid in groups and then whittling down to individuals who test positive…
We have much to learn from how these institutions have approached Covid. The federal government under the trump administration gets more than a failing grade for how they’ve compared.
But Covid is spiraling right now, and the fact is, one of the quickest ways to break the momentum of the virus is to really limit population density scenarios until the positive test rate subsides and changes the trend. That’s the given…, so to take Giroir’s logic of individualization means taking an accurate assessment of where communities are on the percent positive continuum and taking more drastic public measures when statistically warranted. That will individualize the community as a whole while waiting to phase back more individually in isolated commercial circumstances like schools and restaurants.
Basically, the gist of the argument the professor is making here tends to serve as a defocus on where attention should be energetically directed — that being to recognize when the virus spirals and providing stimulus to industries that have to drastically scale back operations to let the broader public health measures succeed, which will sometimes conflict with individual rights and privileges.
Covid is an interesting challenge for us all.
Elvis Bug
NPR says white men are screwed worst by rising income inequality over many decades.
thanks NPR, i say that and they call me a racisssss
https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace-morning-report/page/3/
Saloth Sar
Your link doesn’t show what you said.
https://www.marketplace.org/2020/12/08/new-rand-study-quantifies-cost-of-rising-us-inequality/
Everyone in the bottom 90% is hit.
@Anaonymous – Despite the fake / misleading “studies,” fear mongering, disinformation, and resistance from our leftists we finally have carefully controlled peer review studies of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in conjunction with zinc and arithromycin on pre-hospitalized Covid patients. The conclusion is an 84% reduction in deaths and hospitalization, which would render the disease less impactful than the flu. That makes Covid is the biggest political mass murder by leftists since the Holocaust and the purges by Stalin.
Admiral Brett Giroir is correct and speaks to the deafening lack of nuance in approaching all public issues related to COVID 19. It is amazing how Swedish children stayed in school (with no mask mandate) and the remainder of Europe and Southeast Asia have all returned to in person School. With an under 18 population of around 1.8 million, only 3 deaths have been report in Swedish children related to COVID 19.
Filmmaker Albert Mayses said “Tyranny is the deliberate removal of Nuance” Spot on Admiral Giroir.
You clearly don’t understand that kids bring the virus home to infect other people and dying from it is not the only serious health effect.
Please provide a link to the data that supports your conclusion. Did you read the Sweden references? Do you have any idea why that’s relevant? Or is fear consuming your thoughts?
The impact of kids is effectively the same as the flu. Do you think we should shut down society for 6+ mo’s every year for flu season? If so, stay where you are. Texas will do just fine without the hypochondria.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects.html
So you’re going to hide under your bed for the rest of your life and insist that everyone else do the same because no one ever suffered long term affects of an illness in the past? It’s a lie, of course. The only difference between this virus and past year’s flu is the marketing.
I’m not hiding under my bed, and I’ll trust doctors and scientists and facts over a rando internet commenter who mistakenly believes that Covid is just like the flu.
yes its actually like a very bad flu season. and not much more
Oh good, another rando.
Over 300,000 more people have died this year compared to expected deaths this year. Doctors are suiting up in extreme PPE to help their Covid patients. But you pretend it’s just like a bad flu.
More people have not died this year in the US due to Covid.
That is a documented fact.
I already linked to the CDC data on it. You are denying that evidence because you don’t like it.
I wish that I could like this comment a 1,000 times!
You just cant stand it when a predominately white country / culture is successful. Quit pretending like you care about people you don’t know. The real threat are people like yourself.
You clearly do not understand that Jesus is the Christ and the son of God.
See how that works?
When faith is a necessity to form a belief, you are within the realm “religion.”
You do not know, but, rather, have a religious belief, that “kids bring the virus home” since there are a multitude of studies which claim kids do NOT (a) get the ‘Rona or (b) spread the ‘Rona. See, e.g., https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2006100”
Hopefully, you do not also bandy about the old saw, “follow the science.”
If you truly believed in following the science, you’d read more recent recent instead of relying on a publication from April. The publication you cited does not support your claim that kids do NOT (a) get the ‘Rona or (b) spread the ‘Rona.
Children can become infected –
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352464220301772
Anyone who is infected can transmit the virus to others.
There are several international studies that support that children rarely spread the virus to family members when the child is the first person in the household that is infected. Children do not exhibit many ACE2 receptors as this is a blood pressure control cascade and children do not have problems with high blood pressure unless they have kidney disease. They have very low viral load and thus are not efficient vectors for this virus.
This statement is from Factcheck.org
“On transmission, there are signs that kids might be less efficient spreaders of SARS-CoV-2, although that conclusion is still tentative.
A study in the Netherlands found no instances of a child under the age of 12 serving as the source of infection among 54 households, and a survey of familial clusters in Switzerland identified only three cases, out of 39, in which the child developed symptoms first and may have been the source of the virus.
Schoolchildren infected with COVID-19 in the early days of the pandemic also appear to have only rarely spread the virus to others. In France, scientists identified no secondary cases as a result of three probable infections in students before schools closed, and a nine-year-old boy in the French Alps who went skiing and visited three schools while infected also failed to pass the virus on. In Australia, officials found only two possible secondary infections after tracing nearly 900 contacts of 18 infected students and staff members.”
And from the Journal of Pediatircs:
“As to whether kids can bring the virus home to mom, dad and siblings and grandparents? The evidence is thin, but a new study in the journal Pediatrics concludes that rarely are the young the ones bringing coronavirus into a household.
The Swiss study looked at the medical records of 39 coronavirus-positive children under the age of 16. Their household contacts were then carefully followed during a month from early March to early April, the peak for COVID-19 cases in Switzerland.
In only 8% of cases was the child the first to develop symptoms, leading the researchers to conclude that child-to-adult transmission is relatively uncommon.”
The risk of transmission from children to adults is not zero but its relatively low risk does deserve a healthy dose of Nuance in establishing a school attendance policy.
Thank you Speaking. There are loads of studies as you say where transmission is low or may not exist from children but anonymous says
“Children **can** become infected –
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352464220301772
Anyone who is infected **can** transmit the virus to others.”
Anything **can**…like Anonymous **can** have a brain. Maybe, Maybe not. But if Anonymous has a brain it can be insignificant or non functioning. That is the type of meaning behind Anonymous’s constant postings somewhere in the realm of 50-100 today not counting the other anonymous’s who are more distinctive.
Anonymous quotes from sources but doesn’t understand who he is quoting from nor has he read his sources. He gets confused and frequently posts sources that prove him wrong
Though I don’t argue that children can’t transmit the virus I couldn’t find it in the article. Maybe it doesn’t exist. When dealing with anonymous one can never trust him. Two things found in the article of importance under discussion:
“usually a mild disease in children, including infants.”
“fatal outcome is rare overall.”
“Filmmaker Albert Mayses said “Tyranny is the deliberate removal of Nuance” Spot on Admiral Giroir.”
This is a key insight. I’ve said since early May that honest efforts to balance public health/safety with society was nuance, which was lacking. Benefit of the doubt was extended at first, but now that the data is overwhelmingly clear, nuance MUST be applied or tyrannical leanings/desires must be considered the driver.