6 ms·

If the childhood mortality risk associated with Covid is comparable to the flu (which seems to be the case) why weren't we masking every child before Covid?

TameAntelope 5y ago
Because the Covid mortality risk for children is already with masks, compared to without masks for the flu. Also, there are considerations other than specifically a child's death that are relevant here, like who that child can spread it to and what negative longterm effects surviving COVID-19 carry, neither of which are as pronounced or unknown as with the flu. But you knew that already, didn't you?
- jdminhbg 5y ago
  > Because the Covid mortality risk for children is already with masks, compared to without masks for the flu This is false, which we know because we can measure the fatality rates for children in unmasked locales, and they do not differ from those in masked locales.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    Too many confounding variables, those measurements are useless.
    - jimmyjazz14 5y ago
      okay, then please by all means, cite a source showing definitively that mask themselves reduce the likelihood of a children dying from covid.
      - TameAntelope 5y ago
        I already have, all over this thread.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nradov 5y ago
  According to the CDC the COVID-19 infection fatality rate for children is 0.002%. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd... Children can spread the virus to adults, but adults who want to be vaccinated have been for months now. And since everyone will be exposed anyway it hardly matters who does the exposing. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    How many children are there in the US? I'll let you pick the number you'd like to multiply by 0.00002, to get the number of children you're okay with killing.
    - nradov 5y ago
      It's easy to act morally superior and make cheap emotional arguments for when you're not the one who has to make hard decisions. All lives have value, but no life has infinite value. You can't seriously expect the majority to endure perpetual mandates and restrictions just to provide some limited, temporary protection to a small minority who are vulnerable due to risk factors like obesity. https://reason.com/2022/01/03/cdc-covid-19-children-hospitalization-obesity-teenagers/ https://reason.com/2022/01/03/cdc-covid-19-children-hospital... And in the long run it won't make any difference anyway. Everyone will be exposed regardless of whether or not schoolchildren are subjected to mask mandates. So what's the point of continuing the charade? https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
      - TameAntelope 5y ago
        I absolutely can expect the majority to endure a minor inconvenience, if that minority they're protecting is a thousand innocent children in a given year (you didn't pick a number, so I will, 78 million children). And the point is to lower the curve, not avoid exposure. But, again, you know all of this, you just don't care. Shameful.
- xigoi 5y ago
  The mortality of a virus is not affected by whether you were wearing a mask when you caught it.
standardUser 5y ago
The idea is to reduce the spread of the virus in order to protect everyone from a lack of hospital beds and exhausted medical staff. It's not about protecting the individual children (at least not primarily, because they are so low risk). Whether or not this is still a useful approach probably depends on the locale. It seems like places where the Omicron wave is rapidly ending, having children wear masks is entirely pointless.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  >The idea is to reduce the spread of the virus in order to protect everyone from a lack of hospital beds and exhausted medical staff. People keep saying this, but if hospital capacity was actually the "real" bottleneck in treating covid then why haven't we seen massive campaigns to expand that capacity? "Do this thing that is marginally beneficial for adults and potentially actively harmful long term for children to possibly impact hospital capacity elsewhere" is not something that makes sense to me. If this was just another bottleneck in some system and not related to the pandemic you'd address the real problem, right?
  - autoexec 5y ago
    > People keep saying this, but if hospital capacity was actually the "real" bottleneck in treating covid then why haven't we seen massive campaigns to expand that capacity? You mean like calling in the national guard to help alleviate the problem or busing in nurses from all over the country, or creating temporary wards, or fighting to get more ventilators and medications? All of those things and more have been happening. > "Do this thing that is marginally beneficial for adults and potentially actively harmful long term for children Not only are you minimizing the benefits here, but you're prioritizing potential outcomes over proven ones. That is not something that makes sense to me. I want to make my choices based on our best understanding of the evidence we have right now, not based on things that may or may not ever happen in the future. Right now, getting vaccinated and wearing a mask when community spread is high in your area are proven to do a lot of good to help prevent very real harms. That's enough for me.
    - 5y ago

TameAntelope 5y ago

Because the Covid mortality risk for children is already with masks, compared to without masks for the flu. Also, there are considerations other than specifically a child's death that are relevant here, like who that child can spread it to and what negative longterm effects surviving COVID-19 carry, neither of which are as pronounced or unknown as with the flu. But you knew that already, didn't you?

jdminhbg 5y ago
> Because the Covid mortality risk for children is already with masks, compared to without masks for the flu This is false, which we know because we can measure the fatality rates for children in unmasked locales, and they do not differ from those in masked locales.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  Too many confounding variables, those measurements are useless.
  - jimmyjazz14 5y ago
    okay, then please by all means, cite a source showing definitively that mask themselves reduce the likelihood of a children dying from covid.
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      I already have, all over this thread.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nradov 5y ago
According to the CDC the COVID-19 infection fatality rate for children is 0.002%. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd... Children can spread the virus to adults, but adults who want to be vaccinated have been for months now. And since everyone will be exposed anyway it hardly matters who does the exposing. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  How many children are there in the US? I'll let you pick the number you'd like to multiply by 0.00002, to get the number of children you're okay with killing.
  - nradov 5y ago
    It's easy to act morally superior and make cheap emotional arguments for when you're not the one who has to make hard decisions. All lives have value, but no life has infinite value. You can't seriously expect the majority to endure perpetual mandates and restrictions just to provide some limited, temporary protection to a small minority who are vulnerable due to risk factors like obesity. https://reason.com/2022/01/03/cdc-covid-19-children-hospitalization-obesity-teenagers/ https://reason.com/2022/01/03/cdc-covid-19-children-hospital... And in the long run it won't make any difference anyway. Everyone will be exposed regardless of whether or not schoolchildren are subjected to mask mandates. So what's the point of continuing the charade? https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646 https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94646
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      I absolutely can expect the majority to endure a minor inconvenience, if that minority they're protecting is a thousand innocent children in a given year (you didn't pick a number, so I will, 78 million children). And the point is to lower the curve, not avoid exposure. But, again, you know all of this, you just don't care. Shameful.
xigoi 5y ago
The mortality of a virus is not affected by whether you were wearing a mask when you caught it.

standardUser 5y ago

The idea is to reduce the spread of the virus in order to protect everyone from a lack of hospital beds and exhausted medical staff. It's not about protecting the individual children (at least not primarily, because they are so low risk). Whether or not this is still a useful approach probably depends on the locale. It seems like places where the Omicron wave is rapidly ending, having children wear masks is entirely pointless.

remarkEon 5y ago
>The idea is to reduce the spread of the virus in order to protect everyone from a lack of hospital beds and exhausted medical staff. People keep saying this, but if hospital capacity was actually the "real" bottleneck in treating covid then why haven't we seen massive campaigns to expand that capacity? "Do this thing that is marginally beneficial for adults and potentially actively harmful long term for children to possibly impact hospital capacity elsewhere" is not something that makes sense to me. If this was just another bottleneck in some system and not related to the pandemic you'd address the real problem, right?
- autoexec 5y ago
  > People keep saying this, but if hospital capacity was actually the "real" bottleneck in treating covid then why haven't we seen massive campaigns to expand that capacity? You mean like calling in the national guard to help alleviate the problem or busing in nurses from all over the country, or creating temporary wards, or fighting to get more ventilators and medications? All of those things and more have been happening. > "Do this thing that is marginally beneficial for adults and potentially actively harmful long term for children Not only are you minimizing the benefits here, but you're prioritizing potential outcomes over proven ones. That is not something that makes sense to me. I want to make my choices based on our best understanding of the evidence we have right now, not based on things that may or may not ever happen in the future. Right now, getting vaccinated and wearing a mask when community spread is high in your area are proven to do a lot of good to help prevent very real harms. That's enough for me.
  - 5y ago