I think part of it is because the language that those ideas are built on is intentionally very slippery. If you aren't extremely careful with how you word things, you wind up sounding like you're denying factual historical events.
John McWhorter is the only voice I've heard so far who can reveal the swiss-cheese nature of the set of beliefs contained by the term 'CRT', and do so in the very language of the educated class that espouses CRT.
It is in the interests of the political left AND the political right that the definition never become crystal clear, they both profit off the confusion.
I think this is true about a lot of current orthodoxy. Most people know something stupid when they see it, but few want to stick their neck out so they just go along with it. Ths greatest enemy of freedom is apathy
While I would have made the point differently than the GP—your children are not at serious risk from COVID because of their age. (They are at some risk—life involves risk—but it’s low.)
The people seriously at risk from COVID are unvaccinated adults.
If you define "risk" as "hospitalization," that's largely true. If you define "risk" as months or years of bizarre symptoms, reduced lung capacity, brain fog, etc., then children are at risk too.
But perhaps you don't care about that sort of thing.
Most studies I've seen show "long covid" to be pretty rare in children. Perhaps something like 5% of children who test positive have mild symptoms a month later. [1] This is somewhat consistent with other respiratory virus infections we've known about. [2] It's possible our risk tolerance is way different but this is personally an acceptable number for me not to worry about my own child.
I don't think this represents most studies, but the far lower end. If we're going to cherry-pick, here's one which shows more than half of kids show at least one symptom 120 days out:
My best guess is that it's around 10%-20% -- that's sort of in the middle where studies land.
I suspect a big part of the problem is which child and which COVID. I would speculate alpha, delta, mu, etc. all have different rates.
I think the second question is the distribution of symptoms. None of the studies are sensitive enough to pick up a 5% loss in IQ, lung capacity, or similar. Do some kids get it and others don't? Or is there a bell curve of symptoms, and we're picking up kids with the more extreme versions?
If it's a bell curve, it's pretty scary. All kids could be harmed to the level of e.g. lead exposure, and we wouldn't notice.
To be fair, I think they're getting that advice from health experts. It is well known based on what our health professionals/experts have been saying that children are at a much lower risk.
However, I am an advocate for not letting the virus rip through the unvaccinated. I like people alive and I like our hospital systems unburdened.
> I am an advocate for not letting the virus rip through the unvaccinated. I like people alive and I like our hospital systems unburdened.
Right, and so this is where I disagree with the OP. I don't want anyone to die—I want everyone to be safe and healthy, including people who make bad choices.
However, I don't think that I have a responsibility to protect the people who insist on making bad choices. I absolutely did have that responsibility early in the pandemic, and I acted accordingly—I stayed home, I wore a mask, I turned down get-togethers, etc.
Now things are different. Vaccines are readily available in the US (and especially in the metropolitan New York area where I live), and any adult who is still unvaccinated has made an explicit decision to live dangerously. And I still don't want them to die—but I also want to go out with friends, and I'm not willing to give that up for the sake of people who can't be bothered to protect themselves!
> CDC estimates that from the 2010-2011 season to the 2019-2020 season, flu-related hospitalizations among children younger than 5 years old have ranged from 7,000 to 26,000 in the United States.
This risk, by the way, may also be higher than people want to admit. I think it's nuts how many schools don't require the annual flu vaccine, not to mention how few Americans get said vaccine in general. That said, the very real risk of the flu—which can also cause long-term complications—does not cause us to all upend our lives, nor should it.
> COVID-19 and the flu combined make up less than 1% of all pediatric deaths since the start of the pandemic in March of 2020.
Someone said upthread that "it’s not [my] place to decide the risk for other people’s children," and that is absolutely true in a broad sense! Unfortunately, I have to make decisions around (1) whether or not to vote for politicians who support re-opening schools, and (2) whether or not I go out to restaurants, shows, and social events.
All fun and games until you have a car accident and there are no ICU beds available for you. Letting the virus go rampant still affects the vaccinated and the poor few that can't get vaccinated because of underlying health issues.
There is a small minority of people out there who legitimately can't get the vaccine for medical reasons. Writing them off as collateral damage isn't acceptable public policy.
Take comfort in the fact that the maliciously ignorant already punish themselves in a thousand little ways every day. However, no amount of comeuppance will cause those people to recognize their own actions as the source of their problems.
> Writing them off as collateral damage isn't acceptable public policy.
It was for the flu. Of course from what I understand Covid is worse than the flu. But in most western countries, during the flu season, it is (or at least was) acceptable to not get the vaccine, not wear masks, etc. Old people were expected to get vaccinated since they were the most vulnerable, but even that was on a voluntary basis. So there are some cases where writing off people as collateral damage is an acceptable public policy.
Yeah I don't know why people persist in claiming covid is comparable to the flu when a modicum of research immediately rejects that notion. Moreover there are long-term impacts even if someone recovers from covid. It can do permanent life shortening damage in ways that getting the flu does not.
If i had to choose between getting the flu and getting covid i will choose the flu every time. Would anyone choose differently?
Sure, but the flu is endemic and strikes every year. In general I think it has killed more than Covid in the US, even if we only take the last 20 years. I'm personally vaccinated and think we should take Covid seriously. My point was just that for the flu, we accept to just let people die. I hope Covid will change that, and that people will start wearing masks and be more careful during flu season.
If a side effect of COVID19 were getting rid of flu and colds, I'd be very very happy.
It doesn't look like it will be, but it'd be nice.
I actually think all the contact tracing stuff would do it. If we had zero tolerance for colds and flues -- we quarantine everyone who gets them and their contacts -- we'd end up at close to zero cases, and close to zero actual quarantines.
I actually think steady-state, we'd need fewer quarantines than the number of people flu kills. Flues kill 60k per season. I think 60k quarantines would be more than adequate for containing it.
As an un-vaccinated person, I wholeheartedly agree. Speaking for every single un-vaccinated person I know, we never expected anyone to keep wear masks or whatever because of us.
