Mostly Apolitical Thread for Discussing/Venting our Rational/Irrational COVID-19 Fears and Experiences in 2020

Oster almost certainly didn't write that headline, which I think is the thing about the piece that's really sticking in peoples' craw

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Friday, March 19, 2021 2:08 PM (thirteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yup, she said in her newsletter this morning "Read the whole article before you yell at me, please!"

There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that children are at low risk of hospitalization and death from COVID. Oster's analogy to a vaccinated adult was kind of clumsy and unhelpful, but her percentages are likely accurate. It's bizarre for that person to act like it's hard to find data to back this claim up just because he couldn't find the underlying data the CDC page used to calculate relative risk. For example:

https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/covidnet/COVID19_3.html -- data from ten states, weekly hospitalizations per 100k by age. Data consists of "laboratory-confirmed COVID-19-associated hospitalizations in children (less than 18 years of age) and adults" from "nearly 100 counties in the 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) states (CA, CO, CT, GA, MD, MN, NM, NY, OR, TN) and four Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Project (IHSP) states (IA, MI, OH, and UT)." Although the caption notes that the data are "likely to be underestimated" because it's hard to capture every single hospitalization, the hospitalization rate for the 5-17 age group has pretty consistently been around 1 per 100k, even at the peaks of the pandemic. In fact, it's pretty remarkable that, even when there were massive spikes in hospitalizations of other age groups, child hospitalizations remained very low.

Also, this is a ridiculous statement:

As an aside, just because your relative risk might be low, doesn't mean that NO ONE is being hospitalized/facing death. The latest data from the COVKID project indicates that at least 4.6 kids per 1,000 reported cases are hospitalized, and this is AN UNDERCOUNT

— Quang Nguyen (@quangpmnguyen) March 19, 2021

Of course it's not "impossible" for a child to be hospitalized for COVID. So what? It's not impossible for a child to drown in a swimming pool either (in fact it's as least as likely as dying from COVID) - should kids never swim again?

Guilty feet have got no fins.

That's one tweak away from an a+ pun.

I mean, my god, even if it's double that, say 10 hospitalizations per reported cases, that's 1/100 reported cases. And hospitalized =/= critical care or ICU, in fact most of the time it doesn't. My daughter was hospitalized with pneumonia once. It sucked, but she was never on oxygen or in critical care, it was over in two days, and I wouldn't make dramatic changes to our lifestyle to prevent any outside chance that it happens again.

Also, I don't want to get hugely into this, but before someone says "child long covid," I have spent a lot of time trying to find credible evidence that it's widespread, and there just isn't much.

*10 hospitalizations per 1000 reported cases.

That's why I asked what the goal is, because if the goal is zero cases, zero transmission, who knows when we're going to get to that.

we're not. the question is how much risk is enough risk for educators/janitors/children and who gets to decide that.

we're not. the question is how much risk is enough risk for educators/janitors/children and who gets to decide that.

― G.A.G.S. (Gophers Against Getting Stuffed) (forksclovetofu), Friday, March 19, 2021 1:47 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

In this case the discussion was about vacations rather than schools. However, once every educator and janitor who wants the vaccine has the opportunity to get it, the risk for kids is low enough that it seems absurd not to have full time school.

As far as vacations, while I'm not planning one anytime soon, I don't think there are a lot of likely high risk scenarios created by vaccinated parents traveling with kids. I mean maybe if you want to be extra careful avoid crowded restaurants and try to eat outside/plan mostly outdoor activities?

i am getting sick and tired of the media's "here why you should be worried about this latest COVID development" news. not stuff like the Covid Tracking Project's news on Michigan, which was helpful and something we should be worried about and monitoring, but the 'evening news' networks who seem to diminish any positive news and refocus everything as a negative.

smother people in despair despite a vaccine campaign that is looking like it will be a success, and you'll make people decide to give up and start going out and saying "fuck it" with no mask, or will never leave their house again.

(that's actually why I LIKED the CTP article above, because it was fact-based and grounded).

my partner's sister is bringing her husband (both fully vaccinated) and her three under 13 kids to NYC next month to visit with us (both of us fully vaccinated by then too) and dropping the obviously NOT vaccinated kids off with us at our apartment so the two of them can go see a yankees game... and the sister works for moderna! So if she's okay with it, I'm gonna roll as best as I can. Gonna be weird though!

xpost re: my first sentence, it's not that we shouldn't be worried. it's that we already are worried, will being *more* worried help? it's really more we need the people that aren't worried to worry, and well...we've tried that for a year.

There was an NPR interview I heard a couple of weeks ago about the dangers of too much despair. The reporter recalled getting a text alert about a woman in Alaska who had an allergic reaction to one of the vaccines. She clicked through and read the story, and this was a woman who had a known history of allergic reactions, someone was there on site watching her for a reaction, and when she had a reaction was immediately treated for said reaction, and left safe and healthy. Which is exactly how it is supposed to work, yet it was blasted out as a breaking news alert!

just like when the news reports when one random person who was fully vaccinated contracts COVID anyway

It sucks, obviously, but it's a similar thing with how the media still has no idea how to treat a Biden presidency. It's way less fun to report on someone efficiently doing the work of government than it is "batshit guy says batshit thing". Similarly, they seem to have no interest in reporting stories of efficiently run vaccine campaigns/events and would rather dig up the most tangentially related scare story.

If it bleeds it leads, for-profit media is never going to be any different.

I don't think there are a lot of likely high risk scenarios created by vaccinated parents traveling with kids.

you know people who catch covid are a danger to others as well as themselves, right?

Oster's analogy to a vaccinated adult was kind of clumsy and unhelpful

it's grounds for a correction. it's wrong.

how can it be permissible

unvaccinated kids can act like normal when unvaccinated adults can act like normal, i.e. when we have herd immunity. we may reach that point by the summer, but their own vulnerability is beside the point when people are dying.

"beside the point" is a bit strong, but it's not the only issue.

the article says more, but the headline and explicit "act like they're vaccinated" advice are terrible.

This is both false and dangerous, @theatlantic. While most children do not suffer severe symptoms, they contract and transmit the disease.

Please correct it immediately. https://t.co/c0FAWTKnvm

— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) March 19, 2021

To be clear: the article as a whole makes a nuanced argument that, whether or not you agree with it, is not what I’d call misinformation.

Extracting this quotation out of context to drive clicks IS misinformation—given that most people will read the tweet but not click.

— Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) March 19, 2021

Obviously that Atlantic article was upsetting to many people, many of whom I respect and admire.

I wanted to respond.

My goal in the article was to help parents understand what many people say when they say children are "low risk" (1/n)

— ProfEmilyOster (@ProfEmilyOster) March 19, 2021

Carl T. Bergstrom otm, Oster generally good on this stuff but stepped on a medium-sized rake this time, it happens to all of us

you know people who catch covid are a danger to others as well as themselves, right?

Yes, and I repeat, it's hard to imagine a lot of high risk scenarios involving taking your kids on vacation, meaning including scenarios where they would spread it to others.

it's grounds for a correction. it's wrong.

The Atlantic tweet clips the sentence before the end and leaves out the context.. What she said was not actually incorrect in context.

Yes, and I repeat, it's hard to imagine a lot of high risk scenarios involving taking your kids on vacation, meaning including scenarios where they would spread it to others.

you ... think it's hard to imagine covid being spread in restaurants and museums and airports?

Yes, and I repeat, it's hard to imagine a lot of high risk scenarios involving taking your kids on vacation, meaning including scenarios where they would spread it to others.

counterpoint: it's very easy

lol xp

people who need to take their kids to disney world right now are sure to be the most likely to avoid cheesecake factory in the interest of public health, though

also i agree she has more to say, but wtf are you talking about, the atlantic tweet *doesn't* clip the sentence. it's a verbatim quote of two complete sentences from the article.

two sentences that that are followed by "hear me out." (which is a clue she knows she's just said something hyperbolic as a intriguing lede, and something that is likely to be taken out of context.

i have a lot of time for the argument that some scolds are sacrificing kids' (and parents') physical and emotional wellbeing in pursuit of 0.00% risk.

but that is a bad article.

sry was confusing with another tweet, but yeah this is what she actually is saying:

"Your unvaccinated first grader appears to have about as much protection from serious illness as a vaccinated grandmother."

which is accurate

As far as vacations, yeah, it is unlikely that an asymptomatic child is going to spread the virus to someone at another table in a restaurant, or give it to someone in a museum or airport terminal. And you can always do outdoor dining and museums with timed entry.

this entire conversation is feeding my anxiety because I haven't seen my kids in a year and I eagerly await vaccination so I can hug them but they are both asthmatic and I have not found enough data to my satisfaction to reassure myself that I wouldn't be exposing them to unnecessary danger by traveling to see them and/or bringing them home with me for an extended stay

That's an incredibly hard position to be in as a parent. Oof.

this is what she actually is saying

i dunno. i think she's saying the other 100% accurate quote too?

can't vaccinated adults spread it as well? do we have any numbers on that?

all signs point to it being non-zero but very rare. part of the evidence for that is that all signs point to non-symptompatic people not spreading it (as much).

(part of oster's argument, which is correct, and lost in terrible intro/hook is that children tend to by non-symptomatic if they get it too, which means they likely infect others less. it's a bit of a leap to say treat them like they are vaccinated and go to restaurants, airports and museums.)

Should recipients of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which is iirc some 30% less effective than the other two, be treated differently?

I mean, isn't the ultimate goal not to prevent people from catching it but to prevent people from dying? I suppose it stands to reason that if anyone catches it then those people have a better (worse) chance of mortality, but again, if the goal is to prevent people from getting it 100%, I don't know if that's ever achievable.

It's partly a question of messaging, I think. A headline that actively encourages people to plan a family trip with unvaccinated kids doesn't send a particularly good message, imo, even if you think that we're going to have to get used to some level of elevated risk in the years to come.

It's not like we're faced with a choice between locking down forever and instantly going back to everything we used to do pre-pandemic. It's reasonable to say, "Here are the risks, to us and to others; here are some useful ways to think about those risks in context so that you can decide what makes sense for you and your family." But just saying, "Go ahead, take your kids to restaurants, even if they have an asymptomatic case it's probably nbd" misses the point that most of our individual actions during Covid aren't that risky by themselves; what we need guidance on is knowing how the risk adds up for the community.

You can plan a vaccination with your kids that involves minimal risk: renting a cabin on a lake, driving there and eating food you packed on the way, doing a masked handover of keys with some weathered local at start and end. It's bonkers to actively encourage activity that spreads the virus while new variants are still eagerly generating themselves.

New Zealand reopened in June 2020. Western Australia didn't lock down until February 5th 2021, for five days. Pubs reopened in Sydney in May 2020. These places won't be vaccinated until late 2021 at best, but they stopped people from spreading the virus. Why not try that?

lol vaccination vacation

I totally agree; that's why I think the message should be: "Planning a trip with unvaccinated kids? Here are some ways to do that relatively safely!" rather than "Go ahead and plan your vacation as if everyone's vaccinated including your kids."

National Lampoon's Vaccination

There has got to be an easier way of doing this, but I'm starting to think Chicago and Cook County take the more difficult path at nearly every turn. For the past two weeks, we've had a whole series of announcements by the state of Illinois adding more people to the eligibility list, which is great, but each announcement is followed by Chicago and Cook County both saying essentially, "that's nice, but we're not opening up". So, the upshot is you have the most densely populated county in the state (where 40% of the population of the entire state lives) stuck in this constant state of "am I eligible or not"? No wonder people are frustrated.

My similarly frustrated friend in the city was having the toughest time, but she did eventually finally get her first shot last week after refreshing a website a few days. Sounds like Chicago specifically is doing things weird or slow.

Well, Illinois just announced Friday that starting today (3/22) they were going to add higher education staff, government workers and media workers to the list of expanded eligibility categories, but then this morning articles came out clarifying that both Cook County and Chicago were opting out of this expansion.

Dammit, hit 'submit post' before I pasted in the quote:

But when the state entered Phase 1B Plus, several jurisdictions, including the city of Chicago, suburban Cook County and several other counties in the area, announced that they would not expand eligibility along with the rest of Illinois, citing low vaccine supply.

I called my mother after I got my first shot on Saturday. She was THIIIIS close to swearing at me, because she hasn't able to get an appointment (in Montgomery County, MD). She refuses to get Internet access, and according to her the phone registration system is useless. I really don't want to have to make an online appointment for her, but if she can't work out something via phone....