Fear and Loathing, a Rat Flu Odyssey

[Rideski]

Not that she was young, but covid takes Mandela’s daughter

[wooley12]

Can tests be trusted. Can kids test positive. Can kid get Hurt if positive. Can kids transmit if positive. A whole lot of known uinknowns.

[MontuckyFried]

Austin your Google fu sucks Donkey Balls. Just search for “85 babies Covid Texas”
CNN
CBS
Texas Tribune
ABC7

https://www.google.com/search?q=85+b...obile&ie=UTF-8

SMH

Been there, done that. Do ANY of those stories mention the actual conditions of said babies? Nope.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using TGR Forums mobile app

[MontuckyFried]

OMG! It's a conspiracy.
Right up til a couple hundred adults come in contact with the babies and the epidemic kills 100 of those adults.
But wtf, eh? Those people were gonna die anyways, right? Is that the narrative you're reaching for with your right wing?

Soooo COVID-19 all of a sudden has a 50% mortality rate? Huh. Hadn't heard that before.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using TGR Forums mobile app

[TBS]

Been there, done that. Do ANY of those stories mention the actual conditions of said babies? Nope.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using TGR Forums mobile app

Ever heard of HIPAA? Prohibits disclosure of patient medical conditions. That’s why there isn’t a public list of each of the 3+ million confirmed cases and their condition.

Besides, why does their condition matter? Eighty five babies test Covid+. In one day. In one county in Texas. That’s a problem

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse?

[rideit]

Been there, done that. Do ANY of those stories mention the actual conditions of said babies? Nope.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using TGR Forums mobile app

How is that relevant?

[MontuckyFried]

Ever heard of HIPAA? Prohibits disclosure of patient medical conditions. That’s why there isn’t a public list of each of the 3+ million confirmed cases and their condition.

Besides, why does their condition matter? Eighty five babies test Covid+. In one day. In one county in Texas. That’s a problem

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse?

Because if babies are testing positive but 99.99999% are doing just fine, then that would be a very good thing. Good data to know about, would it not? Knowledge is power as we march forward through this crazy thing.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using TGR Forums mobile app

[rideit]

Would that miraculously make them unable to be carriers?
Your ‘point’ is not well thought out.

[MontuckyFried]

Would that miraculously make them unable to be carriers?
Your ‘point’ is not well thought out.

We'll maybe you didn't know this but:
https://theconversation.com/breast-m...nfection-15025
So yes. It would be significant if the babies had it, were mostly trouble free, and helped mother develop some level of helpful immune response.
Betcha didn't think of THAT before talking shit, now did ya?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using TGR Forums mobile app

[rideit]

That article has fuck all to do with what we are discussing, the potential transmission of Covid from hundreds of babies to people around them, who tend to be family, grandparents, and health care workers.
Your reply is a FAIL

Are you honestly arguing that Covid infection is actually a net positive thing now?
Coo-coo for cocoa puffs

[jono]

Because if babies are testing positive but 99.99999% are doing just fine, then that would be a very good thing. Good data to know about, would it not? Knowledge is power as we march forward through this crazy thing.

FFS man. If you're so ravenous for knowledge on babies: see TBS' granddaughter, hospitalized under 2 yo. Single data point, but your made up number isn't looking too likely.

Hope she and your family are pulling through, TBS.

[Rideski]

I think Austin fell off the wagon and is drunk trolling again.

[MontuckyFried]

FFS man. If you're so ravenous for knowledge on babies: see TBS' granddaughter, hospitalized under 2 yo. Single data point, but your made up number isn't looking too likely.

Hope she and your family are pulling through, TBS.

Not under 1. Which is what the story we're talking about is. Try again. The articles about the infants with COVID is fear mongering so long as they provide NO additional data. ALL the articles I've seen on this specific story have pretty much no details. Not much to go off of, ya know?

Not to discount what's happening with TBS's granddaughter. That is really sad and hope she pulls through wonderfully. But again, that's not the specific age group that brought about this specific discussion. Babies under 1 per the news story. Focus now.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using TGR Forums mobile app

[wooley12]

Too specific. Kids are Kids.

[The AD]

Not one news source I could find says jack about their conditions. You'd think that's kind of important information. So did 85 simply test positive but are fine? Or are 85 of them mortally ill. Mixed bag? Me thinks a particular narrative is trying to be painted with that story.

This is exactly the attitude I can't wrap my head around. What difference does it make? Do you understand how infectious diseases work? I don't get it.

[MontuckyFried]

Are you honestly arguing that Covid infection is actually a net positive thing now?

Well.... yes. Have you ever heard of herd immunity? Perhaps you're not familiar with the term, so here ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Like it or not, eventually damn near everyone's going to have it run through their systems at SOME point. Really not a matter of if anymore, but rather when. Might take a few years, but eventually we're going to have "COVID season" incorporated alongside cold and flu season. It's gonna suck, it already does suck, but it is what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Meadow Skipper]

Been there, done that. Do ANY of those stories mention the actual conditions of said babies? Nope.

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse?

Seems like it.

[MontuckyFried]

This is exactly the attitude I can't wrap my head around. What difference does it make? Do you understand how infectious diseases work? I don't get it.

What don't you get? The data matters. The demographics matter. Why? Because in a nutshell, if more and more data substantiates the theories that young folks, whether they be babies, children, teenagers, young adults, etc. are BY AND LARGE (not all, but mostly) unaffected by COVID, then that makes a solid argument for allowing those segments of the population to get back to some semblance of a normal life. And if that data also shows that certain segments of the population ARE by and large adversely effected, then it is THEY who should self quarantine. This whole notion that we ALL have to be on lock down ad infinitum is kinda bullcrap. At first, we were all on board. Gotta flatten the curve and all. But some "experts" are saying this is the "new normal" and saying we need to mask up, social distance, etc. for the next 7 years. Fuuuuuuuuck that is all I gotta say.

Anyway, this is why it's important that the data gets parsed out. Different age groups or risk factors certainly need to take different approaches. Simple as that. BUT we can't do that without knowing more now, can we? So yes. THAT'S why it makes a difference about who's getting it and how badly.

[jono]

I think Austin fell off the wagon and is drunk trolling again.

I didn't see it at first, but you're probably right. The luxury of pedantry is kind of a telltale sign. Babies/not babies. Teaching about "Herd immunity!" without understanding what R0<1 means. Thanks for the tip.

[SkiBall]

Don’t know if it has been mentioned, but Financial Times has this article about TCells possibly being key to immunity. Without rereading, think it says you can show negative antibody, but still have immunity after.
No paywall on this article.

https://www.ft.com/content/5cf2ee49-...7-860cf7737b2f

[spanghew]

I didn't see it at first, but you're probably right. The luxury of pedantry is kind of a telltale sign. Babies/not babies. Teaching about "Herd immunity!" without understanding what R0<1 means. Thanks for the tip.

He's from fucking Texas, where denying reality is the official state policy. It's why everybody else's textbooks are screwed up. Beware of Texans bearing anything at all.

[The AD]

What don't you get? The data matters. The demographics matter. Why? Because in a nutshell, if more and more data substantiates the theories that young folks, whether they be babies, children, teenagers, young adults, etc. are BY AND LARGE (not all, but mostly) unaffected by COVID, then that makes a solid argument for allowing those segments of the population to get back to some semblance of a normal life.

See, this is where I think you are dead wrong. Unless you can prove that this population is largely unaffected AND won't transmit the virus to others it's a moot point.

[rideit]

Ok, I’ll bite the troll bait.
Maybe you should lern yosef, and/or STFUYFM


https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/art-20486808

And this one you need to read carefully, it may not say what you think it does.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...avirus/614035/

Pull your fly up, your ignorance is showing.

[LongShortLong]

Different age groups or risk factors certainly need to take different approaches. Simple as that. BUT we can't do that without knowing more now, can we? So yes. THAT'S why it makes a difference about who's getting it and how badly.

This sounds great in theory, kinda like communism. The problem of separating the age groups is intractable. Also, intentionally infecting people is likely to lead to kill the idea as well. Can you imagine an anti-masker parent either allowing their kid to go to Covid camp for 3 weeks, or be intentionally infected? Can you imagine an organization willing to take the legal risk of intentionally sickening these kids? Would our divided society approve either the camp or the infecting? Also note we're failing to contain the virus away from people who are already institutionalized (nursing home, jails, military, etc).

Try it in Russia. If it works, we can consider it here.

[XXX-er]

don't babies have a whole buncha imune things going on when they are brand new ?