No dumbass, they get COVID-19, just extremely unlikely to die from it..
They can still pass it to family..
Quit fear mongering and spreading disinformation
COVID-19 'Pandemic'
- Thread starter Ocean Breeze
- Start date
No dumbass, they get COVID-19, just extremely unlikely to die from it..
They can still pass it to family..
Quit fear mongering and spreading disinformation
You're the one fearmongering and spreading disinformation.
Children are extremely unlikely to get and to transmit coronavirus.
Last edited:
From UK Research and Innovation:
COVID-19 infection has been reported in all age groups, including infants, children and young adults. Even so, studies consistently indicate that children under the age of 18 make up only around 2% of total cases worldwide.
One explanation for these low numbers is that, because children often experience milder symptoms than adults, they are less likely to be tested (see below). However, data from countries that have conducted widespread community testing for the virus suggest that children may also be less likely to be infected in the first place. In South Korea, children younger than nine years accounted for just 1% of laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19, whereas children aged between ten and 19 accounted for 5.2% of cases.[2]
In Iceland, young children were less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than adolescents or adults, and no cases were found in children under ten years old in random population screening.[3] Similarly, no cases were found among 374 children under ten years old tested for virus in the Italian town of Vò, where 2.4% of people of all ages were found to be infected.[4]
Studies that have traced the contacts of infected people in Guangzhou[5] and Wuhan/Shanghai[6], China, and in Japan[7] also suggest that children are less likely than adults to test positive for the virus following exposure to an infected person – although one study from Shenzhen, China, suggested that they were equally susceptible to infection.[8] Among the first 150,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the United States, only 1.7% occurred in children under 18 years old, whereas children make up 22% of the whole population.
The China/WHO joint commission, a panel of international experts which investigated the initial COVID-19 outbreak in China, found, by contact tracing, no cases where transmission occurred from a child to an adult.[14] Possibly, the early closure of schools, combined with children’s apparent reduced susceptibility to infection, may have limited transmission from children. However, the absence of coughing in milder or asymptomatic cases may reduce transmission of the virus. Further studies are needed to test this idea.
Although the role children play in transmitting the virus is unclear, evidence consistently demonstrates that children are less likely than adults to acquire infection, and less likely to infect family members in the household.
coronavirusexplained.ukri.org
COVID-19 infection has been reported in all age groups, including infants, children and young adults. Even so, studies consistently indicate that children under the age of 18 make up only around 2% of total cases worldwide.
One explanation for these low numbers is that, because children often experience milder symptoms than adults, they are less likely to be tested (see below). However, data from countries that have conducted widespread community testing for the virus suggest that children may also be less likely to be infected in the first place. In South Korea, children younger than nine years accounted for just 1% of laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19, whereas children aged between ten and 19 accounted for 5.2% of cases.[2]
In Iceland, young children were less likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than adolescents or adults, and no cases were found in children under ten years old in random population screening.[3] Similarly, no cases were found among 374 children under ten years old tested for virus in the Italian town of Vò, where 2.4% of people of all ages were found to be infected.[4]
Studies that have traced the contacts of infected people in Guangzhou[5] and Wuhan/Shanghai[6], China, and in Japan[7] also suggest that children are less likely than adults to test positive for the virus following exposure to an infected person – although one study from Shenzhen, China, suggested that they were equally susceptible to infection.[8] Among the first 150,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the United States, only 1.7% occurred in children under 18 years old, whereas children make up 22% of the whole population.
What role do children play in transmission?
The fact that children are less likely to show symptoms when infected with SARS-CoV-2 has raised concerns that they may be responsible for covert virus transmission, though there is little direct evidence to suggest that asymptomatic children are playing a major role in spreading the disease. One study which analysed the source of 31 household clusters of COVID-19 in China, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and Iran found that children were the source of infection in just three of these cases.[13]The China/WHO joint commission, a panel of international experts which investigated the initial COVID-19 outbreak in China, found, by contact tracing, no cases where transmission occurred from a child to an adult.[14] Possibly, the early closure of schools, combined with children’s apparent reduced susceptibility to infection, may have limited transmission from children. However, the absence of coughing in milder or asymptomatic cases may reduce transmission of the virus. Further studies are needed to test this idea.
Although the role children play in transmitting the virus is unclear, evidence consistently demonstrates that children are less likely than adults to acquire infection, and less likely to infect family members in the household.
UK Government Web Archive
This Page is [ARCHIVED CONTENT] and shows what the site page https://coronavirusexplained.ukri.org/en/ looked like on 30 Jun 2023 at 14:45:33
coronavirusexplained.ukri.org
Your source vs Harvard
Looking at children as the silent spreaders of SARS-CoV-2
A new study has found that children infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 were shown to have a significantly higher level of virus in their airways than hospitalized adults in ICUs for COVID-19 treatment.
news.harvard.edu
Keep talking though your ass Blackie..
Yup that is what this is about , racism . Don’t worry Tbones the Indian industry will be dying soon enough . New immigrants do not care about Custer , and Sitting Bull . The gravy train will be shut down .
Come now , the ferries opperated throughout Covid freight and passengers were freely moving between Island and mainland , how can you blame Covid on a few holiday ears ? It could have come from anyone including your politicians in Victoria as they certainly were travelling back and forth .
So what is your point? Even if you have a point, what do you think the family of the 10 year old thinks of it? I can hazard a guess!
They'd tell you to shove it up your ass!
Yep, life is cheap...…………………………………….as long as it's someone else's. It's a matter of "F**K you Jack, I'm alright"
So what is your point? Even if you have a point, what do you think the family of the 10 year old thinks of it? I can hazard a guess!
was that the only ten year old to die this year ? By your logic of if it saves just one family the agony of a lost child should we not ban driving , many unnecessary deaths occur every year . What of the 4000 odd suicides in Canada yearly , are we contributing to this with Covid lockdowns ? How about the rise in overdose death thanks to all the CERB dollars government poured into the system , do you mourn those deaths , should they be counted as Covid related ?
But in your case that is exactly what you are saying to those who have lost their employment and sources of income .
It ain't a few holidayers. Almost all the campgrounds on the lower end of the island are booked. And We know that one case on a rez was caused by a resident taking a trip to Vancouver. Sill have planes coming into BC with sick people on them and no one is ensuring they are quarantined before or after arrival.
On another note of bizzareness with covid. My granddaughter possibly came in contact with a student in her school that was confirmed positive. There is six or eight kids that had to quarantine at home. Somewhat difficult in a house with 4 people in it but it can work. The rest of the family was told to carry on as usual. Last week she got tested and on Saturday got a negative result back but still has to continue out her confinement because of the high number of false test results. Apparently something like 30% of negative results are wrong. Makes one wonder why we are wasting time and money on tests where there are no symptoms if they can't be relied on.
Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose. So what do the MSM do? They ignore it
27 Nov, 2020 07:58
A member of the medical personnel performs a PCR test amid the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in Charleroi, Belgium, November 5, 2020REUTERS / Yves Herman
By Peter Andrews, Irish science journalist and writer based in London. He has a background in life sciences, and graduated from the University of Glasgow with a degree in genetics.
Four German holidaymakers who were illegally quarantined in Portugal after one was judged to be positive for Covid-19 have won their case, in a verdict that condemns the widely-used PCR test as being up to 97-percent unreliable.
Earlier this month, Portuguese judges upheld a decision from a lower court that found the forced quarantine of four holidaymakers to be unlawful. The case centred on the reliability (or lack thereof) of Covid-19 PCR tests.
The verdict, delivered on November 11, followed an appeal against a writ of habeas corpus filed by four Germans against the Azores Regional Health Authority. This body had been appealing a ruling from a lower court which had found in favour of the tourists, who claimed that they were illegally confined to a hotel without their consent. The tourists were ordered to stay in the hotel over the summer after one of them tested positive for coronavirus in a PCR test - the other three were labelled close contacts and therefore made to quarantine as well.
Unreliable, with a strong chance of false positives
The deliberation of the Lisbon Appeal Court is comprehensive and fascinating. It ruled that the Azores Regional Health Authority had violated both Portuguese and international law by confining the Germans to the hotel. The judges also said that only a doctor can “diagnose” someone with a disease, and were critical of the fact that they were apparently never assessed by one.
READ MORE
Immunity for YEARS or DECADES: Covid resistance may last much longer than previously thought, says new research
They were also scathing about the reliability of the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, the most commonly used check for Covid.
The conclusion of their 34-page ruling included the following: “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
In the eyes of this court, then, a positive test does not correspond to a Covid case. The two most important reasons for this, said the judges, are that, “the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used’’ and that “the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.’’ In other words, there are simply too many unknowns surrounding PCR testing.
Tested positive? There could be as little as a 3% chance it’s correct
This is not the first challenge to the credibility of PCR tests. Many people will be aware that their results have a lot to do with the number of amplifications that are performed, or the ‘cycle threshold.’ This number in most American and European labs is 35–40 cycles, but experts have claimed that even 35 cycles is far too many, and that a more reasonable protocol would call for 25–30 cycles. (Each cycle exponentially increases the amount of viral DNA in the sample).
Earlier this year, data from three US states – New York, Nevada and Massachusetts – showed that when the amount of the virus found in a person was taken into account, up to 90 percent of people who tested positive could actually have been negative, as they may have been carrying only tiny amounts of the virus.
The Portuguese judges cited a study conducted by “some of the leading European and world specialists,” which was published by Oxford Academic at the end of September. It showed that if someone tested positive for Covid at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the chances of that person actually being infected is less than three percent, and that “the probability of… receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.”
While the judges in this case admitted that the cycle threshold used in Portuguese labs was unknown, they took this as further proof that the detention of the tourists was unlawful. The implication was that the results could not be trusted. Because of this uncertainty, they stated that there was "no way this court would ever be able to determine" whether the tourist who tested positive was indeed a carrier of the virus, or whether the others had been exposed to it.
Pretty much validating the information I was told of the local lab techs sending in 3samples of Saline solution with 2 coming back positive of COVID
Oh really? Look at Costco. One of their stores just got fined $5000 for selling "non-essential items". They were allowed to be open but you could only shop down certain aisles. What the f*ck kind of bullshit f*ckery is that? And do you know why it's bullshit f*ckery? Go search on-line. You'll see all kinds of hits for essential services and employees but nothing whatsoever about goods and items. They are provoking people by making their stupid rules confusing and somewhat arbitrary. They are provoking people by allowing corporate outlets to remain open while forcing independent businesses that sell the same products to remain closed.
In October in Japan, more people died from suicide as a result of the lock down, than died from Covid during the entire pandemic.
Thought experiment:
If there weren't so many out there decrying the use of masks, or getting upset over 'lockdowns' or restrictions put in place... if everyone just agreed that "okay, this is the suggested reaction by experts and government and we'll go with it", I wonder then if things would actually be better.
And I mean NO negative reaction at all, but rather all positive, supportive and EVERYONE doing exactly what's suggested.
Would infections still be getting out of control?
Would the stress be less?
Would people stop blaming government for the negative issues with Covid?
I personally think that there might still be issues/problems in Government with the response to it, yes, but I think it'd be much less than now. Right now, Government is, IMO, trying to twist itself into knots to placate not just the people who are pro "do whatever you have to" but also the pro "we don't give a fuck about others, screw them" types, AND businesses. Sadly, all three have different needs right now and trying to make everyone happy is what is leading to the confusion, the wrong or only half-assed messaging going on and is perpetuating the length this is going to keep being an issue.
So sure, we can blame government, but really, it's our own damned fault in the end too, all of us, for not "getting it" enough and not being willing to step up and work together to try and control this thing.
(Though really it's not just a thought experiment, IMO. A few places did do things this way and while they still have Covid cases, they're nowhere near the level of other places in the world, including Canada.)
If there weren't so many out there decrying the use of masks, or getting upset over 'lockdowns' or restrictions put in place... if everyone just agreed that "okay, this is the suggested reaction by experts and government and we'll go with it", I wonder then if things would actually be better.
And I mean NO negative reaction at all, but rather all positive, supportive and EVERYONE doing exactly what's suggested.
Would infections still be getting out of control?
Would the stress be less?
Would people stop blaming government for the negative issues with Covid?
I personally think that there might still be issues/problems in Government with the response to it, yes, but I think it'd be much less than now. Right now, Government is, IMO, trying to twist itself into knots to placate not just the people who are pro "do whatever you have to" but also the pro "we don't give a fuck about others, screw them" types, AND businesses. Sadly, all three have different needs right now and trying to make everyone happy is what is leading to the confusion, the wrong or only half-assed messaging going on and is perpetuating the length this is going to keep being an issue.
So sure, we can blame government, but really, it's our own damned fault in the end too, all of us, for not "getting it" enough and not being willing to step up and work together to try and control this thing.
(Though really it's not just a thought experiment, IMO. A few places did do things this way and while they still have Covid cases, they're nowhere near the level of other places in the world, including Canada.)
Consider this. January 25 2020 Our Gvt sold $296B USD in bonds. They waited another 8 weeks before borders closed and we started restrictions.
It could have been contained in 4 but no, they sat on their fucking asses. Why wait until spring?
What are the excuses to pick from? China lied? They didnt know what to do?
Or they let it happen to play hero and go on a spending spree, create racial turmoil, clear out super expense acute care facilities, pummeling businesses further losing business and indoctrinating children in compliance to kickoff a new new society?
Something isnt right aboot all this.
Bullshit. We were "warned" in the early days of the pandemic that a second, bigger wave of infections would occur in the fall. And right on f*cking cue, voila, But it seems people like you would rather blame the "conspiracy theorists" for it instead because it helps you fell all sanctimonious. Tell me, why can I still order from Pizza Slut or Little Skeezers but the locally owned, independent place that makes f*cking awesome pizza is forced to close down a second time because of Covid? Is it maybe because there's some serous f*ckery going on? Looks like despite the "pandemic", corporations will still be allowed to keep the profits rolling in while the independent business person gets to enjoy a good ol' f*ckening. I wonder why? No, I don't, I know why. They're getting us used to shortages and not being allowed to gather in large groups via the plandemic (unless you're a protesting leftard) before forcing the dehumanizing ideology of dictatorial socialism on us a la "the Great Reset", which stinks a lot like "the Great Leap Forward".
Small businesses are forced to close with huge loss of livelihoods, yet big businesses are allowed to stay open.
I think there's something fishy going on.