The elite media doesn’t get why people are just flouting the rules regarding coronavirus and social distancing. Well, it’s because you peddle trash panic pieces. And after a while, when the propaganda wears off—we simply don’t care what you think anymore. You lied to us. It could be traced back to the ongoing debacle about masks. Then, came the George Floyd riots where the so-called medical experts said that protesting and rioting were approved outdoor activities. We’re now seeing a spike in cases from those demonstrations.
The latest battleground in this debate is schools. Should they be reopened come Labor Day? The data—scientific, economic, etc.—say, yes, they should reopen. Overall, children don’t get it and they don’t spread it. With the science backing reopening schools, Democrats and their allies in the media are doing their best to counterattack. Like Nazi tanks waiting in the Ardennes, they’ve rolled out with a shoddy piece on a South Korean study that surely caused a panic in American households mulling what to do about their kids in the coming weeks regarding school. They’re doing everything they can to disrupt progress; they don’t want a return to normal. That’s a sign that Donald Trump is doing something right—heaven forbid. The study showed that kids can spread it (via NYT):
In the heated debate over reopening schools, one burning question has been whether and how efficiently children can spread the virus to others.
A large new study from South Korea offers an answer: Children younger than 10 transmit to others much less often than adults do, but the risk is not zero. And those between the ages of 10 and 19 can spread the virus at least as well as adults do.
The findings suggest that as schools reopen, communities will see clusters of infection take root that include children of all ages, several experts cautioned.
“I fear that there has been this sense that kids just won’t get infected or don’t get infected in the same way as adults and that, therefore, they’re almost like a bubbled population,” said Michael Osterholm, an infectious diseases expert at the University of Minnesota.
“There will be transmission,” Dr. Osterholm said. “What we have to do is accept that now and include that in our plans.”
Several studies from Europe and Asia have suggested that young children are less likely to get infected and to spread the virus. But most of those studies were small and flawed, said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.
Yes, let’s talk about being flawed. That’s a great word to describe this South Korean study. Also, kids really don’t get this disease. They’re only two percent of all cases. And alas, this is why we can’t trust the experts anymore. They don’t know—and if they think they know, they peddle straight panic porn. Enough. We’re done. If there is one thing that has been died a miserable and painful death in all of this, it’s been the credibility of these so-called “medical experts.” To this day, as the media drums up the cases, they really don’t harp on the deaths or at least they don’t give the number. It’s because it’s low. And states they’re trying to attack are never going to reach the level of infestation and death the likes of which we saw in New York. Some policy wonks picked this study apart, like Lanhee J. Chen who wrote, “First, only 0.5% of index patients were in the 0-9 age category, 2% were in the 10-19 age category, compared to almost 30% in the 20-29 age category. The same goes for contacts traced. A very small percentage (about 1%) were between the ages of 0-19.” So, we have a sample size problem. Anything else
First, only 0.5% of index patients were in the 0-9 age category, 2% were in the 10-19 age category, compared to almost 30% in the 20-29 age category. Same goes for contacts traced. A very small percentage (about 1%) were between the ages of 0-19— Lanhee J. Chen (@lanheechen) July 20, 2020
When looking at non-household contacts, rates of COVID-19 transmission are not significantly different for all ages below 39. (1.1% positivity rate for contacts of infected patients from 0-9, 0.9% from 10-19, 1.1% from 20-29, and 0.9% from 30-39).— Lanhee J. Chen (@lanheechen) July 20, 2020
We document some of this in our back to school plan that was released last week and is available here: https://t.co/usclDbnnKS— Lanhee J. Chen (@lanheechen) July 20, 2020
NYT is a disgrace.https://t.co/qT4WQBE7b6— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) July 19, 2020
An atrocious take on a fairly murky and confused report. Only 0.5% and 2.2% of the potential 'index cases' fell in the 0-9 and 10-19 age groups, respectively (Table 1).https://t.co/MCps3xfLwi https://t.co/00ImHq4LtJ— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) July 18, 2020
“When looking at non-household contacts, rates of COVID-19 transmission are not significantly different for all ages below 39. (1.1% positivity rate for contacts of infected patients from 0-9, 0.9% from 10-19, 1.1% from 20-29, and 0.9% from 30-39),” Chen added.
The study is not conclusive and it’s surely not the silver bullet the liberal media is hoping to shred the narrative about reopening schools. I know their allies in the teacher unions want them to start a firestorm against reopening. This isn’t it, cupcakes.
Stop lying to us and maybe we could have been more receptive to these data points, except that the people running them are ‘woke’ or pretty damn close to being as such. You can’t trust those people. They’re not in it for science; it’s all political. So, once again, you have another panic piece for which you really shouldn’t panic. We’re done, boys. Sure, keep printing these shoddy pieces, but people are done with the lockdowns. And kids should go back to school.