The cynical bastard meant the science is on their side. You can search the CNN updates for their elaboration. In any case, the numbers are interesting. According to Nature, the estimates from the following study are good measures:
https://osf.io/wdbpe/
How deadly is the coronavirus? Scientists are close to an answer
Kilpatrick and others say they are eagerly awaiting large studies that estimate fatality rates across age groups and among those with pre-existing health conditions, which will provide the most accurate picture of how deadly the disease is. One of the first studies to account for the effect of age was posted on a preprint server last week. The study, based on seroprevalence data from Geneva, Switzerland, estimates an IFR of 0.6% for the total population, and an IFR of 5.6% for people aged 65 and older.
Using those infection fatality rates and assuming that no more than 5% of the school age population could be infected, the number of fatalities would be 28.
57M School aged children, half between the ages of 5 and 10 and half between 11 and 18
1,425,000 (5-10) x 0.0016% = 23
1,425,000 (11-18) X 0.00032 = 5
IFR.jpeg
5PERCENT.jpg
Of course, the danger is to the staff and community (if we accept the premise that children are not super spreaders and less infectious than adults). So what does that mean in terms of numbers? Well, we can't talk about that...
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...095-X/fulltext
This math-challenged knucklehead is not doing anyone any favors:
kurt.jpeg
kurt2.jpg
kurt3.jpeg
Bookmarks