16 Jun 21
@metal-brain saidIt seems you're blaming me for your own inability to show evidence of manipulation (or deliberate misleading) by the CDC.
Still too lazy to read?
16 Jun 21
@no1marauder saidIt's awful convenient how the study time frame and editing time lined up perfectly to allow the CDC to publish an article that mischaracterizes the reality so thoroughly. Perhaps it is just a dispassionate mandate to follow rigid publishing guidelines and no one at the CDC had discretion to alter the wording or the timing even a little bit. Seems unlikely though. If an article is so badly wrong by the time it is published, at the very least, they could have opted to not publish it.
The Blaze is Glenn Beck's website. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaze_Media
I think that should answer if it is "conservative or liberal".
Sorry, but the CDC has to collate data from the entire US and then have any publications reviewed by a board. The type of info in the article i.e. a breakdown of hospitalizations by age isn't generally available in day to day St ...[text shortened]... muck up caused by our lack of timely centralized data due to an excessive devotion to "federalism".
But even that is being charitable. It doesn't explain why their TWEET from early June also mischaracterized the reality. Couldn't they create something accurate that is 320 characters given a few days to think about it?
And of course CNN wrote a HEADLINE that also mischaracterized the reality even though a casual look at the more recent data would make it obvious to any slightly educated person (that cared to know the truth) that the conclusion was not panning out on more recent data.
I know there are many readers here that think CNN is still trying to honestly report news and I'm not going to convince anyone otherwise. But oh how I wish that more people could see how dishonest CNN is about nearly everything related to politics.
16 Jun 21
@techsouth saidIt didn't "mischaracterize reality"; hospitalizations among adolescents were rising in the period studied.
It's awful convenient how the study time frame and editing time lined up perfectly to allow the CDC to publish an article that mischaracterizes the reality so thoroughly. Perhaps it is just a dispassionate mandate to follow rigid publishing guidelines and no one at the CDC had discretion to alter the wording or the timing even a little bit. Seems unlikely though. If an a ...[text shortened]... I wish that more people could see how dishonest CNN is about nearly everything related to politics.
The ones "mischaracterizing reality" were the people who made the claim that hospitalizations had sharply fallen after that when they knew or should have known that CDC data has significant time lags. The CDC hardly hides that fact, as a cursory glance at the sentences under the graph MB presented shows.
16 Jun 21
@no1marauder
How many US children from the age of 0 to 17 have been killed by covid for both 2020 and 2021?
16 Jun 21
@eladar saidWhy should I bother to provide this information to you? You said no mandatory measures to combat the virus should be taken until the US had suffered millions of deaths, so you will certainly regard the unnecessary deaths of these children as trivial.
@no1marauder
How many US children from the age of 0 to 17 have been killed by covid for both 2020 and 2021?
@no1marauder saidI know the number. Do you?
Why should I bother to provide this information to you? You said no mandatory measures to combat the virus should be taken until the US had suffered millions of deaths, so you will certainly regard the unnecessary deaths of these children as trivial.
According to staista, the number is 314, that means roughly 150 per flu season. This number is in line with chickpox which has had a vaccine for many years now.
The only children who are killed by covid are those with severe immune issues. Covid is less dangerous than chickenpox. 93 percent of those killed by covid are 55 or older. Covid is no public threat for those younger than 55.
16 Jun 21
@no1marauder
According to staista, the number is 314, that means roughly 150 per flu season. This number is in line with chickpox which has had a vaccine for many years now.
The only children who are killed by covid are those with severe immune issues. Covid is less dangerous than chickenpox. 93 percent of those killed by covid are 55 or older. Covid is no public threat for those younger than 55.
16 Jun 21
@eladar saidJesus, you parroted this idiocy all last year while boldly predicting that COVID would be gone because of Summer - remember saying New Zealand would have more deaths from COVID in the 4th of July week than the US would?
I know the number. Do you?
According to staista, the number is 314, that means roughly 150 per flu season. This number is in line with chickpox which has had a vaccine for many years now.
The only children who are killed by covid are those with severe immune issues. Covid is less dangerous than chickenpox. 93 percent of those killed by covid are 55 or older. Covid is no public threat for those younger than 55.
You made an utter fool of yourself; I wonder why you want a do over.
@no1marauder saidTell me, is the number I gave incorrect? If so, please give the link to your data.
Jesus, you parroted this idiocy all last year while boldly predicting that COVID would be gone because of Summer - remember saying New Zealand would have more deaths from COVID in the 4th of July week than the US would?
You made an utter fool of yourself; I wonder why you want a do over.
My data
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/
@eladar saidThe post doesn't state where it got the data from nor does it break out any category starting and/or ending at 55, so your number might very well be incorrect.
Tell me, is the number I gave incorrect? If so, please give the link to your data.
My data
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-by-age-us/
Even if it was correct, so what? 7% of COVID19 deaths would be over 40,000 people dying early in the US. And 314 children is too many to contemplate in the future when vaccines are available.
16 Jun 21
@no1marauder saidI provided a source.
The post doesn't state where it got the data from nor does it break out any category starting and/or ending at 55, so your number might very well be incorrect.
Even if it was correct, so what? 7% of COVID19 deaths would be over 40,000 people dying early in the US. And 314 children is too many to contemplate in the future when vaccines are available.
Now you can provide your number, supported by your source.