-
Sorry for a slow reply. Also @Fox
You have correctly called me out for incorrectly using the absolute. Nothing in medicine is Always or Never. For this I apologize.
However- what I had meant- is from clinical experience, and a vague understanding of the complex pathophysiological and physiological differences between adults and children, I would (as does the vaccination program) always see children as an at-risk group from respiratory infectious diseases.
They are likely to represent a large number (25% of all primary care appointments), and though they often do well- even when 'in extremis'- we have a truism in medicine which is that Kids do nothing slowly- so deterioration or recovery happens at a rate that can be quite shocking.
I have read the CMO's highlights (we are receiving daily briefings), but as always- I prefer primary sources- hence the above article posted.To sum up:
I am not suggesting that you should treat it as an impending threat to your children.
CONJECTURE
I do however think that the low numbers suggest that there is flawed data gathering/analysis, skewing to a more frightening set of figures in one category and an understatement of another. /CONJECTURE.
You are reading a single comment by @deleted and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
deleted
The CMO and CSA explicitly said yesterday children were not an at risk group, which formed part of the rationale for keeping schools open.
What source data are you looking at to say they are an at risk group? I skimmed the article in the NJEM, and didn't say anything pertinent to children being at risk in the other links you posted.