Where do you find these off-the-wall articles? This one takes a shot at one paper because it includes cumulative data, and then assumes everyone who would ever read the paper while deciding what t do about vaccinating children, would not be able to understand it like these critics think they so keenly do. Really, WTF?
It is such a short paper, no one is going to be mislead by anything. Here's the PDF: Covid-19 is a leading cause of death in children and young people ages 0-19 years in the United States. The criticism never includes the reason the cumulative data was included. But the paper say why: "Cumulative mortality is a useful comparison as the first two years of the pandemic included significant non-pharmaceutical interventions which limited spread in the pre-Omicron period3 , while annualized mortality may represent a lower bound on the future burden in the absence of widespread vaccination in pediatric age groups." And all cumulative data is followed immediately by the annualized.
If all these critics care about is the annualized data, then they do not have to pay attention to the cumulative. One of the research authors replied, "We give routine childhood vaccinations for other diseases that cause less deaths--because the point is to prevent them." Right, so, what's the issue again?
Where do you find these off-the-wall articles? This one takes a shot at one paper because it includes cumulative data, and then assumes everyone who would ever read the paper while deciding what t do about vaccinating children, would not be able to understand it like these critics think they so keenly do. Really, WTF?
ReplyDeleteIt is such a short paper, no one is going to be mislead by anything. Here's the PDF: Covid-19 is a leading cause of death in children and young people ages 0-19 years in the United States. The criticism never includes the reason the cumulative data was included. But the paper say why: "Cumulative mortality is a useful comparison as the first two years of the pandemic included significant non-pharmaceutical interventions which limited spread in the pre-Omicron period3 , while annualized mortality may represent a lower bound on the future burden in the absence of widespread vaccination in pediatric age groups." And all cumulative data is followed immediately by the annualized.
If all these critics care about is the annualized data, then they do not have to pay attention to the cumulative. One of the research authors replied, "We give routine childhood vaccinations for other diseases that cause less deaths--because the point is to prevent them." Right, so, what's the issue again?