Covid Child Mortality

[Warhertisuff]

A horrible topic I know, but one which parents have a right to be informed accurately about.

I've read that over 100 children have now died of Covid in the U.K. However, that doesn't seem to square with the stats I can find. The ONS data below suggests that there have been 14 deaths of children under 14 since February, and 4 school aged children under 14 since the start of autumn term. I appreciate the pandemic has been here since before last February but even so.... especially since infections in schools have only really skyrocketed
since summer half term and through into this term.

Obviously all child deaths are tragic, but in order to determine our response, we need to know whether deaths are as prevalent as other diseases such as meningitis or other causes such as traffic accidents, or whether we are talking another level of magnitude.

www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1470/age/wrapper/datadownload.xlsx

twitter.com/apsmunro/status/1456963638523203584?s=21

I found the comments helpful.

@bizawit

If you read further you will see a different expert (Deepti Gurdadani) has called that out as wrong.
His responce was to block her as doesnt want his expertise questioned

Is she one of the people pushing to implement plan b and saying doesn’t go far enough? Even though cases in England peaked before half term and have been falling steadily since.

Deepti Gurdadani lost the plot months ago and has a massively political agenda. I'm surprised she hasn't been sacked for her social media behaviour yet.

[quote Covidworries]@bizawit

If you read further you will see a different expert (Deepti Gurdadani) has called that out as wrong.
His responce was to block her as doesnt want his expertise questioned [/quote]
Yeh and whereas AM’s tweet included two academic references to journal articles with published data,
Deepti’s counter claim was completely unsubstantiated (and indeed it doesn’t even contradict AM’s tweet).

And fyi he blocked her ages ago because she’s constantly posting angry and toxic accusations against anyone who doesn’t agree with her fundamental list agenda.

What she has said seems factually correct though? I understand the distrust thing if someone is pushing a narrative you don't like (e.g. I try not to instantly distrust the few scientists/paediatricians such as Munro that UsforThem regularly platform).

The thing is if we are wrong about being cautious about deaths this just means we were over cautious.

However, if those dismising deaths as children arent impacted by covid are wrong then children die unneedlessly.
The orriginal line was children dont get covid (we know this isnt true but theres still people saying this)

Then it was children arent ill with covid. Personal experience shows that many children can be ill with covid.

Then children dont get really ill, those who die had underlying issues, dies of something other than covid.

Dismiss dismiss dismiss.

You literally can not predict which children will feel awful with covid and which wont have symptoms. You can not predict which children will die (% is low but i dont really fancy playing russian roulette)
You cant predict which children will develop long covid, or other issues related to covid.

The chances of me having a car accodent is low, the chance of my child being injured if i did crash is low. And yet i still use seatbelts. I still drive caustiously.

Why cant we just proceed with caution with covid ? Why couldnt vaccination have been done sooner for those wanting vaccination? Why force houshold contact into school while household memebers are currently positive?

Children are dying we can argue on the actual number that died due to covid rather than with covid, or within 28 days or after 28 days, with underlying conditions or without. But whatever the argument to make it seem like covid doesnt impact children the fact remains too many children have died due to covid and currently policies are doing nothing to limit more children dying of covid or due to not being able to get treatment for otherthings if hospitals are overwhelmed this winter.

Where you see numbers dropping i wait to see deaths and hospitialisations as what im also seeing is that more people have said they wont be testing lft or PCR test now onwards.
I hope you are right and numbers are coming down.

Regardless of exact numbers, deaths of children for any reason are thankfully rare. Surely any avoidable covid related deaths are too many.

Is it just me finding it distasteful that numbers are compared by that paed to that of other viruses as if to make it acceptable and within tolerance levels in a new virus? Maybe they have to be matter of fact to carry out their role.

Some are suggesting it’s in the top 10 causes of death for children, I don’t know who or their agenda and perhaps the figures are open to interpretation but what it will look like when 100% have been infected? Presumably we eventually will know if things continue the way they are. As children do not always serocovert then perhaps sustaining a succession of infections is possible before winter is out, how will that affect the figures? We do not know if it is realistic to hope it will be milder each time.

@Covidworries I don’t think it’s being ‘dismissive’ to point out that most of the children who died had underlying health conditions. It’s important to take those things into consideration when making policy decisions eg prioritising the vaccine for young people with certain underlying conditions.

I guess it may sound distasteful to compare deaths to other causes but again, in relation to policy decisions, it’s important to have perspective. I.e what mitigations do we usually put in place for other illness eg flu, rsv that can cause more deaths for children?

This quote from a SAGE paper re child hospitalisations is interesting.

“More asymptomatic children were identified through testing, and around one fifth in hospital with covid-19 were admitted for other reasons.”

Which (linguistically at least!) suggests that four-fifths in hospital with covid-19 are admitted as a direct result of their covid infection.

It’s another common dismissive comment that the vast majority of children in hospital with covid are all there for some other reason and just incidentally tested positive for covid, but this paper appears to disagree with that view.

It’s also an appallingly written sentence so I’m off to see if Sage want to throw me a bung to be their linguistic consultant

what mitigations do we usually put in place for other illness eg flu, rsv that can cause more deaths for children?

Flu - vaccination
RSV - monoclonal antibody treatment for at-risk groups (which have been expanded). From June this year:
“Now an alert has been issued to the NHS to expand the use of Palivizumab, a monoclonal antibody treatment that can give what is called ‘passive immunity’ to children by providing infants with the antibodies they need against RSV.”
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/health/rsv-covid-infants-hospitals-england-b1873561.html%3famp

But not lockdowns, testing for asymptomatic infection and isolating well children. And tbf the flu vaccine has only started being offered to children in recent years.

I can't remember a time when we were effectively told it was inevitable kids would catch rsv or flu.

@bumbleymummy

But not lockdowns, testing for asymptomatic infection and isolating well children. And tbf the flu vaccine has only started being offered to children in recent years.

Why do you think that is bumbley?

I think it's sad that so many kids will need vaccines, antivirals and antibody treatments because people don't want to wear a mask or open a window

@containsnuts and the government can’t be arsed to fund the installation of air filtration systems in classrooms and other crowded spaces. Other countries have been able to do this with success and reduce infections, but this lot couldn’t care less.

@BewareTheLibrarians I don’t know. Would it have saved hundreds/thousands of children’s lives from flu/rsv if we’d been doing those things for years?

Well, yes bumbley. We know that because masks and social distancing reduced flu cases to a ridiculously low level. So if masks and social distancing were happening even without covid in the background, then there would be a reduction in cases of flu and RSV. If there’s fewer cases, there are fewer deaths.

We haven’t done this until now in this country, probably as the case numbers don’t “justify” it. Then along comes a virus which causes incredibly high case numbers, is a novel virus which is affecting people in unexpected ways leaving doctors unsure how to treat it as hospitals fill up with patients.

Flu and RSV aren’t new viruses. It’s understood how they affect the body, and treatments are available. That wasn’t the case with covid, especially during the first wave.

Covid is also more unpredictable than flu or RSV, which both tend to affect infants, the elderly and immunocompromised people much more than others. While this is also true of covid, it can also affect completely healthy people, young people etc. Not in as high numbers of thankfully, but it is unpredictable.

The long term effects of covid are not as widely known as flu or RSV, again as covid is a novel virus.

All of that which points towards why this virus is treated differently than others.

Yes, my point was that all those restrictions would probably have reduced deaths in children from flu/rsv in previous years but we’ve never considered doing it because, clearly, a certain number of deaths in children are considered acceptable (sadly). So it does make sense for the paediatrician to compare the number of deaths from COVID in children to the number of deaths from other respiratory viruses to put it in perspective. The pp called that ‘distasteful’.

The thing is, children shouldn't die from covid, it meant to be mild or asymptomatic, right?
And those with underlying conditions, they should be protected.
So why do you think it's ok for anyone to think certain number of death in children are considered acceptable?
You can say that if you have done everything possible to protect them, but it's hardly the case in UK.

Sorry, but Deepti Gurdasani is anything but a Covid "expert".

She is a scientist with highly plausible academic credentials and she may be an "expert" on a variety of other subjects but when it came to Covid, she was never able to objectively assess the situation and refused to accept the data when it contradicted her personal beliefs. In terms of delusions, she can only compete with Carl Heneghan (another otherwise highly credible scientist who claimed that Covid was over last summer).

So it does make sense for the paediatrician to compare the number of deaths from COVID in children to the number of deaths from other respiratory viruses to put it in perspective.

And the problem with that (and the “well children also die of flu so, so what?” attitude) is comparing the number of deaths doesn’t reduce the number of deaths. Obviously.

Say if (prepare for completely made up numbers!) 85 children die of rsv, 50 of flu and 50 of covid each year, then yes, you can see the numbers of each are higher/lower/similar. It doesn’t then mean that you just accept those deaths and do nothing to prevent them.

Like with rsv, medically vulnerable children/babies are given a treatment that protects them from rsv. The flu vaccination programme was expanded as deaths and transmission were considered unacceptable. Arguing against mitigations for covid (masks in crowded indoor areas, better air filtration in classrooms/enclosed indoor spaces/vaccination - pick one or more) will be seen as distasteful by plenty of people, as it’s arguing against preventing preventable deaths and illnesses.

@winterisaroundthecorner

The thing is, children shouldn't die from covid, it meant to be mild or asymptomatic, right? And those with underlying conditions, they should be protected. So why do you think it's ok for anyone to think certain number of death in children are considered acceptable? You can say that if you have done everything possible to protect them, but it's hardly the case in UK.

It is mild/asymptomatic in the majority. And yes, now the most vulnerable children (over 12) are eligible for the vaccine.

Sadly, I think there will still be some deaths in young people - most as there are from rsv/flu every year. Probably fewer though.