Mothering Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A year ago, I compiled a chart which divided people into low, moderate, and high risk groups. I then listed various precautions based on positivity % of the area and risk factor for one's household and workplace (if someone at home or work was high risk, one would follow high risk precations, even if low risk oneself). Following this protocol has kept me healthy (at least from viruses) since the covid outbreak, in spite of living in a densely populated area. If I've had any virus, I've been asymptomatic. But I started thinking about whether there is a fourth group: a no risk group. In many countries, children have lived fairly normally. They've gone to school, don't wear masks, don't physically distance, hug their friends...so I'm wondering if there's any data to show whether certain age groups are at virtually no risk of transmitting or developing serious disease. I think it would be eye opening to see what the actual risk is, seperately, for transmission, symptomatic disease (without need for hospitalisation), hospitalisation, and death, based on the following age groups and assuming everyone is healthy:

Babies (0-6 yrs)
Children (7-14 yrs)
Adolescents (14-20 yrs)
Young adults (21-27 yrs)
Mature adults (28-48 yrs)
Middle aged adults (49-76 yrs)
Seniors (77-97 yrs)
Elders (98+)

My feeling is that a rate of .01% or lower for transmission, hospitalisation, or death equates to virtually no risk. The flu has a death rate of .01-.02 total, without any masking, distancing, or disruption of everyday life called for from the general population. On the other hand, a rate of .1% or even worse - 1% would be 10-100x greater than that of the flu, and would therefore call for greater measures to protect onself and one's neighbours. Even if an age group had a fairly low death rate, a higher transmission rate could call into question the need for protective measures, for the safety of others. According to the data compiled, the total covid death rate since Dec. 2019 is around 2%. That's assuming that the numbers have been accounted for correctly and tests have been accurate. That is also lumping all ages together, and previously healthy people in with those who had co-morbidities. As I'm not vaccinated, I'm continuing to take precations as though that 2% number is accurate. Why? Because, I know that if I'm overly cautious, my neighbours will thank me, even if it wasn't necessary. But if I were to be underly cautious, assuming that 2% was not an accurate reflection of the current state of affairs, I will be tarred and feathered.

So, if you have data or sources to share that examine those specific risks by age group, I would love to see it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,100 Posts
This is a great question. I did my own survey of this over the last few weeks. I've been asking family and friends about numbers in schools. Since a death in a school is a HUGE deal and everyone knows about it, I asked do you know anyone who has died from Covid in your school or the school your child goes to. No one has known one child that has died.

There must be 100,000 plus children total in elementary, middle, high school and colleges I asked people about.

At my children's schools, if a child tests positive for Covid and notifies the school a warning email goes out to EVERYONE. If a certain number of children over a certain period of time test positive, even if they have ZERO symptoms, that entire grade level most go home for 2 weeks. Early in the year, but so far only 2 emails.

The hospital rate for under 18's is always around 1 in 100,000. I'm not sure if that is just a positive test and ZERO symptoms or if Covid symptoms are the problem. The chart says the words Covid associated hospitalization. Not sure what that means.
In Vermont I'm pretty sure that the first person under 30 has died. In other words, of the 280 plus people who died, exactly 1 has been under 30. Which means over 20. Which means 0 children. Unfortunately, most children in the state are attending school wearing masks and being quarantined if exposed and missing school, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,883 Posts
I saw somewhere the Walmart Canada is going to require the vaccine passport. Incredibly discriminatory. NY is enforcing the "papers please." Segregation is back.
Walmart has said they are not going to do that.

That being said, the spirit of your post is right. The whole vaccine passport thing is discriminatory. As far as I can tell, it is a straight up rewards system. Get vaccine=go where you want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Using the Johns Hopkins risk calculator, I discovered that healthy adults of 49+ years are at significantly higher risk (200-600x that of the flu) for covid death than younger age groups. Mature adults (28-48 yrs) face a risk of about 10x that of the flu, and young adults and adolescents face a similar risk to that of the average mortality rate of the flu (in other words, not a significant risk). It was more difficult to find data for babies and children, but I did find one study which put their risk around .009 for babies under 5 yrs and .002 for children 5-14.

So, my personal take is that people who are under 28 yrs, are of a healthy weight, and have no comorbidities are of virtually no risk for death by covid.

I was not able to find any satisfactory data for transmission risk, though, and with no clear evidence to the contrary, I have to assume that young people can transmit at similar rates to older people. Therefore, if they live or work with someone who is at risk, it may be necessary for them to observe personal protection measures under certain circumstances, such as physical distancing, mask wearing, and limiting travel.

Interestingly, I tested the Johns Hopkins risk calculator for body weight, and there was no difference in risk, even for an obese or emaciated person. However, many experts are saying that obesity is a risk factor, so I'm including that anyway. Some are also saying that being over- or under-weight results in a statistically significance rise in risk, so that is likely a risk factor, though not as great as obesity. Given that being underweight is a risk factor, I can only assume that emaciation (a rare but very serious condition, resulting from various underlying diseases and disorders) is a risk factor, as well. Emaciation almost always results in a weakened heart and liver, among other things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
Using the Johns Hopkins risk calculator, I discovered that healthy adults of 49+ years are at significantly higher risk (200-600x that of the flu) for covid death than younger age groups. Mature adults (28-48 yrs) face a risk of about 10x that of the flu, and young adults and adolescents face a similar risk to that of the average mortality rate of the flu (in other words, not a significant risk). It was more difficult to find data for babies and children, but I did find one study which put their risk around .009 for babies under 5 yrs and .002 for children 5-14.

So, my personal take is that people who are under 28 yrs, are of a healthy weight, and have no comorbidities are of virtually no risk for death by covid.

I was not able to find any satisfactory data for transmission risk, though, and with no clear evidence to the contrary, I have to assume that young people can transmit at similar rates to older people. Therefore, if they live or work with someone who is at risk, it may be necessary for them to observe personal protection measures under certain circumstances, such as physical distancing, mask wearing, and limiting travel.

Interestingly, I tested the Johns Hopkins risk calculator for body weight, and there was no difference in risk, even for an obese or emaciated person. However, many experts are saying that obesity is a risk factor, so I'm including that anyway. Some are also saying that being over- or under-weight results in a statistically significance rise in risk, so that is likely a risk factor, though not as great as obesity. Given that being underweight is a risk factor, I can only assume that emaciation (a rare but very serious condition, resulting from various underlying diseases and disorders) is a risk factor, as well. Emaciation almost always results in a weakened heart and liver, among other things.
Interesting. I’m 39 with a 17 bmi and it gave me a mortality risk of 0.6 in 10,000,000. I’m not emaciated. People in my family are naturally lean. My risk doesn’t tell me to go running for the hills in fear. I find it negligible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Interesting. I’m 39 with a 17 bmi and it gave me a mortality risk of 0.6 in 10,000,000. I’m not emaciated. People in my family are naturally lean. My risk doesn’t tell me to go running for the hills in fear. I find it negligible.
Yes, it appears that the Johns Hopkins risk calculator doesn't count body weight in terms of risk. I tried it several times with higher and lower BMI's (weight being the only variable) and got the same risk number every time. It's strange that it would include weight in the questions, but it never factored when I tried. It showed different risks for various ages, increasing with age.

I also wouldn't count a BMI of 17 as emaciated. Skinny, yes, technically underweight, yes. The thing is, with people who are skinny (and on the reverse side, fat), more often than not, such weights are due to unhealthy habits. Eating an unhealthy diet, having an eating disorder, having depression, substance abuse...these can all result in a person being skinny or fat in an unhealthy way. However, there are people who are naturally skinny or fat, and eat a healthy diet, are mentally and physically healthy, and don't abuse any substances...in which case, I'd guess these body types are probably not risk factors. It is pretty rare though, for a person to be both perfectly healthy and under- or overweight. I don't know you, and I'm not your doctor
or therapist, so your state of health is really not my call to make. I'm just making observations based on what I've learn and observed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
Yes, it appears that the Johns Hopkins risk calculator doesn't count body weight in terms of risk. I tried it several times with higher and lower BMI's (weight being the only variable) and got the same risk number every time. It's strange that it would include weight in the questions, but it never factored when I tried. It showed different risks for various ages, increasing with age.

I also wouldn't count a BMI of 17 as emaciated. Skinny, yes, technically underweight, yes. The thing is, with people who are skinny (and on the reverse side, fat), more often than not, such weights are due to unhealthy habits. Eating an unhealthy diet, having an eating disorder, having depression, substance abuse...these can all result in a person being skinny or fat in an unhealthy way. However, there are people who are naturally skinny or fat, and eat a healthy diet, are mentally and physically healthy, and don't abuse any substances...in which case, I'd guess these body types are probably not risk factors. It is pretty rare though, for a person to be both perfectly healthy and under- or overweight. I don't know you, and I'm not your doctor
or therapist, so your state of health is really not my call to make. I'm just making observations based on what I've learn and observed.
Actually when I put in a higher weight it doubled for me. Still a small number but doubled from 112 to 250.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top