[lex24]

Owing to the law of large numbers, we should still not be surprised to see articles like this:

Texas coronavirus cases include more than 80 infants

Note: There have been a cumulative total of 85 infants testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the outbreak.  The easy misrepresentation that there has been a recent surge of 85 infant cases is fortunately not true.  Certain "media outlets" have decided to misrepresent the other way and denounce the "mainstream media" as false and lying.

(Just checking, do infants express ACE2 receptors to the same proportion as adults?)

The story was reported in the context of the uptick in cases. And thus certainly set forth some implication that these were recent cases. Or at least allowed for the inference. Nothing in the story you posted says anything about it being cumulative. At the least, a poorly written story.

Moreover, there WERE outlets that reported that the 85 were from one week: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-...ounty-amid

And the original source for the “misrepresentation” was CNN. (According to an article in the Texas Tribune):

“The 85 number was first reported Saturday by CNN, which quoted Annette Rodriguez, director of public health for Corpus Christi Nueces County, on Friday: “We currently have 85 babies under the age of one year in Nueces County that have all tested positive for COVID-19.

“These babies have not even had their first birthday yet,” she said. "Please help us stop the spread of this disease.”

That quote was later reported by The Texas Tribune and other outlets. As concern over the number spread, Canales, the top elected official in Nueces County, clarified that it was a cumulative number since the pandemic began.

"Stating this number during our press conference led many to believe that we had a sudden surge in infants under the age of one testing positive," she said. "We have NOT had a sudden surge of 85 infants testing positive."

Simply lousy reporting. An easy follow up before going to press is to get a clarification - to actually find out if it’s 85 “current” as in at this time. Or whether “currently” meant the current cumulative total. But it’s more impt to get it first than it is to get it right.

So if your “certain news sources” comment is referring to right wing media attacking the story as a misrepresentation when you suggest in fact it was not - let me suggest that the original reporting was at the least, misleading. My guess is not purposely, accidentally. (Although it also fits within CNNs confirmation bias) But nonetheless the implication was absolutely false news. The criticism of the reportage justified.

 

---

Owing to the law of large numbers, we should still not be surprised to see articles like this:
Texas coronavirus cases include more than 80 infants

Stepping away from the knee-jerk reactions on all sides, that was 85 cases under age 1, which was just over 1% of all cases (under 8500 then, now 8800) in that county.  Infants under age 1 are about 1.14% of the US population.  If this 1% ratio is about the same elsewhere, that seems to suggest that infants are equally or perhaps even more vulnerable to getting an infection than other age groups.  (After all, how many under 1 babies are being exposed except to a caregiver?)

The first question is whether these infections are hospital-acquired or not.  If not, are they infections acquired from a parent?   If neither hospital acquired nor from a parent, then this may be a big issue.  (Someday, we may know what the long term effects are; we sure don't know them now.

I'm not parenting an infant these days, so I don't know if parents are being advised how to deal with their infant should any of the caregivers get sick.  Anyone know?   Are parents being advised to try to keep their unmasked infants at home as much as feasible?  And advised on how to try to protect their baby from droplets/aerosols when they have to take them out?   Are parents advised to contact child-protective services for help when the parents are sick and may be unable to keep their infant from being exposed?

As for babies, NO MASKS.  DON'T LEAVE THEM IN THE CAR.

And yet, I’m not aware of one baby in Calif dying from Covid.   Which to me is rather remarkable quite honestly. Of course babies immune system‘s are not developed they get all sorts of sicknesses. So I’m not surprised they get Covid.  Thankfully it does not seem to impact babies much.

[lex24]

Owing to the law of large numbers, we should still not be surprised to see articles like this:

Texas coronavirus cases include more than 80 infants

Note: There have been a cumulative total of 85 infants testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the outbreak.  The easy misrepresentation that there has been a recent surge of 85 infant cases is fortunately not true.  Certain "media outlets" have decided to misrepresent the other way and denounce the "mainstream media" as false and lying.

(Just checking, do infants express ACE2 receptors to the same proportion as adults?)

The story was reported in the context of the uptick in cases. And thus certainly set forth some implication that these were recent cases. Or at least allowed for the inference. Nothing in the story you posted says anything about it being cumulative. At the least, a poorly written story.

Moreover, there WERE outlets that reported that the 85 were from one week: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-...ounty-amid

And the original source for the “misrepresentation” was CNN. (According to an article in the Texas Tribune):

“The 85 number was first reported Saturday by CNN, which quoted Annette Rodriguez, director of public health for Corpus Christi Nueces County, on Friday: “We currently have 85 babies under the age of one year in Nueces County that have all tested positive for COVID-19.

“These babies have not even had their first birthday yet,” she said. "Please help us stop the spread of this disease.”

That quote was later reported by The Texas Tribune and other outlets. As concern over the number spread, Canales, the top elected official in Nueces County, clarified that it was a cumulative number since the pandemic began.

"Stating this number during our press conference led many to believe that we had a sudden surge in infants under the age of one testing positive," she said. "We have NOT had a sudden surge of 85 infants testing positive."

Simply lousy reporting. An easy follow up before going to press is to get a clarification - to actually find out if it’s 85 “current” as in at this time. Or whether “currently” meant the current cumulative total. But it’s more impt to get it first than it is to get it right.

So if your “certain news sources” comment is referring to right wing media attacking the story as a misrepresentation when you suggest in fact it was not - let me suggest that the original reporting was at the least, misleading. My guess is not purposely, accidentally. (Although it also fits within CNNs confirmation bias) But nonetheless the implication was absolutely false news. The criticism of the reportage justified.

 

---

Owing to the law of large numbers, we should still not be surprised to see articles like this:
Texas coronavirus cases include more than 80 infants

Stepping away from the knee-jerk reactions on all sides, that was 85 cases under age 1, which was just over 1% of all cases (under 8500 then, now 8800) in that county.  Infants under age 1 are about 1.14% of the US population.  If this 1% ratio is about the same elsewhere, that seems to suggest that infants are equally or perhaps even more vulnerable to getting an infection than other age groups.  (After all, how many under 1 babies are being exposed except to a caregiver?)

The first question is whether these infections are hospital-acquired or not.  If not, are they infections acquired from a parent?   If neither hospital acquired nor from a parent, then this may be a big issue.  (Someday, we may know what the long term effects are; we sure don't know them now.

I'm not parenting an infant these days, so I don't know if parents are being advised how to deal with their infant should any of the caregivers get sick.  Anyone know?   Are parents being advised to try to keep their unmasked infants at home as much as feasible?  And advised on how to try to protect their baby from droplets/aerosols when they have to take them out?   Are parents advised to contact child-protective services for help when the parents are sick and may be unable to keep their infant from being exposed?

As for babies, NO MASKS.  DON'T LEAVE THEM IN THE CAR.

And yet, I’m not aware of one baby in Calif dying from Covid.   Which to me is rather remarkable quite honestly. Of course babies immune system‘s are not developed they get all sorts of sicknesses. So I’m not surprised they get Covid.  Thankfully it does not seem to impact babies much.