The New Yorker now negotiating how many dead children (and the dead adults they expose) are “acceptable losses.”

The kids are safe. They always have been.

It may sound strange, given a year of panic over school closures and reopenings, a year of masking toddlers and closing playgrounds and huddling in pandemic pods, that, according to the CDC, among children the mortality risk from COVID-19 is actually lower than from the flu. The risk of severe disease or hospitalization is about the same.

This is true for the much-worried-over Delta variant. It is also true for all the other variants, and for the original strain. Most remarkably, it has been known to be true since the very earliest days of the pandemic — indeed it was among the very first things we did know about the disease. The preliminary mortality data from China was very clear: To children, COVID-19 represented only a vanishingly tiny threat of death, hospitalization, or severe disease.

(more)

Even if no child at all was at risk of death (never mind the other syndromes clearly shown in children who come down with the disease), there isn’t a mention anywhere in the article about how children can spread the disease.

They also drag Dr. Peter Hotez (first by failing to use his proper title “Doctor” when speaking about his professional capacity), arguing he is an alarmist.

The Kids Are Alright Why now is the time to rethink COVID safety protocols for children — and everyone else. (by David Wallace-Wells, July 12, 2021)

Amongst other things, Wallace-Wells is the deputy editor of The New Yorker. He writes on climate change as “an optimistic future.” You would be unsurprised to learn he is a regular guest on “The Joe Rogan Experience.”

His articles in The New Yorker and his one book on climate change have been panned by actual climate scientists.