> While the young might rarely die, this illness is not something you want even if young.
To begin of course, you don't want any disease at any age.
Setting that aside it's pretty clear that you're less likely to die of COVID as a child than you are of the flu (which hits both young and old). Children are less likely to develop any meaningful symptoms in the first place, and if they do, they're less severe. Lots of ongoing research on this.
“The fact is that we are not seeing preponderance of severe [COVID-19] disease in young children, which is distinct from influenza...” [1]
> It can be pretty brutal...
Yup.
> ...and there is some evidence that it causes damage to lung even in the absence of symptoms.
The Diamond Princess averaged (mean age, 62 years ± 16, range 25-93) years old. That's not the demographic we're discussing. We know they're way, way worse off than younger folks. I was also informed that the "73% asymptomatic" rate they quote in this article dwindled down to below 18%.
Your study also appears to indicate that the amount of damage is correlated to severity of the disease ("The CT severity score was higher in symptomatic cases than asymptomatic cases, particularly in the lower lobes"), which is demonstrably much lower in children.
I was making the point that this disease is an issue for the young and it causes damage to the lungs even in the absence of symptoms. This is a serious disease that needs to be taken seriously.
> I was making the point that this disease is an issue for the young...
[citation needed]
> ... and it causes damage to the lungs even in the absence of symptoms.
The data you provided did not back up your assertion. I have not seen any data the backs up your assertion. If you have some, please do share it.
The data you provided suggested 73% of those folks were asymptomatic when in fact only 18% of them were upon further investigation. That brings into question all of their conclusions. Its interim conclusions suggest that there is a correlation between symptomaticity and severity (I mean, duh) and the articles I provided showed children exhibited milder symptoms.
> This is a serious disease that needs to be taken seriously.
Yes, it is, and it's not equally serious to everyone. It is less serious than the flu for children. This is substantiated fact. We can use this information to our advantage as we determine our next steps.
I am not sure the relevance of flu in children for the problem of COVID-19. The flu rarely causes serious illness in children and thankfully SARS-CoV-2 also rarely causes serious illness in children.
Well, this was all born out of the line in the post saying that young and healthy healthcare workers were dying. The data indicates that occasionally, they have, but overwhelmingly, the data indicates the statement is false. This continued on to an evaluation of "even if they don't die, they may have permanent lung injuries -- even if they show no symptoms" and I responded that I have not seen any data to indicate this is the case. I'm certainly open to it being true (it was for SARS-COV-1) but I have not seen any supporting evidence.
To begin of course, you don't want any disease at any age.
Setting that aside it's pretty clear that you're less likely to die of COVID as a child than you are of the flu (which hits both young and old). Children are less likely to develop any meaningful symptoms in the first place, and if they do, they're less severe. Lots of ongoing research on this.
“The fact is that we are not seeing preponderance of severe [COVID-19] disease in young children, which is distinct from influenza...” [1]
> It can be pretty brutal...
Yup.
> ...and there is some evidence that it causes damage to lung even in the absence of symptoms.
[citation needed], specifically for children.
[1] https://time.com/5816239/children-coronavirus/