Name:   MartiniMan - Subject:   My statement stands Date:   5/19/2021 1:59:16 PM

I suggest you go look at the actual data from the CDC website and you will see how misleading this is, why my statement is accurate and why they do not need to be vaccinated.  Here is the CDC source if you want to play with it.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographicsovertime

On the number of cases of children ages 13 and younger, the current infection rate is generally less than 100 per 100,000 in population, which is well below the averages in the past and still far below the infection rates per 100K in older populations.  Saying they represent 22% of the new cases is wildly misleading because while their infection rates have gone down over time, the rates for older adults have gone down dramatically.  I suspect the children infection rates are going down because they are no longer being infected by adults.  Of course none of this directly answers the question of whether they transmit the virus.  Everything I have read says that they represent a negligible source of transmission.  With those low infection rates is it any wonder?

But more to the point, the maximum deaths per 100K in that age group is generally around 0.4 or less per 100K in population.  So less than one child died with the virus for every 100K in population.  Recent data has it at 0.0/100K.  

So my comment stands, they don't need to be vaccinated because they don't transmit the virus nor do they die from it.  That is what you get for copying and pasting something from nprBS without looking at the underlying data.  I can assure you if adults had the same infection rates and death rates from the ChiCom virus there would have never been a pandemic.  The ordinary, run of the mill flu is harder on kids than this virus.....way harder.