Kids Under 15 Have ONE in 3.5 MILLION Chance of Dying from Coronavirus, According to Statistics

The above image says enough about the absolutely egregious idea that anyone other than very old people should be quarantined.

We already knew that people, in general, have nothing to fear from coronavirus unless they’re very old and sick. Now, data from the United Kingdom shows that kids have even less to fear from the coronavirus.

Daily Mail:

School children under the age of 15 have a ‘tiny’ one-in-3.5 million chance of dying from coronavirus, according to statistics.

Analysis of data from the Office for National Statistics by scientists from the University of Cambridge shows that the coronavirus risk to children is extremely low.

The death rate for youngsters aged five to 14 in England and Wales is one in 3.5 million and for under-5s it is one in 1.17 million.

Official data shows that only 14 people aged under 19 have died with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 since the start of the outbreak. No children aged between 5-9 have lost their lives to the virus.

In comparison, between 30 and 60 people are hit by lightning every year in the UK, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

This is a risk of between one in 2.21 million and one in 1.1 million each year, the Daily Telegraph reported, although it was unclear how many people hit by lightning are children.

The figures come after the Government scrapped its target of getting all primary school pupils back in the classroom before the summer holidays.

A leading teaching union claimed it has been ‘abundantly clear’ that the Government’s dates for reopening schools were ‘ill-considered, premature and unworkable’.

Education Secretary Gavin Williamson made the announcement amid warnings the two metre social distancing rule will make a full return to the classroom impossible.

Look, 2 meters are not going to do anything in a closed space. If a kid with the virus sneezes, everyone in that classroom is getting the virus.

And that’s okay.

Who thought that keeping the entirety of the demographic that is indisputably best suited to fighting the virus and developing immunity from doing so was a good idea?

It’s funny to imagine what must have gone through people’s heads. Were they fearing some kind of worldwide Lord of the Flies scenario where all adults were killed by the virus and kids were left alone on the entire planet?

We should be making the little terrorists useful by forcing them to catch the virus to boost the development of herd immunity.

Now that we have this data, what is even the argument against kids catching the virus? That they’re going to somehow sneeze close to old people? Because we’ve known for some time now that “coronavirus” deaths are mostly very old people who would have died of anything else anyway, and the more data we have, the clearer it is that anything other than only quarantining the vulnerable demographic is a pointless, destructive, and malicious waste of resources.

What is even the argument against anyone under 75 who doesn’t have a chronic illness catching the virus?

If there is such an argument, we haven’t heard it.