My main worry originally was that 10 year groupings could hide effects on very young children (<1 year). As the parent of a 7 month old this was a concern to me.
However we see 0 deaths in 400+ cases in <10 year olds so this suggests a fairly low upper bound for fatality rates in the very young (compared to the rates in the very old).
Interestingly <20 year olds only accounted for 2% of cases so either there is a reporting issue or so far children are less likely to get the disease (or more likely to be asympomatic).
Flu death rates are low even when grouping 0-4 year olds together (.01%, the same as 5-17 yr olds according to the CDC) so this provides some supporting evidence that the very young are not at heightened risk.
My main worry originally was that 10 year groupings could hide effects on very young children (<1 year). As the parent of a 7 month old this was a concern to me.
However we see 0 deaths in 400+ cases in <10 year olds so this suggests a fairly low upper bound for fatality rates in the very young (compared to the rates in the very old).
Interestingly <20 year olds only accounted for 2% of cases so either there is a reporting issue or so far children are less likely to get the disease (or more likely to be asympomatic).
Flu death rates are low even when grouping 0-4 year olds together (.01%, the same as 5-17 yr olds according to the CDC) so this provides some supporting evidence that the very young are not at heightened risk.
Some data on infants: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2761659