CDC is always shifting the data. How can you make sense of these two CDC charts that detail COVID infection rates as a function of age?
In the chart below, CDC tells us that children have a lower rate of Covid infection/recovery than adults, apart from adults 65 and older. Note that this is based on ESTIMATES. Presumably CDC concocted these estimates to maek it appear that more children “needed” the vaccines because only 35% were immune. But elsewhere, CDC estimates that 44% of all Americans were already immune as of October 2. If you accept the results of the second chart below, you might infer that at least half of US children are already immune, not 35%
Yet in this bar chart, on the basis of seroprevalence (antibodies) it is obvious that schoolchildren have higher rates of infection than adults. Children 0-5 have just slightly lower rates than those aged 18-64.
This is largely why ongoing and retrospective COVID data analysis has shifted to utilize other sources, especially for pop. background and comparison data – such as the UK HSA's collection.
CDC data has been incomplete and poorly standardized from the start. But it soon became apparent they were actively revising definitions and synthesizing estimates and model results to reflect predetermined outcomes. And often without revealing their explicit basis values.
For example, the mortality estimates they've posted to The Lancet, which are reflected above, may very well include deaths from adverse vaccine reactions. Because it incorporates excess deaths derived from a comparison of all cause mortality from years prior. But it's not clear whether, and if so which, the underlying causes of death is a further controlled for. .