|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
|
|
On August 19 2020 03:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 03:38 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 19 2020 03:14 Danglars wrote:
I would suggest people google to find both the studies for and against school reopening, particularly elementary school reopening. I saw the weight of evidence behind protecting adults from spreading it among each other at schools and immediate reopening as for small children, and phased reopenings for teens. These are particularly from the European and Asian studies.
The driving force for closures is misinformation. The latest polling from Gallup/others showed Americans thought age 55+ accounted for half the deaths. It’s really 92% of deaths. They thought 44 and younger were around 33% of deaths. It’s actually 2.7%. And young children die around a hundred per million affected, way below flu and other contagions that do not close schools. I agree that there may be some misplaced worry and misinformation about the effect about of corona virus on the young, but safety of the young isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) the primary objective of closing schools. The primary objetive is to stop them from being vectors for the rest of the population, and relative death rates aren't relevant in that reguard. That’s why I suggest independent review of the relevant studies on children as vectors of spread. Hence, my first paragraph.
I agree that scientific studies are important to answer this question conclusively. What is certainly established and conclusive, from my listening to brazillian specialists, is the importance of children in the transmission of similar viruses during flu epidemics. To me, this is enough to inform a temporary decision to close schools until the question is answered for covid-19 specifically, and knowing that this consensus predates covid-19 means it's not politically influenced by current considerations.
I've googled and found a few studies on this point (importance of children on flu epidemics), but me being an outsider to this subject would mean a googled list of studies would not necessarily be indicative of what the scientific consensus is, so I'm not sure there would be a point to posting it (nor would posting videos and podcasts of specialists in portuguese  ).
|
I don't understand how people would think children can't spread it?
Like what about children or this particular corona virus that would make children unable to spread it? Is that even a thing? Viruses that kids can't spread?
|
On August 19 2020 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how people would think children can't spread it?
Like what about children or this particular corona virus that would make children unable to spread it? Is that even a thing? Viruses that kids can't spread?
There are a lot of nitty gritty details about how viruses actually infect cells. Then there's also the fact that different viruses have different requirements before an infection "takes hold" so to speak.
|
On August 19 2020 04:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how people would think children can't spread it?
Like what about children or this particular corona virus that would make children unable to spread it? Is that even a thing? Viruses that kids can't spread? There are a lot of nitty gritty details about how viruses actually infect cells. Then there's also the fact that different viruses have different requirements before an infection "takes hold" so to speak.
I get that, but anything there about why kids wouldn't spread it? Presumably if this is sensible there's other examples of this being the case?
I've just seen the notion treated more seriously than makes sense to me. If I could reference other corona viruses (or any virus) that school age children can't spread that would be helpful.
If the idea is that unlike every other virus, this one might not be spread by kids, that seems ridiculous.
I'm no virologist so maybe this is more common and reasonable than I'm aware of, but it's been a while of people being confronted on it and responding with some variation of "we don't have proof they do" and that sounds ridiculous to me.
|
On August 19 2020 04:16 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 03:55 Danglars wrote:On August 19 2020 03:38 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 19 2020 03:14 Danglars wrote:
I would suggest people google to find both the studies for and against school reopening, particularly elementary school reopening. I saw the weight of evidence behind protecting adults from spreading it among each other at schools and immediate reopening as for small children, and phased reopenings for teens. These are particularly from the European and Asian studies.
The driving force for closures is misinformation. The latest polling from Gallup/others showed Americans thought age 55+ accounted for half the deaths. It’s really 92% of deaths. They thought 44 and younger were around 33% of deaths. It’s actually 2.7%. And young children die around a hundred per million affected, way below flu and other contagions that do not close schools. I agree that there may be some misplaced worry and misinformation about the effect about of corona virus on the young, but safety of the young isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) the primary objective of closing schools. The primary objetive is to stop them from being vectors for the rest of the population, and relative death rates aren't relevant in that reguard. That’s why I suggest independent review of the relevant studies on children as vectors of spread. Hence, my first paragraph. I agree that scientific studies are important to answer this question conclusively. What is certainly established and conclusive, from my listening to brazillian specialists, is the importance of children in the transmission of similar viruses during flu epidemics. To me, this is enough to inform a temporary decision to close schools until the question is answered for covid-19 specifically, and knowing that this consensus predates covid-19 means it's not politically influenced by current considerations. I've googled and found a few studies on this point (importance of children on flu epidemics), but me being an outsider to this subject would mean a googled list of studies would not necessarily be indicative of what the scientific consensus is, so I'm not sure there would be a point to posting it (nor would posting videos and podcasts of specialists in portuguese ).
The important studies are South Korea, Italy, and The Netherlands.
The evidence that children do not become seriously ill from this disease is everywhere. Hospitalizations and studies tell the same story. The Chicago study showed that every single child that had a severe case of COVID requiring hospitalization had underlying health issues. CDC deaths incredibly low. CDC hospitalization rates by age extremely low. The people still expressing concern about this should keep their kids home from school for the danger of contracting flu.
Similar virus studies would have you believe that a 92% share of the 55+ group should be dismissed out of hand, because that is extreme in the history of viruses, and people should assume it not to be true. I say that is reason to be equally skeptical of anyone arguing that their assumptions should be prioritized over others. The greater the suspicion of harm, the more likely it would be spotted and published by now.
I see some mixing, perhaps unintentional, of safeguards for reopening. That issue is concerning, because in all jobs that have reopened or never closed, adults are the primary victims and spreaders. Teachers, janitors, and administrators are all adults and should stay home if they're aged or have preexisting conditions. Schools should prioritize their safety, and schools that can't should close until they can implement a plan.
|
On August 19 2020 05:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 04:16 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 19 2020 03:55 Danglars wrote:On August 19 2020 03:38 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 19 2020 03:14 Danglars wrote:
I would suggest people google to find both the studies for and against school reopening, particularly elementary school reopening. I saw the weight of evidence behind protecting adults from spreading it among each other at schools and immediate reopening as for small children, and phased reopenings for teens. These are particularly from the European and Asian studies.
The driving force for closures is misinformation. The latest polling from Gallup/others showed Americans thought age 55+ accounted for half the deaths. It’s really 92% of deaths. They thought 44 and younger were around 33% of deaths. It’s actually 2.7%. And young children die around a hundred per million affected, way below flu and other contagions that do not close schools. I agree that there may be some misplaced worry and misinformation about the effect about of corona virus on the young, but safety of the young isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) the primary objective of closing schools. The primary objetive is to stop them from being vectors for the rest of the population, and relative death rates aren't relevant in that reguard. That’s why I suggest independent review of the relevant studies on children as vectors of spread. Hence, my first paragraph. I agree that scientific studies are important to answer this question conclusively. What is certainly established and conclusive, from my listening to brazillian specialists, is the importance of children in the transmission of similar viruses during flu epidemics. To me, this is enough to inform a temporary decision to close schools until the question is answered for covid-19 specifically, and knowing that this consensus predates covid-19 means it's not politically influenced by current considerations. I've googled and found a few studies on this point (importance of children on flu epidemics), but me being an outsider to this subject would mean a googled list of studies would not necessarily be indicative of what the scientific consensus is, so I'm not sure there would be a point to posting it (nor would posting videos and podcasts of specialists in portuguese ). The important studies are South Korea, Italy, and The Netherlands. The evidence that children do not become seriously ill from this disease is everywhere. Hospitalizations and studies tell the same story. The Chicago study showed that every single child that had a severe case of COVID requiring hospitalization had underlying health issues. CDC deaths incredibly low. CDC hospitalization rates by age extremely low. The people still expressing concern about this should keep their kids home from school for the danger of contracting flu. Similar virus studies would have you believe that a 92% share of the 55+ group should be dismissed out of hand, because that is extreme in the history of viruses, and people should assume it not to be true. I say that is reason to be equally skeptical of anyone arguing that their assumptions should be prioritized over others. The greater the suspicion of harm, the more likely it would be spotted and published by now. I see some mixing, perhaps unintentional, of safeguards for reopening. That issue is concerning, because in all jobs that have reopened or never closed, adults are the primary victims and spreaders. Teachers, janitors, and administrators are all adults and should stay home if they're aged or have preexisting conditions. Schools should prioritize their safety, and schools that can't should close until they can implement a plan.
I don't understand why you keep bringing up mortality rates among children. This is irrelevant to my point. I've already conceded that children have low mortality + Show Spoiler +On August 19 2020 03:38 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 03:14 Danglars wrote:
I would suggest people google to find both the studies for and against school reopening, particularly elementary school reopening. I saw the weight of evidence behind protecting adults from spreading it among each other at schools and immediate reopening as for small children, and phased reopenings for teens. These are particularly from the European and Asian studies.
The driving force for closures is misinformation. The latest polling from Gallup/others showed Americans thought age 55+ accounted for half the deaths. It’s really 92% of deaths. They thought 44 and younger were around 33% of deaths. It’s actually 2.7%. And young children die around a hundred per million affected, way below flu and other contagions that do not close schools. I agree that there may be some misplaced worry and misinformation about the effect about of corona virus on the young, but safety of the young isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) the primary objective of closing schools. The primary objetive is to stop them from being vectors for the rest of the population, and relative death rates aren't relevant in that reguard.
|
|
|
Child transmission is an area where Sweden blew a golden opportunity. There should have been studies early on families with children when the epidemic started off (was some criticism about this) since the schools didn't close.
To be fair there weren't any spare tests at all but if Germany could have sent a couple of thousand tests a week we would know exactly how kids transmit covid by now.
|
On August 19 2020 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 04:45 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2020 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how people would think children can't spread it?
Like what about children or this particular corona virus that would make children unable to spread it? Is that even a thing? Viruses that kids can't spread? There are a lot of nitty gritty details about how viruses actually infect cells. Then there's also the fact that different viruses have different requirements before an infection "takes hold" so to speak. I get that, but anything there about why kids wouldn't spread it? Presumably if this is sensible there's other examples of this being the case? I've just seen the notion treated more seriously than makes sense to me. If I could reference other corona viruses (or any virus) that school age children can't spread that would be helpful. If the idea is that unlike every other virus, this one might not be spread by kids, that seems ridiculous. I'm no virologist so maybe this is more common and reasonable than I'm aware of, but it's been a while of people being confronted on it and responding with some variation of "we don't have proof they do" and that sounds ridiculous to me.
This and others are, again, strong evidence of most of this forum not engaging with good sourcing. Can children spread the virus? Theoretically, yes. But they carry a much lower viral load than adults and some have T-Cell immunity so they are basically unable to be infected. Are either of these things proven? No. Its unlikely anything of use will be definitively proven before this is over.
But again, this is more evidence of how poor the sourcing so many of our readers here are. These are months old theories that have been gaining evidence via the death curves as they recently worked out in Florida and California. Another example is that if you still think 60-70% is the likely herd immunity level, you are basically 3 months behind, at best.
|
On August 19 2020 05:14 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 05:00 Danglars wrote:On August 19 2020 04:16 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 19 2020 03:55 Danglars wrote:On August 19 2020 03:38 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 19 2020 03:14 Danglars wrote:
I would suggest people google to find both the studies for and against school reopening, particularly elementary school reopening. I saw the weight of evidence behind protecting adults from spreading it among each other at schools and immediate reopening as for small children, and phased reopenings for teens. These are particularly from the European and Asian studies.
The driving force for closures is misinformation. The latest polling from Gallup/others showed Americans thought age 55+ accounted for half the deaths. It’s really 92% of deaths. They thought 44 and younger were around 33% of deaths. It’s actually 2.7%. And young children die around a hundred per million affected, way below flu and other contagions that do not close schools. I agree that there may be some misplaced worry and misinformation about the effect about of corona virus on the young, but safety of the young isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) the primary objective of closing schools. The primary objetive is to stop them from being vectors for the rest of the population, and relative death rates aren't relevant in that reguard. That’s why I suggest independent review of the relevant studies on children as vectors of spread. Hence, my first paragraph. I agree that scientific studies are important to answer this question conclusively. What is certainly established and conclusive, from my listening to brazillian specialists, is the importance of children in the transmission of similar viruses during flu epidemics. To me, this is enough to inform a temporary decision to close schools until the question is answered for covid-19 specifically, and knowing that this consensus predates covid-19 means it's not politically influenced by current considerations. I've googled and found a few studies on this point (importance of children on flu epidemics), but me being an outsider to this subject would mean a googled list of studies would not necessarily be indicative of what the scientific consensus is, so I'm not sure there would be a point to posting it (nor would posting videos and podcasts of specialists in portuguese ). The important studies are South Korea, Italy, and The Netherlands. The evidence that children do not become seriously ill from this disease is everywhere. Hospitalizations and studies tell the same story. The Chicago study showed that every single child that had a severe case of COVID requiring hospitalization had underlying health issues. CDC deaths incredibly low. CDC hospitalization rates by age extremely low. The people still expressing concern about this should keep their kids home from school for the danger of contracting flu. Similar virus studies would have you believe that a 92% share of the 55+ group should be dismissed out of hand, because that is extreme in the history of viruses, and people should assume it not to be true. I say that is reason to be equally skeptical of anyone arguing that their assumptions should be prioritized over others. The greater the suspicion of harm, the more likely it would be spotted and published by now. I see some mixing, perhaps unintentional, of safeguards for reopening. That issue is concerning, because in all jobs that have reopened or never closed, adults are the primary victims and spreaders. Teachers, janitors, and administrators are all adults and should stay home if they're aged or have preexisting conditions. Schools should prioritize their safety, and schools that can't should close until they can implement a plan. I don't understand why you keep bringing up mortality rates among children. This is irrelevant to my point. I've already conceded that children have low mortality + Show Spoiler +On August 19 2020 03:38 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 03:14 Danglars wrote:
I would suggest people google to find both the studies for and against school reopening, particularly elementary school reopening. I saw the weight of evidence behind protecting adults from spreading it among each other at schools and immediate reopening as for small children, and phased reopenings for teens. These are particularly from the European and Asian studies.
The driving force for closures is misinformation. The latest polling from Gallup/others showed Americans thought age 55+ accounted for half the deaths. It’s really 92% of deaths. They thought 44 and younger were around 33% of deaths. It’s actually 2.7%. And young children die around a hundred per million affected, way below flu and other contagions that do not close schools. I agree that there may be some misplaced worry and misinformation about the effect about of corona virus on the young, but safety of the young isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) the primary objective of closing schools. The primary objetive is to stop them from being vectors for the rest of the population, and relative death rates aren't relevant in that reguard. , but this doesn't mean they aren't critical vectors for transmission, as your links point out and as is known from previous flu epidemics.
I must bring it up alongside transmission, since the decision point is when to open schools. American news has focused primarily on whether or not the children are safe. The secondary story is whether or not their chance of spreading it is a significant source of transmission. You did notice all three of my links were relevant to transmission, and I posted no links only mentioning deaths?
I don't demand immediate responses, given that the stories are relatively long reads, and any previously held beliefs about the coronavirus won't be surrendered by a quick scan of an article.
|
On August 19 2020 05:47 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2020 04:45 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2020 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how people would think children can't spread it?
Like what about children or this particular corona virus that would make children unable to spread it? Is that even a thing? Viruses that kids can't spread? There are a lot of nitty gritty details about how viruses actually infect cells. Then there's also the fact that different viruses have different requirements before an infection "takes hold" so to speak. I get that, but anything there about why kids wouldn't spread it? Presumably if this is sensible there's other examples of this being the case? I've just seen the notion treated more seriously than makes sense to me. If I could reference other corona viruses (or any virus) that school age children can't spread that would be helpful. If the idea is that unlike every other virus, this one might not be spread by kids, that seems ridiculous. I'm no virologist so maybe this is more common and reasonable than I'm aware of, but it's been a while of people being confronted on it and responding with some variation of "we don't have proof they do" and that sounds ridiculous to me. This and others are, again, strong evidence of most of this forum not engaging with good sourcing. Can children spread the virus? Theoretically, yes. But they carry a much lower viral load than adults and some have T-Cell immunity so they are basically unable to be infected. Are either of these things proven? No. Its unlikely anything of use will be definitively proven before this is over. But again, this is more evidence of how poor the sourcing so many of our readers here are. These are months old theories that have been gaining evidence via the death curves as they recently worked out in Florida and California. Another example is that if you still think 60-70% is the likely herd immunity level, you are basically 3 months behind, at best.
Is there an example of a corona virus (or any other virus ever) that kids can't spread or would this be the first one we know of?
|
On August 19 2020 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 05:47 cLutZ wrote:On August 19 2020 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2020 04:45 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2020 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how people would think children can't spread it?
Like what about children or this particular corona virus that would make children unable to spread it? Is that even a thing? Viruses that kids can't spread? There are a lot of nitty gritty details about how viruses actually infect cells. Then there's also the fact that different viruses have different requirements before an infection "takes hold" so to speak. I get that, but anything there about why kids wouldn't spread it? Presumably if this is sensible there's other examples of this being the case? I've just seen the notion treated more seriously than makes sense to me. If I could reference other corona viruses (or any virus) that school age children can't spread that would be helpful. If the idea is that unlike every other virus, this one might not be spread by kids, that seems ridiculous. I'm no virologist so maybe this is more common and reasonable than I'm aware of, but it's been a while of people being confronted on it and responding with some variation of "we don't have proof they do" and that sounds ridiculous to me. This and others are, again, strong evidence of most of this forum not engaging with good sourcing. Can children spread the virus? Theoretically, yes. But they carry a much lower viral load than adults and some have T-Cell immunity so they are basically unable to be infected. Are either of these things proven? No. Its unlikely anything of use will be definitively proven before this is over. But again, this is more evidence of how poor the sourcing so many of our readers here are. These are months old theories that have been gaining evidence via the death curves as they recently worked out in Florida and California. Another example is that if you still think 60-70% is the likely herd immunity level, you are basically 3 months behind, at best. Is there an example of a corona virus (or any other virus ever) that kids can't spread or would this be the first one we know of?
No one is saying they don't spread at all, only less. Plenty of illnesses are spread less by children and more by adults, it's a matter of what that % is. If 5% of kids already covid as effectively as adults, it's GG and schools will close again.
|
Northern Ireland26092 Posts
Won’t somebody please think of the children?
|
On August 19 2020 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2020 05:47 cLutZ wrote:On August 19 2020 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2020 04:45 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2020 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how people would think children can't spread it?
Like what about children or this particular corona virus that would make children unable to spread it? Is that even a thing? Viruses that kids can't spread? There are a lot of nitty gritty details about how viruses actually infect cells. Then there's also the fact that different viruses have different requirements before an infection "takes hold" so to speak. I get that, but anything there about why kids wouldn't spread it? Presumably if this is sensible there's other examples of this being the case? I've just seen the notion treated more seriously than makes sense to me. If I could reference other corona viruses (or any virus) that school age children can't spread that would be helpful. If the idea is that unlike every other virus, this one might not be spread by kids, that seems ridiculous. I'm no virologist so maybe this is more common and reasonable than I'm aware of, but it's been a while of people being confronted on it and responding with some variation of "we don't have proof they do" and that sounds ridiculous to me. This and others are, again, strong evidence of most of this forum not engaging with good sourcing. Can children spread the virus? Theoretically, yes. But they carry a much lower viral load than adults and some have T-Cell immunity so they are basically unable to be infected. Are either of these things proven? No. Its unlikely anything of use will be definitively proven before this is over. But again, this is more evidence of how poor the sourcing so many of our readers here are. These are months old theories that have been gaining evidence via the death curves as they recently worked out in Florida and California. Another example is that if you still think 60-70% is the likely herd immunity level, you are basically 3 months behind, at best. Is there an example of a corona virus (or any other virus ever) that kids can't spread or would this be the first one we know of? No one is saying they don't spread at all, only less. Plenty of illnesses are spread less by children and more by adults, it's a matter of what that % is. If 5% of kids already covid as effectively as adults, it's GG and schools will close again.
I've certainly heard kids don't spread it. Article in Bloomberg in June was headlined: School Children Don’t Spread Coronavirus...
|
On August 19 2020 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how people would think children can't spread it?
Like what about children or this particular corona virus that would make children unable to spread it? Is that even a thing? Viruses that kids can't spread?
It's almost unprecedently less effective on children, so people think there's a chance it acts very differently on them. Shingles is way worse in adults, but chicken pox is still an awful illness for a kid. We weren't even sure young children could get covid for a while, since it's so mild in them.
The us has a daycare crisis on its hands atm, as people are expected to work from home and care for their children. It's hard - some of my coworkers can manage, others have a harder time.
Lower income people are penalized much more heavily by schools remaining closed or opening - they tend to have more health problems and worse access to medical care, and are the least likely to be able to work from home to alleviate some childcare issues. I don't think school should effectively have become daycare for a long portion of the populace rather than education, but that's where we've been for decades.
My wife's daycare is experiencing an amusing phenomenon where those with the easiest age groups to manage (generally, very young infants) are the only age groups whose classes aren't already full two weeks after full enrollment was opened back up by the state.
|
|
|
On August 19 2020 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2020 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2020 05:47 cLutZ wrote:On August 19 2020 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 19 2020 04:45 Mohdoo wrote:On August 19 2020 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how people would think children can't spread it?
Like what about children or this particular corona virus that would make children unable to spread it? Is that even a thing? Viruses that kids can't spread? There are a lot of nitty gritty details about how viruses actually infect cells. Then there's also the fact that different viruses have different requirements before an infection "takes hold" so to speak. I get that, but anything there about why kids wouldn't spread it? Presumably if this is sensible there's other examples of this being the case? I've just seen the notion treated more seriously than makes sense to me. If I could reference other corona viruses (or any virus) that school age children can't spread that would be helpful. If the idea is that unlike every other virus, this one might not be spread by kids, that seems ridiculous. I'm no virologist so maybe this is more common and reasonable than I'm aware of, but it's been a while of people being confronted on it and responding with some variation of "we don't have proof they do" and that sounds ridiculous to me. This and others are, again, strong evidence of most of this forum not engaging with good sourcing. Can children spread the virus? Theoretically, yes. But they carry a much lower viral load than adults and some have T-Cell immunity so they are basically unable to be infected. Are either of these things proven? No. Its unlikely anything of use will be definitively proven before this is over. But again, this is more evidence of how poor the sourcing so many of our readers here are. These are months old theories that have been gaining evidence via the death curves as they recently worked out in Florida and California. Another example is that if you still think 60-70% is the likely herd immunity level, you are basically 3 months behind, at best. Is there an example of a corona virus (or any other virus ever) that kids can't spread or would this be the first one we know of? No one is saying they don't spread at all, only less. Plenty of illnesses are spread less by children and more by adults, it's a matter of what that % is. If 5% of kids already covid as effectively as adults, it's GG and schools will close again. I've certainly heard kids don't spread it. Article in Bloomberg in June was headlined: School Children Don’t Spread Coronavirus...
Sorry. No science is saying that is what I meant
|
The NYTimes is finally catching up to the science on Covid. They are discussing T Cell immunity finally. 3 Months behind, but still progress!
|
On August 19 2020 05:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 05:14 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 19 2020 05:00 Danglars wrote:On August 19 2020 04:16 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 19 2020 03:55 Danglars wrote:On August 19 2020 03:38 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 19 2020 03:14 Danglars wrote:
I would suggest people google to find both the studies for and against school reopening, particularly elementary school reopening. I saw the weight of evidence behind protecting adults from spreading it among each other at schools and immediate reopening as for small children, and phased reopenings for teens. These are particularly from the European and Asian studies.
The driving force for closures is misinformation. The latest polling from Gallup/others showed Americans thought age 55+ accounted for half the deaths. It’s really 92% of deaths. They thought 44 and younger were around 33% of deaths. It’s actually 2.7%. And young children die around a hundred per million affected, way below flu and other contagions that do not close schools. I agree that there may be some misplaced worry and misinformation about the effect about of corona virus on the young, but safety of the young isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) the primary objective of closing schools. The primary objetive is to stop them from being vectors for the rest of the population, and relative death rates aren't relevant in that reguard. That’s why I suggest independent review of the relevant studies on children as vectors of spread. Hence, my first paragraph. I agree that scientific studies are important to answer this question conclusively. What is certainly established and conclusive, from my listening to brazillian specialists, is the importance of children in the transmission of similar viruses during flu epidemics. To me, this is enough to inform a temporary decision to close schools until the question is answered for covid-19 specifically, and knowing that this consensus predates covid-19 means it's not politically influenced by current considerations. I've googled and found a few studies on this point (importance of children on flu epidemics), but me being an outsider to this subject would mean a googled list of studies would not necessarily be indicative of what the scientific consensus is, so I'm not sure there would be a point to posting it (nor would posting videos and podcasts of specialists in portuguese ). The important studies are South Korea, Italy, and The Netherlands. The evidence that children do not become seriously ill from this disease is everywhere. Hospitalizations and studies tell the same story. The Chicago study showed that every single child that had a severe case of COVID requiring hospitalization had underlying health issues. CDC deaths incredibly low. CDC hospitalization rates by age extremely low. The people still expressing concern about this should keep their kids home from school for the danger of contracting flu. Similar virus studies would have you believe that a 92% share of the 55+ group should be dismissed out of hand, because that is extreme in the history of viruses, and people should assume it not to be true. I say that is reason to be equally skeptical of anyone arguing that their assumptions should be prioritized over others. The greater the suspicion of harm, the more likely it would be spotted and published by now. I see some mixing, perhaps unintentional, of safeguards for reopening. That issue is concerning, because in all jobs that have reopened or never closed, adults are the primary victims and spreaders. Teachers, janitors, and administrators are all adults and should stay home if they're aged or have preexisting conditions. Schools should prioritize their safety, and schools that can't should close until they can implement a plan. I don't understand why you keep bringing up mortality rates among children. This is irrelevant to my point. I've already conceded that children have low mortality + Show Spoiler +On August 19 2020 03:38 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2020 03:14 Danglars wrote:
I would suggest people google to find both the studies for and against school reopening, particularly elementary school reopening. I saw the weight of evidence behind protecting adults from spreading it among each other at schools and immediate reopening as for small children, and phased reopenings for teens. These are particularly from the European and Asian studies.
The driving force for closures is misinformation. The latest polling from Gallup/others showed Americans thought age 55+ accounted for half the deaths. It’s really 92% of deaths. They thought 44 and younger were around 33% of deaths. It’s actually 2.7%. And young children die around a hundred per million affected, way below flu and other contagions that do not close schools. I agree that there may be some misplaced worry and misinformation about the effect about of corona virus on the young, but safety of the young isn't (or rather, shouldn't be) the primary objective of closing schools. The primary objetive is to stop them from being vectors for the rest of the population, and relative death rates aren't relevant in that reguard. , but this doesn't mean they aren't critical vectors for transmission, as your links point out and as is known from previous flu epidemics. I must bring it up alongside transmission, since the decision point is when to open schools. American news has focused primarily on whether or not the children are safe. The secondary story is whether or not their chance of spreading it is a significant source of transmission. You did notice all three of my links were relevant to transmission, and I posted no links only mentioning deaths? I don't demand immediate responses, given that the stories are relatively long reads, and any previously held beliefs about the coronavirus won't be surrendered by a quick scan of an article.
What are you even arguing? You post links with spreading children and one without? All from places with at least partial school closing(during the time of these studies) and very strong responses.
I don't think these links are very applicable to the US situation.
What peeked my interest where these:
Still the not yet peer reviewed Italy study says in the abstract: "The greatest risk of transmission to contacts was found for the 14 cases <15 years of age (22.4%); 8 of the 14, who ranged in age from <1 to 11 years) infected 11 of 49 contacts."
"Although childhood contacts were less likely to become cases, children were more likely to infect household members, perhaps because of the difficulty of successfully isolating children in household settings."
And in the discussion:
+ Show Spoiler +Indeed, in our study, children 0-14 years had a higher risk (22.4%) than any other age group of passing
the infecton on to others. Of partcular note was the young age of the children in the study who had
transmited the disease, all but one of the 8 children who had one or more contact meetng the COVID-
19 case definiton were less than 10 years old, and three were under the age of 5 years. This greater risk
of spread resultng from contact with an infected child that emerged from our analysis might be
explained by the different nature of interactons between adults and children. While the positve adult
would be likely to be more adherent with isolaton precautons, it may be more difficult to truly isolate
children, resultng in contnuing contact with parents and siblings. Overall, our data are therefore in
support of a policy of maximum cauton with respect to the reopening of children's communites and
primary schools
"Overrall, our data are therefore in support of a policy of maximum cauton with respect to the reopening of children's communites and primary schools."
The SK one in the conclusion:
"We also found the highest COVID-19 rate (18.6% [95% CI 14.0%–24.0%]) for household contacts of school-aged children and the lowest (5.3% [95% CI 1.3%–13.7%]) for household contacts of children 0–9 years in the middle of school closure."
"The low detection rate for household contacts of preschool-aged children in South Korea might be attributable to social distancing during these periods. Yet, a recent report from Shenzhen, China, showed that the proportion of infected children increased during the outbreak from 2% to 13%, suggesting the importance of school closure (11)."
+ Show Spoiler +We also found the highest COVID-19 rate (18.6% [95% CI 14.0%–24.0%]) for household contacts of school-aged children and the lowest (5.3% [95% CI 1.3%–13.7%]) for household contacts of children 0–9 years in the middle of school closure. Despite closure of their schools, these children might have interacted with each other, although we do not have data to support that hypothesis. A contact survey in Wuhan and Shanghai, China, showed that school closure and social distancing significantly reduced the rate of COVID-19 among contacts of school-aged children (8). In the case of seasonal influenza epidemics, the highest secondary attack rate occurs among young children (9). Children who attend day care or school also are at high risk for transmitting respiratory viruses to household members (10). The low detection rate for household contacts of preschool-aged children in South Korea might be attributable to social distancing during these periods. Yet, a recent report from Shenzhen, China, showed that the proportion of infected children increased during the outbreak from 2% to 13%, suggesting the importance of school closure (11). Further evidence, including serologic studies, is needed to evaluate the public health benefit of school closure as part of mitigation strategies.
The Netherlands article:
"Based on source and contact tracing from the beginning of the epidemic, we see the following: looking at 10 COVID-19 patients who were <18 years old, they had 43 close contacts, and none of them became ill, whereas 8.3% (55/566) of the close contacts of the 221 patients who were ≥18 years old became ill. Now that widespread source and contact tracing is ramping up again, we will be able to update this information with recent data in summer. "
So frome these alone I would say keep schools closed in high spread areas and find out more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
