View Single Post
Old 27th June 2020, 09:28 PM   #97
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,887
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Jeez, a little more snippy than necessary, I'd have said.

There's this one, about child infectiousness in general: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1111/apa.15371

Or, the Swedish government stats which show that teachers are no more likely than other adult groups to catch Covid, and far lower than some employment categories.

https://www.thelocal.se/20200625/stu...rus-statistics
I was snippy because I had asked more than once and got the same answer, arcade22 says so.

Re the first link:
Quote:
We identified 700 scientific papers and letters and 47 full texts were studied in detail. Children accounted for a small fraction of COVID-19 cases
We know that. And the kids with mild cases were not being detected for multiple reasons.

Quote:
and mostly had social contacts with peers or parents, rather than older people at risk of severe disease.
Unless I'm reading that wrong that's saying the kids weren't visiting grandma.

Quote:
Data on viral loads were scarce, but indicated that children may have lower levels than adults, partly because they often have fewer symptoms, and this should decrease the transmission risk.
And the reason the data is scarce is because kids have yet to be studied for early viral shedding.

Quote:
Household transmission studies showed that children were rarely the index case and case studies suggested that children with COVID-19 seldom caused outbreaks. However, it is highly likely that children can transmit the SARS-COV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19, and even asymptomatic children
That children were rarely the index case can be explained by the circumstances this virus was spreading person to person. Adults were spreading it to adults.

It's like saying the kindling on that side of the forest isn't a hazard because the fire spread in the kindling on this side of the forest and we haven't seen any fire over there yet.


People in this thread are looking at the data and drawing all sorts of conclusions that make logical sense. I've said it before, we don't have any thorough epidemiological evidence. We have bits and pieces.

You don't know the role kids play because the pandemic did not run the usual course. This virus spread out from China, probably starting in late 2019. It was spotted so to speak, and at that point a lot of people went into lockdown. Kids have been home from school.

Normally a virus would begin spreading in a community unnoticed. Kids get infected then spread it to classmates who go on to spread it to their parents who spread it further in the community.

That no "super-spreader events" have originated in schools can't be said to mean it won't or can't occur. it could have gone unnoticed. How many people are infected who cannot identify the source of the spread? The majority of those infected.

Now take the fact bus drivers are infected at a greater rate in Sweden than teachers. It's a no brainer to an epidemiologist. Bus drivers are exposed to many different people, mostly adults. Teachers are exposed to kids, and few adults.

It looks like a slam dunk, kids aren't spreading it. But there are other variables not being considered, mainly where are the kids being infected, if they are? How long are they shedding virus? Are teachers exposed to single classes so that the virus is only going to spread one classroom at a time?

Are their parents staying home, protecting the family? While older teens and young adults go out partying without social distancing, getting infected at higher rates? Because apparently older kids are spreading the virus.

Super-spreader events are occurring at bars and restaurants, meat-packing plants, nursing homes, cruise ships, travel from places having lots of cases, and you can bet that Trump's rallies are going to be found to be super-spreader events in the next couple weeks.

It may very well turn out kids only shed virus for short periods of time. Maybe we haven't seen widespread children infected yet, not because they are immune, but because they've yet to be exposed en masse.

I'm looking at the evidence. I have a bit of experience with epidemiology. I've only been working in this field for 30 years.

It may turn out kids are immune, not spreading it, no problem. I'm not ruling that out. But I am speaking up that there are variables involved that we don't know yet.

You have to have a large, representative sample in order to look at all the variables and pin down the ones that matter.

But you all carry on. Just saying where I'm at here.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 27th June 2020 at 09:32 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top