View Single Post
Old 28th June 2020, 04:34 PM   #118
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 87,883
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Seriously?
Yes seriously.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Hey, I'm happy for you to produce evidence to the contrary, because the rate kids are dying at is so low I really don't have any strong opinions on it, but your link - which is almost two months old - clearly states:

Two things out of that:

1 - A headline screaming "New coronavirus studies say sending kids back to school would be a major risk" and then immediately saying you don't have evidence to back it up is very poor work, and exactly the type of thing media need to avoid being labelled scaremongers.

2 - They've had almost two months to back it up and haven't. I call BS on it.

It's yet another case of having the option of believing real-world, mathematical evidence, or going with a gut feeling.

Hey, you can check, but way back in the thread, I said keeping schools open was a shocking idea, because kids are enormous vectors of everything from head lice to norovirus to the bleeding Black death.

But when the evidence shows me to be wrong, I'm happy to take that and say I was wrong.
If you were so concerned, why not follow the links tio the actual studies?

But regardless, you missed everything I said. I will say it again. Address the variables that are of concern:

... "asymptomatic children may have viral loads as high as kids or adults showing symptoms, which could mean they’re just as contagious." ...

... "children were a third as susceptible to coronavirus infections as adults, but they had three times as many contacts as adults when the schools were opened." ...

... "The Times also mentions a third study from the Dutch government that says “patients under 20 years play a much smaller role in the spread than adults and the elderly.” But researchers have pointed out that the study has a serious flaw. It looked at household transmission, and the researchers may have tested only those people experiencing more severe cases, which would be overwhelmingly adults."


You are ignoring the limitations of the research we do have.

You are failing to consider variables like numbers of contacts kids have in schools.


This is not a pissing contest. Just wait for comprehensive research on the role kids in schools play. Why are you so intent on jumping to a weakly supported conclusion? The study you are relying on said so itself, they don't have a lot of data on kids because mildly ill or asymptomatic cases are not seen in the research yet.

The antibody tests are not reliable enough yet for decent serosurveys.

And most importantly, we have almost no data on viral shedding of mildly ill or asymptomatic children with COVID 19.
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